Age 60 informal poll

[Andy]

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.

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!

 

[Andy]

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!!!

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.

 

[Phaedrus]

I think my kids deserve an entitlement mentality.

 

[Sluggo_63]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Gorilla]

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!

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

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.

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.

 

[Klako]

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, 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 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.

 

[vetrider]

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!

Just as I suspected, a Wonk personified. I would personally say her testimony on the question at hand is about as meaningful as mammary glands on a boar hog.

 

[Klako]

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.

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.

 

[Klako]

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]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klako
I have sent out at least 100 job applications without success. I can tell you that nobody wants to hire a 60 year old pilot and ex soldier

Anybody else see the irony in this statement?

Gup

Yes, in that ageism and age discrimination is a severe problem in this country.

 

[Andy]

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.

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?

 

[Sluggo_63]

Yes, in that ageism and age discrimination is a severe problem in this country.

No it isn't.

On second thought, you're right. It seems my 8 year old wants to be a fire fighter, but they won't take him because they say he's "too young." Where's that number for the ACLU?

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

It seems my 8 year old wants to be a fire fighter, but they won't take him because they say he's "too young." Where's that number for the ACLU?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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.

By the way, why am I being penalized for your tardiness in applying for a job?

 

[bubbers44]

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]

Can you imagine every country except US can land at JFK with a 61 year old captain?

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]

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?

Why no comments on this idea?

 

[Andy]

Why no comments on this idea?

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:

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=%22tri care%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?