Age 60 informal poll

[vetrider]

I think there is a big difference between a pilot working for a foreign carrier flying into JFK from across the pond versus being employed at a United States airline flying within this country.

If a hypothetical 63 year old flying for a foreign carrier wanted to fly for a US based airline he would be out of luck as well. If Undaunted goes to work for a foreign carrier he will have the same rights to fly into JFK as the other pilots there. In other words, as long as Undaunted and the foreigner are working for the same airline at the same time, the same rights and priveleges apply. I see no discrimination.

I think apples are being mixed with oranges in this case. But then again, the pro change guys are not afraid to put a slant on things.

 

[vetrider]

As far as Captain Hinnenkamp, I don't begrudge him wanting to continue to fly, I can understand him wanting to. What bothered me personally was how he went about dramatizing it, all but directly saying that his departure would leave the system in the hands of those to inexperienced to handle things and keep our system safe.

 

[Andy]

About half the airline pilots who are reaching age 60 and are being forced to retire are Vietnam vets. I am not one of those, nor did I claim to be be one in any of my prior posts. I am a person who was lucky enough to avoid that nightmare. And that nightmare is all the more reason to give credit to those who had to put up with that war, especially when it was all for nothing.

Your post STRONGLY implied that you were a decorated Vietnam vet with a Purple Heart. You carefully worded it so that anyone who does not know your background would think that you were a Vietnam vet. Now that you're busted, you're going to claim innocence? Whatever.
And so glad to hear that you think that those who served in Vietnam did so for nothing. I suppose that you think the same of Pipe, Higsky and all others (including myself) who have spent a lot of time in Southwest Asia.

Now do you recall the Tribune article about Capt. Hinnenkamp. We know that he was one of those that served in Vietnam, but I do remember those, including Andy, who were disrespectful of him for wanting to continue flying. So to you smart a$$es you can not have it both ways. You want something for your service, but don't want to give anything to others who served.

I feel about Hinnenkamp the same way that I feel about you. You both disrespected and continue to disrespect your replacements. I'm your replacement. I'm 46 years old, fer chrissake. I've probably got more time in service than Hinnenkamp and I'd bet that I've got more time overseas in uniform than Hinnenkamp. For you and Hinnenkamp to call your replacements wet behind the ears kids is extremely disrespectful. Yet you get offended when we fire back at your blatent disrespect.


As for answering your veteran questions, those are appropriate ONLY from a fellow veteran. Don't try to wrap yourself in the flag in order to elicit sympathy. You haven't earned the right to wrap yourself in the flag and play the patriotism card.
I hope that WW2 vets didn't make a huge stink about their Vietnam vet replacements when the day came for them to leave. Of course, I haven't seen a post from any Vietnam vets on this board deriding Gulf War vets.
Besides the Gulf War, I've been involved in so many little skirmishes over the years that I haven't been able to keep track of them all. My first was providing refueling support for the Panama operation. I've flown a recce bird over Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia airspace when it was still hot. I've been involved in so many operations with the word Desert in them that I can't keep track of them anymore. I've flown off of the coast of Libya for hours with zero air cover. I've flown off the coast of Israel for hours with zero air cover. I've flown in Southeast Asia shortly before the EP-3 downed a Chinese MiG - I flew the same type of mission as the EP-3. I'm sure that there are plenty other places that I've placed myself and my crew in harm's way, but I just can't remember all of them. And now I, and others like myself, are apparantly unworthy to replace you and Capt Hinnenkamp.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Old Age effects the bottom line-- what is SWA doing?

The cost associated with increasing age 60 is going to be high for not just the pilots but also the companies. The contracts of every carrier reward increased productivity till the pay capped is reached at which point a pay cap captain is just a productive as a 30 year captain.

SWA is going to lose its cost advantage if this age change happens. SWA's cost advantage over Air Tran, Virgin USA, JBLU, and all the regionals with young pilots are going to rapidly evaporate. SWA is just like any other LCC, growth using new aircraft and junior pilots. And SWA hiring of 1000 pilots verse its highly paid 4000 is not enough of an offset compared to an airline without any pay capped captains.

