Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

Then the FAA mulls over the report, issues the NPRM for public comment if needed, etc. This gives Congress a perfect excuse, if they want one, to duck the issue until next year, and perhaps indefinitely.

All of you junior ALPA and APA guys need a reality check. Extending the mandatory retirement age to 65 is in the ultimate best interest of every Part 121 pilot. In the future you will all want to have that choice of retiring at age 60 or continuing to fly to age 65. The reality is that most pilots will not be able to afford retiring early at age 60.

Since it’s inception, “The Age 60 Rule” has been a perpetual curse on the airline industry. The primary reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA and APA as they continue to block a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with their lobbying efforts in Congress. The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. The rule can only be abolished if the pilot groups under age 50 redirect their political power that they are able to maintain through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. Junior pilots view the forced retirement of all pilots over the age of 60 as essential to their career progression. The majority will always have command of a system that maintains it's advantage by perpetuating a system that continually eliminates competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 50 finally come to the realization that the “Age 60 Rule” will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.

Wake up to reality, write your Senators and Representatives in Congress and urge them to support extending the Part 121 retirement age to age 65. Now may be the very last chance that we will all have to change this stupid age 60 rule.

 

[General Lee]

All of you junior ALPA and APA guys need a reality check. Extending the mandatory retirement age to 65 is in the ultimate best interest of every Part 121 pilot. In the future you will all want to have that choice of retiring at age 60 or continuing to fly to age 65. The reality is that most pilots will not be able to afford retiring early at age 60.

Since it’s inception, “The Age 60 Rule” has been a perpetual curse on the airline industry. The primary reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA and APA as they continue to block a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with their lobbying efforts in Congress. The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. The rule can only be abolished if the pilot groups under age 50 redirect their political power that they are able to maintain through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. Junior pilots view the forced retirement of all pilots over the age of 60 as essential to their career progression. The majority will always have command of a system that maintains it's advantage by perpetuating a system that continually eliminates competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 50 finally come to the realization that the “Age 60 Rule” will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.

Wake up to reality, write your Senators and Representatives in Congress and urge them to support extending the Part 121 retirement age to age 65. Now may be the very last chance that we will all have to change this stupid age 60 rule.

No, this about safety and seat movement. The senior guys want to fly longer to get them to social security age, even though they played by the rules all along, watching all of their Captains move on at 60, allowing them to move up to the left seat. Safety is an issue that really shows itself in the latter 50s, and that has been proven in tests. I noticed on our ALPA website a posting that stated the new rules in Britain allow pilots to fly to 62, but after age 60 they move to the right seat, allowing seat progression. They still get to fund their 401Ks while waiting for social security (in our case). Sounds like a plan, and the Brits are doing it right now. If any Captain disagrees with this, then he/she is showing their true intentions---total greed. They knew the rules when they signed up for this job. Sorry. We have had over age 60 guys in the cockpit (FEs-ROPES)--and they had to be monitored. They should not be captains. Our current Captains accepted the ROPES when they were FEs, they should understand moving over to the right seat, unless they are greedy and power hungry. At least they would be able to add to their 401Ks....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[NoJoy]

i agree 100% with the above statement. Everyone knew the rules when they signed up for 121 flying. One of the reasons many got excited about hiring opportunities was so many pilots retireing ahead of them. Plus if you have been with a somewhat high paying airline for 25-30+ years, you made more than enough $ to build a nice portfolio. Those who chose not to have a second retirement option, or worse, put themselves in a finantial position to have no retirement $ have only themselves to blaim. Another 5 years flying will not save them.

 

[se1776]

hell no

 

[Flybynite]

i agree 100% with the above statement. Everyone knew the rules when they signed up for 121 flying..

I don't understand this "everyone knew the rules". It is an FAR, a law. FAR's and laws change all the time as does everything else in this world. So according to this logic when something is established it should never change. Navigators used to be part of this industry, who stuck up for them. What about the F/E position? Three man cockpits were the law, according to this logic the 757 should have an engineer. Could you guys just admit it is greed? You feel cheated because it will take you a bit longer to get to the left seat, senior or whatever. It has nothing to do with whats fair, it is all about you. Could you guys just admit that?

 

[ERJFO]

My the reply from my Senator:

"Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me about legislation to change the retirement age restrictions for airline pilots. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and regret the delayed response.

As you may know, in 1960 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed a rule (14 C.F.R. 121.383) establishing an upper age limit on pilots of large commercial aircraft. The rule prohibits pilots aged 60 years or older from serving as captain or co-ca ptain of a commercial aircraft that carries more than 30 passengers.

