Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

Then the FAA mulls over the report, issues the NPRM for public comment if needed, etc. This gives Congress a perfect excuse, if they want one, to duck the issue until next year, and perhaps indefinitely.

All of you junior ALPA and APA guys need a reality check. Extending the mandatory retirement age to 65 is in the ultimate best interest of every Part 121 pilot. In the future you will all want to have that choice of retiring at age 60 or continuing to fly to age 65. The reality is that most pilots will not be able to afford retiring early at age 60.

Since it’s inception, “The Age 60 Rule” has been a perpetual curse on the airline industry. The primary reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA and APA as they continue to block a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with their lobbying efforts in Congress. The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. The rule can only be abolished if the pilot groups under age 50 redirect their political power that they are able to maintain through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. Junior pilots view the forced retirement of all pilots over the age of 60 as essential to their career progression. The majority will always have command of a system that maintains it's advantage by perpetuating a system that continually eliminates competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 50 finally come to the realization that the “Age 60 Rule” will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.

Wake up to reality, write your Senators and Representatives in Congress and urge them to support extending the Part 121 retirement age to age 65. Now may be the very last chance that we will all have to change this stupid age 60 rule.

 

[General Lee]

All of you junior ALPA and APA guys need a reality check. Extending the mandatory retirement age to 65 is in the ultimate best interest of every Part 121 pilot. In the future you will all want to have that choice of retiring at age 60 or continuing to fly to age 65. The reality is that most pilots will not be able to afford retiring early at age 60.

Since it’s inception, “The Age 60 Rule” has been a perpetual curse on the airline industry. The primary reason why the “Age 60 Rule” is still around today is because of the persistent opposition from ALPA and APA as they continue to block a change to the “Age 60 Rule” through their political influence within the FAA along with their lobbying efforts in Congress. The motive behind ALPA and APA resisting a change to the “Age 60 Rule” reflects the “me now” attitude of their junior pilots. The rule can only be abolished if the pilot groups under age 50 redirect their political power that they are able to maintain through the forced retirement of pilots over age 60. Junior pilots view the forced retirement of all pilots over the age of 60 as essential to their career progression. The majority will always have command of a system that maintains it's advantage by perpetuating a system that continually eliminates competition from the minority. When pilots over the age of 50 finally come to the realization that the “Age 60 Rule” will adversely impact the remainder of their lives, it is too late as they are now members of the minority and have little power to effect a change.

Wake up to reality, write your Senators and Representatives in Congress and urge them to support extending the Part 121 retirement age to age 65. Now may be the very last chance that we will all have to change this stupid age 60 rule.

No, this about safety and seat movement. The senior guys want to fly longer to get them to social security age, even though they played by the rules all along, watching all of their Captains move on at 60, allowing them to move up to the left seat. Safety is an issue that really shows itself in the latter 50s, and that has been proven in tests. I noticed on our ALPA website a posting that stated the new rules in Britain allow pilots to fly to 62, but after age 60 they move to the right seat, allowing seat progression. They still get to fund their 401Ks while waiting for social security (in our case). Sounds like a plan, and the Brits are doing it right now. If any Captain disagrees with this, then he/she is showing their true intentions---total greed. They knew the rules when they signed up for this job. Sorry. We have had over age 60 guys in the cockpit (FEs-ROPES)--and they had to be monitored. They should not be captains. Our current Captains accepted the ROPES when they were FEs, they should understand moving over to the right seat, unless they are greedy and power hungry. At least they would be able to add to their 401Ks....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[NoJoy]

i agree 100% with the above statement. Everyone knew the rules when they signed up for 121 flying. One of the reasons many got excited about hiring opportunities was so many pilots retireing ahead of them. Plus if you have been with a somewhat high paying airline for 25-30+ years, you made more than enough $ to build a nice portfolio. Those who chose not to have a second retirement option, or worse, put themselves in a finantial position to have no retirement $ have only themselves to blaim. Another 5 years flying will not save them.

 

[se1776]

hell no

 

[Flybynite]

i agree 100% with the above statement. Everyone knew the rules when they signed up for 121 flying..

I don't understand this "everyone knew the rules". It is an FAR, a law. FAR's and laws change all the time as does everything else in this world. So according to this logic when something is established it should never change. Navigators used to be part of this industry, who stuck up for them. What about the F/E position? Three man cockpits were the law, according to this logic the 757 should have an engineer. Could you guys just admit it is greed? You feel cheated because it will take you a bit longer to get to the left seat, senior or whatever. It has nothing to do with whats fair, it is all about you. Could you guys just admit that?

 

[ERJFO]

My the reply from my Senator:

"Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Thank you for contacting me about legislation to change the retirement age restrictions for airline pilots. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and regret the delayed response.

As you may know, in 1960 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposed a rule (14 C.F.R. 121.383) establishing an upper age limit on pilots of large commercial aircraft. The rule prohibits pilots aged 60 years or older from serving as captain or co-ca ptain of a commercial aircraft that carries more than 30 passengers.

