Age 60 informal poll

[FoxHunter]

To All,
Ask yourself how safe a 64 ½ year old pilot would be flying 6 legs in one day with the last one down to mins, on a short wet runway, with 30 knots of crosswind. Would you trust your family on this flight? Where is the data suggesting this is safe? I give you a hint – there is none.
AA767AV8TOR

I agree that would be unsafe! I would not be at all worried with a 64 1/2 year old Captain because he is wise enough, and experienced enough not to try it!! I have no doubt at your level of experience, no matter how sharp you think you are, if you were Captain my family would be at serious risk in the case you cited.:crying:

That is just one of the reasons the age limit should change.

 

[zonker]

I agree that would be unsafe! I would not be at all worried with a 64 1/2 year old Captain because he is wise enough, and experienced enough not to try it!! I have no doubt at your level of experience, no matter how sharp you think you are, if you were Captain my family would be at serious risk in the case you cited.:crying:

That is just one of the reasons the age limit should change.

"Your level of experience".

:laugh:

Yea Grampy, those old geezers never make bad decisions, do they?

 

[FoxHunter]

"Your level of experience".

:laugh:

Yea Grampy, those old geezers never make bad decisions, do they?

Most of us made all the mistakes in the book and had the luck of a good oucome. Most never make the same mistake twice. That is what is refered to as "experience". That sonny is the reason the change in the age will enhance safety.:beer:

 

[zonker]

Most of us made all the mistakes in the book and had the luck of a good oucome. Most never make the same mistake twice. That is what is refered to as "experience". That sonny is the reason the change in the age will enhance safety.:beer:

It will not. You honestly think you can do a consistently better job driving a jet around than a guy that is 59?

Talk about delusional.

The only reason for the push for this change is that there is an organized group of greedy old (delusional) geezers that want to cherry pick the retirement age when it suits them.

 

[FoxHunter]

It will not. You honestly think you can do a consistently better job driving a jet around than a guy that is 59?

Talk about delusional.

The only reason for the push for this change is that there is an organized group of greedy old (delusional) geezers that want to cherry pick the retirement age when it suits them.

Since I just turned 59 not sure how to answer that.

 

[pilotyip]

stop dealing in reality, this is a pilot board.

 

[Cyclone]

59

Foxhunter is 59 and he thinks he will be able to fly just as well at 65 as he can right now. We're not really worried about the flying...it's more the thinking and listening and processing that breaks down with age. You can see how good he is at this by reading his posts. He won't acknowledge that his skills will deteriorate. That might jeopardize his wallet which is all he cares about. Therefore we should change the law...not logical and not smart but at least he will have more money. Sad.

 

[Klako]

We all based our career decisions on retiring at age 60 – all of us.[/SIZE][/FONT]

TOTAL BS!

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

They are not changing a contract. They are trying to alter a Federal law. One that has been in place for over 40 years and which we were all hired under.

Not all Federal statutes are good, or just, or appropriate to the world we live in today. Most of the guys I fly with...including ones who are adamant against changing the retirement age for the reason you mentioned...nevertheless believe that immigration laws should be changed. Why, I ask? Many of those policies have been in place longer than the retirement age. Why change them now?

And why are we working towards a change in laws dealing with how pensions and labor contracts are handled in bankruptcy? Aren't the laws in place "the ones we were hired under?" Of course they are. But as it turns out, they don't adequately cover all situations, and only a change in the rules affecting everybody will rectify that fact.

"Forty years ago," AA was flying DC-6's, the largest plane in their fleet had about the same capacity as a stretched 737, and it took 10-15 years to make left seat at a junior base. The rules you were hired under were very similar...do you really want to hold fast to them, as well?

 

[Cyclone]

Whistlin Dan

Dan

Not all Federal laws are bad either. Age 60 isn't perfect but it is a lot better than the proposal. The unintended consequences of the new law will be a more unsafe air transport system. When you propose something better than Age 60 I will listen. H.R. 65/S. 65 will make things worse. It will be worse for the traveling public and for those of us stuck flying with guys well past their prime. They need to go.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

TOTAL BS!

Klako,

Total BS. I suppose you were hired in the 50's??

You have known about Age 60 since the day you were hired and now that you're senior you are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game -- that's total BS!!!!

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Dan

Not all Federal laws are bad either. Age 60 isn't perfect but it is a lot better than the proposal. The unintended consequences of the new law will be a more unsafe air transport system. When you propose something better than Age 60 I will listen. H.R. 65/S. 65 will make things worse. It will be worse for the traveling public and for those of us stuck flying with guys well past their prime. They need to go.

Cyclone,

If these guys are successful at changing the law – they must be put at the end of the seniority list. There is no data – none – about pilots flying Part 121 over the age of 60.

The flying public must not be made guinea pigs in their greedy quest to steal our seniority numbers.

Every pilot over the age of 60, hired under the Age 60 retirement law, must go to the end of the seniority list.

Public safety and our careers demand it. Make no mistake about it; if you are junior these pilots are attempting to economically damage your career. Don’t let these greedy bastards pick your pockets.

So much for the brotherhood.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Not all Federal statutes are good, or just, or appropriate to the world we live in today. Most of the guys I fly with...including ones who are adamant against changing the retirement age for the reason you mentioned...nevertheless believe that immigration laws should be changed. Why, I ask? Many of those policies have been in place longer than the retirement age. Why change them now?

And why are we working towards a change in laws dealing with how pensions and labor contracts are handled in bankruptcy? Aren't the laws in place "the ones we were hired under?" Of course they are. But as it turns out, they don't adequately cover all situations, and only a change in the rules affecting everybody will rectify that fact.

"Forty years ago," AA was flying DC-6's, the largest plane in their fleet had about the same capacity as a stretched 737, and it took 10-15 years to make left seat at a junior base. The rules you were hired under were very similar...do you really want to hold fast to them, as well?

Whistlin' Dan,

Now we’re talking about immigration laws to justify your greedy act.

Gee, then I think the part of our contract that states our seniority number is bogus too. Let’s change that while we’re at it and put all pilots over the age of 60 at the end of the list. That seniority list that you’re on is not etched in stone.

Your rationalization about how it just fine to steal from the junior guys on the property is mind boggling. The senior pilots stand to gain a steep windfall from this change. Where do you think the extra money is coming from?

I hope you can look in the mirror when you keep our furlough pilots at AA out on the streets another 3 – 5 years just because you think the law is bad and to satisfy your selfish greed. You have had years to plan for this; you should have charted your career better.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Klako]

Klako,

Total BS. I suppose you were hired in the 50's??

You have known about Age 60 since the day you were hired and now that you're senior you are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game -- that's total BS!!!!

AA767AV8TOR

My job and seniority is something that no one should have the right to take away from me. Those of you who think that the forced retirement of senior pilots is your God given path to seniority progression had better re-evaluate your career plans as change is coming soon. The age 60 rule has always been wrong and it is high time that we put an end to it.

My airline has never provided its pilots a pension. We only have a 401K. I have planed my career as best as I can. I served in the military for 20 years, 11 years over seas including Vietnam. Now I would now like to help 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.

Most important, I truely love my job and I am damn good at it.

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. I was promoted to Captain through expansion not attrition.

I fly for the best regional airline in the world. What made us the best is the work ethic of our employees.

DO NOT FORCE YOUR DIRTY APA/ALPA UNION POLITICS OF AGE DISCRIMINATION ON ME.

 

[Phaedrus]

I'll save UF the keystrokes: "Well said Klako. A most noteworthy and laudatory analysis".