Age 60 informal poll

[vetrider]

Duane Woerth supposedly told our local council that age 65 is now attached to some bill that is 22 billion pages long and will slip through the cracks this year without even getting debated. But then again, not to long ago he said that it was dead this year. I think his tune changes depending upon his audience and the exact circumstance.

 

[Klako]

Wrong, Miles. Klako is not telling you the entire story.
Klako retired from the military as a CW4; he has been getting a monthly pension for the last 17+ years. That also entitles him to very inexpensive medical care. Klako will also claim that he chose to fly at his current employer (Horizon) because it was close to home and that he expected to be able to fly until 65.

Now, let’s dissect this a bit. I’d be willing to bet that Klako does not have a bachelor’s degree (his choice), which almost completely rules out a job at a major airline.
Klako will also claim that he can’t afford medical care because his 15+ year doctor won’t accept Tricare. Again, his choice to continue to go to that doctor rather than change to another doctor.
Klako hasn’t mentioned that the rule which made Horizon go from 135 to 121 ops in 1999 had been around since 1995. Klako knew that he’d have to retire at 60 back in 1995.

As far as Klako’s current pay, a 17 year Horizon captain on the CRJ-700 is making $117/hr. If he’s not holding CRJ-700 captain, that’s his choice.
He also has a 10% match for his 401k. If he has chosen to not put away 10%, that’s his choice.

Klako’s had a lot of time to make different choices, but he has chosen not to. I was furloughed in 2002 and had to make major course corrections in my career. Klako has chosen to not make course corrections and is now expending his time and energy in a fruitless effort to change the age 60 rule before he turns into a pumpkin.
There have been efforts to have the FAA make regulatory changes to the age 60 rule, but the FAA has not done so due to safety concerns. There have been efforts to have judicial system change the age 60, but all judges have ruled against them.
The latest effort to change the age 60 rule is through the legislative process. The politics is indeed interesting to watch. While many politicians will pay lip service and state publicly that they are in favor of change, no one is bringing the bill forward for a vote on the Senate side and it's bottled up in subcommittee on the House side. And it won’t come up for a vote because Congress has more significant issues that they are concentrating on. For us pilots this seems monumental, but for politicians, it’s not even on the radar screen. Even Jim Gibbons’ radar screen.

Andy, your distortions of the truth will not win you debate points.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Whistlin' Dan, the accident rate takes an upward turn at 55, not 40.

The report cited makes no reference to accident rates as a function of age, only to rates of incapacitation and impairment. (Figure 1, page 12) If you'll look again, you'll see that the rates are lowest for pilots between the ages of 35 and 39. Pilots above AND below those rates are at increased risk of becoming incapacitated in flight.

The question of whether the increased experience and depth of knowledge that a senior crewmember brings to the job outweighs his marginally greater chance of becoming incapacitated is not addressed in the report. That's too bad, because where those lines cross should probably be the true determinant of when a pilot should be forced to retire.

Something else of interest in the report - 3 of the 4 pilots who were incapacitated had a previously documented history of heart problems...problems that almost assuredly would have disqualified them from flying under the increased medical scrutiny proposed for those pilots who would fly past the age of 60.

My point is, that if somebody wants to use "safety" in their argument for forcing a fixed retirement age upon pilots, they should cite ALL the data. It weakens their argument to cite increased rates for only those pilots who just happen to be considerably older than they are.

 

[pipe]

Andy, your distortions of the truth will not win you debate points.

Correct the record or shut your piehole.

You and Undaunted never answer fact-based arguments. For 40 pages now, whenever anyone makes a valid fact-based argument, you ignore it and move on like it never happened. You just spout the same rhetoric like a deaf crazy person. In fact, maybe you are deaf and crazy. Both often accompany aging. No, that can't be right. Aging has no effects. To imply otherwise would be discriminatory.

WHAT ARE ANDY'S DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH? PLEASE POINT OUT THE FACTUAL ERRORS. PLEASE SUPPLY FACTS TO DISPUTE THESE ERRORS.
AGAIN -- CORRECT THE RECORD. ADDRESS THE FACTS POINT BY POINT. RESPOND WITH FACTS. IF YOU CANNOT, PLEASE SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!