On January 24, 2005 Senator James Inhofe introduced a bill (S. 65) to remove this mandatory retirement requirement from federal aviation law. Specifically, this bill would prohibit airl ines from requiring pilots to retire prior to reaching their Social Security retirement age. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

On November 17, 2005, the committee reviewed a substitute amendment of S .65 offered by Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT). Like S.65, the substitute would allow pilots to fly up to age 65. However, the amendment differs from the original bill in that it would follow a proposed International Civil Aviation Organization standard, whi ch requires that at least one pilot in the cockpit be age 60 or younger, if the Organization adopts the proposed standard in November 2006. The committee ordered S.65 as amended to be reported out favorably by voice vote. It is now awaiting further actio n on the Senate floor.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) previously introduced a form of S.65 in 2003, when he offered Senate Amendment 896 to the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act (S.824) . The amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 44. I voted aga inst the Inhofe amendment because I believe that the FAA should make the determination of mandatory retirement ages based primarily on safety considerations. Though I have voted to keep the mandatory retirement age in place before, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should S.65 come to a final vote in the 109 th Congress.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me . Please don't hesitate to contact me if I may be of any assistance in the future.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator"

 

[jbDC9]

No, this about safety and seat movement. The senior guys want to fly longer to get them to social security age, even though they played by the rules all along, watching all of their Captains move on at 60, allowing them to move up to the left seat.

Nice try GL, but Klako either doesn't wanna hear it or is too stupid to understand it. This fact has been thrown out there many times through these 51 pages and not once has he even acknowleged the fact that most senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list. He just ignores it and keeps on cutting and pasting the same old articles and the posting the same old paragraphs over and over again.

 

[Klako]

Nice try GL, but Klako either doesn't wanna hear it or is too stupid to understand it. This fact has been thrown out there many times through these 51 pages and not once has he even acknowleged the fact that most senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list. He just ignores it and keeps on cutting and pasting the same old articles and the posting the same old paragraphs over and over again.

I have been fighting to change this absurd "Age 60 Rule" since 1965 when I helped my next door neighbor who was a Western Captain involved with ALPA and their effort to abolish the age 60 rule. ALPA tried to abolish the rule for over 20 years until ALPA was overcome with greedy junior pilots.

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA now has institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?
Why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?

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!”

Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA have been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots.

In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson: “I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “ I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

I now fly for the best regional airline in the USA. I chose my company over a major airline for many reasons, most important was the fact that my company then had a very successful Part 135 operation allowing me to fly until I was 65. Then in 1995 the FAA forced us to convert to Part 121. There are too many such situations where pilots have been traped by rule changes, one way or another, that screwed up their careers. I don't even want to read any more C%#&P that "senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list".

Seniority is like property, you cannot have what is not yours unless you earn it fair and square, not at the expense of others.

When I hired on with my company, about 90% of the pilots senior to me were younger than I was. I upgraded not out of the forced retirement of those senior to me but through expansion.

It is a disgusting situation when a labor unions such as ALPA and APA could dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire. The crybabies at ALPA and APA who fear the loss of their precious “Age 60 Rule”, make more than most regional captains. Most regionals do not have a pension plan, only a 401K and I can tell you that most of our senior pilots are forced into poverty on their 60th birthday. The only hope for most of our pilots approaching age 60 to survive in retirement is for them to be able to fly until age 65. Our union does not support the age 60 rule and never will.
If the junior pilots of today want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then those junior pilots must understand that this change must happen NOW.

 

[mdf]

"One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?"

As I have stated before, I am nuetral on the issue. I can't see getting hyped over it. I have been reading this, and other threads for entertainment only. I will say that I am sick of seeing the above argument. You guys that use it only make yourselves sound like pompous windbags. I would stick with discrimination because that is the viable leg to stand on.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't understand this "everyone knew the rules". It is an FAR, a law. FAR's and laws change all the time as does everything else in this world. So according to this logic when something is established it should never change. Navigators used to be part of this industry, who stuck up for them. What about the F/E position? Three man cockpits were the law, according to this logic the 757 should have an engineer. Could you guys just admit it is greed? You feel cheated because it will take you a bit longer to get to the left seat, senior or whatever. It has nothing to do with whats fair, it is all about you. Could you guys just admit that?

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.

 

[jbDC9]

I don't even want to read any more C%#&P that "senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list".

Seniority is like property, you cannot have what is not yours unless you earn it fair and square, not at the expense of others.