Age-adjusted earnings will force the U.S. to get real about the high cost of healthcare in one easy step, says Fortune's Matt Miller.
By Matt Miller, Fortune columnist
December 1 2006: 6:51 AM EST

(Fortune Magazine) -- In 2003, back when Continental Airlines (Charts) was losing its shirt, Gordon Bethune, its salty CEO, got sick of hearing that upstarts like JetBlue (Charts) had created a new business model that would bury the industry's dinosaurs. So he had his CFO recompute Continental's earnings assuming the company had (like JetBlue) a much younger workforce - and thus much lower health, pension and related costs.
Presto: Earnings went from a reported $388 million loss to a $420 million profit, a swing of $800 million. "It was all bull," Bethune says now of the idea that the economic laws of air travel had been repealed. "If we could fire all our workers every five years, we'd look good too."
Though Bethune cooked up what I call "age-adjusted earnings" simply to fend off attacks on Continental, the mammoth profit swing his analysis unearthed has big policy implications.
To most of us, the idea that a firm's success could depend so greatly on the youth of its employees feels crazy. Yes, GM (Charts) and its ilk may have gotten themselves into trouble with generous giveaways when the good times rolled. But a sane nation would assess business performance separately from some socially determined sense of what makes for decent health and pension coverage for citizens. Which brings us to the new Democratic majority in Washington.
50 Ways to Cut Your Health-Care Costs
While Democrats will probably be able to get the minimum wage hiked in the next two years, there's no way they'll be able to move on broader health and pension security with President Bush in the White House. If America's social contract is to be updated for the realities of a global age, it will only be after the 2008 presidential campaign nudges us toward consensus on the need for change.
A small but surprisingly powerful way to enlist business in this conversation would be for the Dems to turn Bethune's creative bookkeeping into a new rule for public companies: In addition to the usual earnings reports, require firms to issue an "age-adjusted" income statement that shows what earnings would be if the company had, say, average-aged workers.
Lighting a fire under business and government
Why would this break through the clutter? Unlike (sensible) new accounting rules that will force firms to put health and pension liabilities on their balance sheets, age-adjusted earnings would create a media hook that becomes part of every quarterly release.
Imagine if TV anchors were saying things like "Today search giant Google reported fourth-quarter earnings of $600 million - though on an age-adjusted basis it was $150 million less."
The idea isn't to create some metric for companies to manage but rather a drumbeat people would hear - a way of making every earnings report a reminder of the inanity of tying things like health care to employment in ways that warp business, suppress wages and crimp global competitiveness.
When I floated the idea to union and seniors' advocates, they fretted that it might push "good" employers to trim health care or accelerate their retreat from defined-benefit retirement plans. Well, earth to liberals: Those horses have already left the barn. The trick now is to get business to support the new forms of security that should take their place.
Age-adjusted earnings raise constructively subversive questions. If big-company health plans today are really just socialized health republics, for example - in which the young subsidize the old while everyone pays identical premiums - why shouldn't this principle of risk pooling apply economy-wide?
Constant reminders of such anomalies may even lead business to see the wisdom of that ancient union article of faith: that businesses shouldn't be competing based on differences in benefits, but on differences in quality, efficiency, customer service - you know, actual performance.
300 million - and older and older
To be sure, not everyone will cheer the bigger role for government benefit financing that prolonged exposure to age-adjusted earnings will invariably promote. Including Gordon Bethune.
"I understand the concept you're talking about," Bethune told me, "but in fairness, nobody cares." Besides, he growls, "I don't like government at all."
Sorry, Gordon. That knee-jerk loathing on the part of CEOs will need to go the way of the defined-benefit plan if we're to provide the security workers deserve while getting unsustainable costs off of business. Who else is going to pick up the tab?
Charles Kolb, president of the Committee for Economic Development, the business-led think tank, says, "The notion of age-adjusted earnings could help spark that overdue conversation." Over to you, Nancy Pelosi.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy: There you go again; talking about how you have done so much for this country and therefore it is you who are so deserving, but not the Vietnam vets. No matter what, they are entitled to employment over foreigners but you just will not respond to that because you know it is so true. All you want to do is slam those heroes while you applaud yourself. That is most hypocritical.

