Age 60 informal poll

[Andy]

Here's another report. Table 2 on page 5 is an eye opener.
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0416.pdf

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Here's another report. Table 2 on page 5 is an eye opener.

Andy: You just don't get it even yet. None of this make any difference when the foreigners can fly in this country up to age 65. That's all that counts to anyone now. For every study that can be produced, there is something else that says something different. The only fact for sure it that Americans are just as healthy as foreigners and if foreigners can fly here so can Americans.

And as far as ALPA and APA are concerned, these organizations have lost all credability on the Hill as everywhere else because of their conflicting statements of Woerth and prior Presidents of ALPA. ALPA and APA are only proven to be full of BS in everything they say. No one will believe anything they say any longer.

So no matter what you put forward, it is a waste of your effort. Age 60 is coming to the USA and soon. It will happen fast and you can not stop it. And it will possibly come in a way you may not expect.

 

[Andy]

I've found that many who make predictions are like broken clocks ... they're right no more than twice a day. You may be right about an eventual rule change, but I'll bet you that 29 Jan 2007 comes first.

 

[Phaedrus]

I usually find that when one has lost an argument, one resorts to "they're doing it so we should too". Brilliant defense.
Whether it comes or not, be honest with yourself why you want what you want.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Here's another report. Table 2 on page 5 is an eye opener.
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0416.pdf

That certainly IS an eye opener!

Clearly, pilots between the ages of 34 and 40 are the safest. At least, they're the least likely to become incapacitated. As the data shows, airline pilots under the age of 34 or over the age of 40 are more likely to become incapacitated. If the data presented is to be taken at face value, then it becomes obvious that allowing ANYBODY outside of that 6-year age window to act as a required crewmember puts the public at increased risk.

If the Federal Government is going to mandate a minimum age at which one can attain an ATP and a maximum age at which one can serve in that capacity (as they do now), then it follows that those ages should be 34 and 40, respectively.

I think you've hit on a solution which will not only make air travel safer, but reduce the numbers of available pilots (thus increasing wages). In addition, it will virtually guarantee upgrades to Captain within 3 years of date-of-hire.

Gee, I don't know why I didn't think of that...

 

[Spooky 2]

The graph on page 24 says it all.
http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdfh

Andy, you are avoiding the question I posed. Tell me about the accidents at your airline over the last 35 years and what were the ages of those involved? As a matter of fact tell us about the age ratios for FAA violations at Delta. Don't bother BSing us as I know what they were when I left and they were not weighted to anyone even close to 60. Usually fairly young, by Delta standards, new Captains. Clean up your own house before you start trashing the other groups.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I usually find that when one has lost an argument, one resorts to "they're doing it so we should too".

And I often find that when one cannot offer a logical, reasoned explanation of why a thing is done a certain way, they will say, "Because that's the way we've ALWAYS done it"

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Why (do) you want what you want?

That answer is simple. Just ask yourself why you want to work? It's the same answer for you and me and anyone else in good health. We all want to provide for our families. Isn't that what everyone wants, to earn a living at our trade? Do you finally understand this now? Has it taken all this including hundreds of posts to really explain this and for everyone to see that this change will be happening soon?

 

[Phaedrus]

Hey Whistler, nice spin. You'll notice I never said "that's the way we've always done it" as a defense of my position. I said that's the way the game has been played since we all became players. I need neither offer logic nor reason because I'm not arguing as if this is some moral battle, no, I can see the reality of the fight. 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?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The reality is you knew full well.

So be honest for a moment. If you were now age 59 and only had what had been saved, had a wife and a high school or grade school age kid to support, would you just quit (retire) at that point? Please keep in mind that there is absolutely nothing magic or special about age 60. At least at 59.5 you can draw on a 401k without penalty, and at 62 you can collect partial S/S and at 65 you can draw full S/S and Medicare.

So that's the question. Can you and others who seem to be against this change please address that question? I would like to hear your answers.