So there ya go, you finally acknowleged "senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list", yet you dismiss it as crap at the same time. Nope, doesn't fit your situation, so you just don't want to hear about it; just bury your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. In your fantasy world, all senior graybeard captains were born in the left seat and never had to worry about being a junior FE/FO waiting to move up. Fine.

Tell ya what, I'll quit throwing out "crap" like that if you'll quit posting the same articles and the same paragraphs you've posted a few dozen times now. Fair enough?

 

[B190Captain]

nay!!!!

 

[General Lee]

To Klako

"I have been fighting to change this absurd "Age 60 Rule" since 1965 when I helped my next door neighbor who was a Western Captain involved with ALPA and their effort to abolish the age 60 rule. ALPA tried to abolish the rule for over 20 years until ALPA was overcome with greedy junior pilots."---Klako



I was born in 1965. It is time for you to retire. We don't need over age 60 cops or firemen, and that goes the same for over age 60 airline pilots, especially in the PIC position. Too dangerous, involving too many lives. Sad but true.



Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FoxHunter]

I was born in 1965. It is time for you to retire. We don't need over age 60 cops or firemen, and that goes the same for over age 60 airline pilots, especially in the PIC position. Too dangerous, involving too many lives. Sad but true.



Bye Bye--General Lee

Neither sad nor true, but you know that. It just does not fit your needs at this time.

 

[Klako]

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.

Look at yourself in the mirror and see a true boggot and the truely greedy one.

Do you always have trouble understanding reality? How can you and others not understand that this issue is not just about greed but ageism and age discrimination dirrected at older pilots by junior pilots. This greed is prepetuated by opposition from ALPA and APA preventing a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with spending PAC money in their lobbying efforts within Congress.

The age 60 limitation in FAR Part 121.383(c) denies otherwise qualified pilots equal protection guaranteed to them under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. If the United States Federal Government denies an otherwise qualified person their right to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for that person to be denied the enjoyment of their profession. If any airline pilot is denied their basic liberties for no reason other than an age, then it is the Federal Government’s burden to prove that all FAR Part 121 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.

Denying pilots their liberty and ability to earn a living in their chosen profession would likely drive many into severe financial hardship. At the very least, pilots should be able to fly aircraft in FAR Part 121 operations to the age of 65 when they become eligible for Medicare and the Social Security.

 

[Flybynite]

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.

I'll admit I'm morbidly confused by your arguement. Rules change. Happens everyday in the real world. Do you live in the real world? Do things change in your world or has it been status quo since birth? I say again things change, some changes you like, some you don't. Everyones greedy and looking out for thier own interests whether they want the change or don't want the change.

I don't know where your quotes came from but they are not mine. If you are going to qoute me at least get the right words.

 

[Flopgut]

Flybynite: The quotation marks were superfulous, I beg your pardon, but they were no less your exact sentiments.

I don't mind changes, I simply want to see positive changes. Not one of us needs to work longer, so much as we all need to work smarter. If we do not display sufficient inflexibility to the whim of senior types they will be right back to steal from the bottom of the lists again. (This needs to be viewed less like a change and more like a work action) And they have GOT to get smarter. Klako, bless his heart, is probably going to mess this up again. He is still REELING from the change to "one level of safety" a DECADE ago. Even that change had some built in relief for some pilots most adversely affected, which is more than he has in mind for anyone else. Pilots like him probably benefited from more jets around c/o fundamental changes, but I guess that money is all gone now.

 

[Flybynite]

Positive changes are all based on one's personal perspective. Kinda of a stretch to label it a work action don't you think?

From your arguments I gather you see it as greed of the senior pilots. I see it as greed of the junior pilots, the entitlement mentality of get out of MY seat. So which greed is justified? It's not your seat til you are in it.

Here is my common thread: Change happens, get used to it.

 

[Flopgut]

Look at yourself in the mirror and see a true boggot and the truely greedy one.

I'm afraid to ask what a boggot is, but I'm guessing your not too happy with me.

I don't wish you any ill will. But the truth of the matter is you should NOT have been spending all your time since 1965 fighting this, you're going to have to retire someday! You SHOULD have been grooming yourself for retired life or your next career. You have skills, you just have to want to use them. I know it's easier to look to a windfall type, legislative change but that's not fair to anyone. Do you know how many thousands of oldsters have been chucked out of other industries that are crying in the media about fairness? The fact is they weren't cutting the gig, they had a lot of years and they were just putting in time, and it bit them. Well, that doesn't happen here. We have seniority to spare you that, do NOT confuse that with actually earning something.

 

[Flopgut]

Positive changes are all based on one's personal perspective. Kinda of a stretch to label it a work action don't you think?

