Age 60 Rule - please answer this PRO-camp

[SWA/FO]

Also, since the age limit won't be changed tommorrow, the Medicaire/SocSec ages should be changed to match the forced retirement age of us pilots.

right on Cliff. You stuck in LRD? Are you a Capt. yet?

 

[Falconjet]

You won't get an answer Satpak because they have no logical argument.

You might as well try to get blood from a turnip.

FJ

 

[Dizel8]

I agree with Cliff. The goverment requires us to retire at 60, so we should not be penalized by the SS rules. Of course, this would cost the Goverment money and people would be up in arms about the "rich" pilots, so I am thinking this is a no go.

As for the age 60 vs 65, yep it is about money on both sides, so leaving the rule in place seems more fair than changing it.

To the poster who said, that it would all come out as a wash, that the young guy would get another 5 years in the end, then I must say hogwash. The young gent has no idea he will make it to 65, so the more money he can put away now, into retirement investment etc, will either compound more or give him/her a nest egg in case of anything untowards happening. Should he make it to sixty, the money invested, compounded and all, will probably be worth more.

 

[pilotyip]

SWA/FO Cliff is now a senior Captain.

 

[satpak77]

You won't get an answer Satpak because they have no logical argument.

You might as well try to get blood from a turnip.

FJ

I know I know....

still waiting....

amazing, the pro-Age-change group huh. Age Discrimination. But ask to validate that argument, and the freq sure gets quiet doesn't it....

 

[pilotyip]

Posted over on the other age 60 thread is a New Medical Report that states that moving the age to 65 will be more safe than the present age 60 rules, because it will keep experience in the cockpit and not fill seats with less expereinced pilots. In the end it is all about safety so raise the age Nov 22nd

 

[satpak77]

Posted over on the other age 60 thread is a New Medical Report that states that moving the age to 65 will be more safe than the present age 60 rules, because it will keep experience in the cockpit and not fill seats with less expereinced pilots. In the end it is all about safety so raise the age Nov 22nd

how was this study done? There is no historical data to prove/disprove this. "Keeping experience in the cockpit?"

So you are basically saying that the current upgrade programs that have existed since flying the mail, in which a FO upgrades to Captain at XXX Part 121 Airline, is "less safe" than if this old geezers were left until Age 65?

You guys are killing me. The same camp that claims "no accident in history has been caused by older age" is quick to chime in how "leaving those guys in place will IMPROVE safety"

uh???

YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT states that CURRENTLY not one accident has been caused by older captains (who must fly with FO's by the way). So if NO ACCIDENTS have occurred as a result of older captains, WHAT DATA is used to validate the argument that "Raising the Age to 65 will ENHANCE the current situation"

you guys are incredible

If you think I am being difficult, wait till a federal judge hears your arguments.....:laugh:

 

[ivauir]

Don't be ashamed. If the Capt had been 35 it would surely have been chalked up to lack of experience. BTW, wasn't it the FO who finally got the reversers deployed?

PIPE

Afer multiple attempts and ffeling like he was going to bend the levers. Age was not a factor.

 

[fam62c]

Like it or not this will happen.

Like it or not, the age 60 manditory retirement is going to change at some point, it has to and airline pilots are not going to make the decision. Manditory retirement is age discrimination pure and simple and sooner or later it will be struck down. Before you jump on me consider that I'm under 40 so I will be affected by the decision. I'm making an effort to look beyond my own personal situation and view the fairness of the issue as a whole. Most of the pilots who argue against changing the rule are against it because it will result in slower seniority movement and less open jobs at the top of the profession. This is a valid and understandable concern but it's not a good reason to continue discriminitory practices; what's right is right.

I'm a white, male pilot. Years ago the airlines didn't hire black pilots and female pilots, was this a fair policy? I think most of us would argue that it wasn't. Would it be reasonable for me to argue that being a white, male pilot the airline's previous hiring policies were good because they resulted in more job opportunities for me and less people ahead of me on the seniority list? I'm guessing that if I made this argument I would be called, and rightfully so, all sorts of unkind names. Discrimination is discrimination and the fact that it helps you or me pesonally to advance in our careers doesn't make it right. Pilots are closely monitored and as long as a pilot is passing the physicals, PC's, Line checks, etc. he /she is meeting the same standards as everyone else and should be allowed to do the job. I don't buy into the safety argument for a minute.