However, vet or non vets, it makes no difference, its really just Americans verses foreigners and who should have a right to earn a living in this country. My vote is for Americans, but it seems that you are in favor of the foreigners, except of course you, I would expect.

Regarding my previous comments about replacements, I have only commented that when my replacement at the bottom of the whole food chain (the new-hire RJ FO at the Regionals) comes on board and a senior captain leaves, that that does not improve safety, it degrades it. When a fully qualified and capable captain with 40 years of aviation experience leaves the industry to work at Wal-Mart or where ever, that does not serve the public interest. It only serves the interest of you, again.

Now lets talk more about rights, again.

If you will, please consider that I am just like most any other American: I want to work and provide for my family. I do not want to become a burden on the PBGC, Social Security or any other government assistance program. I just want to work in my profession and pay taxes, as I have done all my life. My family includes my wife of 37-years, my 15-year old son and my wife’s 83-year old mother who all need my support. I also have two adult children.

When a man is denied his occupation he is thus being denied his ability to provide for his family. This is a denial of a basic human need and what should be a right in this country. This is a fate worse than death but you just can not understand that. To you it is just "get out of my seat" as was recently written by one of your like minded colleagues in USA Today.


Now, even though you and your like mined friends are what I call smart a$$es as I have commented before, that doesn't mean I don't like you. My comments are all just for this discussion and you are all still invited to fly with me to HNL for my little party at Chucks on January 26th. I want you all to know that I understand your feelings, I'm just trying to explain mine, if any of you want to listen.

 

[scarface]

Well, I am a Vietnam vet, without a purple heart(or North Vietnamese marksmanship award as the USMC called them) and I don 't think my military
service has anything to do with whether or not I should fly past 60. Talk about meandering thought streams.

 

[Andy]

Andy: There you go again; talking about how you have done so much for this country and therefore it is you who are so deserving, but not the Vietnam vets. No matter what, they are entitled to employment over foreigners but you just will not respond to that because you know it is so true. All you want to do is slam those heroes while you applaud yourself. That is most hypocritical.

I never said that Vietnam vets aren't deserving, but they are not in force debating this issue. How did you feel about the WW2 vets that you and the Vietnam vets replaced? Were they less deserving than you and the Vietnam vets?

Regarding my previous comments about replacements, I have only commented that when my replacement at the bottom of the whole food chain (the new-hire RJ FO at the Regionals) comes on board and a senior captain leaves, that that does not improve safety, it degrades it. When a fully qualified and capable captain with 40 years of aviation experience leaves the industry to work at Wal-Mart or where ever, that does not serve the public interest. It only serves the interest of you, again.

And a senior WW2 vet retired when you were hired at United at the highly experienced age of 22. Cue up the Lion King 'Cycle of Life' song. Are you saying that you were more safe at age 22 than a WW2 vet who reached age 60, whom you replaced?

If you will, please consider that I am just like most any other American: I want to work and provide for my family.

I do not want to become a burden on the PBGC, Social Security or any other government assistance program. I just want to work in my profession and pay taxes, as I have done all my life. My family includes my wife of 37-years, my 15-year old son and my wife’s 83-year old mother who all need my support. I also have two adult children.

Let's go through the list here:
PBGC - our (both yours and mine) pension funds were turned over to the PBGC. Those payments that you receive are your funds being returned to you. Likely less than the amount contributed to the fund on your behalf, so you've effectively shifted some of your pension over to some steelworker whose pension fund was taken over by the PBGC. There's no burden that you are placing on the PBGC; you are merely receiving benefits that you have earned.
Social Security - were you not planning on receiving Social Security? Again, an entitlement that you've funded for many years and will soon be eligible to receive.
Other government assistance - No worries; you won't be eligible for any other assistance.
I also have a family to support. I have a daughter who is a freshman in college - wants to be a doctor - and a 14 year old son. I've saved for their college out of a salary much lower than yours. Did you not prepare this eventual cost?
My wife supports her 60 year old mother who is not yet eligible for Social Security - your wife's mother is eligible; I'd bet that it's at a much higher level than my mother-in-law will ever receive.
Personal issues aside, this about safety.

