Age 60 informal poll

[b757driver]

But FAA instrument procedures are substantially different than ICAO instrument procedures. Are we in violation there since we don't use the ICAO standard in our country. There is an exemption to BATA. I don't think we are in violation of the treaty because we have a lower age.

Going to age 65 may allow foreign airlines a five year hiatus in hiring, then it will resume at the same pace as before. It's just all the junior pilots get the "privilege" of staying in their seat an additional 5 years.

This is a poor argument.

Actually, so is yours!
Another 5 years, so what? Some people are on furlough for 5 years, others have been looking for a "decent" job for twice that time! No one said it was a perfect world, let alone in this business.....
Your time will come, just try to be a little be patient - that's a virtue by the way.
Think of it this way, it ALSO gives you an extra 5 years at the end when you are earning the big paychecks.
All this "we want it and want it now, move over, it's my turn" is getting old .
It's coming and you might as well get used to it as we eventually get in line with the rest of the world.

 

[Gorilla]

I'd like to know when the guys that support age 65 went on record. Were they lobbying when they were 36? Maybe. More than likely, not.

I've got a funny feeling they happily moved up for decades due to the mandatory retirements at their carriers. Only when it became their turn did the rule magically become "unfair."

Someone lobbying out of altruism does so even when it does not apply to them. An example: caucasians who participated in the civil rights movements of the '50's and '60's. If you guys were working towards repeal of age 60 many, many years ago, then I honor and respect that. If not, I just find it a bit odd that this supposedly highly unfair and "evil" rule was ignored to your benefit. If the rule is flat-out wrong, you should have been working towards its repeal all your career.

 

[b757driver]

I've got a funny feeling they happily moved up for decades due to the mandatory retirements at their carriers. Only when it became their turn did the rule magically become "unfair."

If you guys were working towards repeal of age 60 many, many years ago, then I honor and respect that. If not, I just find it a bit odd that this supposedly highly unfair and "evil" rule was ignored to your benefit. If the rule is flat-out wrong, you should have been working towards its repeal all your career.

Of course you are also making a BIG assumption here in that each and everyone of us has been with the same carrier all our entire career with normal progression. While this may have been true a few decades ago, it is more the "norm" to have had many jobs and as we all know, it's to the bottom you go as you start over. Many are forced to work overseas to continue earning, never mind the age 60 rule, but just to support their families. It's not always about individual choices but almost always the company that they chose. You cannot get it right every time.

Happily moved up? Maybe for some, but a lot have never really moved at all!

 

[Sluggo_63]

Actually, so is yours!
Another 5 years, so what? Some people are on furlough for 5 years, others have been looking for a "decent" job for twice that time!

Yeah... I was and many of my close friends still are. I'm sure they would like to get back to their good jobs, and not five years from now, either.

No one said it was a perfect world, let alone in this business.....
Your time will come, just try to be a little be patient - that's a virtue by the way.

Yes, patience is a virtue. But avarice is a sin (a cardinal one, at that), and that's what the over-60 crowd is guilty of.

Think of it this way, it ALSO gives you an extra 5 years at the end when you are earning the big paychecks.

No it isn't. This is the biggest fallacy that you over-60 people throw around. It gives YOU an extra 5 years at the end. It gives me an extra 5 years in my seat.
I'll give you an example. Let's say that without the over-60 law changing, I was hired at my carrier at 35 and can expect to be a captain in 10 years, at 45. Then I can spend 15 years as a captain and retire at 60.
Now... I get hired at 35 and expect to be a captain in 10 years. Five years into my employment, the age-60 law changes to 65. So now I'm 40 and everyone senior to me retires at 65. There is now a 5 year pause in movement. Those who are captains remain so for 5 additional years. I remain a first or second officer for the additional 5. After the five year stop, everyone starts hitting 65. I'm now 45 years old, and start moving up the list again (old rules, I would have been a captain now). Now when I'm 50, I get to upgrade. So let's see... I get to be a captain for... that's right! Fifteen years! Same as before the age 60 rule, but the difference is I amassed additional pay as a first officer, not at the end with "the big paycheck" as you said. All the while you and your ilk got it at the captain's rate.
Add to this that I don't want to work until 60. I want to spend some time with my family. And don't tell me "you'll still be able to retire at 60 if you want," because you KNOW that'll change. Plus, then I get five less years as a captain (ten less than you).

All this "we want it and want it now, move over, it's my turn" is getting old .
It's coming and you might as well get used to it as we eventually get in line with the rest of the world.

Right... and all this, I'm going to get mine, to heck with you is getting old, too

 

[Sluggo_63]

Of course you are also making a BIG assumption here in that each and everyone of us has been with the same carrier all our entire career with normal progression.

To quote a "wise" person on this thread (look above) while talking to a furloughee...

No one said it was a perfect world, let alone in this business.....

While this may have been true a few decades ago, it is more the "norm" to have had many jobs and as we all know, it's to the bottom you go as you start over.

Again...

No one said it was a perfect world, let alone in this business.....

Many are forced to work overseas to continue earning, never mind the age 60 rule, but just to support their families. It's not always about individual choices but almost always the company that they chose. You cannot get it right every time.

Happily moved up? Maybe for some, but a lot have never really moved at all!

And one more time... let's all say it together...

No one said it was a perfect world, let alone in this business.....

