Age 60 informal poll

[pgcfii2002]

No...it should be kept in place. We don't need 80 year olds flying the skies....they can work at WalMart instead.

 

[Klako]

It appears that you have very bad genetics BBB, maby you should retire now?

 

[§kyye Candy]

This law will change. If it doesn't what can we expect next year, harmony? I think not.

This, from the "Industry Leaders" who "paved the way" for us.

Is it any wonder that we (the collective pilot groups) are in the predicament that we are?

 

[Aplus9]

Say no to 5 more years of unproductiveness. Just RETIRE already!:beer:

 

[Andy]

I started to rebut some of your assumptions you made about my personal situation but I am just not going there.

Klako, you were the one that initially posted your personal situation. And this isn't the first time that you've tried to play the sympathy card. If you don't want your personal situation analyzed, then don't talk about your personal situation; I see very little difference between your's and undauntedflyer's.

Let us stick to the relevant stuff.

I consider it relevant (there are integrity issues along with hidden agendas), but I'll leave your personal situation alone if you never try to play that card again.

It is really sad that our industry has been reduced to a dog eat dog, stab the other guy in that back before you get stabbed first jungle atmosphere. Both sides are guilty of not willing to compromise. I only wish all of us could separate the ultimate right from wrong, but that now seems to be hopelessly clouded by our own personal feelings.

I'm willing to compromise on this issue, but I haven't seen anyone from your side willing to stake out a compromise position ... your side has been trying to make a grab for the whole enchilada with zero compromise.
Here's my proposed compromise:
1) Since there has to be a pilot under the age of 60 on the flight deck (I doubt that will ever change), keep it that no one over the age of 60 can be a captain; they can only be first officers. They can keep thier company seniority, but can never be in the left seat past the age of 60.
2) The change has to be phased in. Once per quarter, the age increases by one month. I'm willing to accept a variant of this once the number of pilots on furlough at all of the majors goes below 1000. The variant I'd accept is where the age increases by one month every month until reaching 62 1/2.
3) The mandatory retirement age will be 65 to correspond with Medicare eligibility. If Medicare eligibility age changes, the maximum age can be increased.

My bottom line is that all of us would ultimately benefit if the age 60 rule were changed but if it is not now changed it never will.

No, not all of us would benefit. The rules change will have a downward effect on wages; that's simple economics of supply and demand. Problem is, that downward effect will be permanent; wages will remain lower due to there no longer being a need for a monetary bridge between mandatory retirement and Social Security & Medicare eligibility. This should be a rather easy concept to grasp and one that the 'raise the age, you'll get yours too' crowd completely ignores.
The reason why the rule is not currently 'hot' for change is that there is no clear and pressing problem in the minds of politicians (we know that change isn't going to happen from the FAA or Judicial system; your only hope for change is through legislation). The major backer of changing the age rule was Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK); he still wants it changed, but he's not nearly as passionate about it now that there is no pilot 'shortage' causing a high attrition rate among flying operations in Alaska. By the time it becomes an issue, Stevens will likely be retired (he's 82).
The rule will again come under attack, but it really does need to be fashioned in a manner where it is somewhat palatable in regard to safety. There also needs to be a percieved shortage of pilots; for that reason alone, I don't see this rule changing in the next four years.

If you and undauntedflyer are serious that you want the rule to change, you will have much more favorable results if you follow the suggestions above. Of course neither of you will benefit from those changes, but it's not about you, right?

 

[Andy]

This, from the "Industry Leaders" who "paved the way" for us.

Is it any wonder that we (the collective pilot groups) are in the predicament that we are?

You'll find that the overwhelming majority of United pilots are in favor of the age 60 rule.
A few codgers tried to bushwhack a SFO ALPA meeting by proposing that everyone retain their original seniority for a period of two years after retirement (they were anticipating the law changing in the near future). It was resoundingly defeated.

 

[AAflyer]

Not if I can help it!

BTW I flew DC8 F/O for a Dominican company called Aerovias Quesqueyana where the DC8 Chief Pilot was age 69, and the other Captains were age 60+. All retired EAL. During the same time period almost all the Air Jamaica Captains were age 60+ retired EAL. Then in 1975 the FAA changed the rules. ICAO went to the age 60 standard in the early 70s and the FAA decided that over 60 Captains from foreign airlines could no longer fly into the USA. The oldest line pilot at Air Jamaica was former EAL pilot, age 66, when it ended.