When a man is denied his occupation he is thus being denied his ability to provide for his family.

This is a denial of a basic human need and what should be a right in this country. This is a fate worse than death but you just can not understand that. To you it is just "get out of my seat" as was recently written by one of your like minded colleagues in USA Today.

I was denied my occupation after 9/11 due to a cutback in block hours. I was further denied returning to my occupation for even longer due to my 'brothers' on property who chose to vote on a contract that allowed the company to fly the same block hours with 20+% less pilots. Know what? I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and made alternate plans. I survived, as will you.
This is not about 'get out of my seat,' as much as you would like to portray it that way. It is about safety. As much as you would like to argue otherwise, the statistical evidence indicates that, per 100,000 block hours, pilot safety decreases after age 55. That is the point where physiological aging outweighs any benefits of increased experience.

I want you all to know that I understand your feelings, I'm just trying to explain mine, if any of you want to listen.

I understand your feelings; I also understand that you refuse to push for an acceptable compromise solution. Why do none of you that wish to remain employed push for a gradual age change and moving to SIC after age 60? My compromise would solve all of the above cited by you. It would also have a chance of getting implemented, unlike the current proposal of remaining PIC until 65.

 

[Andy]

Well, I am a Vietnam vet, without a purple heart(or North Vietnamese marksmanship award as the USMC called them) and I don 't think my military
service has anything to do with whether or not I should fly past 60. Talk about meandering thought streams.

Thank you for your service. I enlisted in 1980; anti-military sentiment was on the wane, but I was still on the receiving end of some rants from those that we have served. My apologies for any negative treatment that you received from ungrateful citizens.
And I agree that military service is not germaine to this topic.

 

[GoodTimes]

UF,

How about a little volunteer work to ring in the new year. You know, help out those who have been a little less fortunate? Maybe it's time to focus the energy somewhere else. Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure you've got more to offer than just piloting experience.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

cost

How about some discussion on the cost associated by the companies relating to extending the age?

How about the complications keeping age 60 would solve relating to merging?

 

[Freight Dog]

Regarding my previous comments about replacements, I have only commented that when my replacement at the bottom of the whole food chain (the new-hire RJ FO at the Regionals) comes on board and a senior captain leaves, that that does not improve safety, it degrades it. When a fully qualified and capable captain with 40 years of aviation experience leaves the industry to work at Wal-Mart or where ever, that does not serve the public interest. It only serves the interest of you, again.

UF, you and I both know this is highly inflammatory. Regionals have been hiring FO's since they first came about. Your TRUE replacement is a B757/767 captain at UAL. Please acknowledge that because that is the case.

Now lets talk more about rights, again.

If you will, please consider that I am just like most any other American: I want to work and provide for my family. I do not want to become a burden on the PBGC, Social Security or any other government assistance program. I just want to work in my profession and pay taxes, as I have done all my life. My family includes my wife of 37-years, my 15-year old son and my wife’s 83-year old mother who all need my support. I also have two adult children.

When a man is denied his occupation he is thus being denied his ability to provide for his family. This is a denial of a basic human need and what should be a right in this country. This is a fate worse than death but you just can not understand that. To you it is just "get out of my seat" as was recently written by one of your like minded colleagues in USA Today.

Show me in the Constitution where your rights are being violated. Show me where it says you're ENTITLED to your seat. I can understand your worry about PBGC, SS, etc. But here's the thought... your needs are outweighed by the public needs/safety.