As for the original question in the post; yes age 65 is still age discrimination. Also, GENERAL LEE how dare you jump on the fact that the SWA CA in MDW was 59. What proof do you have that the CA's age had anything to do with that accident? Can I assume that you will retire prior to age 59 in order to insure the safety of the flying public? Why not let the NTSB handle accident investigations in an environment where they deal with facts and evidence rather than baseless assumptions? There have been tragic aircraft accidents throughout the years involving pilots of all ages, experience levels and backgrounds. Any one of us can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and make the wrong decision. Pilots who assume that it could never happen to them are the ones who scare me.

 

[satpak77]

Like it or not, the age 60 manditory retirement is going to change at some point, it has to and airline pilots are not going to make the decision. Manditory retirement is age discrimination pure and simple and sooner or later it will be struck down..........

.............As for the original question in the post; yes age 65 is still age discrimination.

U.F. Believable

 

[Flopgut]

Afer multiple attempts and ffeling like he was going to bend the levers. Age was not a factor.

He got em out though, right?

We're in the safety business, so changing the age is a safety factor. (I know you agree, at least in part) In the past, we've done everything we can on the ground to stack the odds in our favor in the air. (age change departs from that thinking) In the years following a change, are you going to be OK with the low vis apch setup you've got? You OK with FOs left out on SA and the CA becoming more "Herman Munster like" every trip? I'll be watching SWA pilots if this goes through, I hope you lead on how it is implemented.

 

[fam62c]

U.F. Believable

What is unbelievable?

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

It Just Shows You Dont Have To Have Brains To Fly The Bus Around!

 

[General Lee]

Posted over on the other age 60 thread is a New Medical Report that states that moving the age to 65 will be more safe than the present age 60 rules, because it will keep experience in the cockpit and not fill seats with less expereinced pilots. In the end it is all about safety so raise the age Nov 22nd

The ICAO "Secratariat" or whatever it is called stated that they thought males could safely fly until 65, and females 3 or 4 more years past 65. So, should there also be a rule allowing females to fly to 68 or 69, and males to 65? But hey, that is what ICAO states...... (thanks to ILStominimums for bringing up that point). What do you think YIP? You seem to want to follow their lead and use that as evidence. I can't wait to see an old grandma at age 68 driving a 747 around.....


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[pilotyip]

and General if things work out for you, you can also face the problem of being 68 and still flying an airplane.

 

[FoxHunter]

and General if things work out for you, you can also face the problem of being 68 and still flying an airplane.

What make you think he can fly one now?

 

[Falconjet]

Still crickets chirping.

FJ

 

[Chest Rockwell]

He got em out though, right?

We're in the safety business, so changing the age is a safety factor. (I know you agree, at least in part) In the past, we've done everything we can on the ground to stack the odds in our favor in the air. (age change departs from that thinking) In the years following a change, are you going to be OK with the low vis apch setup you've got? You OK with FOs left out on SA and the CA becoming more "Herman Munster like" every trip? I'll be watching SWA pilots if this goes through, I hope you lead on how it is implemented.

If you think that the FO is left out on a low vis approach, you must not understand fully how the system works. In fact all right seat qualified pilots at SWA are trained and checked for Captain incapacitation in low vis operations.

 

[Draginass]

If one pilot is 64, should the other be required to be a some younger age? If age isn't a safety concern, then there's nothing wrong with both pilots being 64 years old.

Also, why shouldn't Air Traffic Controller be allowed to work until they're carried out the door feet first?

One thing for sure, the "discrimination" arguement is just a confuser red-herring. It's really all about . . . . . drum-roll please . . . . . MONEY.

 

[satpak77]

What is unbelievable?