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

[/font][/color]
Why does the ICAO rule (and the proposed FAA law) require that one person up front has to be under 60. I have not heard a good argument for that that doesn't mention safety.

The answer is simple and obvious. Change is always done in steps. First it was the ICAO rule that only the SIC could be over age 60 with the PIC under age 60. Then, when there no problems or issues with that order, the next change is logical, so as to allow the PIC to be over age 60 as long as the SIC is under age 60. Next, assuming there are no issues with that step, both pilots will be allowed to be over age 60.

THAT WAS EASY. HIT THE EASY BUTTON.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

[/font][/color]We have been patient. You have had your turn (in your case for 37 years). Now it's time to let others have the same opportunity you have had.

This is as good one. You mentioned this because I guess you were unaware that the grass isn't as green on the other side of the fence as you think. Maybe it's just Astroturf, it only looks that green to you from a distance.

All of the complainers like to suggest their careers will be so bad and it will take so long for them to become captains and so forth. And they like to suggest that everyone age 59 has had it so great all their careers. Well the fact of the matter is that those who are 59 now went through lots of big problems and recessions. Many of us went through several airlines or had to endure Vietnam.

Now in my case, my airline career may look good when you look at where I am now, but it is also true that in my seniority position at UAL all of my newhire class was furloughed twice, once for once year and once for 3 years. Progress was also slow with minimum upgrade to F/O from the back seat at 15-years. And to 737 captain in a total from date of hire of about 20plus years, and to 777 captain at 30 years.

Of course now, the upgrade to F/O is instant because there are no F/E's and the upgrade to Capt will be much less than the 20-years it was for those in my group.

Now I hear people talk of "5-more years." This just is not going to be the case. Many who want to fly past age-60 will quit (retire) at say 62 and others may develop some kind a medical condition that will disqualify them from the Class I medical.

So again, it's patience in this career that is a virtue, just as most all those age-59 have had to have. All things will come to those who can wait. Everyone's time will come. This is fact I have had to believe and I have found it to be true.

 

[Klako]

The disturbing 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. These movies protray a society where 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 and competition for employment and food. Young people vehemently support their system of eliminating old people until they approach their own termination age.

 

[miles otoole]

Now in my case, my airline career may look good when you look at where I am now, but it is also true that in my seniority position at UAL all of my newhire class was furloughed twice, once for once year and once for 3 years. Progress was also slow with minimum upgrade to F/O from the back seat at 15-years. And to 737 captain in a total from date of hire of about 20plus years, and to 777 captain at 30 years.

Of course now, the upgrade to F/O is instant because there are no F/E's and the upgrade to Capt will be much less than the 20-years it was for those in my group.

If this is true, it kinda defeats Sluggos argument. Upgrade to CA at WN and CAL, for example is 7 years conservatively. Heck, it's 3 at Airtran and JBLU. UAL today must certainly be less than 20 years. If you in fact earn an additional 5 years of F/O pay, you can add that to the 15 years of much higher CA pay. I guess the real argument isn't about safety, it's about wanting to retire at 60 (which you can still do with a 65 age cap).
If in Sluggos case, he is unable to retire comfortably at 60 with the next 15 years as an F/O (worse case) and the following 10 as a CA, someone has too many toys or girlfriends at home.

 

[b757driver]

This is as good one. You mentioned this because I guess you were unaware that the grass isn't as green on the other side of the fence as you think. Maybe it's just Astroturf, it only looks that green to you from a distance.

All of the complainers like to suggest their careers will be so bad and it will take so long for them to become captains and so forth. And they like to suggest that everyone age 59 has had it so great all their careers. Well the fact of the matter is that those who are 59 now went through lots of big problems and recessions. Many of us went through several airlines or had to endure Vietnam.

Now in my case, my airline career may look good when you look at where I am now, but it is also true that in my seniority position at UAL all of my newhire class was furloughed twice, once for once year and once for 3 years. Progress was also slow with minimum upgrade to F/O from the back seat at 15-years. And to 737 captain in a total from date of hire of about 20plus years, and to 777 captain at 30 years.

Of course now, the upgrade to F/O is instant because there are no F/E's and the upgrade to Capt will be much less than the 20-years it was for those in my group.

Now I hear people talk of "5-more years." This just is not going to be the case. Many who want to fly past age-60 will quit (retire) at say 62 and others may develop some kind a medical condition that will disqualify them from the Class I medical.

So again, it's patience in this career that is a virtue, just as most all those age-59 have had to have. All things will come to those who can wait. Everyone's time will come. This is fact I have had to believe and I have found it to be true.

So true!
Many assumptions that all is, or has been rosey, for everyone at the higher end of the scale.
Like Undaunted, I know many captains (and FOs) who have not had an easy ride in their career and if there is a law in the offing that will enable them to continue for a while longer, then so be it. Far from me to deny a person their right to work solely based on age. I believe that is called age discrimination and is against the law in the US, is it not?
And.....if you want to retire at 60 or even 55 or anywhere in between and feel you have amassed enough wealth to be able to do that, then good luck to you. But never forget, not everyone is in the same situation and I would never suggest to a person.
You do what you feel is right for you, but please do not foist an outdated, soon-to-be-changed law onto those that don't share your views.
Regardless whatever the argument, it's coming, so you might as well get used to it.