PIPE

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The latest effort to change the age 60 rule is through the legislative process. The politics is indeed interesting to watch. While many politicians will pay lip service and state publicly that they are in favor of change, no one is bringing the bill forward for a vote on the Senate side and it's bottled up in subcommittee on the House side. And it won’t come up for a vote because Congress has more significant issues that they are concentrating on. For us pilots this seems monumental, but for politicians, it’s not even on the radar screen. Even Jim Gibbons’ radar screen.

It is interesting to see how little you really know about what is happening. This change will happen almost overnight, in a matter of one or two days and then it will unstoppable. All those in power now want this change to happen. The driving force is the ICAO change and ICAO can not be stopped.

By the way Andy, you are all invited to my 60th birthday party in HNL and to ride back on the flight I'll be flying.

The argument now is that if ICAO countries can fly into the USA safey to age 65, so should Americans be able to.

 

[PurpleInMEM]

...The argument now is that if ICAO countries can fly into the USA safey to age 65, so should Americans be able to.

No, that's the basis of your argument, not your argument. It's like saying because the Euros want something that it's automatically good for us too.

ICAO is a joke; always has been, always will be. I don't care if ICAO lets geezers fly until they're 90. We merely have to permit signatories to operate in that manner here, but we don't have to let pilots certificated by the U.S. authority operate in the same manner. Being a party to ICAO in NO WAY diminishes a member state's ability to mandate operations for it's own citizens.

It's clear to me that all you're going to do by raising the mandatory retirement age is further injure furloughed pilots and keep the least productive pilots around a little longer. Nice!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

It's clear to me that all you're going to do by raising the mandatory retirement age is further injure furloughed pilots and keep the least productive pilots around a little longer. Nice!

Oh, OK. I'm done for. Going to buy a trailer in the Middle of MO and retire. I blew all my dough on airplanes, girls and gambling so that's it. Guna home school my kid too.

By the way, the other day my two sharp young guy F/O's wanted to let our flight depart from a runway with the last 1000 feet closed for construction. They didn't know about this closure even though the whole airport is torn up. Not until the voice of 37 years of experience asked them to check the Notams did they discover we didn't have enough runway. In aviation there is nothing like experience.

 

[Patriot328]

By the way, the other day my two sharp young guy F/O's wanted to let our flight depart from a runway with the last 1000 feet closed for construction. They didn't know about this closure even though the whole airport is torn up. Not until the voice of 37 years of experience asked them to check the Notams did they discover we didn't have enough runway. In aviation there is nothing like experience.

Or common sense and procedure. It doesn't take 37 years of experience to read the effing notams. Stop patting yourself on the back and pretending that every FO you fly with is trying to kill you.

 

[catIIIc]

Undaunted you are a flying god, how in world do other airplanes stay in the air without your expert wisdom to guide them. Its no wonder why most people think that United pilots think their S&*t doesn't stink. Fortuantely I know quite a few of them and I know you are not the majority. Otherwise the airline would stop operatiing because you would be to busy patting each other on the back.

 

[Klako]

Correct the record or shut your piehole.

You and Undaunted never answer fact-based arguments. For 40 pages now, whenever anyone makes a valid fact-based argument, you ignore it and move on like it never happened. You just spout the same rhetoric like a deaf crazy person. In fact, maybe you are deaf and crazy. Both often accompany aging. No, that can't be right. Aging has no effects. To imply otherwise would be discriminatory.

WHAT ARE ANDY'S DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH? PLEASE POINT OUT THE FACTUAL ERRORS. PLEASE SUPPLY FACTS TO DISPUTE THESE ERRORS.
AGAIN -- CORRECT THE RECORD. ADDRESS THE FACTS POINT BY POINT. RESPOND WITH FACTS. IF YOU CANNOT, PLEASE SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!

