Age 60 informal poll

[Big Beer Belly]

Andy.....I hope this gets me banned for life. Go ******************** YOURSELF! ***********************************.

Spooky you old geezer ... SETTLE DOWN!

BBB

 

[Andy]

Andy.....I hope this gets me banned for life. Go ******************** YOURSELF! ***********************************.

Dude, calm down. I'm not going to complain to the mods; I just got off of a weeks' ban for my posts on this board (somebody reported me; I no longer post anything against the TOS).

We obviously disagree on the age 60 rule. It was initiated as a safety measure (in spite of the cloak and dagger insinuations). There is no one at the FAA with a reason to continue that rule unless they felt that safety would be compromised if it changed. If you think about it for a moment, they've got a shortage of FAA controllers due to the 55 mandatory retirement age ... raising pilot retirement ages would open the door to allow them to bump up controller retirement ages beyond 55, helping them alleviate the shortage.
You may disagree with the rule, but until someone posts anything more than anecdotal statements to justify a change (such as valid scientific studies), I will continue to oppose a change for safety reasons. Doesn't it strike you as odd that ICAO is requiring one pilot in multiplace aircraft to be under 60, and not allowing any over 60 pilots to fly single place aircraft? If it were safe to allow pilots over the age of 60, you wouldn't have those restrictions.

Now, as for your suggestion. Some of it was bleeped out, but I think that I got the jist of your statement. I'm almost positive that I am anatomically incapable of performing such a feat, so I will be unable to comply with your request. :laugh:

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

You all are claiming discrimination as your rallying cry as if you had no idea what the rules were when you started. The reality is you knew full well. Now, and at the expense of those below you, you'd like some more. If you want to change the rules of the game midstream, then I call BS. What you didn't know you had to retire at 60 when you started?

What if I didn't think it should be repealed because it was discriminatory? What if I thought it should be repealed because it was stupid and arbitrary? Would that make a difference?

The notion that "rules" should not be changed after one starts their career is probably the most specious argument against repeal of this rule that I've heard. The "rules" governing how we conduct our business are anything but static. That's why we have memo books, recurrent training, and why we file revisions to our manuals every week. We live in a world of change, and as professionals, we're expected to adapt. We're no different than most other professions in that regard.

I'm curious...other than this "age 60" rule, are there any other rules that you were told would never, under any circumstances, change during the course of your career? And who told you that?

I don't know.... Maybe it's a training problem.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yes, maybe a training problem. All the changes, revisions, and training you'd like to draw an analogy to are to increase safety. Beyond that small point it's a poor analogy on the face of it. Let me ask you a question to prove the point: when you began your career did you honestly expect changes to your Jepps and regulations? How about the age 60 rule?
Oh, I can't think of any better reason to repeal a law that everyone in the US has operated under for decades than your belief that it is stupid.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Yes, maybe a training problem. All the changes, revisions, and training you'd like to draw an analogy to are to increase safety. Beyond that small point it's a poor analogy on the face of it. Let me ask you a question to prove the point: when you began your career did you honestly expect changes to your Jepps and regulations? How about the age 60 rule?

Yes, I expected daily changes to my schedule, weekly changes to my Jepps, monthly changes to my Ops manual, and semi-annual changes to the FAR's. What I didn't expect were the changes to our business, both in terms of who/what flew on airplanes, and what kinds of changes deregulation would bring to our industry. I don't think very many people expected that. A few of those who did are millionaires today.

I didn't like all of the changes of course, but I adapted to all of them nicely, as I'm sure you have...and will, when this "age 60" thing is changed.

Come to think of it, the National speed limit was 55 mph when I started in the flying business. Those who opposed raising it to 65 mph cited concerns over safety. But you know, by some miracle, we came through that OK too.

If you're going to cite "safety" as a reason to force otherwise healthy pilots into early retirement, then you're going to have to address the sharp rise in accidents experienced by those pilots over 40 as well as those over 60. Personally, if I'm going to have to start another career, I'd rather do it at 40 than at 60.

 

[Phaedrus]

Yep, I'll adapt. That's the game. However, I'll also be at peace because I know I've been honest with myself. I give you credit for not hoisting the moral superiority flag about discrimination and boiling it down to what it really is: a way to keep making the green at expense of those below you.

 

[71KILO]

Phaed,
You get on with FedEx?

 

[Phaedrus]

71K: Yep! Life is good. What's up on your front?

 

[Klako]

Yep, I'll adapt. That's the game. However, I'll also be at peace because I know I've been honest with myself. I give you credit for not hoisting the moral superiority flag about discrimination and boiling it down to what it really is: a way to keep making the green at expense of those below you.

I fly for one of the best regional airlines but I make less as a 17 year captain than most FOs who fly for the majors. I do not have a pension with my company. I do have a very modest 401K but not enough to survive on. When I am forced to retire in three months, I will not have a retiree medical plan through my company. The only way that I can survive is working for at least another 2 years. It has been the concentrated efforts of ALPA and APA that have thwarted any chance of allowing me to keep my job for another two years. It galls me every time I read where some selfish ALPA pilot claims that extending the retirement age would allow me to "keep making the green at expense of those below" me. Junior ALPA and APA pilots are forcing me into poverty just so they can enjoy the high life a little bit sooner. It is disgusting that a labor union would dictate the age that all pilots in the airline industry must retire.