Here's what I don't understand... I'm a lowly B-737 FO. I'm making an OK living, but definitely less than you. How is it that I can put some money aside for retirement now and not even in 401(k), but other investments, and you a B-777 captain can't? To me that sounds like you have failed to plan for retirement, and it came to bite you in the ass. Your lack of planning is not a public emergency.

Now, even though you and your like mined friends are what I call smart a$$es as I have commented before, that doesn't mean I don't like you. My comments are all just for this discussion and you are all still invited to fly with me to HNL for my little party at Chucks on January 26th. I want you all to know that I understand your feelings, I'm just trying to explain mine, if any of you want to listen.

UF... I just saw one of our captains retire yesterday. This was the perfect guy who could easily go on to 65, sharp as a tack, and no he was very unhappy about leaving. But here's the thing... for every one of him, you have at least 5 or 6 who can't. Somewhere you have to draw the line for people to retire before they really start going downhill. That's the rationale for the rule. I sure don't want to be an FO on flights where captains are either fallen way behind the power curve all in the interest of them "not becoming a burden on PBGC" or worse... getting sick and declaring a medical emergency. Whether you want to admit it or not, but the likelihood of that increases with age.

Don't wait for the rule to change, and then be like oh sh*t! Now what? If you've already screwed the pooch by not saving money so you'd never be a burden on PBGC... start applying now to places like NetJets, Flexjet, CitationShares, etc. The worst that can happen to you is you'd have to turn down jobs. I don't know where you live, but start visiting some charter outfits in your area that fly bizjets. Check out PARC. They hire crews over 60. Get a head start now... you have a month and a half to line up another job.

 

[Andy]

If you've already screwed the pooch by not saving money so you'd never be a burden on PBGC... start applying now to places like NetJets, Flexjet, CitationShares, etc. The worst that can happen to you is you'd have to turn down jobs. I don't know where you live, but start visiting some charter outfits in your area that fly bizjets. Check out PARC. They hire crews over 60. Get a head start now... you have a month and a half to line up another job.

Ah, but this is really about UF vacating the left seat of a 777, not about having the opportunity to work past 60. We all know that he can find work somewhere else. He can even continue working at United; just not in the left seat of a 777.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Another point to Consider

The Anatomy of an Irresolvable Dilemma

A Call for an Ethical Framework of Behavior


Robert J. Lavender ©2006​

In my opinion, we are currently witnessing the expansion of an irresolvable dilemma in the handling of the Age 60 rule—an issue that, if left unattended, is bound to further weaken the hand of pilots in determining their future.

​

If there ever was a “righteous” strike, it has to be the one conducted by the pilots at Continental Airlines against Continental management from 1983 through 1985. The management team led by Frank Lorenzo is now universally acknowledged as one of the most corrupt and incompetent in the history of the transportation industry. So bad was it that Lorenzo was eventually found “unfit” to operate an airline by the Department of Transportation.

The question is: If things were so bad at Continental that they precipitated a strike that lasted for two years, at the end of which nearly 75% of the strikers were still out, why, then, did 450 former Braniff pilots…ALPA “brethren,” if you will…quickly cross the ALPA picket line to take the jobs of the striking Continental pilots?

The answer is two-fold: First, the Braniff pilots, many of whom were in their mid-forties to mid-fifties, were faced with the choice of either going to work for another major airline at “new-hire” wages (that would not feed their families), or going to work for Frank Lorenzo at $43,000 per year—peanuts, but better than the alternative.

The second and, possibly, more damaging reason was that the Braniff pilots felt deeply abandoned by their fellow ALPA pilots and, therefore, no longer loyal to the fraternity. This feeling existed because when Braniff was in financial distress and sold its South American routes and some aircraft to Eastern Airlines, the Eastern pilots refused to integrate the Braniff pilots into the Eastern seniority list. At least, that was the perception. Thus, when Braniff failed, many pilots felt that they had no professional hope other than to take the best deal available to them as individuals. Given their perspective on the matter, cries for solidarity with the Continental pilots meant nothing.