PIPE

The Age 60 Rule: Age Discrimination in Commercial Aviation

Robin Wilkening: rmwilkeningearthlink.net​

The Federal Aviation Administration, along with the Air Line Pilots Association and the politicians whose pockets they line, state that the Age 60 Rule is a necessary safety standard. The truth is, if the issue was really safety there wouldn’t be an Age 60 Rule. Time and again over-60 pilots have been shown to be as safe as or safer than their younger colleagues. The Age 60 Rule has never really been about safety.
The Age 60 Rule’s conception followed the unethical professional coupling of the CEO of American Airlines, C. R. Smith, and the first Administrator of the FAA, retired Lieutenant General Elwood Quesada, resulting in an economic windfall for the airline and a sweet post-retirement job for the Administrator.16, 17, 18, 19 Even then the FAA knew "it was not yet possible to establish a retirement age for civil airline pilots based on scientifically determined facts."1
A brief review of the three major concerns frequently raised regarding the health and fitness of our most experienced and skilled pilots is in order.

1. 1. Pilots over age 60 might experience incapacitation.
   2. Pilots over age 60 might experience undetected cognitive decline.
   3. Medical testing may not identify pilots over age 60 who might be at risk for adverse health events.

Incapacitation
Sudden incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease was the stated reason, though not the real reason, that the actual age of 60 was chosen. Forty years ago, when ALPA still championed the rights of all pilots to remain employed, former ALPA president Clarence Sayen challenged FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada to justify his hasty decision to enact the Rule. Quesada responded with 41 highly questionable articles culled from the medical archives of the 1950’s, the majority of these having been published decades earlier. In addition to being astonishingly outdated, these articles described characteristics of the general population and not of airline pilots.20 They are clearly not the "fundamental, indisputable principles of medical science"30 that current ALPA president, Duane Woerth, has stated. The original justification for the Rule implied, incorrectly, that the health characteristics of the general population of white males in the United States applied also to the population of air carrier pilots. Wrong then and wrong now! Airline pilots are still healthier and live longer than their counterparts in the general population the world over.3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 14, 22
Moreover, concern over pilot incapacitation causing a crash is simply unjustified. IATA data and simulator data show that the risk of incapacitation due to cardiovascular disease is only 1 event in more than 20 million flight hours. The calculated probability of a crash occurring as a result of incapacitation is 1 event in every 8.3 billion flight hours, or, stated another way, 1 episode every 400 years.8 Furthermore, it is well established that in-flight incapacitation is a far lesser threat to safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced pilot error.11
The truth is, 40 years of medical scrutiny show no justification for the Age 60 Rule based on the fear that an airline pilot will become incapacitated, regardless of age.
Cognitive Performance
The normal, healthy aging process is accompanied by decreases in cognitive function over time in all population groups, though rarely manifest prior to 70.25, 26 Airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task performance when compared to age-matched non-pilots.27 High levels of education and training — characteristics of commercial aviators — significantly enhance the retention of mental abilities.25 Airline pilots are selected for good health at the start of their careers and are subjected to comprehensive medical examinations every 6 months thereafter. Illnesses that might lead to cognitive decline are detected and corrected, or the pilot is removed from the work force.9 They are the most monitored and health-conscious of all professionals. Moreover, all airline pilots undergo mandatory simulator time that tests every conceivable routine and emergent situation. They are under the constant scrutiny of other pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, loadmasters, gate personnel and air traffic controllers during daily flight operations. They are subject to the two-communication rule at all times. There is simply no chance that cognitive decline will occur unnoticed. The truth is, 40 years of medical scrutiny show no justification for the Age 60 Rule based on the fear that an airline pilot will have undetected cognitive impairment, regardless of age.
Identification of Pilots at Risk for Adverse Health Events
ALPA opines that "medical science has not developed a regimen of reliable tests that can be administered effectively to identify those aging pilots who are, or will become, incapacitated, or whose performance will decline to an unacceptable level."30 ALPA's president, Duane Woerth, who made this pronoucement, is either sadly uninformed, or seeks deliberately to misinform. The truth is, sophisticated and readily available testing programs have been used by the FAA for more than 20 years to determine airline pilot fitness for duty. In addition to the diagnostic value of these ever-improving tests, they are widely accepted to have predictive value as well.2, 6, 21 Moreover, age simply does not affect the manner in which disease manifests itself diagnostically.28 The claim that these tests - both medical and psychological - fail the day a pilot turns 60 is simply wrong! Airline pilots under age 60 who have been removed from duty for myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass surgery, valvular disease, alcoholism (even after relapse), drug abuse, brain injury, psychiatric illnesses, and a long list of other life-threatening maladies, are routinely returned to flying upon passing one or more diagnostic tests, and have been for decades.10, 22, 29 They are allowed to prove themselves fit. Without exception or justification, the FAA denies access to these same tests by pilots the day they turn 60. This unethical double standard in medical evaluations based on age alone is not defensible! The truth is, it's not a safety standard - it's age discrimination.
Flight Performance Data: the Greatest Significance to Public Safety
Most importantly, decades of actual flight performance data, the measure of greatest significance to public safety, show that for every age group, older pilots are as safe as younger. The FAA's 1993 Hilton Study demonstrated that there was simply no diminution in flight performance as pilots reached age 60,15 a finding confirmed by 1999 FAA data showing no difference in accident risk comparing pilots aged 20-59.5 FAA data analyzed independently and published in the Chicago Tribune in 1999 showed that air transport pilots over age 60 were as safe as their younger colleagues.24 In attempting to counter the Tribune's findings the FAA deliberately manipulated the data to exclude these over-60 pilots from their analysis. However, FAA data from 1988-1997 released last year confirms yet again that air transport pilots with Class 1 medical certificates - the type of pilot who can be an airline Captain - are as safe as younger pilots.31 How many times does this information need to be repeated before it's believed?
The increasingly traveled skies of our nation require the most experienced pilots in the cockpit, those that are now forced out of work by the Age 60 Rule. The FAA clings irrationally to the notion that the age of 60 is an appropriate single standard for the evaluation of older pilot fitness, and promotes their incorrect and outmoded position by misrepresentation of data. The archaic and discriminatory Age 60 Rule prohibits our most experienced pilots from performing the work they know and do better than anyone else in the business, thereby compromising the safety of all air travelers.