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?

I am tempted to make the next jumpseater wearing an ALPA pin to remove that offensive ALPA pin before he/she rides in my jump seat.

 

[pipe]

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!”


Is "ANDY" a member of that 95%?

Sounds like they'd be great candidates to write a book, instruct in a sim, teach a class, etc. It is true that the longer you've been around, the more you've seen.

What is glaringly absent above is any actual data regarding diminished cognitive ability, accident rates, etc.

BTW, how old was Hank when he made his touchy-feely and completely devoid of hard-fact statement?

PIPE

PS- Here we go with that pesky majority thing again. Why does that keep rearing its ugly head everywhere there are elections?

 

[miles otoole]

I fly for one of the best regional airlines but I make less as a 17 year captain than most FOs who fly for the majors. I do not have a pension with my company. I do have a very modest 401K but not enough to survive on. When I am forced to retire in three months, I will not have a retiree medical plan through my company. The only way that I can survive is working for at least another 2 years. It has been the concentrated efforts of ALPA and APA that have thwarted any chance of allowing me to keep my job for another two years. It galls me every time I read where some selfish ALPA pilot claims that extending the retirement age would allow me to "keep making the green at expense of those below" me. Junior ALPA and APA pilots are forcing me into poverty just so they can enjoy the high life a little bit sooner. It is disgusting that a labor union would dictate the age that all pilots in the airline industry must retire.

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?

I am tempted to make the next jumpseater wearing an ALPA pin to remove that offensive ALPA pin before he/she rides in my jump seat.

You won't get a response from them because your situation doesn't fit their "sitting at the 777 trough for the past 10 years" argument.

 

[vetrider]

Politics does make for strange bedfellows. It would be my guess that the only thought the undaunted flyers of the world gave to the klakos of the world would have been something along the lines of "loser at some non sked who couldn't get on at a real airline." Now undaunted flyer gives klako the high five for the best post he has ever seen on the subject. Interesting indeed.

 

[Andy]

If you're going to cite "safety" as a reason to force otherwise healthy pilots into early retirement, then you're going to have to address the sharp rise in accidents experienced by those pilots over 40 as well as those over 60. Personally, if I'm going to have to start another career, I'd rather do it at 40 than at 60.

Whistlin' Dan, the accident rate takes an upward turn at 55, not 40.

 

[Andy]

You won't get a response from them because your situation doesn't fit their "sitting at the 777 trough for the past 10 years" argument.

Wrong, Miles. Klako is not telling you the entire story.
Klako retired from the military as a CW4; he has been getting a monthly pension for the last 17+ years. That also entitles him to very inexpensive medical care. Klako will also claim that he chose to fly at his current employer (Horizon) because it was close to home and that he expected to be able to fly until 65.

Now, let’s dissect this a bit. I’d be willing to bet that Klako does not have a bachelor’s degree (his choice), which almost completely rules out a job at a major airline.
Klako will also claim that he can’t afford medical care because his 15+ year doctor won’t accept Tricare. Again, his choice to continue to go to that doctor rather than change to another doctor.
Klako hasn’t mentioned that the rule which made Horizon go from 135 to 121 ops in 1999 had been around since 1995. Klako knew that he’d have to retire at 60 back in 1995.

As far as Klako’s current pay, a 17 year Horizon captain on the CRJ-700 is making $117/hr. If he’s not holding CRJ-700 captain, that’s his choice.
He also has a 10% match for his 401k. If he has chosen to not put away 10%, that’s his choice.

Klako’s had a lot of time to make different choices, but he has chosen not to. I was furloughed in 2002 and had to make major course corrections in my career. Klako has chosen to not make course corrections and is now expending his time and energy in a fruitless effort to change the age 60 rule before he turns into a pumpkin.
There have been efforts to have the FAA make regulatory changes to the age 60 rule, but the FAA has not done so due to safety concerns. There have been efforts to have judicial system change the age 60, but all judges have ruled against them.
The latest effort to change the age 60 rule is through the legislative process. The politics is indeed interesting to watch. While many politicians will pay lip service and state publicly that they are in favor of change, no one is bringing the bill forward for a vote on the Senate side and it's bottled up in subcommittee on the House side. And it won’t come up for a vote because Congress has more significant issues that they are concentrating on. For us pilots this seems monumental, but for politicians, it’s not even on the radar screen. Even Jim Gibbons’ radar screen.

 

[Phaedrus]

You won't get a response from them because your situation doesn't fit their "sitting at the 777 trough for the past 10 years" argument.

You beat me to it Andy. I was only going to say that my non-response was due to:

I am tempted to make the next jumpseater wearing an ALPA pin to remove that offensive ALPA pin before he/she rides in my jump seat.

I know, he was merely tempted.