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 Thread starter 71KILO
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 146

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

Abolish the Age 60 Rule for other that Part 91 pilots?

  • Yea

    Votes: 668 35.5%
  • Nay

    Votes: 1,214 64.5%

  • Total voters
    1,882
No the US has fallen far behind the rest of the world in many areas of the aviation business.

US aviation is behind? Your agenda has blinded you!

The US is responsible for Boeing and all its developments that the FAA supports, GPS, ground movement radar, ADS-B, advanced EFIS displays, NASA's developments,
 
Dudes: You need to quit quoting DooucheHunter. I have him on ignore because he keeps calling me a scab for disagreeing with him, so every time you quote him I have to read his drivel. I ought to put UF on that list too.

Since it is out there in the quotes DooucheHunter I will say this to your assertion: if our the US is so far behind the rest of the world in many areas of the aviation business shouldn't you go ahead and retire now so the young guys can figure out how to catch us up since you old farts haven't been able to? Makes about as much sense as anything else you write.

FJ
 
Having read the many rants and raves about this issue on this thread, one thing is becoming very clear to me and that is this is not about safety, it's not about taking seats and career progression (whatever that may mean in today's day and age with so many bankrupt airlines) but about personal gain. Whether you are for or against the 60 rule, you are either for it or against it for one reason and that is personal gain. To say otherwise is a total crock.

For those that say you knew what you were getting when signed on and got a DOH is VERY presumptious and you are of course assuming that EVERYONE got to a major carrier status, has never been furloughed or laid off and has, at best, been with one, maybe two carriers his/her whole career!

There must be hundreds, if not thousands of American pilots who have had NO career progression, a previous DOH is no longer relevant because that company does not exist any more, and may have been unemployed for many months with NO benefits or support because your former company had NO union (what a concept and yes, it probably would have made NO difference anyway!). Further still, there are likely many pilots that have been forced to work overseas and are looking in on this debate from the outside. Career progression? Is that something touted in the 70s or 80s? You are lucky if you have a career to start with. Thousands did not get that opportunity and are on their 5th or 6th or more airline, each time starting from the bottom of that sacred seniority ladder, only to have the rug pulled from under them. What about those folks? What rights do they have? Do they even have a future in this crazy industry?

So, in conclusion, you have not even BEGUN to touch the various individual circumstances out there that a pilot might have gone through the past two or three decades. Since you do not know, how can you begin to understand? You cannot possibly becuase you make assumptions about career progression, DOH, yadda yadda. But it's a different world out there now. There are NO guarantees you will hold a job for even 3 or 5 years, let alone a whole career so how can you apply outdated rules to something that vanished a long time ago.

It is human nature to fight for what's best whether it be food on the table, retirement fund, college education for the kids or whatever. Some folks have had the right breaks and good luck to them. But a lot have not had any breaks and have fought just as hard to get where they are today - most likely harder. Do these folks not deserve a chance to improve their lives? I'm not talking of the yachts and ex-wives. That is usually the preserve of the lucky few who have not gone through any or much adversity.

Personally, I believe in the right to continue working for as long as you are able and want to. To have that right denied because of an outdated 40-year law, is extremely short-sighted. If you want to retire at 60 or even 55, then go ahead, no one is stopping you. But if you dictate when a person should
retire, because you want to benefit your career, then that's totally out of order. No other industry or profession has such restricted practices as ours. Everybody deserves to have a job, that is a basic human right. I would not presume to tell anyone that they should just pack up and go home merely because they have reached a certain age (not even Undaunted Flyer!:) . And certainly not, so that I would benefit from it by a seat change and extra cash to boot. The younger folks have time on their hands and patience IS a VIRTUE. I, more than most, can vouch for that!

When I came into this industry, I had zero expectations no matter what I read or was told. I was grateful for a job I loved and if it did not last I would move on. Because of the way the system is set up, I lost out plenty. I did not take anyone's seat or career aspirations but I sure learnt fast that you look after numero uno because no one else is going to toot for you.

I will never be a Captain with any American airline or company, not by choice but through lack of opportunity. I have come to terms with that but it really gets my goat when I see people mentioning DOH, seniority and all that other crap! Nobody promised you a golden parachute when you signed on - or did they?

It is very ironic that as an American citizen and airman, I have been forced out of what I love to do and can now only do it overseas. And NO, I am not about to turn 60, just there are far better opportunities elsewhere where you are respected as a professional pilot and career progression actually means that. Outside of America, there is NO Chap. 11 bankruptcy protection, nor automatic slashing and burning of payscales and benefits. The US may have once had the best airlines and payscales etc. but that is sadly no longer the case anymore. Case in point, for me to come back next month, I would have to take a 50% IMMEDIATE drop in salary and go back on some ageing DC-9 with a third-level operator in a place I have no real interest in and start over again..........no thanks! Been there, done that far too many times...

