Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Age 60 informal poll
- Thread starter 71KILO
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
FlyBoeingJets
YES, that's NICE
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1,802
Interesting issue--
If age 65, or some version of increased age, were passed tommorrow....
1) Hiring at many airlines would stop entirely or slow down
2) Furloughed folks would wait longer
3) Safety is indeed an issue. The age 60 rule may not have been about safety to begin with, but it is the cheap option to (mostly) ensure it. We all know older pilots who are barely hanging on. Many others are doing great, but how do you differentiate without lawsuits and letting bad apples slip thru the cracks??
On the flip side
1) The PBGC does not do payouts at age 60. It's against regulations. Nevermind the people involved are getting hurt by conflicting government regulations.
2) Social Security is geared to not pay out at 60 either. Both of these are unfair because it is hard to find similar work at 60. Lucrative airline pensions were made to compensate for this issue
3) What about the freedom to work in America? We all compete in America and to be artifically taken out of the workplace that we worked hard to secure a place in is, indeed, unfair to the individual and goes against what America stands for. At least what we are told to believe it stands for.
Over 60 to FO is a viable option but the negatives to other groups right now is a huge stumbling block. Any graduated or grandfathered option will open the floodgates to lawsuits. Leaving 60 alone is the easier option. But the government is not helping those retiring at 60 who are waiting on Social Security and the PBGC. If you stop a moment and forget those retiring rich at 60 and think about those hurting at 60 because they were at companies that did unethical things, the forced "retirement" (read jobless before official retirement age) looks incredibly unfair.
What ought to happen, but won't, is the government to find a way to dock execs at companies who screwed the older guys by pushing pensions to the PBGC. This won't happen. It didn't happen in the 80's and '90s and won't happen now.
Also, employees at MCI Worldcom, Enron, steel companies and others have faced similar "stealing" of their pensions with no real reaction from the government. The changes created "bold, new companies" and opportunities for American style capitolism.
The humanity! This is the dark side of capitolism. A few get their big bucks and big retirements while many others get empty promises and money taken away with breathtaking speed. We've all got to put as much away as we can now so when a rug is pulled out from us we can adjust. That is America.
I hate to side with the others Klako, but you are one of many that does not have a good lobby in congress. Can we change that?? I hope so.
IMHO, this is a social issue now. Not a right or wrong for the individual issue. And the government doesn't want to open the door on increasing PBGC, Social Security, or Medicare costs for any reason. That is why over 60 got rolling as far as it has, but the possible political fallout from passing it (job creation or safety) may stall it out.
If age 65, or some version of increased age, were passed tommorrow....
1) Hiring at many airlines would stop entirely or slow down
2) Furloughed folks would wait longer
3) Safety is indeed an issue. The age 60 rule may not have been about safety to begin with, but it is the cheap option to (mostly) ensure it. We all know older pilots who are barely hanging on. Many others are doing great, but how do you differentiate without lawsuits and letting bad apples slip thru the cracks??
On the flip side
1) The PBGC does not do payouts at age 60. It's against regulations. Nevermind the people involved are getting hurt by conflicting government regulations.
2) Social Security is geared to not pay out at 60 either. Both of these are unfair because it is hard to find similar work at 60. Lucrative airline pensions were made to compensate for this issue
3) What about the freedom to work in America? We all compete in America and to be artifically taken out of the workplace that we worked hard to secure a place in is, indeed, unfair to the individual and goes against what America stands for. At least what we are told to believe it stands for.
Over 60 to FO is a viable option but the negatives to other groups right now is a huge stumbling block. Any graduated or grandfathered option will open the floodgates to lawsuits. Leaving 60 alone is the easier option. But the government is not helping those retiring at 60 who are waiting on Social Security and the PBGC. If you stop a moment and forget those retiring rich at 60 and think about those hurting at 60 because they were at companies that did unethical things, the forced "retirement" (read jobless before official retirement age) looks incredibly unfair.