 

[Klako]

Duane Woerth supposedly told our local council that age 65 is now attached to some bill that is 22 billion pages long and will slip through the cracks this year without even getting debated. But then again, not to long ago he said that it was dead this year. I think his tune changes depending upon his audience and the exact circumstance.

ALPA no longer has any credibility in telling anyone that the "Age 60 Rule" will not or must not change. This is because the Airline Pilots Association's (ALPA) has now signed Canadian air carrier “Jazz” to a contract allowing pilots to fly to age 65. ALPA represents Jazz and has approved a contract that set pensions at age 60 and allows flight to age 65. Additionally, ALPA's President Duane Woerth publicly stated that he would sign any ALPA over age 60 contract for a United States carrier if the Age 60 Rule were to be changed in the United States, and that is about to happen.

 

[jbDC9]

Correct the record or shut your piehole.

You and Undaunted never answer fact-based arguments. For 40 pages now, whenever anyone makes a valid fact-based argument, you ignore it and move on like it never happened. You just spout the same rhetoric like a deaf crazy person. In fact, maybe you are deaf and crazy. Both often accompany aging. No, that can't be right. Aging has no effects. To imply otherwise would be discriminatory.

Oh good, then it's not just me beginning to think Klako is acting like a retarded 3rd grader...

Blah blah blah, Klako keeps spewing his crap, but when faced with the actual fact that most senior guys have benefitted from the Age 60 rule throughout their careers, he clams up, ignores it and continues to spout more worthless gibberish that fits his selfish agenda. Also, why is 60 discriminatory and 65 isn't? Eh, nevermind, Klako won't respond to facts anyway.

 

[Andy]

The report cited makes no reference to accident rates as a function of age, only to rates of incapacitation and impairment.

Ah, you read one of the reports that I posted, but not the other one.
Here's the one you read: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/oamtechreports/2000s/media/0416.pdf

Here's the one you didn't read: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf
See page 24 for age related accident rates among part 121/135 pilots per 100,000 flight hours. You will see the curve take a distinct upward turn at 55.