The government may say that you can fly past 60 however your union at your company will have the right to say where you are put. To the back of the bus, just like the ropes....You can fly FO....

Then when I make captain I can have guys like Undaunted give me some more dual, and teach me how to be a real captain.....uke:

AA

 

[AAflyer]

[/COLOR]

Klako, you were the one that initially posted your personal situation. And this isn't the first time that you've tried to play the sympathy card. If you don't want your personal situation analyzed, then don't talk about your personal situation; I see very little difference between your's and undauntedflyer's.



I consider it relevant (there are integrity issues along with hidden agendas), but I'll leave your personal situation alone if you never try to play that card again.



I'm willing to compromise on this issue, but I haven't seen anyone from your side willing to stake out a compromise position ... your side has been trying to make a grab for the whole enchilada with zero compromise.
Here's my proposed compromise:
1) Since there has to be a pilot under the age of 60 on the flight deck (I doubt that will ever change), keep it that no one over the age of 60 can be a captain; they can only be first officers. They can keep thier company seniority, but can never be in the left seat past the age of 60.
2) The change has to be phased in. Once per quarter, the age increases by one month. I'm willing to accept a variant of this once the number of pilots on furlough at all of the majors goes below 1000. The variant I'd accept is where the age increases by one month every month until reaching 62 1/2.
3) The mandatory retirement age will be 65 to correspond with Medicare eligibility. If Medicare eligibility age changes, the maximum age can be increased.



No, not all of us would benefit. The rules change will have a downward effect on wages; that's simple economics of supply and demand. Problem is, that downward effect will be permanent; wages will remain lower due to there no longer being a need for a monetary bridge between mandatory retirement and Social Security & Medicare eligibility. This should be a rather easy concept to grasp and one that the 'raise the age, you'll get yours too' crowd completely ignores.
The reason why the rule is not currently 'hot' for change is that there is no clear and pressing problem in the minds of politicians (we know that change isn't going to happen from the FAA or Judicial system; your only hope for change is through legislation). The major backer of changing the age rule was Sen Ted Stevens (R-AK); he still wants it changed, but he's not nearly as passionate about it now that there is no pilot 'shortage' causing a high attrition rate among flying operations in Alaska. By the time it becomes an issue, Stevens will likely be retired (he's 82).
The rule will again come under attack, but it really does need to be fashioned in a manner where it is somewhat palatable in regard to safety. There also needs to be a percieved shortage of pilots; for that reason alone, I don't see this rule changing in the next four years.

If you and undauntedflyer are serious that you want the rule to change, you will have much more favorable results if you follow the suggestions above. Of course neither of you will benefit from those changes, but it's not about you, right?

Andy,

That was an excellent response, and comment on the situation.

Thank you,

AAflyer

 

[FoxHunter]

Oh, for the love of Baby Jesus! That airline sounded like a nursing home on a big tricycle!! I imagine a Cocoon movie setting with all the old geezer pilots pushing their little walkers (with the cool tennis ball anti-skid on paired legs! ) out to the jet for a little spin around S. America.

Mrs. BBB and I are dealing with parts falling off both sets of parents (barely 70 mind you ... about the same age as your previous chief pilot!) ... it ain't pretty. We're talking hip replacements (x2), quadruple bypass for one of 'em, multiple ER visits between the four of them in the last 2 years ... heck, I spent all Father's day last year with dear old dad guess where? ... bingo Fox ... in the EMERGENCY ROOM!

Some of you act like you're immune to the declining health (mental AND physical) aspects associated with aging. I say lay the crack pipe down Pops and realize your vertical time left on Mother Earth is precious AND limited! Go teach your grandkids to fish and let the young kid raising a family behind you have his shot in the big chair! :smash:

BBB

Actually the oldest at Air Jamaica liked to play tennis the young F/Os. I'm told he always ran them into the ground.:smash:

BTW are you the BBB starting with Cathay? You'll never last!:laugh:

 

[Andy]

Actuall the oldest at Air Jamaica like play tennis the young F/Os.

???? English, please.

BTW are you the BBB starting with Cathay? You'll never last!:laugh:

No Barney (as in purple fredex dinosaur); he's a Big Brown Boxhauler.

 

[FoxHunter]

No Barney (as in purple fredex dinosaur); he's a Big Brown Boxhauler.

Good, then he will start flying with those old guys soon.:laugh:

 

[Andy]

Andy,

That was an excellent response, and comment on the situation.

Thank you,

AAflyer

Thanks, I've read quite a bit from both camps on this issue.

It never ceases to amaze me how quiet the pro-change crowd gets when I make a counterproposal to let them fly past age 60 ... with strings attached.

I have also followed it closely in the legislative process. Unless you understand politicians' hidden agendas, you will get a bad
read on the outcome of a bill. There is a big reason why there are so many cosponsors to this bill; it's so they can go back home and make a pitch to the senior crowd. But there's a big difference between cosponsorship and allowing a bill to get to the Senate floor. A lot goes on behind closed doors. And you can bet that politicians' aides let the politicians know of each side's hidden agendas.

 

[Andy]

Good, then he will start flying with those old guys soon.:laugh:

??? I think that he's been there for quite a while. He should be close to being in the left seat (if not there already).
Or are you saying that you're in favor of having over 60 pilots go to the right seat only? I'm glad to see that you're on board with my counterproposal.

 

[FoxHunter]

Thanks, I've read quite a bit from both camps on this issue.

It never ceases to amaze me how quiet the pro-change crowd gets when I make a counterproposal to let them fly past age 60 ... with strings attached.

I have also followed it closely in the legislative process. Unless you understand politicians' hidden agendas, you will get a bad
read on the outcome of a bill. There is a big reason why there are so many cosponsors to this bill; it's so they can go back home and make a pitch to the senior crowd. But there's a big difference between cosponsorship and allowing a bill to get to the Senate floor. A lot goes on behind closed doors. And you can bet that politicians' aides let the politicians know of each side's hidden agendas.

Standby, Standby, Standby:beer:

 

[Flybynite]

Thanks, I've read quite a bit from both camps on this issue.

It never ceases to amaze me how quiet the pro-change crowd gets when I make a counterproposal to let them fly past age 60 ... with strings attached. ]

Well Andy since you are in charge of this decision I accept your counter proposal. Could you please send a note to my company saying it's ok now?

The last thing the Chief Pilot said I needed was a note from Andy to continue my career. Good to go. Thanks.

For your information the "pro change crowd" doesn't make proposals on Flight Info. You'll get better results if you step away from the keyboard, turn towards the wall, now start proposing.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Good, then he will start flying with those old guys soon.:laugh:

Not likely Fox! :laugh: ... BBB's big butt is firmly ensconced in the left seat. Unlike your greedy butt, mine is going to be soaking up some cancer-causing sunshine and playing with my grandkids when I turn 60!

BBB

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

By the way Andy, you are all invited to my 60th birthday party in HNL and to ride back on the flight I'll be flying.

The argument now is that if ICAO countries can fly into the USA safely to age 65, so should Americans be able to.

My invitation to my 60th birthday party is extended to all FI members too. Please RSVP here or by PM. I love you all, notwithstandig the things that have been said.

Undaunted Flyer

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

ALPA has really taken a hit on age 60

How can anyone believe ALPA when this was the position of their former President:

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA “It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

 

[Phaedrus]

How many times will you and Klako, et al cut and paste the same, tired k-rap? Crikey.

 

[Klako]

[/color]I'm willing to compromise on this issue, but I haven't seen anyone from your side willing to stake out a compromise position ... your side has been trying to make a grab for the whole enchilada with zero compromise.

I have offered this compromise before but I will post it again.


Here is one solution for all the junior pilots out there who say that extending the retirement age to 65 would be unfair to them by slowing upgrades and causing seniority stagnation. I say then make it mandatory for all pilots, regardless of age, to retire after serving no more than 20 years with a company or age 65 whichever comes first. If you hire on with a company at age 25, then you are kicked out of the cockpit when you turn age 45 or if you hire on at 45, you retire at 65. This would be equally fair for all and give everyone equal an opportunity to build their 401K to a level that they can retire on.

I would never support such a plan. However, my point is that if your reaction to such a compromise is that you see it as “SILLY or STUPID” then you have only proven to yourself and everyone else that you are part of the problem. That you would discriminate against senior pilots on the basis of age alone. In other words you are a bigot in that you cannot accept the fact that ageism and age discrimination simply must not be institutionalized by a federal law such as we now have in Section 121.383(c) of the FARs, commonly referred to as the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule”.