What ought to happen, but won't, is the government to find a way to dock execs at companies who screwed the older guys by pushing pensions to the PBGC. This won't happen. It didn't happen in the 80's and '90s and won't happen now.
Also, employees at MCI Worldcom, Enron, steel companies and others have faced similar "stealing" of their pensions with no real reaction from the government. The changes created "bold, new companies" and opportunities for American style capitolism.
The humanity! This is the dark side of capitolism. A few get their big bucks and big retirements while many others get empty promises and money taken away with breathtaking speed. We've all got to put as much away as we can now so when a rug is pulled out from us we can adjust. That is America.
I hate to side with the others Klako, but you are one of many that does not have a good lobby in congress. Can we change that?? I hope so.
IMHO, this is a social issue now. Not a right or wrong for the individual issue. And the government doesn't want to open the door on increasing PBGC, Social Security, or Medicare costs for any reason. That is why over 60 got rolling as far as it has, but the possible political fallout from passing it (job creation or safety) may stall it out.
Last edited:
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
· Age is not a safety a risk factor. There is no credible information available that supports the notion that airline pilots over age 60 pose more of a safety risk than younger pilots. There are, however, numerous credible reports supporting a ban on the FAA’s arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law. Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL" as "safety" can no longer be used as a valid argument against changing the "Age 60 Rule Increasing the “Age 60 Rule” to age 65.
I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:
1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202
Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.
By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.
2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.
3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”
4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”
5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.
6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”
7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.
We continue to find increasing evidence that this age 60 issue for pilots is certainly not one of safety. Safety is an exaggerated smokescreen that opponents of amending the rule use to subvert the truth. Opponents of a change have routinely waived the red flag of ‘safety’ in order to score debate points. Who, after all, can be against safety? Interestingly, the FAA grants exemptions for pilots who have had head injuries, seizures, alcohol and drug dependency, heart attacks and bypass surgery. All of these can be and are forgiven after cognitive testing but NEVER has there been an exemption for the simple fact of being one day older than 59, that magic age of 60 that somehow means a seasoned pilot no is longer fit to perform in a lifelong skill.
The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006. The Burns substitute amendment to The U.S. Senate Bill S. 65, if voted into law by the U.S. Congress, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter.
I would like to cite just a few of the numerous reports supporting a ban on the arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law, including:
1. A report published by Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002 Mar; 73(3): 194-202
Subject: The age 60 rule: Age discrimination in commercial aviation.
By: Wilkening R
Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
CONCLUSION: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.
2. A prominent study of age and airline pilots, the Hilton Study. The study “supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible…” and found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” The report concluded that the age for airline pilots could safely be raised.
3. Dr. Susan Baker, of Johns Hopkins University, wrote: “…there is no scientific evidence to support the Age 60 Rule. From 1991 until 1993, I served on a panel of experts appointed by the FAA to oversee the FAA-sponsored research by Hilton Systems. This research, at a cost of well over a million dollars, found no basis for the Age 60 Rule and recommended that the age limit be increased…I would rather fly with my life in the hands of a 64 year old captain than with a 29 year old pilot flying as captain.”
4. Dr. Stacy Vereen of the Civil Aviation Medical Association wrote that the association “supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 [airline pilots] should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.”
5. A scholarly treatise by Dr. Robin Wilkening. The publication Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine ran her paper one year ago. It remains the single best and most comprehensive document pertaining to the Age 60 Rule. It does, by the way, conclude that the Age 60 Rule is blatant age discrimination.
6. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 2002, pp. 194-202.
