Age-60 Decision Near

[Occam's Razor]

There's no medical evidence not to increase the age to 65, according to the U.S. Aerospace Medical Assoc., so it's really all about choice, as it should be.

Is there any evidence that our cognitive ability and reflexes get better as we age past 60?

*cricket* *cricket*

Those that profess that it is a safety issue don't seem to understand that this is the new international standard.

So let's all switch to the Euro, huh? Universal health care?

You in?

If not, spare me the arrogance rooted in an argument that cites "them foreigners do it better!" unless you're willing to sign on for the whole enchilada.

How about the thousands of corporate jets, Gulfstreams to BBjs that operate everyday safely with pilots over sixty. How is that really any different?

I understand they operate under a different set of specific rules, like Part 135 and Part 91. Can you confirm?

For extra credit, can you tell me which of the 3 Parts (91, 135, 121) has the best safety record? (Ensure your answer mentions the age restriction on the safest segment!)

80 to 90% of airline pilots are probably for this rule change.

Prove it!

It's the co-pilots and regional pilots that are against the change based soley on economic and career advancement reasons.

Um...I'm a captain at Northwest and I strongly oppose it.

So I give you a D- for a busted thesis.

Hey, if this rule goes through, I hope that all those pilots who believe it is a safety issue will quit their current airline jobs and on the basis of their safety argument, move to Columbia, Pakistan,or France, countries that share your views on airline safety.

HeyWaitAMInute! Just a few lines ago you were touting the "new international standard". Which is it?

 

[pilotyip]

Occam, you forgot to mention we had 100's of over 60 121 pilots flying up until 8 years ago. They were grandfathered under the Part 119 conversion of the old 135 scheduled commuters into the 121 operations. In fact the last 121 pilot under this rule retired in March of 99 at age 69. There was no indication they did perform at the same level at their under 60 counterparts

 

[airfogey]

ALPA's poll had statistical "norming" to get the results they wanted. They did not let any literature in their publications in favor of the change, and they kept implying that if the age changed everyone would lose their pensions and have to have "astronaut" physicals every 3 months. Many pilots at carriers were scared into voting to keep age 60--if I vote to change I'll lose my pension--well many did anyway--sort of like the old joke in the 60's " They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 64 we'd be in a land war in ASIA in 6 months--well I voted for Goldwater and we were." I would have a lot more respect for ALPA if they would allow a true debate and a real poll without "statistical norming". Oh you're a "regional pilot" you couldn't be for changing age 60---sort of like when all the pundits couldn't explain an exceptionally strong showing among old folks in Palm Beach county by Pat Buchanan in the 2000 election--they're old , they're Jewish-they couldn't be for Pat Buchanan.
What I'm amazed at on these forums, especially by all those who oppose raising the retirement age, is how much you all hate your jobs, hate flying, think your getting screwed over by everybody,and how much you can't wait to retire. If thats the case retire when you want to--I see lots of overweight 35 year olds out there that are future heart attacks waiting to happen, yet everybody I know who hits age 60 actively flying are healthy and competent and I don't see why they should be forced out just for a birthday.

Airfogey

 

[XJTAv8r]

What I'm amazed at on these forums, especially by all those who oppose raising the retirement age, is how much you all hate your jobs, hate flying, think your getting screwed over by everybody,and how much you can't wait to retire. If thats the case retire when you want to...

This has absolutely zero to do with "hating" this job, flying, etc. It's the principle that the wealthiest, most senior pilots are wanting to line their pockets with a rule change at the expense of their younger, more junior brothers (higher medical and LTD insurance costs, diluted wages on future contracts, stagnant movement, pilots remaining on furlough, etc). Get the picture now? It has nothing to do with "hate." Remember most of the pro-change crowd benefited from the current rule and now want it both ways by getting it changed. BTW, if it gets changed to 65, retiring at 60 will encompass penalties, reduced retirement, etc., much like early retirement today.

