Age 60 informal poll

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy:

Why can't you get it. This only has to do with age discrimination. That is the issue.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

UndauntedFlyer question: "If you were in my place, having your pension ripped away in the 11th hour, would you really want to just quit and give up what you worked for all your life to become a whatever?"

Andy's answer: Yes.

Andy: With answers like this do you think anyone will believe anything you write now. Then why not quit now if the age-60 rule changes, or at 55, or 59 1/2 or 62 or 65? What is so magical about age 60. Please answer this question please. Thank you.

 

[pipe]

Andy:

Why can't you get it. This only has to do with age discrimination. That is the issue.

Maybe you should direct your efforts at lowering the age for a commercial or an ATP. After all, this is all just an unselfish effort to do the right thing about age discrimination -- isn't it?

I know 15 year-olds who are more mature than many 25 year-olds. They should all be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to keep age discrimination out of the picture.

Wow, you ARE right about the age 60 rule. I feel so much cleaner now that I'm laying out reasoned, logical arguments that advocate doing the right thing.

Besides, imagine the experience level of the guy that starts at United when he's 15. By the time he's 80 there will be no way the industry can live without him.

Sorry, man. There are exceptions to every rule and I am sure that you are one but lines have always got to be drawn.

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Age-60 Article in Star Telegram

U.S. should let pilots stay in the air until age 65

By Joseph "Ike" Eichelkraut

Special to the Star-Telegram

Congress recently passed long-awaited pension reforms that singled out struggling legacy carriers for extraordinary relief from their pension obligations. Two airlines in bankruptcy, Delta and Northwest, will get 17 years to fulfill their employee pension promises; American and Continental received a still-generous 10 years to sort out their pension woes.
The reaction of some carriers reminds me of sibling rivalry after "trick or treat" on Halloween: Everybody got candy, but there is whining about who got the full-sized chocolate bar vs. the snack size.
From my perspective as a Southwest Airlines captain, both deals are sweet. But the treat -- pension relief for distressed or mismanaged airlines -- is sort of a trick for airlines like Southwest that don't have pension problems and have worked hard to stay profitable while honoring contractual promises through some of the airline industry's bleakest times.
Many in Congress agreed with this perspective, yet they supported the pension deal to help transition legacy carriers into defined-contribution plans -- like Southwest Airlines' employees have today. But Congress has more work to do to correct the situation.
The airline companies get pension relief, but no one suffers through this "transition" more than our nation's most experienced airline pilots -- many of whom are veterans, having served their country and their companies honorably for decades.
These pilots awake on their 59th birthday with their pensions raided and with only one year left to work and provide for a retirement that may last more than 30 years. The United States is among only four nations objecting to the recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) decision to raise the world retirement standard for pilots to 65. (The Federal Aviation Administration still mandates the retirement at age 60.)
This discriminatory policy means that foreign airline captains will be able to fly and work in the United States past age 60, but no U.S. pilot will be afforded the same right. That's just plain wrong.
Under the ICAO standard, U.S. pilots would work until their 65th birthday, paying into the tax coffers instead of suffering through a five-year gap before collecting full Social Security and Medicare benefits. By working until 65, pilots who have lost pensions at bankrupt airlines would receive a larger payment from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.
Now for the real treat: Age-65 retirement would save the federal government billions. A recent study found that retirement at 65 would save nearly $1 billion a year through added tax and Social Security revenue and delayed PBGC payouts to pilots who worked for airlines with underfunded pension plans.
Congress must act now to correct this situation. ICAO implements its new standard on Nov. 23. The Senate has moved aggressively to implement the ICAO standard by voting S 65 -- sponsored by Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Conrad Burns, R-Mont., and Ted Stevens, R-Alaska -- out of the Commerce Committee.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, recognizing the cost savings associated with the provision, included the legislation in the transportation appropriations bill that awaits a floor vote this fall.
In the House, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, supports the measure and has co-sponsored a similar bill (HR 65) by Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. -- formerly a pilot for Delta Air Lines.
When Congress returns in September, the members need to finish the job they started with pension reform by requiring the FAA to adopt the world standard airline pilot retirement at 65.
There's no trick here. Our pilots don't want a handout -- just the opportunity to work a little longer securing a retirement. Age 65 levels the playing field with the rest of the world, allows a smooth transition to a defined-contribution pension system for America's airline pilots and will save the taxpayers billions.

 

[pipe]

Andy:

Why can't you get it. This only has to do with age discrimination. That is the issue.

I thought it had only to do with age discrimination (see above, by you). Apparently it is about money and politics.