Enjoy your careers..............while you can and remember you too, will be 60 someday. Hope your luck holds out until then.

Good post. I feel that pilots can deal better with mgts whims, geopolitical threats, and stuff like that better than they deal with their union brothers plunging a knife in them. Ask an original FAL pilot what they think about UAL ALPA, Lorenzo has nothing on them!

Do you work in a rostering and assignments arrangement?
 
You're kidding, right? US Part 121 airlines have a terrible safety record compared compared to many foreign airlines.

Yea how did I forget the Korean Air B747 crashing into Nimitz Hill on Guam. That accident killed all on board because the crew couldn't understand the ATIS about the GS being INOP.


You think the US has the "GOLD STANDARD" for the rest of the world. Just look at the flight and duty time regulations under FAR 121 and compare them to the rest of the world.

Yea, I also forgot about all the commuters who don't want to change the flight and duty time regs. because they are all about slamming 30 hours of flying into a three day to keep the trip as productive as possible so they do their three leg commute with the four hour drive.

I recall reading about one US airline that had three altitude busts in one week departing one European airport because they had failed to reset their altimeter at the proper time.

Yea like you have changed to QFE at every screw ball transition level every time you've departed a foreign airport.

The rest of the world is impressed(NOT) as the Yanks yap away about non operational matters as they cross the Atlantic.

Yea and like anyone wants to hear that crap. I especially like it when the French start babbling and I am forced to step on them to shut them up.

The FAA is still trying to figure out how to stop runway incursions.

But at least the FAA doesn't clear aircraft to LINE UP AND WAIT AFTER THE LANDING TRAFFIC. That has to be one of the most dangerous ICAO procedures I could think of. And I seem to clearly remember the Singapore 747 accident that took off from a closed runway in TPE hitting the crane.

I wonder how many they ever have at Heathrow/Gatwick/Hong Kong/ Singapore or any other airport that has the lighting system developed by the Brits. I recall seeing that lighting system my first flight into Heathrow in September 1969.

Who cares about an airport lighting system. You are showing your out-of-date age referring to yesterdays technology. The aircraft I fly can land zero/zero and only needs 300 RVR to cross the FAF. We don't look out the window till we are trying to clear the runway at taxi speed. Have you heard of the ALERT HEIGHT?

Your statements about the US falling behind is crap. The US has lead the world in every technological advance ever made in aviation or space. And with each of those developments has come the highest world standard of regulation in existence today in every aspect to back up that hardware.
 
Last edited:
Yea like you have changed to QFE at every screw ball transition level every time you've departed a foreign airport.

No offense Lucky, but you don't change to QFE departing a foreign airport. You change to QFE (where those operations are still in place) when arriving and cleared below the lowest transition level/transition layer.
I understand your contention however. I personally have never missed an altimeter changeover...;)
 
No offense Lucky, but you don't change to QFE departing a foreign airport. You change to QFE (where those operations are still in place) when arriving and cleared below the lowest transition level/transition layer.
I understand your contention however. I personally have never missed an altimeter changeover...;)


Just a sign of his inexperience.:rolleyes:
 
My error

I wrote QFE instead of QNE.

QNE is 29.92, while QFE is height above airport verse QNH being height above sea level.

No offense taken but I do fail to see how this shows my lack of experience Fox Hunter as I have landed in QFE meters ops in Russia as well as QNH meters ops in China.
 
Last edited:
SWA is the problem!

"There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue," as qouted from the Paul Emens APAAD letter.

SWA is the problem behind age 65. Three of the four in favor of change are directly related to SWA. APAAD was started by 35 SWA activists trying to pad their pockets for themselves. SWAPA is spending large amounts of union funds without a vote from its pilot group on the issue. And SWA management is trying to keep old loyal friends.

Were does the average SWA line pilot stand on the issue?




 
"There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue," as qouted from the Paul Emens APAAD letter.

SWA is the problem behind age 65. Three of the four in favor of change are directly related to SWA. APAAD was started by 35 SWA activists trying to pad their pockets for themselves. SWAPA is spending large amounts of union funds without a vote from its pilot group on the issue. And SWA management is trying to keep old loyal friends.

Were does the average SWA line pilot stand on the issue?






The ARC vote was 6 against, 4 in favor. If you break the voting groups down by membership numbers it is a massive landslide against change.

Why in the he!! was the ARC vote "rigged" like the senate? How about an accurate representation next time. Not to mention that the SWA pilot group is actually opposed. Maybe they were squawking 7500 during the vote.