From your arguments I gather you see it as greed of the senior pilots. I see it as greed of the junior pilots, the entitlement mentality of get out of MY seat. So which greed is justified? It's not your seat til you are in it.

Here is my common thread: Change happens, get used to it.

Not like a work action? Let's see, a minority group of pilots want to sieze extra seniority outside collective bargaining to everyone else's detriment. What do you call that?

Personal perspective? In this case it is the personal perspective to change retirement age of a very small minority of labor as a whole. That means I'm right in towing the line.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Pilot pensions sacrificed by ALPA's choice to save failed airlines

British Airways union is not afraid to protect its pilots pensions while ALPA National allowed and offered the termination of its pilots pensions.

ALPA did not protected it members. ALPA protected failed airlines without business plans and overpaid management and ALPA dues collection.

And now these employees that should have collected their pensions at age 60 and been looking for work today, who destroyed the standards of this profession are again acting in the most destructive manner possible towards the profession forcing everyone to fly till they die because of their poor planning or greed.

American professional pilots have repeatly made the wrong choices since 911. US Air, UAL, DAL, and NWA need to pay the piper not rape the young as they have done.

Look at BA as the example of what to do because the legacy American pilots and ALPA sure don't know how this industry was built or what it needs. Todays generation of senior pilots undercutting the profession is far worse than the scabs of yesterday.

British Airways planning to increase retirement age LONDON: British Airways confirmed expectations of a large blowout in its pensions fund deficit yesterday and angered unions by calling for an increase in the retirement age to help plug the £2.1 billion ($3.9bn) hole.
British Airways said the shortfall had widened from the £928 million it calculated a year ago despite the airline doubling its contributions and a recovery in the stock market. The carrier proposed several changes to reduce the deficit, including raising the retirement age to 65 and capping pay rises at the rate of inflation - measures that were criticised by union leaders.
"We have always acknowledged that there is a funding problem but the news does not change our view that BA's pension cuts are unfair, unacceptable and do not represent a starting point for negotiations," said Brendan Gold, national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union.
"The company is profitable, has been reducing debt and is not in crisis," Gold added.
"It must be remembered the pensions are deferred earnings."
BA's current compulsory retirement age for pilots and cabin crew is 55. It plans to raise the cabin crew retirement age to 60 for the first five years to reduce the impact of the change, before lifting it to 65.
The retirement age for pilots will be capped at 60, in line with restrictions imposed on the age of pilots by countries including France and the United States. If those restrictions are removed in the future, the airline said it would then also raise the retirement age for pilots to 65.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Check out NBC Nightly News on Saturday evening. There will be a segment on the age 60 rule change.

The rule will change on November 23 for foreign crews flying in this country and for Americans too.

The procedure for Americans over age 60 to fly on that date has not been finalized as of yet.

The American public nor the US Congress will allow American's to be discriminated against. Why shouldn't an American who has paid taxes for 40 years and served in possibly two wars have the same privileges as a foreign airline crewmember who has done nothing for this country.

"If it's OK for foreigners, it darn well out to be OK for Americans." This is now the discussion.

ALPA has lost all credibility by their flip-flops on the subject. ALPA and APA's position is all about promotions, not about safety, that is clear. Very few people on Capital Hill really believe anything these two pilot groups have to say any longer. That's really too bad because ALPA/APA used to be listened to when they were really interested in safety instead of just promotions and attacking their senior members. That type of conduct is now backfiring. It's just like requireing a "fireman" on a diesel locomotive and calling it a safety requirement. Did anyone believe that?

And by the way, when ALPA/APA attack seniors I wonder if they ever considered the average age of a Senator or a Representative? Apparently not.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

SUBJ: Age 60 change :
FROM: Capt. Ted Schott, USAirways, former MEC /BOD member 8 years
TO: Whom It May Concern, age 60 communications

ALPA's stance on the age 60 issue is preposterous in an extremely unprincipled way.

Those in charge have brought ALPA to a new low in the field of myopic self centered decision making. The prior surveys were obviously biased and simply stated the results were inaccurate, as was the information on this issue that was presented to our members.

Duane Woerth's recent remarks that "this is about safety" are ludicrous and directly contradict remarks made under oath by two former ALPA presidents during Congressional testimony. The only good thing that can be said about Mr. Woerth's remarks is:

He has put his foot so far down his throat that his credibility is being destroyed as he speaks.
With his loss of credibility I sincerely hope his political future ends, as abruptly, in the very near future.

We need principled, visionary leadership at ALPA, not the stuff that we have seen in recent years.