That the Braniff pilots felt betrayed is not in dispute; at one point, many of them even sported flight-bag stickers that read, “Furloughed by ALPA.” Nor in dispute is the fact that their choices were severely limited by ALPA’s failure to seek modification of the pre-deregulation salary “system.” The tradition of paying new-hires very low salaries just did not work in the new environment where new-hires might be 40 to 55 year old experienced aviators with kids in college. Sensing that their obligations to their families overrode all other concerns, the Braniff pilots considered their strike-breaking actions to be ethically justifiable. Of course, the perspective of the striking Continental pilots was quite the opposite.

In effect, by relying on traditional seniority and salary paradigms, ALPA ended up creating a labor pool of disaffected pilots—pilots who felt they had been treated unfairly and who were prepared to extract their “fair share” as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The rest is history: Lorenzo was able to continue flying the airline, and all Continental pilots were subject to his domination and influence for years.

The irresolvable dilemma for the piloting profession was that once pilots had become disaffected and disloyal to their fellow aviators, there was no turning back. Short of restoring jobs, “seniority,” and higher salary levels to the strike-breakers—items over which the union had no short term control—there was nothing that could be done by ALPA to alter the course of events. The Braniff pilots who crossed the line had become the mortal enemies of all other ALPA and non-ALPA pilots in the U.S., and nothing could stop it. Of course, in the minds of the former Braniff pilots it was “ALPA” that had become their mortal enemy…a classic example of an irresolvable dilemma.

A Blast from the Present​

Fast forward to the year 2006. Déjà vu. This time it is about “Age 60.”

Currently, an FAA regulation known as the Age 60 rule prevents certain pilots past the age of 60 from flying aircraft of U.S. registry. Some pilots wish to keep the Rule. They feel it is in their best economic interest to move up in seniority position by catapulting pilots who reach the age of 60 from their jobs, whether they want to leave or not. Currently, the Rule is under dispute because many pilots desire to work longer.

Just as the Eastern pilots risked ignoring the needs of their future strike-breaking Braniff counterparts (who they thought they would never hear from again), the profession again incurs risk in putting skilled pilots prematurely out of work. In a manner that is very similar to the experience of 20 years ago, pilots who are forced to leave the cockpit because of what they perceive as unfair treatment and archaic union policy represent a pool of skilled and capable aviators who are poised and motivated to act as soon as conditions permit.

The irresolvable dilemma is not the Age 60 rule, itself, for that is easily resolved. No, the dilemma lies in the problems that result from not aligning individual perspectives on the Rule. If pilots had a system of compensation and work rules that was seen as fair across the spectrum of the seniority list, there would be no cause to remove a fellow worker in order to take over his position. Unfortunately, the system, both in terms of cash and working conditions, is not seen as economically fair. But, instead of solving the root fairness problems, many pilots through their union have chosen to simply pour hundreds (soon to be, thousands) of skilled aviators into the pool of potential adversaries who are waiting only for the opportunity to again support their families.

From a purely economic standpoint, I believe that assessment of the risk of preserving the Age 60 rule intact involves two primary questions: First, will the Rule ever change? And, second, if the Rule does change, will there ever again be a need to conduct a job action against any employer? If the answer to either of these questions is “yes,” then the risk of amassing a pool of thousands of pilots who, from their own perspective, are justified in crossing an ALPA picket line, may be very significant.

Perhaps, in the early 1980s, when the effects of deregulation were still being learned, there was some excuse for ignoring the plight of fellow workers such as the laid-off Braniff pilots. Maybe the decision of the American pilots to bow to management initiative and accept the professionally ruinous A, B, and C pay scales can even be explained away. But there is no justification in 2006 for an entire profession to again set itself up for the consequences of such shortsightedness.

There is a high degree of probability that the Age 60 rule will change within a few years, not because of ALPA, but in spite of it. And, if experience is any indicator, the perceptions that are presently being created will not fade from the minds of those affected. In other words, the dilemma is now in effect and the bleeding has begun. It seems to me that ALPA members have enough to worry about in coping with hostile corporate executives as they attempt to make up for past concessions. What they need to decide now is if they want the additional burden of dealing with merely hundreds of disaffected pilots when the Age 60 plug is pulled…or, thousands.

