Age 60-rule DENIED!!

[b757driver]

True - but you are still in a better position. Taking your argument one step further, if the airlines are not hiring, then the 58-year-old, say, also loses out and not just in terms of seniority. Basically, everyone loses some time. However, the 21 year old just has to be patient & diligent & his time will come. For him/her, it can only get better.
Once you're 60, no amount of waiting will help, it's completely out of your hands, which is exactly my point!

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

And my point is that human physical and mental performance decreases with age. The rule has contributed to our wonderful safety record, and I see no reason to risk that because some are unsatisfied with their pensions.

 

[b757driver]

OK, then why don't surgeons retire @ a mandated age? They have just as much "safety" related issues to deal with as we have, and more often. Presumably, they too, lose physical and mental performance as they age - just like the rest of us!
To insinuate that at age 60, you are incapable of functioning is absolute garbage. Maybe SOME people, but certainly not all. And it's not just about retirements, it's about freedom of choice, you know, that stuff our troops have been fighting for.......

 

[b757driver]

The rule has contributed to our wondeful safety record, and....

And what wonderful safety record are you referring to? And over what period? Where's the evidence?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

Uhhh, the lack of planes falling out of the sky?




I wonder why ATC personnel have to retire at 56? Don't they know about the surgeon thing? I wonder why I couldn't get my driver's license before 16. Isn't that freedom of choice? Isn't that what the troops are fighting for.

Don't wrap yourself in the flag during this debate.

P.S.
I did not say that they were incapable of functioning. I said their performance decreases as they age. I stand by that statement.

Thankfully, the FAA and the Senate agree with me.

 

[General Lee]

FlyDeltajets,

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think age is the major problem here---it is changing the rules. I think someone who flies allnighters all the time or lots of Intl flying and the subsequent crossing of many time zones could be so tired that he/she might also be a "danger", and that person might only be 50 years old. Someone who flies a turn from ATl-PHX and back with respectable hours (like a 10am duty in and a 8pm duty out) might be fine until he/she is 70. I think it depends on the conditions, or the routes and types of flying. Most of the senior pilots at Lufthansa fly European Domestic on the 737. But, the main deal here is changing the rules to benefit a few with lousy contracts. It's not like these people did not know what age they were supposed to retire at. They knew this all along and won't admit it to you. Oh yeah, things have changed..... They should have pushed harder for better retirement packages, or maybe invested better, or maybe they should have only married once.
I keep pointing out that our retirement rule is better than others---Switzerland has a mandatory age 55 retirement for airline pilots. And, I know that Britian has an age 62 retirement now---but maybe they have a shortage, but we do not here. We have massive unemployment at the airlines and it possibly could get worse, but some people want to stay on past 60 because of their bad contracts. That luckily won't happen for a while longer.

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

You make good points as well. Nothing like trying to change the rules in the fourth quarter once you realize you are losing the game!


P.S.
Just an analogy. I don't mean to imply that anyone is "winning" or "losing." Just a little humor.

Besides, judging from my aviation career over the last year, I certainly don't consider myself to be winning anything!

I still, however, believe that the first rule we should always ask when contemplating a rule change is will this make flying more or less safe. I believe it to be the latter, and therefore cannot support changing it.