Sincerely,

Ted Schott

Captain USAirways
Member in Good Standing 29 years

 

[vetrider]

I'll watch it. I have a feeling though that some of these same folks who slam ALPA and APA for "attacking seniors" will be featured on this program dramatizing how planes are gonna fall outa the sky because of the inexperience of the "kids" who will be "replacing" them. Pot, meet kettle, he's black too.

One pilot on my company's ALPA web board stated that he liked to stay out of the age 60 debate because he thought it brought out the worst in people no matter which way they were arguing. I think he was right on the money.

 

[vetrider]

I just watched it, I'll eat my words. It was not a bad piece at all. Obviously the folks that want to change it have been hard at work. If it changes, more power to em. Although I still think 60 works, changing it to 65 won't bother me much. The usual suspects will still medical out, and the healthy, fit ones will be able to go on. It seems fair enough to me.

 

[pipe]

Yeah- and everybody's grandparents and parents admit it when they need to stop driving too.

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Link to NBC Video on Age 60 - Aired Saturday Night

Click the link:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=3C9EA4BD-875C-4E9A-B85F-443DBC991C80&f=00&fg=email

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Medical Standards will raise as a result

I especially liked the part in the video link above that quotes the Senator saying that he thinks retirement should be based on not age but medical standards and that STRINGENT MEDICAL STANDARDS NEED TO BE IN EFFECT. What the Senator is saying is that he does not believe that the current standards meet the test of extending the age limit.

Extending this age limit is going to change the standards of medicals. If foreign standards are applied because everyone wants foreign age limits, it will mean a large improvement in the criteria and standards in the Class I medical.

The foreign standards are not only higher than the FAA standards regarding medicals but the first medical taken by the applicant establishes the baseline for that applicant. And each subsequent medical performed on that applicant is compared to the baseline medical and the current medical must not only exceed the national standard but also the baseline medical so as to not indicate a rapid progression of decline.

And whether or not the medical standards are raised with the age extension legislation, the day a pilot dies in the cockpit over 60, is the day the medical standards issue will be started if not already in the legislation. Soon it will take an astrounaut physical performed by NASA to fly an Airbus or Boeing.

Raising the age limit is only half the issue. The other half is the medical issue. And I am now confident that if the age limit is raised my career excpectation will not be effected as those booted with medical issues will far exceed those staying as a result.

And if you don't understand what I am talking about watch the video again and listen to what the Senator is saying. HE IS GOING TO RAISE MEDICAL STANDARDS.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Extending this age limit is going to change the standards of medicals. ing to keep.

And if you don't understand what I am talking about watch the video again and listen to what the Senator is saying.

The FAA's Chief Medical Surgeon, Dr. Fred Tilton, has said over and over and he has even written to ALPA to say that there are no changes planned or being considered in FAA medical standards if the pilot retirement age were to be changed. He has said that the USA's current medical standards are compatible with ICAO standards.

As far as Sen. Inhofe's comment, he is a politician speaking in support of his legislation. The legislation on age 60 does not address medical standards at all.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

The FAA's Chief Medical Surgeon, Dr. Fred Tilton, has said over and over and he has even written to ALPA to say that there are no changes planned or being considered in FAA medical standards if the pilot retirement age were to be changed. He has said that the USA's current medical standards are compatible with ICAO standards.

As far as Sen. Inhofe's comment, he is a politician speaking in support of his legislation. The legislation on age 60 does not address medical standards at all.

UndauntedFlyer,

I believe you are the one that says, “Rules change every day.” If S.65 changes our retirement age to 65 (still age discrimination), you can take it to the bank the medical standards will be changed especially will the first accident happens with someone over the age of 60 in the cockpit. We all know the current Class I is a joke. They couldn’t tell if you were going to drop dead of cancer the next day.

There will be many pilots caught in the web of not being able to pass their physicals and will be forced to take an early medical retirement causing a hit in their retirements by an early out penalty.

Undaunted, you are trying to sell this crap as if pilots will still have an option of retiring at age 60 – do not count on it. Just as now, the retirement plans will be modified to make anyone leaving early (i.e.: before reaching the new retirement age of 65) will have to take an early out penalty.

If S.65 does indeed does pass, both ALPA and APA need to take strong actions and keep those age 60 + pilots junior to all those that were hired under AGE 60 retirement. This serves two purposes – 1) one group of pilots does not receive an underserved “windfall” at the expense of all those junior, 2) all those “over age 60 and broke” will still be able to collect a paycheck.

Age 65 is nothing but an abrogation of seniority and an attempt of the senior pilots to sell out the junior pilots.

AA767AV8TOR