Report No.: R0340302. “The Age 60 Rule remains a most contentious and politically sensitive topic, with challenges to the Rule currently mounted in both legislative and legal arenas. Methods: An extensive review of the medical literature was accomplished using MEDLINE. Pertinent Federal Regulations were examined. Legal proceedings and public domain documents were noted. Letters and personal communication were solicited where necessary information could not be ascertained by other means. Results: The Age 60 Rule was not based on any scientific data showing that airline pilots aged 60 and older were any less safe than younger pilots, and there is evidence to indicate that the choice of age 60 was actually based on economic rather than safety considerations. Airline pilots consistently exceed general population norms for longevity, physical health, and mental abilities. Fear of an adverse pilot health event causing a crash in standard multi-crew operations is not justified. For decades, airline pilots under age 60 have been granted the means to demonstrate their fitness for flying by taking medical, cognitive, and performance evaluations that are denied to airline pi1ots when they reach age 60. Actual flight experience demonstrates that older pilots are as safe as younger pilots. International aviation experience indicates that abolishing the Age 60 Rule will not compromise aviation safety. Conclusion: There appears to be no medical, scientific, or safety justification for the Age 60 Rule. As such, perpetuation of the Age 60 Rule, where age alone is used as the single criterion of older pilot fitness, represents age discrimination in commercial aviation.”
7. After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone, published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.
We continue to find increasing evidence that this age 60 issue for pilots is certainly not one of safety. Safety is an exaggerated smokescreen that opponents of amending the rule use to subvert the truth. Opponents of a change have routinely waived the red flag of ‘safety’ in order to score debate points. Who, after all, can be against safety? Interestingly, the FAA grants exemptions for pilots who have had head injuries, seizures, alcohol and drug dependency, heart attacks and bypass surgery. All of these can be and are forgiven after cognitive testing but NEVER has there been an exemption for the simple fact of being one day older than 59, that magic age of 60 that somehow means a seasoned pilot no is longer fit to perform in a lifelong skill.
The rest of the world does not see piloting an airliner past the age of 60 as a safety issue. Most of the world is moving to a retirement age of 65 for airline pilots. Japan and the Netherlands, to name but two, have done extensive studies which showed raising an airline pilot’s age is not a risk. Countries such as Japan, Australia, those of the Joint Aviation Authority in Europe...all have raised their pilots’ retirement age. Some 45 nations now allow their airline pilots to fly past the age of 60. Some of these pilots do so in United States airspace. The International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, Secretariat has now recommended a new upper age limit, with restriction to multi-crew, of 65 years. This recommendation is based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006. The Burns substitute amendment to The U.S. Senate Bill S. 65, if voted into law by the U.S. Congress, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter.
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
Klako said:
How can you say this? Can you agree that a 99 year old is almost definitely more likely to have age-related performance problems in an aircraft than a 50 year old? Can you agree then that there is a "performance continuum" that says as age increases performance decreases? How do we define that very subjective line in the sand when someone is 'too' slow to effectively operate an aircraft? We can't leave it to the AME's because we all know that there are very wide standards on what constitutes passing a Class I physical. What is your solution? You seem very good at cutting-and-pasting information from other sources, but what do you propose as a solution to this issue? One that is fair to all involved.
Sluggo_63 said:
Well come on now, Dr. Susan Baker would rather fly with a 64 year old captain than a 29 year old captain. What more solid evidence do you need?
Seriously though, by listening to alot of these proponents of change, you'd think we are all still the studs we used to be 15, 20,30 and more years ago. Yep, they all have plenty of wonks to quote.
Last edited:
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
Curses
Klako: "Dang it, I moved up another 15 numbers... I wish these old guys would stick around longer, so I can hang out on reserve longer."
Klako: "Crap! If these guys keep leaving, I'll be a Captain before too long. I hope that doesn't happen for another 10 years"
Klako: "Man! I can't believe I'm a Captain already. I wish I had more time in the right seat to glean more wisdom from my 59 year old buddies. I wish they could hang out longer."
...yeah I curse it too...
I'm sure you cursed it every month when 60 year old pilots left and you rose in seniority.Klako said:
Klako: "Dang it, I moved up another 15 numbers... I wish these old guys would stick around longer, so I can hang out on reserve longer."
