Age 60 informal poll

[UndauntedFlyer]

Yeah, I am all torn up about that.

Just more proof that we are the best country in the world.

FJ

Falcon Jet: If you are going to say such stupid comments, you should not do so while representing yourself as an ALPA member. At least lie as ALPA does and say "Safety." Don't tarnish to stupidity of the whole organization by yourself being so un-American and to say that foreigners should be given privileges that Americans are not.

 

[zonker]

View Poll Results: Abolish the Age 60 Rule for other that Part 91 pilots?

Yea 444 36.39%

Nay 776 63.61%

 

[Phaedrus]

FJ, seriously, fuhgeddaboutit. Ain't worth it.
3B, yeah, 30 years fixed term would be fine if those were the established parameters. It wasn't. It is age 60. Sorry that aging and a 47 year old rule came as such a surprise to you. How's that SA?

 

[Falconjet]

Falcon Jet: If you are going to say such stupid comments, you should not do so while representing yourself as an ALPA member. At least lie as ALPA does and say "Safety." Don't tarnish to stupidity of the whole organization by yourself being so un-American and to say that foreigners should be given privileges that Americans are not.

UF: There are plenty of things that are done in other countries that are not allowed in the US. I don't think that we need to loosen our standards and decrease the safety of the traveling public just because some quacks in ICAO decided to come up with this hairbrained idea.

Did you ever hear the old "if everybody else jumped off a bridge would you too?" from your parents? That is how I see this issue. Just because ICAO adopts a standard doesn't mean that we have to follow. In the US typically the majority rules. The MAJORITY of airline pilots are opposed to changing the rule, as am I. I am proud to live in a country where we ALL have a voice.

If the minority wins on this issue, it won't be the end of the world, but in my opinion it would dramatically decrease the safety of the flying public and be inherently unfair to the thousands of pilots on furlough.

Those are my opinions, and although I don't represent ALPA, and have never claimed to (although I did cite that the MAJORITY of ALPA's pilots are in favor of the rule not changing), I am an ALPA member. So what.

Again, for your sake, I do see this as a safety AND fairness issue. I've yet to hear one coherent argument about why one pilot has to be under 60. If there isn't a concern about safety, then why is that stipulated. What if ICAO said that one of them had to be left handed? Should the US follow that too?

Grossly unfair to the poor under 60 guy who has to babysit the over 60 guy, seeing as if he weren't there to do so, the over 60 guy couldn't even be there. So, he can't move up because he has to babysit the guy keeping him from moving up. Total lunacy that is easily solved by a sickout by all under 60 guys on the day the change goes into effect (if it ever does). Talk about the law of unintended consequences, how can these dolts not see this coming?

Oh yeah, then there is the matter of the thousands of furloughed guys/gals who finally stand a chance of being recalled now that the industry is making a comeback of sorts. Try explaining to them how they have to sit on the sidelines another 5 years so the over 60 guys can take advantage of thier windfall. That too is unfair, as the over 60 guys benefited from the rule their whole career and now when its time to move aside they don't want to.


Full disclosure: I am 46 and have only been at FedEx for a little over 4 years. I won't make a full retirement at FedEx and I am ok with that, I will save now and won't cry in 2020 when it is my time to step aside and let the young turks rule. That is the way the game has been played, and I don't think there is any compelling argument to change the rules now.

Thanks for listening.

FJ

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

To Falcon Jet:

Sorry, but safety is just a word here that has no basis in fact.

Unfair is two sided. What's viewed as unfair to one group is viewed as fair to the other.

I would guess that the age 60/65 crew mix has not been finalized in the FAA's rule. Who knows, it may be an all age 65 rule by the FAA. Would that resolve your concerns on that part of the issue?

Regarding your career and retirement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are able to work 5 more years with the age change, wouldn't that solve your problem with retirement from FE?

 

[Falconjet]

See, there is a difference of opinion. You feel there is no safety issue, I feel that there is. That is fine. What doesn't make sense is if there isn't a safety issue, why the under 60 guy? By saying that maybe the FAA won't require it you are acknowledging that the ICAO rule is suspect. Different reason, but still suspect. So do we still blindly follow it? Again, I hope not.

I don't see how the over 60 crowd thinks that changing the rule is unfair to them. Its been that way since they started, they knew it, time to move on. I have no problem with mandatory retirement ages. They exsist in many fields and I don't see that as age discrimination. You are free to continue flying past 60 in any number of ways, just not part 121. I feel that is a good rule.

The over 60 guys will gain a windfall at the direct detriment to the furloughed and under 60 guys. That to me is unfair for everybody.

Also, I don't feel that I have a retirement problem at FedEx. I know what to hope for (note I didn't say expect) based on my years of service and possible high 5, and I will plan accordingly. Working 5 more years isn't in my plans. Yes it would get me a larger retirement, but I'd rather live within my means and have 5 years of doing things outside of flying for Fred.

Again, that is just me.

FJ

 

[SBD-2U3]

See, there is a difference of opinion. You feel there is no safety issue, I feel that there is. That is fine. What doesn't make sense is if there isn't a safety issue, why the under 60 guy? By saying that maybe the FAA won't require it you are acknowledging that the ICAO rule is suspect. Different reason, but still suspect. So do we still blindly follow it? Again, I hope not.

I don't see how the over 60 crowd thinks that changing the rule is unfair to them. Its been that way since they started, they knew it, time to move on. I have no problem with mandatory retirement ages. They exsist in many fields and I don't see that as age discrimination. You are free to continue flying past 60 in any number of ways, just not part 121. I feel that is a good rule.

The over 60 guys will gain a windfall at the direct detriment to the furloughed and under 60 guys. That to me is unfair for everybody.

Also, I don't feel that I have a retirement problem at FedEx. I know what to hope for (note I didn't say expect) based on my years of service and possible high 5, and I will plan accordingly. Working 5 more years isn't in my plans. Yes it would get me a larger retirement, but I'd rather live within my means and have 5 years of doing things outside of flying for Fred.

Again, that is just me.

FJ

Exactly

 

[pilotyip]

Then union pilots should have age 60 retirement put into their contract. Then the non-sked world will continue to labor on toward SSN retirement age which for a few is their only source of retirement income.

 

[Cyclone]

write to your lawmakers

http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov

greed is not a good reason to change a rule that keeps us safe.

if age 60 isn't an issue why are we going to adopt a rule that allows only one pilot to be over age 60...the other must be less than 60. that is not logical.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The age 60/65 crew mix is really a step-at-at-time measure to appease those that are always crying safety. This crew mix rule will be hard to work with and I expect it will be changed to all age 65 in a year or two internationally, and possibly to just age 65 initially here in the USA. The change will come since there is really no scientific basis for it, just as there isn't any basis for the age 60 rule.