Re-read my response and the bold-faced portions of your quote

 

[fam62c]

I get your point Mr. Rogers. 60 and 65 are both discriminitory in that they are manditory, I agree with that. My vote is that if you can remain qualified you should be able to fly regardless of age. However, at least an age 65 cap discriminates against less people than age 60 so it is a step in the correct direction. Sometimes change is slow and comes in phases. Sometimes you don't get all or nothing and have to accept what you get and go from there. For what it's worth I don't really like this whole issue because it just pits pilots against pilots and we already have enough of that in this industry. Additionally, I personally don't want to be lugging my bags around, living in hotels and getting up at o'dark thirty at age 65 but others may. I've seen guys I respect retire and it just doesn't seem fair to me that one day you're an airline Captain and the next day you are not because you had a birthday. What's magic about 60? Change is hard and younger pilots will feel like the older guys "cheated" by getting to work longer after moving up when they were younger because of the age 60 rule that they are not subject to. So be it, what can you do? Just remember that airline pilots, regardless of their opinions will NOT be the ones who make this decision. We can just agree to disagree on this issue.

 

[Falconjet]

Yeah, its always easier to just lay back and accept the inevitable.

At least we know who's getting raped.

FJ

 

[G4G5]

"Let me guess? You are an ex military type who got to SWA late in life and now you are behind in your 401K? Did you not know the rules when you came over to SWA? How old was the Captain of that 737 that went off the runway at MDW? I'll tell you----59. He quickly retired after the accident. "

How old was Captain Cronin when he had the cargo door blow off UAL flight 811, taking out the #3 and #4 engines at 23,000 feet on the way from Honolulu to Syndey? I'll tell you 59 years old and 11 months.

How old was UAL flight 232 (Souix City, Iowa), Captain Al Haynes? I'll tell you---- 58

 

[flyingitalian]

I get your point Mr. Rogers. 60 and 65 are both discriminitory in that they are manditory, I agree with that. .

Not arguing a position, but no you are incorrect. It discriminates against everyone, just 5 years later.

 

[satpak77]

The "safety will be enhanced" camp cuts their own throat with the argument that "no accident has occurred" because of "old age."

As a matter of fact, Al Haynes and other accidents are bantered about as "proof" age 60 should be abolished, as "by keeping Captains past age 60, you are enhancing safety."

For this argument to be valid, planes should be crashing and dropping out of the sky every time a 59.8 year old is at the controls. They are not. The fact that "no accidents have occurred" because of age shows that the current system, Retire At age 60, WORKS. Why would we need to keep people past age 60, purportedly to "enhance safety", when the same camp claims that no accidents have ever occurred out of old age in the first place?

For every old-guy who saved the day at age 58, there is a "young guy" age 22 to 58 who saved the day somewhere else. We have Blue Angels who are 30. So what? In and of itself, it means nothing.

If 25 accidents occur this year because young captains, age 50, are at the wheel, maybe we need some old-heads to stick around longer, to age 65.

But we don't.

If nothing is broken, why are we trying to fix it?

The me-me-me Pilot animal never ceases to amaze me.

Why don't we sh-can all the arguments, and call a duck a duck. This is about retirement benefits and pension issues, no matter what spin you put on it regarding purported "safety" and "discrimination."

 

[737ski]

How old was UAL flight 232 (Souix City, Iowa), Captain Al Haynes? I'll tell you---- 58

So, you're saying Al Haynes didn't do a good job getting that airplane on the ground, because of his age?? I would differ with your opinion, I've flown that profile, many times, in the sim & had an A-Rod World Series chance of putting it down better than he did...

So, pick another battle to rationalize your opinion, please.

Couldn't refuse, but are you blaming the UAL 747 Captain for a structural failure??? YGBSTM...

BTW, G4G5 you're full of s..t, with nothing for back up, please stay away from the Big Boys & go back to the Frac/Corp board...

 

[satpak77]

I have yet to hear one valid or legit argument why this is an Age Discrimination issue. 4 Pages of discussion, not one response.

Wonder why nobody from this group commented

http://www.apaad.org/

 

[lostplnetairman]

I responded to this months ago when General Lee posed the same question. When the regulation was enacted there were no age discrimination laws. In 1967, the ADEA was passed which protects all workers aged 40 and over.