On January 24, 2005 Senator James Inhofe introduced a bill (S. 65) to remove this mandatory retirement requirement from federal aviation law. Specifically, this bill would prohibit airl ines from requiring pilots to retire prior to reaching their Social Security retirement age. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

On November 17, 2005, the committee reviewed a substitute amendment of S .65 offered by Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT). Like S.65, the substitute would allow pilots to fly up to age 65. However, the amendment differs from the original bill in that it would follow a proposed International Civil Aviation Organization standard, whi ch requires that at least one pilot in the cockpit be age 60 or younger, if the Organization adopts the proposed standard in November 2006. The committee ordered S.65 as amended to be reported out favorably by voice vote. It is now awaiting further actio n on the Senate floor.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) previously introduced a form of S.65 in 2003, when he offered Senate Amendment 896 to the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act (S.824) . The amendment failed by a vote of 52 to 44. I voted aga inst the Inhofe amendment because I believe that the FAA should make the determination of mandatory retirement ages based primarily on safety considerations. Though I have voted to keep the mandatory retirement age in place before, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should S.65 come to a final vote in the 109 th Congress.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me . Please don't hesitate to contact me if I may be of any assistance in the future.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator"

 

[jbDC9]

No, this about safety and seat movement. The senior guys want to fly longer to get them to social security age, even though they played by the rules all along, watching all of their Captains move on at 60, allowing them to move up to the left seat.

Nice try GL, but Klako either doesn't wanna hear it or is too stupid to understand it. This fact has been thrown out there many times through these 51 pages and not once has he even acknowleged the fact that most senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list. He just ignores it and keeps on cutting and pasting the same old articles and the posting the same old paragraphs over and over again.

 

[Klako]

Nice try GL, but Klako either doesn't wanna hear it or is too stupid to understand it. This fact has been thrown out there many times through these 51 pages and not once has he even acknowleged the fact that most senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list. He just ignores it and keeps on cutting and pasting the same old articles and the posting the same old paragraphs over and over again.

I have been fighting to change this absurd "Age 60 Rule" since 1965 when I helped my next door neighbor who was a Western Captain involved with ALPA and their effort to abolish the age 60 rule. ALPA tried to abolish the rule for over 20 years until ALPA was overcome with greedy junior pilots.

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:
“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA now has institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

One would have to beg answers these questions:
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?

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!”

Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA have been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots.

In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson: “I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “ I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

I now fly for the best regional airline in the USA. I chose my company over a major airline for many reasons, most important was the fact that my company then had a very successful Part 135 operation allowing me to fly until I was 65. Then in 1995 the FAA forced us to convert to Part 121. There are too many such situations where pilots have been traped by rule changes, one way or another, that screwed up their careers. I don't even want to read any more C%#&P that "senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule as they moved up the list".

Seniority is like property, you cannot have what is not yours unless you earn it fair and square, not at the expense of others.

When I hired on with my company, about 90% of the pilots senior to me were younger than I was. I upgraded not out of the forced retirement of those senior to me but through expansion.

It is a disgusting situation when a labor unions such as ALPA and APA could dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire. The crybabies at ALPA and APA who fear the loss of their precious “Age 60 Rule”, make more than most regional captains. Most regionals do not have a pension plan, only a 401K and I can tell you that most of our senior pilots are forced into poverty on their 60th birthday. The only hope for most of our pilots approaching age 60 to survive in retirement is for them to be able to fly until age 65. Our union does not support the age 60 rule and never will.
If the junior pilots of today want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then those junior pilots must understand that this change must happen NOW.

 

[mdf]

"One would have to beg answers these questions:
When did younger pilots became more valuable than experienced pilots?"

As I have stated before, I am nuetral on the issue. I can't see getting hyped over it. I have been reading this, and other threads for entertainment only. I will say that I am sick of seeing the above argument. You guys that use it only make yourselves sound like pompous windbags. I would stick with discrimination because that is the viable leg to stand on.

 

[Flopgut]

I don't understand this "everyone knew the rules". It is an FAR, a law. FAR's and laws change all the time as does everything else in this world. So according to this logic when something is established it should never change. Navigators used to be part of this industry, who stuck up for them. What about the F/E position? Three man cockpits were the law, according to this logic the 757 should have an engineer. Could you guys just admit it is greed? You feel cheated because it will take you a bit longer to get to the left seat, senior or whatever. It has nothing to do with whats fair, it is all about you. Could you guys just admit that?

Hold on, your saying that it is "greed personified" if a pilot advocates, for themselves and for those who come after them, adhearance to a rule that's been in place for most who came before them? Conversely, you asert it's the "complete absence" of greed for a small group to make a claim on extra seniority for themselves in a way that has not occured before, and will never occur again?

Why don't you admit you are morbidly confused about what greed is.