 

[Andy]

Duane Woerth supposedly told our local council that age 65 is now attached to some bill that is 22 billion pages long and will slip through the cracks this year without even getting debated.

He's referring to the Senate attachment to the DOT's appropriations bill. However, that was merely symbolic, since it is against Senate rules to attach legislative action to appropriations bills. The attachment will not be there when the appropriations come to a vote on the Senate floor.

 

[pipe]

Andy, your distortions of the truth will not win you debate points.

Klako- I meant facts to show that Andy has distorted the truth. Andy's post seemed to have more specifics than anything in this entire thread.

But, as usual, you responded with the "head fake". Did you explain how Andy distorted the truth? No. Instead you cut and paste another article. One that starts out by calling old pilots "our most skilled" pilots. That's not biased. (insert hint of sarcasm here)

Klako - the battle of cut and paste will never be won by either side, nor will it ever prove anything. There is an infinite amount of information out there that gives the appearance of support for either side of this argument. Infinite!!!

So again, here's what it comes down to. My association is bigger than your association. My association uses a democratic process and Robert's Rules of Order to do business. The membership of my association is not in favor of changing the rule.

But, if you cut and paste enough information on a message board - well who knows? Hopefully our side will cut and paste enough articles to keep the age the same. That's what it really comes down to isn't it?

I can see the cover of Aviation Weekly. "Klako wins battle of cut and paste with sheer quantity--Age 60 rule abolished". Good luck.

PIPE

 

[Klako]

Klako- I meant facts to show that Andy has distorted the truth. Andy's post seemed to have more specifics than anything in this entire thread.

Andy's and your arguments are based solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday, that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for an extension to the age 60 rule. Thus Andy's position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, there is insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore ALL US airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic used 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

 

[Klako]

Correct the record or shut your piehole.

You and Undaunted never answer fact-based arguments. For 40 pages now, whenever anyone makes a valid fact-based argument, you ignore it and move on like it never happened. You just spout the same rhetoric like a deaf crazy person. In fact, maybe you are deaf and crazy. Both often accompany aging. No, that can't be right. Aging has no effects. To imply otherwise would be discriminatory.

WHAT ARE ANDY'S DISTORTIONS OF THE TRUTH? PLEASE POINT OUT THE FACTUAL ERRORS. PLEASE SUPPLY FACTS TO DISPUTE THESE ERRORS.
AGAIN -- CORRECT THE RECORD. ADDRESS THE FACTS POINT BY POINT. RESPOND WITH FACTS. IF YOU CANNOT, PLEASE SHUT UP AND GO AWAY!!!

PIPE

I was primarly refering to Andy's distortions of my personal situation. My or anyones personal situation should never have been discussed. The issue is that qualified pilots are forced out of their profession for no other reason than their age and that is simply wrong!

 

[Andy]

I was primarly refering to Andy's distortions of my personal situation. My or anyones personal situation should never have been discussed. The issue is that qualified pilots are forced out of their profession for no other reason than their age and that is simply wrong!

Klako, if I had made any statements that were a gross misrepresentation of your situation, you'd be posting a detailed response.
As for bringing forth personal situations, you opened that can of worms all by yourself by stating a distorted picture of your personal situation. I was merely correcting your distortions.

 

[ils2minimums]

 

[Andy]

Andy's and your arguments are based solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday, that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for an extension to the age 60 rule.

No, I've posted two reports that were based on multiple scientific studies that support the fact that the negative effects of aging outweigh pilot experience beyond the age of 55. The available safety data is very clear on that point.

 

[Klako]

Klako, if I had made any statements that were a gross misrepresentation of your situation, you'd be posting a detailed response.
As for bringing forth personal situations, you opened that can of worms all by yourself by stating a distorted picture of your personal situation. I was merely correcting your distortions.

I started to rebut some of your assumptions you made about my personal situation but I am just not going there.

Let us stick to the relevant stuff.

It is really sad that our industry has been reduced to a dog eat dog, stab the other guy in that back before you get stabbed first jungle atmosphere. Both sides are guilty of not willing to compromise. I only wish all of us could separate the ultimate right from wrong, but that now seems to be hopelessly clouded by our own personal feelings.

My bottom line is that all of us would ultimately benefit if the age 60 rule were changed but if it is not now changed it never will.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Andy's and your arguments are based solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday, that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for an extension to the age 60 rule. Thus Andy's position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, there is insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore ALL US airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic used 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

A well written post that is 100% accurate. Thank you for this. It hits the nail right on the head. And it will be the basis the coming change.

The change is a done deal as has even been stated by Duane Woerth.

 

[AAflyer]

A well written post that is 100% accurate. Thank you for this. It hits the nail right on the head. And it will be the basis the coming change.

The change is a done deal as has even been stated by Duane Woerth.

Undaunted,

I got a kick out of the article you were in. Out of curiosity, why wern't you pushing hard for this when you were an FO? I can't remember wether it was you or the pilot who felt he would be a burden on society. Having to send his child to college an all. Aren't you the one who bought him a plane? Don't you have another for sale? I can hardly afford to rent a plane, and I will 3 kids to put through college. I am a S80 FO not making nearly what you make, or made during those 3 years you guys were at the top.

How much additional income do you make as a DE? I have doubts that all over 60 pilots will be medically fit to fly, so does ICAO, why do they have a limitation on one being under the age of 60.

I agree that it can be done... However I would have a hell of a lot more respect for you if just said the real reason you want to continue flying. It is the same reason I want you gone. i would like to enjoy the seat you are in.

Age discrimination right.... SO why 65? Sounds like age discrimination again? Another arbitrary number right? However it suits you for the time being so it is ok..right? How about being at the bottom of my new-hire class because of my age.... Should I sue my employer for age discrimination?


AAflyer

I know...I know.... I will be able to fly an additional 5 years as well. Just what I wanted to do... Thanks for changing the rules in he middle of the game.

 

[FoxHunter]

Undaunted,


How much additional income do you make as a DE? I have doubts that all over 60 pilots will be medically fit to fly, so does ICAO, why do they have a limitation on one being under the age of 60.

I agree that it can be done... However I would have a hell of a lot more respect for you if just said the real reason you want to continue flying. It is the same reason I want you gone. i would like to enjoy the seat you are in.

Age discrimination right.... SO why 65? Sounds like age discrimination again? Another arbitrary number right? However it suits you for the time being so it is ok..right? How about being at the bottom of my new-hire class because of my age.... Should I sue my employer for age discrimination?


AAflyer

I know...I know.... I will be able to fly an additional 5 years as well. Just what I wanted to do... Thanks for changing the rules in he middle of the game.

Why 65? Why one pilot under age 60?

If you read the ICAO study on the subject you will find it was adopted because that has been the standard in Europe and Japan for a number of years. It goes on to say that it is believe that neither is necessary and both are expected to be dropped. By the time you get to age 65 there probably will be no age 65 restriction.:beer:

 

[AAflyer]

Why 65? Why one pilot under age 60?

If you read the ICAO study on the subject you will find it was adopted because that has been the standard in Europe and Japan for a number of years. It goes on to say that it is believe that neither is necessary and both are expected to be dropped. By the time you get to age 65 there probably will be no age 65 restriction.:beer:

I figured you would respond.... I already have some of you squinting over the taxi diagrams at night, I am sure I will have to carry one of your bags into the cockpit next.. I am sure I will keep doing the walk arounds as it will be risky for you to get up and down the jetbridge.

Alteast I will get my choice of crew meals, as the other will be a can of Ensure.


Yup,

I bet you were just screaming for the age 60 abolishment when you were an FO as well.


Like I said FOX, you would get a heck of a lot more respect if you just say it is all about me, I want more money, and I want to keep flying. I really have no care for how it alters your career path as a junior pilot. I knew what the rules were when I got in, however I WAITED till it was OPRTUNE (AS A WIDE-BODY CAPTAIN) to change it.

 

[FoxHunter]

I figured you would respond.... I already have some of you squinting over the taxi diagrams at night, I am sure I will have to carry one of your bags into the cockpit next.. I am sure I will keep doing the walk arounds as it will be risky for you to get up and down the jetbridge.

