Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

Post a link to that; I don't believe you.

Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8530235634119565043&q=age+60

The FAA's Administrator, Marion Blakey, stated on 7 April 2006:
"The FAA's position at this point should there be a legislative change on the age 60 rule, is that we are neutral on it. We do not have evidence at this point, safety data or medical evidence, to change the rule any more than we have a reason at this point to oppose a change...There is no question about the fact that internationally, this is turning the direction of having two people in the cockpit of commercial carriers, one of them possibly being over the age of 60… I would not be at all surprised to see this country fall in line behind that."


The FAA's own modification of its air traffic controller retirement age demonstrates that the FAA no longer considers age as a safety issue. The agency has long held that 56 was a required age due to safety but this year granted age-waivers to the age of 61. At the latest Senate hearing on the Age 60 Rule, the FAA's Dr. Jordan could not construct a valid response when asked by Senator Stevens why pilots were not granted waivers based on proficiency if controllers were. When FAA Administrator Blakey was asked at a news conference if waivers would be granted pilots, she commented there was no need as there "is no pilot shortage", mentioning nothing about safety. With those words she turned the Age 60 Rule into a jobs program.

The FAA being “Neutral” on changing the “Age 60 Rule” destroys the only credible argument that ALPA and APA have in trying to convince members in the United States Congress to not pass bills that would increase the mandatory retirement age for commercial air carrier pilots.

 

[pilotyip]

This is a repeat for Andy Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism.

 

[Saabslime]

Sure it sucks to be stuck in the right seat for 5 more years or at a regional for the same period but if the choice is condemning a captain at a major airline to digging through the trash alongside the NWA furloughed or sticking someone in the right seat for a few extra years, I know what my choice is. TC

O.K. drama queen. Millions of Americans manage to retire quite gracefully making much less than what an airline pilot makes over a career and without a pension. It just takes some foresight and planning. EVERY airline pilot knows what the game plan is when they start this career. If you decide to jump in later along in life, you better already have a good nest egg built up or lower retirement expectations and a side job waiting when you hit 60. If you blew every paycheck on wine, women, and song relying on that fat pension to take care of you in your golden years then shame on you. Losing one's pension is nothing new and certainly not limited to the airline industry. Don't expect me to adjust my career expectations just because you're rose colored glasses came off to late to see the real world. I nor any of my colleagues who share my stance on age 60 are running a charity here. There are plenty of other flying opportunities available past age 60, just not in the airline business so move on and enjoy.

 

[Klako]

Don't expect me to adjust my career expectations just because you're rose colored glasses came off to late to see the real world. I nor any of my colleagues who share my stance on age 60 are running a charity here.

Who is the greedy one here?

Our Constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the short sighted mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. 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 Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, commonly referred to asthe FAA’ s current “Age 60 Rule”.

I post this again:

The idea that forced retirement is essential to promoting the welfare of the majority has an eerie foreshadowing of ageism themes illustrated in movies like Soylent Green and Logan's Run, where a person's maximum age is strictly legislated. When people reach an age limit, they are executed by a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources becomes a managed equilibrium through the simple expediency of killing everyone upon reaching a particular age, thus neatly avoiding the issue of overpopulation. Extreme yes, but something to think about.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Who is the greedy one here?

You are

 

[ivauir]

The only reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA and APA, reflecting the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. .

Spare us the finger pointing ... the greediest generation ever is making a full court press to make sure that their career is longer and more profitable that any ever before - at the expence of the junior pilots.

Get off of your high horse and offer ALPA a compromise (eg over 60 = FO). In the mean time don't even try to pretend to be motivated by anything other than the greed you are so readily to see in others.

 

[Klako]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klako
Who is the greedy one here?

You are

It is a disgusting situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA could dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

If you want to force senior your pilots out of your company, do it in your own house and not force it on the rest of the industry.

· There is growing support within the pilot unions to change the “Age 60 Rule". The following unions and pilot employee groups have gone on record that they support a change the Age 60 Rule:

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION (Independent)
JET BLUE (Independent)
AMERICAN TRANS AIR/ATA (ALPA Master Executive Council)
AMERICA WEST MEC (ALPA Master Executive Council)
SPIRIT (ALPA Master Executive Council)
CONTINENTAL (ALPA Local Executive Councils of Houston and Newark)
US AIRWAYS (ALPA Local Executive Council of Philadelphia)
IBT Teamsters Airline Division

The only two organized labor unions that remain officially oppose a change to the “Age 60 Rule”, are ALPA and APA. Even though ALPA's official position is that they are still against it, there are growing sentiments within the rank and file of ALPA for changing the "Age 60 Rule”.

 

[Saabslime]

Klako,
You shouldn't read so much into what a particular MEC's "official" stance is on anything. In union politics as in politics in general, it's often the vocal minority that dictates what the MEC's stance is.

And quit whining about ALPA and the APA being able to dictate when an airline pilot will retire. All they can do is chime in with their opinion, just like you're doing. The government will ultimately decide what the retirement age will be and if I were a betting man I'd say they'll keep with status quo.

 

[Rik717pilot]

Yea!

Gotta make up the money and retirement values stolen from me and the rest of the TWA pilots by the SNB AA AA$$wholes. Can't afford the wife, kids or the house without the extension.

 

[Klako]

Klako,
ALPA and the APA being able to dictate when an airline pilot will retire. All they can do is chime in with their opinion, just like you're doing. The government will ultimately decide what the retirement age will be and if I were a betting man I'd say they'll keep with status quo.

The age 60 rule has been an on-going curse on the airline industry for over 45 years. The only reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA and APA and their lobbying efforts in Congress.


Senate Bill S.65, which was first, introduced on 24 January 2005, currently has 24 Cosponsors. The Latest Major Action for S.65 was on 30 March 2006 was when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 382. There are now 60 Senators who have said they would vote in favor of S.65 and only 50 YES votes are needed for it to pass, VP Chaney would break the tie.A vote is expected before the end of the year. If and when S.65 passes in the Senate it is expected to pass easily and rapidly in the House of Representatives.