A little honesty would go a long way toward legitimizing your point of view. Maybe you should start by being honest with yourself. In fact, had you started that policy thirty years ago this might not be such a hot issue with you.

I am honest with myself. Mid thirties. Fourth airline. Furloughed. At a place with a pension now. Save like it isn't even there.

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Aloha Airlines Hero Pilot - Forced to retire.

Here we go again, experienced Hero Pilot from ALOHA forced to retire. Must make room for new pilots. Can they equal this captain?

http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/business/story02.html

 

[pipe]

Here we go again, experienced Hero Pilot from ALOHA forced to retire. Must make room for new pilots. Can they equal this captain?


Every airline pilot has had at least one airborne incident where the lives of the passengers and cabin crew hang on the time-critical decisions made by cockpit flight crew. Essentially, pilots are not paid for when things are going right. We are paid to be there when things go WRONG! When things go really wrong, we all want a highly trained and talented aviator like Capt. Bob Schornstheimer at the controls. Bob worked miracles in landing that severely damaged aircraft at Kahului Airport on Maui over 18 years ago. While I'm sure that the traveling public will always appreciate Bob's flying skill, as a professional pilot, I am in AWE of his skill! Capt. Schornstheimer and First Officer (now Capt.) Mimi Tompkins literally and figuratively accomplished the impossible that day when they saved 100 people's lives. How can we place a monetary value on that? With Bob now drawing a retirement substantially below that of teachers, city bus drivers or even some low-level state employees, it is obvious that our formal government and corporate bureaucracies do not appreciate a man who can save 100 lives in a desperate situation.

Bob should be a Captain until he turns 90. Mimi should be a co-pilot forever because she wasn't a hero. Bob was only 48 when he became a hero. It's amazing that he found his a$$ with both hands at that young of an age.

I'll bet when Bob was in Captain school he was scared to death. Looking around thinking "Man, I really don't belong here. Maybe I'll be up to it in five years or so but right now I feel like I'm really in over my head".

As for Mimi, once she gets a little more experience, I'm sure she'll be fine as a Captain. We just gotta hope that nothing goes wrong while she's out there running around on her own for those first five years or so.

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

A little honesty would go a long way toward legitimizing your point of view. Maybe you should start by being honest with yourself. In fact, had you started that policy thirty years ago this might not be such a hot issue.PIPE

This is a good point for a discussion about ALPA's positon. Do you know that from 1959 to 1979 ALPA was totally committed to change the age-60 rule? It was pure age discrimination then. ALPA said that for a pilot to fly past age 60 it was not was not a safety issue.

All of a sudden when promotions slowed, ALPA changed 180 degrees. Then it became unsafe to fly past age-60 as long as long the retiring pilots had a good pension.

How can anybody believe anything that that organization puts out when they are part of reversals of opinion like this?

Does anyone want to try to explain this on behalf of ALPA? When was ALPA telling the truth: Before 1979 or after 1979. Then or now.

 

[pipe]

This is a good point for a discussion about ALPA's positon. Do you know that from 1959 to 1979 ALPA was totally committed to change the age-60 rule? Flying past age 60 was not a safety issue then. All of a sudden when promotions slowed, ALPA changed 180 degrees. Then it became unsafe to fly past age-60 as long as the retiring pilots had a good pension.

How can anybody believe anything that that organization puts out when they are part of reversals of opinion like this?

Does anyone want to try to explain this on behalf of ALPA? When was ALPA telling the truth: Then or Now?

We elect representatives and then entrust them to fight our battles and represent our interests. If we do not like the way they choose to fight those battles, we reserve the right to elect replacements.

That being said, we elect them to represent our COLLECTIVE position. At this time the COLLECTIVE position of the ACTIVE membership is to retain the age 60 rule. That's it and that's all.

ALPA may have changed their position on this because of a change in the feeling of their collective membership, new medical studies, or both. Positions change. When you're an elected representative you do what your constituents want you to - that's your job.

I might also point out that ALPA is its membership. Consequently the ALPA that you imply so hypocritically changed positions in 1979 was made up of the same group that loathes that decision today.

Todays 55-65 year old WAS the ALPA of 1979-2000.

PIPE

 

[vetrider]

Todays 55-65 year old WAS the ALPA of 1979-2000.

PIPE[/quote]

That splains that, I think, Lucy. I think it also makes ALPA look rather impotent, can't effect change either way.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

ALPA may have changed their position on this because of a change in the feeling of their collective membership, new medical studies, or both. Positions change. PIPE

ALPA has lost its credibility from all unions over this issue and this will be their downfall. No union makes up such lies so as to get rid of their most senior members, and then sends these members out with no pension.