Bob lavender is a FedEx pilot, a former Continental pilot, and is the owner of a nationwide real estate referral business. He lives in Provo, Utah.

1 December 2006

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The Aviation Rule Making Committee (ARC) with regard to the Age-60 rule was mostly divided in their findings. The committee represented a group of opposites; considering that, the outcome is not a surprise. However, the 5,728 submissions by the public speak volumes about the need for change to this rule. The comments were almost 20 to 1 in favor of change and the sparse 350 or so comments that were opposed to change were only able to present anecdotal evidence.

The Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA) represents the “Gold Standard” in aviation medicine. CAMA represents the most experienced practitioners in Civil Aviation Medicine in the USA. CAMA has commented: “The Civil Aviation Medical Association supports the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) position and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 rule.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf

Dr. Claus Curdt-Christiansen, former Chief of Aviation Medicine for ICAO in his report to the FAA ARC, concludes that by changing to the ICAO standard, “The high level of flight safety, for which the United States is known, will be maintained or perhaps even further increased.” Dr. Christiansen also comments: “It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the new upper age (ICAO) Standard provides for a level of safety at least equal to that of the current Age 60 rule.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/425073_web.pdf

Robert Land, representing the airline industry and Jet Blue Airways commented: “Jet Blue Airways supports the immediate repeal of the age 60 retirement rule.” He also states, “Senior pilots enjoy flying and should not be arbitrarily deprived of their livelihood…..We look to our senior pilots to instill us all with their passion for aviation and customer service. Our company thrives on their passion for excellence.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424642_web.pdf

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also taken a position on the Age 60-rule. “The Commission strongly encourages the FAA to lift the Age 60 Rule. Medical and proficiency tests on an individual basis are effective and non-discriminatory ways to ensure that commercial pilots maintain the highest standards of safety for all ages. Moreover, far from being a liability, having older pilots in the cockpit may enhance aviation safety, as the practical experience of these pilots has great value in a profession calling for complex and split-second decisions.” http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/429681_web.pdf

AARP, composed of 37 million members, has voiced a need for this country to harmonize with the rest of the world on age 60. AARP represents the interests of Americans over the age of 50, half of which are working full or part time. AARP has commented: “The age 60 rule should be eliminated: It discriminates against pilots on the basis of age and no job qualification justifies its existence…..at the very least, we urge the FAA to conform to the ICAO standards as a first step in eliminating arbitrary age-based mandatory retirement for commercial airline pilots." http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/429495_web.pdf

The facts, as submitted to the ARC, clearly show the over age 60 pilots to be safer than the younger pilots. Of all age categories, the youngest pilots are the most likely to be involved in an accident or incident.

ALPA's new president, John Prater, has said we should harmonize with ICAO on age 65.


From the ARC and the submissions received, change will come sooner rather than later.

 

[Andy]

The Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA) represents the “Gold Standard” in aviation medicine.

"Gold Standard"? BS. Cite a few reputable sources who have stated that CAMA is the "Gold Standard". Stop making this stuff up as you go along; Cliff Claven made up less stuff than you.

The facts, as submitted to the ARC, clearly show the over age 60 pilots to be safer than the younger pilots. Of all age categories, the youngest pilots are the most likely to be involved in an accident or incident.

Facts? I'm sure that the ARC reviewed the CAMI reports in detail. They show that pilots are considerably less safe above the age of 60 per 100,000 flight hours. The pro-change crowd continually points to statistics based on accidents per pilot, not per flight hour. GIGO


This is a dead issue. Move on with your life; it ain't going to change anytime soon. Bank on it. Klako was smart enough to realize this.
First, you make a plea based on the same personal crap the rest of us have experienced in life. Boo hoo. Now instead of responding to MANY questions that were asked of you, you choose to post a bunch of immaterial jibberish. How predictable of you.