Recognizing that this current rule is discriminatory under federal law, and wanting to reach a compromise that would facilitate easy passage, the new international standards were used as guidance by the FAA. We are all knowledgable enough to know that compromise sometimes means that you allow the other side a concession to get the deal done. That's the philosophy of win/win negotiatiating. So, if it means that the pilot post 65 must sit in the right seat, sobeit.

In our society things change as society norms change, court rulings, legislation, regulations, etc force the issue.

If this will happen we all need to learn and change with it.

HRDiva

 

[satpak77]

I responded to this months ago when General Lee posed the same question. When the regulation was enacted there were no age discrimination laws. In 1967, the ADEA was passed which protects all workers aged 40 and over.

Recognizing that this current rule is discriminatory under federal law, and wanting to reach a compromise that would facilitate easy passage, the new international standards were used as guidance by the FAA. We are all knowledgable enough to know that compromise sometimes means that you allow the other side a concession to get the deal done. That's the philosophy of win/win negotiatiating. So, if it means that the pilot post 65 must sit in the right seat, sobeit.

In our society things change as society norms change, court rulings, legislation, regulations, etc force the issue.

If this will happen we all need to learn and change with it.

HRDiva

While your post is smooth and politically correct, it does not answer why the Age Discrimination camp can argue that Age 65 is not discrimination while Age 60 is. The "new international standards" used as "guidance by the FAA" violates the ADEA. Some one might tell the FAA this.

Of course the FAA is never wrong and never issues an incorrect opinion do they.

I think the rule requiring someone to be 23 to obtain an ATP is illegal and discriminatory. If a 22 year old with 1500 hours can meet the PTS, he should get his ATP. Why must he wait? Why does the FAA set a minimum age?

I argue that if we lower age 23 to age 18, the legal age to volunteer without parental permission for military service, it will ENHANCE safety as that many more ATP's will be flying around and that many less Commercial only pilots. The ATP is a stricter checkride and if we have that many more out there, the skies will be safer.

Mr. Congressman, please support a abolishment of this archaic rule. I am 22 years old, 1500 hours, and could physically pass the PTS standards today. But I am not 23. Please convince the FAA to abolish this rule, and thus allow the skies to be safer. Also Mr. Congressman, did you know that not one accident has resulted due to "young age?" Not one. Why are otherwise qualified applicants meeting the ATP minimums being kept out of the cockpit? (etc etc etc ad nauseum)

Why has the Age Discrimination lobby not brought this into discussion?

Oh, I forgot, we are talking about the me-Generation, and as far as age 22 and ATP? I got mine, screw you. Now I am about to turn 60 and will sue, form coalitions, start websites, and write my congressman because retire at Age 60 is not fair, it is illegal, etc etc.

FOUR PAGES OF DISCUSSION AND NOT ONE VALID COUNTER ARGUMENT TO MY QUESTIONS.

HMMMMMMMM.......

 

[satpak77]

The Agenda

Let me guess? You are an ex military type who got to SWA late in life and now you are behind in your 401K? Did you not know the rules when you came over to SWA? How old was the Captain of that 737 that went off the runway at MDW? I'll tell you----59. He quickly retired after the accident.



Please answer the questions.


Bye Bye--General Lee

General -

Disregard any bashing you get on this. Lets take a look at Stan Sutterfield, the Chairman of the SWAPA Age Discrimination committee. He is is standing proudly next to a 737

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/12/28/Worldandnation/Are_pilots_really_too.shtml

Now lets look at his BIO

http://www.rv-8a.net/the_builder.htm

'nuff said

This is about an AGENDA by the Me-Generation, and has nothing to do with "lets contribute something to aviation" etc etc platforms.

These people are incredible. Maybe Hoot Gibson is VP of the Age Change committee.

Incredible, simply incredible. Had these groups argued "hey guys, the industry is in hard times, and we need our retirements" then they actually might make it fly. But instead they attach some safety and age discriminatio n and ICAO spin to it and try to sell a load of rotten goods.

It is what it is. Sell it that way, and you might make a sale. Pull something slick and back-doorish and you will get a door slammed in your face.

And that is what will happen in a few weeks when Age 60 is kept in place.

Too bad guys, you almost pulled this one off. Oh well, no points for Second Place Mav