Alteast I will get my choice of crew meals, as the other will be a can of Ensure.


Yup,

I bet you were just screaming for the age 60 abolishment when you were an FO as well.


Like I said FOX, you would get a heck of a lot more respect if you just say it is all about me, I want more money, and I want to keep flying. I really have no care for how it alters your career path as a junior pilot. I knew what the rules were when I got in, however I WAITED till it was OPRTUNE (AS A WIDE-BODY CAPTAIN) to change it.

When I was going to get furloughed, or was on furlough it was really only the junior guys that had much interest in the issue. Just natural one is interested in the issues that impact them. I'm interested because it impacts me, you are because it impacts you, just looking at the same issue from a different view point.

 

[AAflyer]

When I was going to get furloughed, or was on furlough it was really only the junior guys that had much interest in the issue. Just natural one is interested in the issues that impact them. I'm interested because it impacts me, you are because it impacts you, just looking at the same issue from a different view point.

That has been my point all along. You actually get more respect, atleast from me, saying it is all about you. The age discrimination, or the "all the experienced pilots" will be leaving is BS.

Thanks for your honesty!!

AAflyer

Now, beat it old man

 

[§kyye Candy]

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

Besides the amazingly overinflated ego you are showcasing here, do we really want to get into a discussion of who is more proficient?

Not to complain, but let's get real here for a second: turboprop NDB approaches in the mountains, IMC, no autopilot, 16 hour days, all quick-turns, no commutable schedules, McDonalds for dinner (if they're still open), minimal equipment available for swap-outs, and (relatively) virtually zero work rules... VS. sitting on your butt and reading a book for all of TWO legs until FAF and then enduring the 5 min. ride to the 5 star hotel for the 14 hour L/O.

Just out of curiosity... where exactly is this veteran Capt., who is unequaled by any, getting his "experience?"

 

[FoxHunter]

That has been my point all along. You actually get more respect, atleast from me, saying it is all about you. The age discrimination, or the "all the experienced pilots" will be leaving is BS.

Thanks for your honesty!!

AAflyer

Now, beat it old man

Not if I can help it!

BTW I flew DC8 F/O for a Dominican company called Aerovias Quesqueyana where the DC8 Chief Pilot was age 69, and the other Captains were age 60+. All retired EAL. During the same time period almost all the Air Jamaica Captains were age 60+ retired EAL. Then in 1975 the FAA changed the rules. ICAO went to the age 60 standard in the early 70s and the FAA decided that over 60 Captains from foreign airlines could no longer fly into the USA. The oldest line pilot at Air Jamaica was former EAL pilot, age 66, when it ended.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Not if I can help it!

BTW I flew DC8 F/O for a Dominican company called Aerovias Quesqueyana where the DC8 Chief Pilot was age 69, and the other Captains were age 60+. All retired EAL. During the same time period almost all the Air Jamaica Captains were age 60+ retired EAL. Then in 1975 the FAA changed the rules. ICAO went to the age 60 standard in the early 70s and the FAA decided that over 60 Captains from foreign airlines could no longer fly into the USA. The oldest line pilot at Air Jamaica was former EAL pilot, age 66, when it ended.

Oh, for the love of Baby Jesus! That airline sounded like a nursing home on a big tricycle!! I imagine a Cocoon movie setting with all the old geezer pilots pushing their little walkers (with the cool tennis ball anti-skid on paired legs! ) out to the jet for a little spin around S. America.

Mrs. BBB and I are dealing with parts falling off both sets of parents (barely 70 mind you ... about the same age as your previous chief pilot!) ... it ain't pretty. We're talking hip replacements (x2), quadruple bypass for one of 'em, multiple ER visits between the four of them in the last 2 years ... heck, I spent all Father's day last year with dear old dad guess where? ... bingo Fox ... in the EMERGENCY ROOM!

Some of you act like you're immune to the declining health (mental AND physical) aspects associated with aging. I say lay the crack pipe down Pops and realize your vertical time left on Mother Earth is precious AND limited! Go teach your grandkids to fish and let the young kid raising a family behind you have his shot in the big chair! :smash:

BBB