Andy: There you go again; talking about how you have done so much for this country and therefore it is you who are so deserving

Reviewing a post by UF this AM, I would like to point out to everyone the absolutely preposterous statement by UF, quoted above.
I am not the one who is pushing to change the rules for my personal benefit. I did not bring up my military service record; I only responded to UF's attacks on my service to this country.
I have not asked for any special favors or rule changes; my only desire is to maintain the status quo. UF, WTF makes YOU so deserving?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

You may be very surprised in the next few days. Things are happening very fast.

As they say, it ain't over till it's over.

And Andy: I suppose you think that Dr. Claus Curdt-Christiansen knows nothing too. It is only you that has all the answers, right?

So my question to you is just when do you think the age will change. Next week, next month, next year, in a few years, or only when you are age 59?

 

[Andy]

You may be very surprised in the next few days. Things are happening very fast.

De Nile. Not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't understand that piece by Bob Lavender. I respect the strikers so I won't disparage him.

However.....That guy had a DOH at CAL and was given a seniority list. His staffing, schedule, pay and retirement were all based on that date. I got the same thing from CAL. Now when a bunch of opportunist pilots separated him from his career progression he cursed the air they breathed, put their names on a list, and probably wouldn't let them ride a jumpseat to this day! I'm sure, he still hates them! Fast forward to today: I'm looking at no less than the same thing happening if the age changes, BUT, I'm supposed to be happy about it! I'm supposed to enjoy hundreds of pilots sitting in the seat I'm supposed to be in, on the day I'm supposed to be seated in it according to this same guy?! Am I reading this right? Look, I can deal with adversity, but what I DO NOT understand is how it was SO wrong for these guys to see their seniority under attack, but it's supposed to be OK if it's me and my contemporaries? Yes, a strike has different emotions, but it boils down to seniority.

Another thing: Events of the last five years have negatively affected the careers of a lot more pilots than Lorenzo ever did. All pilots have been affected, but not equally. If you've been fairly senior at your company for the last 20 years, insisting on another 5 years of being senior, is too much.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

If you've been fairly senior at your company for the last 20 years, insisting on another 5 years of being senior, is too much.

But it's OK for you if you're 59 when the rule changes, right?

 

[Falconjet]

I don't understand that piece by Bob Lavender. I respect the strikers so I won't disparage him.

However.....That guy had a DOH at CAL and was given a seniority list. His staffing, schedule, pay and retirement were all based on that date. I got the same thing from CAL. Now when a bunch of opportunist pilots separated him from his career progression he cursed the air they breathed, put their names on a list, and probably wouldn't let them ride a jumpseat to this day! I'm sure, he still hates them! Fast forward to today: I'm looking at no less than the same thing happening if the age changes, BUT, I'm supposed to be happy about it! I'm supposed to enjoy hundreds of pilots sitting in the seat I'm supposed to be in, on the day I'm supposed to be seated in it according to this same guy?! Am I reading this right? Look, I can deal with adversity, but what I DO NOT understand is how it was SO wrong for these guys to see their seniority under attack, but it's supposed to be OK if it's me and my contemporaries? Yes, a strike has different emotions, but it boils down to seniority.

Another thing: Events of the last five years have negatively affected the careers of a lot more pilots than Lorenzo ever did. All pilots have been affected, but not equally. If you've been fairly senior at your company for the last 20 years, insisting on another 5 years of being senior, is too much.

Bob Lavender is the burning bush of aviation and preaches to any and all about the impending train wreck that is the Age 60 rule. Now mind you that he can't articulate a single fact or idea what that train wreck will be (except that he will have to retire someday), but he is certain that he knows all and a train wreck is indeed coming.

He is so certain that he knows all of this that he quit the union, took his little ball and went home. Good for him. But don't waste your time trying to make any sense out of the rubbish he publishes, there isn't any.

And UF, you sir, are a tremendous dou-chebag who doesn't even deserve to smell one of Andy's farts. You have demonstrated yourself to be one of the most self-interested, self-absorbed and condescending windbags on this forum, and that is saying quite a bit. Congrats.

FJ