Klako: "Crap! If these guys keep leaving, I'll be a Captain before too long. I hope that doesn't happen for another 10 years"
Klako: "Man! I can't believe I'm a Captain already. I wish I had more time in the right seat to glean more wisdom from my 59 year old buddies. I wish they could hang out longer."
...yeah I curse it too...
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Sluggo_63 said:
Some of you Junior guys have got to get it out of your selfish heads that the forced retirement of older pilots is your guaranteed path and a God given right to promotions up the seniority list. No one should have the right to steal my job, including the government, just because I celebrate my 60th birthday. The cursed "Age 60" rule must be abolished. It is just plain f%^*@!g wrong!
The crap about safety is total BS and everyone knows that.
Senate Bill S.65 has an excellent chance of passing and if it dose, everyone will ultimately benefit from it.
ToThePain
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2005
- Posts
- 83
Klako et all,
I do not have a huge bone to pick with you regarding this potential law change. I do have a couple points to make. Is the age 60 law discrimination? Yes, it is. There are plenty of pilots over the age of 60 that can still fly. (there are also plenty in their 50's who have no business flying, are you willing to vote them out of their jobs?) I do find it curious that you among others support the new ICAO rules that allow over 60 to fly, AS LONG as they have someone under the age of 60 to fly with them. Why is this, if they are ok to fly over 60 then they are ok to fly, why do they need a sitter? It is also a valid point that the senior people at the airlines have been elevated to their position as a direct result of this law. They have had the benefit to an early upgrade that they wish to deny their "juniors". I don't want to work till 65, I have planned and been saving since I was 22 to retire at 60, before I even imagined and airline career. I won't even get into the arguement (though it is somewhat valid) regarding earlier upgrades and compounded interest as a result of addition funds in 401K's that the company puts away for you and its affect over 20 years.
Lets ask some other valid question. Is there a minimum age to work with most airlines? Yes, most airlines require you to be 23. Why? A new hire is going to be put with a senior guy in any case so his/her age should have no bearing. This too is discrimination. How many are hired at major airlines less that 27 years of age? Very few, in fact most are near the age of 30. How many airlines require you or strongly request you to have a college degree? Most if not all and for what reason? Does it require a college degree to fly an airplane or make you a better pilot? I think not. Is this too a form of discrimination? Hell the president of the US can't even be elected unless he is a certain age, this too is discrimination but no one raises a stink about it?
Other valid points I have observed. I have studied the airline industy quite a bit. It seems to me that whenever a concession is called for the union sticks it to the new guys, their "juniors". What do I mean by this? How bout taking a look at the pay of the first few years in any of the airlines with the exception of SWA and the cargo carriers. They screw the new guys. Some don't even get offered insurance for the first six months. I was told by some of the senior guys that that is the way of things, new guys always get the shaft because they are new and to deal with it. If I am to assume that as a new guy it is my lot in life to get screwed by the "senior guys" in the union then it is their lot in life to get "retired" at the age of 60. I have accepted the fact that as a new guy I am getting the short end of the stick. Why would you or any senior guy expect me (or other junior guys) to vote to keep you in position longer when I know that if any misfortune does occur you will vote against me, furlough me, or significantly reduce my pay.
I do not have a huge bone to pick with you regarding this potential law change. I do have a couple points to make. Is the age 60 law discrimination? Yes, it is. There are plenty of pilots over the age of 60 that can still fly. (there are also plenty in their 50's who have no business flying, are you willing to vote them out of their jobs?) I do find it curious that you among others support the new ICAO rules that allow over 60 to fly, AS LONG as they have someone under the age of 60 to fly with them. Why is this, if they are ok to fly over 60 then they are ok to fly, why do they need a sitter? It is also a valid point that the senior people at the airlines have been elevated to their position as a direct result of this law. They have had the benefit to an early upgrade that they wish to deny their "juniors". I don't want to work till 65, I have planned and been saving since I was 22 to retire at 60, before I even imagined and airline career. I won't even get into the arguement (though it is somewhat valid) regarding earlier upgrades and compounded interest as a result of addition funds in 401K's that the company puts away for you and its affect over 20 years.