 

[likeitis]

ALPA's poll had statistical "norming" to get the results they wanted. They did not let any literature in their publications in favor of the change, and they kept implying that if the age changed everyone would lose their pensions and have to have "astronaut" physicals every 3 months. Many pilots at carriers were scared into voting to keep age 60--if I vote to change I'll lose my pension--well many did anyway--sort of like the old joke in the 60's " They told me if I voted for Goldwater in 64 we'd be in a land war in ASIA in 6 months--well I voted for Goldwater and we were." I would have a lot more respect for ALPA if they would allow a true debate and a real poll without "statistical norming". Oh you're a "regional pilot" you couldn't be for changing age 60---sort of like when all the pundits couldn't explain an exceptionally strong showing among old folks in Palm Beach county by Pat Buchanan in the 2000 election--they're old , they're Jewish-they couldn't be for Pat Buchanan.
What I'm amazed at on these forums, especially by all those who oppose raising the retirement age, is how much you all hate your jobs, hate flying, think your getting screwed over by everybody,and how much you can't wait to retire. If thats the case retire when you want to--I see lots of overweight 35 year olds out there that are future heart attacks waiting to happen, yet everybody I know who hits age 60 actively flying are healthy and competent and I don't see why they should be forced out just for a birthday.

Airfogey

You must have been looking at some completely different literature then I was provided because I saw it completely different and leaning towards pro-change bias. I don't hate my job just what your generation has done to it. What rules will you want changed next to benefit yourselves at the detriment of the whole.

 

[Falconjet]

Airfogey: You are completely and unquestionably wrong about the ALPA survey. Are you even an ALPA member?


No furloughed members allowed to participate.

No probationary members allowed to participate.

Canadian members allowed to participate (who already have over age 60).

How could they have tried to slant the results in favor of change any more?

I don't hate the job, I hate sanctimonious, self-centered, pompous old farts trying to hang on for another 5 years while thousands of furloughees sit on the sidelines waiting simply for the same shot that the over 60 guys had over the past 50 years.

I won't even go into the safety issues and one pilot under 60 requirement.

FJ

 

[SuperFLUF]

Occam, you forgot to mention we had 100's of over 60 121 pilots flying up until 8 years ago. They were grandfathered under the Part 119 conversion of the old 135 scheduled commuters into the 121 operations. In fact the last 121 pilot under this rule retired in March of 99 at age 69. There was no indication they did perform at the same level at their under 60 counterparts

Au contriere mon frere. I flew with several of the "grandfathered" grandfathers and while many were nice guys, IOE would have been an easier job than flying with most of them. (missed radio calls, falling asleep at any hour, not seeing things well at night without every cockpit light turned up to a level that kills my night vision, methane emissions that require the use of the oxygen mask.....)

 

[SuperFLUF]

.............. yet everybody I know who hits age 60 actively flying are healthy and competent and I don't see why they should be forced out just for a birthday. Airfogey

What is it that they say about true/false questions on tests?

If the words "everyone" or "always" are used then its false.

You can say some, or many but not everybody. It shows the slant in your statments as well.

If you want to change the rule that you benefited from just in time to double dip, that's fine. For the sake of argument we'll call it age descrimination. Just make sure that the over 60 pilots carry ALL of the increased LTD premium costs and ALL of the increases health insurance costs.....etc. I will have to pay enough for this with not getting the advancement that YOU got so why don't you at least be "fair" (isn't that what the age descrimination argument is all about) and carry the ENTIRE burden of the additional costs you will bring upon us all.

 

[Falconjet]

Occam, you forgot to mention we had 100's of over 60 121 pilots flying up until 8 years ago. They were grandfathered under the Part 119 conversion of the old 135 scheduled commuters into the 121 operations. In fact the last 121 pilot under this rule retired in March of 99 at age 69. There was no indication they did perform at the same level at their under 60 counterparts

You have to forgive Yip, as he is a prime example of the over 60 crowd's mental acuity.

Read the set of words that I highlighted in his post. I think he is trying to say that the old guys performed as well, but if you read that line, you will see that he (an older guy) can't even type in a coherent sentence to say what he is trying to argue.

In his mind he is saying that there was no indication the older guys didn't perform at the same level.

Yet he has actually said that there is no indication that they did perform at the same level (as) at their under 60 counterparts.

More ammo against the mental abilities of the over 60 crowd.

FJ

 

[pilotyip]

Nice catch Falcon guy, glad you corrected it. I looked through the NTSB 121 accident data base for that time frame and did not find one accident where there was a over 60 pilot involved. however I did find a lot of FedEx stuff with younger than 60 pilots.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Au contriere mon frere. I flew with several of the "grandfathered" grandfathers and while many were nice guys, IOE would have been an easier job than flying with most of them. (missed radio calls, falling asleep at any hour, not seeing things well at night without every cockpit light turned up to a level that kills my night vision, methane emissions that require the use of the oxygen mask.....)