Lies are transparent so they fail in time. Take the 737 3rd man or the fireman on locomotives. All (featherbeding) lies under a hoax of safety and they failed.

From the words of Abraham Lincoln,
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this union cannot endure, permanently half of one mind and half of another - I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.

This law will change. If it doesn't what can we expect next year, harmony? I think not.

 

[pipe]

This law will change. If it doesn't what can we expect next year, harmony? I think not.

Yeah, and the harmony when it does change will usher in an era of peace and unity the likes of which the cockpit has never before seen.

PIPE

 

[Andy]

Aerospace Medical Association Position Paper, Age 60 Rule

Klako, I'm assuming that you read the paper. If that is your justification for increasing the maximum age for pilots, it's weak at best. I suggest that you reread the paper.
One quote that I love:
"It is important to remember that the decision to use 60 years of age as an upper limit for commercial air transport operations was arbitrary. Currently, there is equal lack of justification for setting the age limit at 55 years or at 65 years." (page 13)

The paper continually cites research papers that confirm age related declines in performance. Yet the paper concludes that the age should be raised to 65. I've got to wonder who paid to have that 'gem' of a report written by the Aerospace Medical Association (and they are? ... some very thinly staffed 'Association' located in Alexandria, VA. Smells like a few individuals who take money to espouse any view you want to hear; no morals or scruples to get in the way).

 

[pipe]

From the words of Abraham Lincoln,
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this union cannot endure, permanently half of one mind and half of another - I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.

This law will change. If it doesn't what can we expect next year, harmony? I think not.

All one thing or all the other.

As long as it's the one thing you want?? It already is all one thing. All age 60.

You know, I think there are a lot of younger guys out there who are reasonable and would entertain options. Phase it in. Make it 61, wait a few years, make it 62, etc..

Nobody in the age raising crowd wants to hear about that though. Why? Because it isn't about age discrimination - it's about immediate personal financial gain at the present and future expense of others.

PIPE

 

[Laughing_Jakal]

Fukc No!

 

[pipe]

On second thought, I'm so sick of all the B.S. arguments that I'm with Jackal.

PIPE

 

[Klako]

One quote that I love:
"It is important to remember that the decision to use 60 years of age as an upper limit for commercial air transport operations was arbitrary. Currently, there is equal lack of justification for setting the age limit at 55 years or at 65 years."

A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot. The federal law mandating that all airline pilots must retire at the arbitrary age of 60 was never intended to be a vehicle to enhance aviation safety. Safety is the ruse that the FAA has used to deflect criticism of it’s “Age 60 Rule” as being discriminatory and unfair to older pilots. The FAA defends the “Age 60 Rule” solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Marion Blakey, says that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. Thus the FAA's official position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, it has insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that the FAA uses to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

You know, I think there are a lot of younger guys out there who are reasonable and would entertain options. Phase it in. Make it 61, wait a few years, make it 62, etc..

Nobody in the age raising crowd wants to hear about that though. Why? Because it isn't about age discrimination - it's about immediate personal financial gain at the present and future expense of others.PIPE

Pipe: You have not read the proposed change. This change is a one way street. Those who are already retired will not be able to return, as unfair as that is. There will be exceptions for those who are on LOA or have downbid to S/O. So for the most part this is really an age 61, 62, etc. to age 65 change. There is a provision for a report to the NTSB after two years. At that time changes may again be made.

What with the ICAO age-65 rule in place there is no way that a change would be anything other than age 65 with the provisions I have stated.

Will this change this year or next? I don't know. If it changes this year that's what I need to keep working. If its next year I plan to become a "Redneck" and learn to drive an 18-wheeler.

If you mow your yard and find an car, you might be a redneck too.

 

[pipe]

So Klako, if the burden of proof is on the FAA, what should the age be?

As has been pointed out countless times, determining an age is arbitrary. One thing, however, is certain - the higher that age goes, the more stringent the exams must become for everyone. They won't make the exam more thorough just for the old guys - that would be age discrimination.

Bottom line, you're looking at a logistics nightmare to arbitrarily change an arbitrary rule to another arbitrary rule. Doesn't really seem to pass the sensibility test.

PIPE

 

[pipe]

Will this change this year or next? I don't know. If it changes this year thats what I need to keep working. If its next year I plan to become a "Redneck" and learn to drive an 18-wheeler.

If you mow your yard and find an car, you might be a redneck too.

You must really like to drive stuff. You're like Ricky Bobby.