Lets ask some other valid question. Is there a minimum age to work with most airlines? Yes, most airlines require you to be 23. Why? A new hire is going to be put with a senior guy in any case so his/her age should have no bearing. This too is discrimination. How many are hired at major airlines less that 27 years of age? Very few, in fact most are near the age of 30. How many airlines require you or strongly request you to have a college degree? Most if not all and for what reason? Does it require a college degree to fly an airplane or make you a better pilot? I think not. Is this too a form of discrimination? Hell the president of the US can't even be elected unless he is a certain age, this too is discrimination but no one raises a stink about it?
Other valid points I have observed. I have studied the airline industy quite a bit. It seems to me that whenever a concession is called for the union sticks it to the new guys, their "juniors". What do I mean by this? How bout taking a look at the pay of the first few years in any of the airlines with the exception of SWA and the cargo carriers. They screw the new guys. Some don't even get offered insurance for the first six months. I was told by some of the senior guys that that is the way of things, new guys always get the shaft because they are new and to deal with it. If I am to assume that as a new guy it is my lot in life to get screwed by the "senior guys" in the union then it is their lot in life to get "retired" at the age of 60. I have accepted the fact that as a new guy I am getting the short end of the stick. Why would you or any senior guy expect me (or other junior guys) to vote to keep you in position longer when I know that if any misfortune does occur you will vote against me, furlough me, or significantly reduce my pay.
The Prussian
Stecknadelkopf
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Posts
- 671
Two observations:
First...I find it interesting that so far the poll results are only 62% in favor of status quo and 38% in favor of an Age 65 retirement change...this coming on a message board where I would think the VAST majority of respondents are new airline hopefulls, being fairly young, and in favor of faster retirements for quicker seat advancement....interesting!
Secondly... Andy...you're really cold!!!
First...I find it interesting that so far the poll results are only 62% in favor of status quo and 38% in favor of an Age 65 retirement change...this coming on a message board where I would think the VAST majority of respondents are new airline hopefulls, being fairly young, and in favor of faster retirements for quicker seat advancement....interesting!
Secondly... Andy...you're really cold!!!
vetrider said:
Here's a link to Dr Susan Baker:
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/articles/2006/baker_mwhf.html
There'd be no age bias in her comments, no way!
The Prussian said:
Two responses:
First... the poll question was very poorly worded when it was first posted. I voted Yea before it was changed; I thought that I was voting in favor of keeping the current age 60 rule. I can't change my vote and I can't vote more than once.
Second... Yes, I am cold. But let me give a bit of rationale for my stance.
Klako is highly trained to handle any aircraft emergency and has probably spent countless hours 'what ifing' and making contingency plans. But he failed to make contingency plans for his financial future. In Klako's career, he has seen Eastern, Pan Am, Braniff, Frontier (I and II), National, and countless other airlines crash and burn. Yet he never made any financial contingency plans in case his airline bit the dust. Do you want me to feel sorry for him? He11, I'm on Plan N; I burned through B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M since being furloughed. But I've got plenty of other contingency plans to fall back on.
Now Klako's demanding that we lower safety standards just so he can support his 3 car, private airplane, boat, motorcycle, and 7 bedroom house on the golf course lifestyle.
Yes, I'm cold.
I sure as he11 hope my kids don't grow up with an entitlement mentality.
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
Right... the forced retirement of older pilots was YOUR guaranteed path to promotions up the seniority list, not mine. I'm still at the bottom.Klako said:
You were an Army guy. What about your Tricare for life after 60? Or did you not decide to stay in the Guard/Reserves after getting hired by an airline?
You know what they say... those who fail to plan... well you know the rest.
Last edited:
Gorilla
King of Belize
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2005
- Posts
- 1,132
It boils down to this - you knew what the rules are when you signed up for this gig. To change it now because life is hard, or you want a plasma TV, is lame. That's why the solution needs to be grandfathered in some way.
I can't count the number of Captains I've flown with who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on idiotic investments, boats, tech stocks, 5 wives, etc. Show some money discipline. Save your money for your own retirement instead of living like the Shah of Iran.
Most importantly, get your spouse out the door to pick up some side cash!
I can't count the number of Captains I've flown with who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on idiotic investments, boats, tech stocks, 5 wives, etc. Show some money discipline. Save your money for your own retirement instead of living like the Shah of Iran.
Most importantly, get your spouse out the door to pick up some side cash!
FlyBoeingJets
YES, that's NICE
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1,802
Andy said:
This is definitely a social issue and all people should be considered....
Career expectations, disappointment, what is right or wrong for the individual. These aren't as important as risking the ire of society when making public policy.
We have no trouble letting oil company execs, actually execs or board of directors at any company, make oodles of money. But to let pilots work past 60 is a huge greedy thing. Maybe.....Everyone pilot under 50 thinks so but those over don't. (I'm under 40)
The 60 rule as excessively "safe" but it won't go away. Not quickly. The public sees no need to change it. The government really doesn't have a need to change it. Not until someone files a lawsuit to make the PBGC pay out at 60 with full medicare and social security
The guys on furlough do deserve better than to have the age raised on them as they are trying to get back to work. Those about to upgrade worked hard for their upgrade, took the risk to work for that company and deserve it on time. Maybe even those retiring Delta pilots deserved well over $1 Mil payouts (just before BK) as their airline posted quarter after quarter of huge losses and had many on furlough.
But these are all entitlemtents too, just promised by the age 60 rule.
On a personal level I think age 60 is "Wrong". But I, and many like me, have benefited greatly by its existance. I hope everyone has the intellectual honesty to offer a true opinion on it. Many have been harmed by it. A balanced view that may be taken by Congress is more are helped by it than harmed.
We are all arguing with some baggage here. Folks furloughed from UAL (like those posting here) have no patience for someone with an entitlement bent. They have been thru the disappointment already of a drastically changed or even failed career and have moved on.
Rescinding age 60 now would hurt them, AGAIN!
Not cool. I don't wish that on them or any other furloughed pilot.
Last edited:
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Andy said:
I have never enjoyed the luxuries that you accuse me of having. I have 17 years with my company but still cannot get Christmas and weekends off.
I have planed my career as best as I can. I retired in 1989 after 2o years active duty including 11 years over seas including Vietnam. Retirement for an Army CW4 gives me about $2,000 per mo. I have a 401K of about $300,000, house almost paid for and no debts. This may look good to many; however, I am now burdend with helping my parents who recently moved into an assisted living care home and my daughter with college. The financial obligations only increase for most people around the age of 60.
I chose to work at my present airline job in 1989 over flying for a major airline for two reasons. First, is my desire to live in my hometown and not have to commute. Second, I chose my airline company because at that time, it was a very a stable Part 135 carrier and I was counting on flying until retiring at age 65. Then in 1995 the FAA forced us to convert to Part 121, thus destroying my plans of flying to 65.
Last edited:
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
I would not be opposed to increasing the medical standards, but the standards would have to increase for all ages. I would bet that I am in much better physical shape most of the younger guys in the industry. I fly with 40-year-old pilots that are in pathetic physical shape. I have always taken care of myself to insure that I would be able to pass the Class I physical beyond age 65.Sluggo_63 said:
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
I have the solution for the hypocritical junior airline pilots out there who say that a change to the age 60 rule would be unfair to them by slowing upgrades and causing seniority list stagnation. I say then, make it mandatory for ALL airline pilots to retire after serving no more than 20 years with a company or age 65 whichever comes first. If you hire on with a company at age 25, and then you are kicked out of the cockpit when you turn age 45 or if you hire on at 45, you retire at 65. That would be equally fair to all by giving everyone just enough time to build their 401K with enough to survive on in retirement. Fair enough?
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
Klako said:
And you were worried about medical insurance? FOUL!!
I've posted the annual payment for retirees for Tricare; it's $460/yr for an entire family. I pay over $250/mo for Tricare Reserve Select.
https://www.hnfs.net/NR/rdonlyres/5FC106D4-7E4E-4443-AF4E-59EB2B629F53/0/TRC_Costs_Summary_final_07_25_06.pdf#search=%22tricare%20retiree%20cost%22
And your premise to raise the retirement age was that you can't afford health insurance? BAH! What else have you been less than honest about on this board?
Whistlin' Dan
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Posts
- 460
I think if your 8 year old can pass all the requirements for a firefighter in your community (H.S graduate, ht/wt standards, and completion the physical fitness eval) he has EVERY right to apply for a position as one.Sluggo_63 said:
Not only that, but I feel that as long as he can perform to whatever standards that apply to firefighters, he should be entitled to stay at the job.
Of course, that will make him senior to kids who were born at the same time he was, but waited until they were 10 or 11 to become firefighters. But why should your son be penalized or forced into early retirement for their tardiness in applying for the job?
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
Whoa there. Height/Weight standards? Isn't that discriminatory? I think there have been plenty of lawsuits that have proven that. I'll give you a hint. Next time you're at work, turn to your right and pop open that reinforced door. Look who's walking down the isle.Whistlin' Dan said:
So, if the weight standard is 220 lbs. max for a firefighter, and I'm 221, I'm not fit? How about 225? 250? 300? There's a line drawn in the sand there somewhere, right? It's there (was there) for a reason, and probably needs to be. Right?
Sluggo_63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2003
- Posts
- 332
I don't know why they waited so long to apply. It's their tardiness/lack of planning that got them where they are. My son can't help it if those other kids were out buying the coolest, most expensive toys for the sandbox; or if those other kids were spending all their money courting little Sally down the street (they should have learned their lesson when little Jane took half of their allowance money). Now they want to be a cool fireman? They should have thought about all that before.Whistlin' Dan said:
By the way, why am I being penalized for your tardiness in applying for a job?
bubbers44
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Posts
- 468
Age 60 retirement was never right. I love not having to go to work anymore but 26 years ago when I started my airline career thought it would be fixed by now. It will be soon. Now even the FAA is going neutral on the issue. ICAO's new Nov ruling will start the change. Can you imagine every country except US can land at JFK with a 61 year old captain?
Klako
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Posts
- 171
bubbers44 said:
There is now an “uneven playing field” that is unfair to United States air carrier pilots. This is because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) now gives an advantage to domestic FAR Part 135, FAR Part 91 and foreign air carriers. The FAA now permits pilots who are over the age of 60 to pilot the same types of large airplanes in FAR Parts 91 (general aviation) and 135 (air taxi) operations that it denies in United States FAR Part 121 (commercial air carrier) operations. Beginning on 23 November 2006, foreign air carriers will be allowed to operate large aircraft engaged in commercial air carrier operations within United States airspace and some of those aircraft will be the piloted by pilots that are over the age of 60. United States FAR Part 121 pilots, however, who are over age 60 will all still be grounded unless the Congress passes Senate Bill S.65. This bill would coincide with the new international standard recently adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Bill S.65 now proceeds to the full Senate for its consideration. There is a companion bill in House of Representatives, H.R.65 that was introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada).
Klako said:
Howz about 'cuz it's stoopid? Why would we want to lower safety standards just so pilots over 60 can continue to fly? The increased risk of having pilots with decreased physical and cognitive abilities is not worth it. Just look how many times I've told you that this law won't pass before you hit age 60? Just look at where the bill is at in the House. It's as good as dead.
Now Klako, how about a comment on this:
Andy said:
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