Many pilots have four or five different uniforms in their closet, gaining seniority only in age, and need to work beyond age 60 to enjoy a decent retirement.

 

[Patriot328]

Change the rule and "grandfather" all current pilots (student and up) to the current age 60 rule. Every new pilot starting from this day forward can retire at 65. Every pilot currently flying must be out by sixty. The rule changes and everyone that "believes in the cause" can be happy...

Oh wait, it doesn't help you out.. must not be good then....

 

[pipe]

Here, let me save Klako and Undaunted some trouble:

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

Pipe

 

[Klako]

Here, let me save Klako and Undaunted some trouble:

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

CUT ------ PASTE

Pipe

Is that your best shot?

Do you always have trouble with reality?

 

[pipe]

Is that your best shot?

Do you always have trouble with reality?

re·al·i·ty (r

-

l

-t

) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. re·al·i·ties

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

The reality is that mandatory retirement is 60 -- REALITY!!!!

Your hope is that it changes. I am not upset with the reality. You are the one who has the problem with the present reality.

PIPE

 

[Klako]

[/quote]The reality is that mandatory retirement is 60 -- REALITY!!!!

Your hope is that it changes. I am not upset with the reality. You are the one who has the problem with the present reality.
PIPE[/quote]

You must have more than just perceived "REALITY" to justify a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession. The federal government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.

Age is not a safety a risk factor. There is no credible information available that supports the notion that airline pilots over age 60 pose more of a safety risk than younger pilots. There are, however, numerous credible reports supporting a ban on the FAA’s arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law. Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL" as "safety" can no longer be used as a valid argument against changing the "Age 60 Rule Increasing the “Age 60 Rule” to age 65.

I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:

1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202

Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.

By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.

2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.

3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”

4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”

5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.

6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”

7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.

The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006. The Burns substitute amendment to The U.S. Senate Bill S. 65, if voted into law by the U.S. Congress, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

1-800-The-Scooter Store!

This is the only set of wheels you'll need shortly Klako!

Remember their guarantee:

"We guarantee that if you complete our program, your claim for a new power chair or scooter will be approved or we'll give it to you absolutely free."


(Always the ever-helpful BBB! )

 

[Klako]

This is the only set of wheels you'll need shortly Klako!

I don't think so fat boy. I will still be flying in my airline left seat when your high colestrol an bad genes grounds you from anything more dangerous than a wheel chair.

 

[Klako]

Change the rule and "grandfather" all current pilots (student and up) to the current age 60 rule. Every new pilot starting from this day forward can retire at 65. Every pilot currently flying must be out by sixty. The rule changes and everyone that "believes in the cause" can be happy...

Oh wait, it doesn't help you out.. must not be good then....

I posed this age rule question to a very impartial person in the real-estate business and his response was this:

He compared the airline pilot age 60 rule and the dilemma of junior pilots to that of first time home buyers. He said that young couples trying to purchase their first house often complain that it is unfair that young people suffer unfairly because old people are holding on to and enjoying nice homes and driving up the price of homes at the expense of young first time home buyers. In frustration that they can not afford to buy the house they want, they very seriously say that there should be a law that forces everyone to forfit ownership and equity in their house to the government automatically on their 60th birthday and the government would then deed that house to some young person.

 

[Sluggo_63]

I posed this age rule question to a very impartial person in the real-estate business and his response was this:

He compared the airline pilot age 60 rule and the dilemma of junior pilots to that of first time home buyers. He said that young couples trying to purchase their first house often complain that it is unfair that young people suffer unfairly because old people are holding on to and enjoying nice homes and driving up the price of homes at the expense of young first time home buyers. In frustration that they can not afford to buy the house they want, they very seriously say that there should be a law that forces everyone to forfit ownership and equity in their house to the government automatically on their 60th birthday and the government would then deed that house to some young person.

Did you also mention that these older home owners got their nice houses because the government forced other, even older homeowners, to give up their houses so the current owners could move in.

I'd be interested in his new response.

 

[Klako]

Did you also mention that these older home owners got their nice houses because the government forced other, even older homeowners, to give up their houses so the current owners could move in.

I'd be interested in his new response.

Wait, when has the government forced anyone out of their home?

We are not under Communism yet!

Our government has no right to take from those who have and give to those who have not.

Seniority, property are all the same, possession is 9/10ths of the law.