And-d-d-d-d...did you get the Professional Standards folks involved? What was the result?

How about the Chief Pilot? Talk to him/her about this? How did they handle it?

Tejas

 

[airfogey]

Airfogey: You are completely and unquestionably wrong about the ALPA survey. Are you even an ALPA member?


No furloughed members allowed to participate.

No probationary members allowed to participate.

Canadian members allowed to participate (who already have over age 60).

How could they have tried to slant the results in favor of change any more?

I don't hate the job, I hate sanctimonious, self-centered, pompous old farts trying to hang on for another 5 years while thousands of furloughees sit on the sidelines waiting simply for the same shot that the over 60 guys had over the past 50 years.

I won't even go into the safety issues and one pilot under 60 requirement.

FJ

Unfortunately I am an ALPA member. You guys act as if a downturn in the industry is a new occurance. Many of the people retiring now were hired in the 70's when ALPA still opposed age 60. Lets see since then we've seen the demise of Braniff 1 plus 2, Frontier 1, Eastern, Pan AM, Transamerica,the debaucle at Continental during the Lorenzo years, the stagflation recession of the early 80's with 20% interest rates and 20% inflation, the recession during the first desert storm show in the early 90's and of course the troubles since 9-11. Also we have had a transition from primarily 3 crewmember airplanes to 2 crewmember airplanes. I have flown with many pilots who have had to start over 2 or 3 times cause of airlines going out of business, yet overall the industry is far bigger than it was in 1978---many of you people would never have even gotten an interview if the industry were the same size as 25 years ago. I for one would have no problem if I flew beyond age 60 paying insurance/disability rates in keeping actuarily with that age, it still would be a better deal than health insurance on the open market at that age.
I hate to say this but many of the furloughs from legacy carriers were caused by contracts that unfortunately were low on productivity and high on cost that were unsustainable in a post 9-11 world. Frankly, if I were a furloughee from an old line legacy carrier I would have been looking for a job a long time ago and gone to one of the expanding new/lcc type carriers. I predict that if age 60 is changed, the sun will still come up, pilots will still retire, not all at 65,pilots will still be hired, airplanes will be bought, upgrades will happen, it won't be the end of civilization as we know it.

Airfogey

 

[fr8doggie]

Airfogey: You are completely and unquestionably wrong about the ALPA survey. Are you even an ALPA member?


No furloughed members allowed to participate.

No probationary members allowed to participate.

Canadian members allowed to participate (who already have over age 60).

How could they have tried to slant the results in favor of change any more?

I don't hate the job, I hate sanctimonious, self-centered, pompous old farts trying to hang on for another 5 years while thousands of furloughees sit on the sidelines waiting simply for the same shot that the over 60 guys had over the past 50 years.

I won't even go into the safety issues and one pilot under 60 requirement.

FJ

Don't forget MilLOA not allowed to participate.

 

[BiffF15]

Unfortunately I am an ALPA member. You guys act as if a downturn in the industry is a new occurance. Many of the people retiring now were hired in the 70's when ALPA still opposed age 60. Lets see since then we've seen the demise of Braniff 1 plus 2, Frontier 1, Eastern, Pan AM, Transamerica,the debaucle at Continental during the Lorenzo years, the stagflation recession of the early 80's with 20% interest rates and 20% inflation, the recession during the first desert storm show in the early 90's and of course the troubles since 9-11. Also we have had a transition from primarily 3 crewmember airplanes to 2 crewmember airplanes. I have flown with many pilots who have had to start over 2 or 3 times cause of airlines going out of business, yet overall the industry is far bigger than it was in 1978---many of you people would never have even gotten an interview if the industry were the same size as 25 years ago. I for one would have no problem if I flew beyond age 60 paying insurance/disability rates in keeping actuarily with that age, it still would be a better deal than health insurance on the open market at that age.
I hate to say this but many of the furloughs from legacy carriers were caused by contracts that unfortunately were low on productivity and high on cost that were unsustainable in a post 9-11 world. Frankly, if I were a furloughee from an old line legacy carrier I would have been looking for a job a long time ago and gone to one of the expanding new/lcc type carriers. I predict that if age 60 is changed, the sun will still come up, pilots will still retire, not all at 65,pilots will still be hired, airplanes will be bought, upgrades will happen, it won't be the end of civilization as we know it.

Airfogey

Airfogey,
Well done! I hope I keep my sense of humor as well as your have!
Biff