PIPE
 
Update from the instigators

WHERE ARE WE ON 60 RIGHT NOW?

The 60 ARC is over. It was delivered to the FAA Administrator on November 29th.
Was it definitive? Absolutely not.

The ARC report contains a Pro and Con side, an Appendix that lists some (not all) supporting data, and an Executive Summary of the ARC. The Executive Summary is not definitive and contains point-counterpoint from the Pro-Con groups. Rather than directing any single course of action, it lays out the opposing sides of the issue. It identifies (but does not solve) a number of implementation issues. These issues obviously would impact some airlines or pilot groups more (or less) than others.

A pseudo vote was taken. It came down to six against change (the four ALPA reps [Delta, Fed Ex, ALPA, ExpressJet], as well as the APA and American Airlines reps). There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue. The rest were neutral.

The only agreed upon recommendation was that any change needed to be ‘prospective’ to preclude those already retired from coming back and attempting to reclaim seniority.

The FAA Administrator is not bound by any vote of the ARC. Its biased makeup certainly takes out of play any ‘vote’ results and, in any case, 6-4 is not a landslide.

Here’s where we stand:

The Administrator can stand pat or initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re 60/65. It seems she might do the NPRM. This is good – and bad. Good in that we are finally getting some action on the rule. Bad in that we had an NPRM back in the mid ‘90s and the FAA punted on change due to politics & an NPRM is not a sure thing; bad because an NPRM take a long time (1 ½ to 2 years); and bad because Democrats in Congress may back away from legislation and allow the FAA to ‘handle’ the issue.

In Congress the Republicans have not just punted, they dropped the ball entirely. The Democrats certainly didn’t help matters.

Unlike 2001 and 2003, we never got a vote on S. 65. This was due primarily to the partisan and poisonous atmosphere on the Hill in an election year. Republican leadership demanded that we guarantee 60 votes to block any Democrat filibuster. We couldn’t do that. Democrat leadership didn’t give assurances that they would let any vote go forward without a fight on behalf of ALPA, better known in Democrat offices as “The Union.”

Even though we knew we had 60+ votes, more support and co sponsors than we have ever had before, we got no vote.

Our legislation was attached to the Transportation Appropriations bill. That gave us hope that we would move forward with that money bill. Although this bill should have been voted on by the end of September it was not (money bills are supposed to be passed by September 30th). Congressional decisions were made with regard to the upcoming elections. They did not work to our advantage. We had every expectation that the Approps money bill would be voted on after the election or rolled into an ‘omnibus’ bill (the various money bills lumped together) and voted on as part of the greater whole. November came and went (so did Congress). No money bills were voted on.

Then came a lightning strike: Some members decided they would not support any money bills because they were loaded with pork (in all fairness, the pork extended to both sides of the congressional aisle). The Republicans thus are on the verge of punting almost a half-trillion dollars worth of spending bills to the Democrats in ’07. That has the added effect of keeping the Democrats occupied for a bit with spending bills, rather than other issues some Republicans are not in favor of.

To keep the government running, Congress is poised to pass a “Continuing Resolution”, wherein spending would continue at ’06 rates through a pre-determined date in ’07. That gives Congress time to re-craft, and vote on, the various money bills.

For us, the effect is that S.65 drops into oblivion, as legislation does not carry over into the next session of Congress.

We may still get lucky. Another lightning bolt may strike from the sky. Something may happen as Congress returns this week. Deals may be struck and posturing left behind in favor of accomplishments. Transp Approps may be passed. However, word from most sources is that the chances of that are very slim.

Early ’07 will see us back on the Hill, attempting to revive S. 65 and H.R. 65. We will look for sponsors and co-sponsors. Congress has to pass its money bills. We will attempt to have our legislation attached to pending money bills. We will meet with the new committee chairs and their staffs to solicit support.

We had some excellent progress on the Democrat side of the aisle. We will try to capitalize on that.

We had success in our grasp and partisan politics knocked our train off the tracks. It is incredibly unfair (unlucky?) to be so close and to have partisanship involved in something that is so non-partisan… yet that is exactly what happened.

We do, however, have the greatest weapon of all: ICAO and its Age 65 standard. Neither the Administrator nor Congress can be comfortable with or allow United States pilots to be second-class citizens in our own country.

We will keep pushing. We will succeed.

Paul Emens
Co-Founder, APAAD
 
I don't really have time right now to vent and state some facts surrounding the issue but I will say.......................NO F*ng way.............PERIOD. comprende?
PS... how about a move to make 55 the mandatory no.#
I wonder why nobody grings up the ATC mandatoty age of 58................Bueller Bueller ??
 
airdog: the ATC mandatory age has been brought up several times. Bueller?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom