Age 60 rule under attack!

[Tejas-Jet]

If you want to change policy, then you had better come up with a better argument than "they get to, why can't I?"

Why not? Our elected representatives do this all the time.

Tejas

 

[Tejas-Jet]

All this will do is fuk the furloughed guys, but nobody wants to talk about that. Some brotherhood. Any change that results in furloughed guys staying on the street one minute longer is unconscionable.

Age 60 doesn't help furloughed guysall that much....like I've said before, witness the retirements at Delta, AA, US Airways and AA in the last 5 years, but only minimal recalls....what will help furloughed guys not only get back but move up on the list will be....

A corporate strategy of aggressive cost control....efficiency....employee productivity...profits and a growth plan....

That will get you furloughed guys back quick.

Purple, who disgusts you more...the guys who want to see the repeal of age 60...or the CEO's who furloughed thousands of pilots, reduced/eliminated benefits, trashed pensions and have walked away with millions in bonuses...

Tejas

 

[pilotyip]

2% please talk about one sided, you attack the health problems of a bunch of pilots approaching age 60, but never mention the 44 yr. old AAL Capt who died of a heart attack back in 1989, you never mention the other medical problems of the entire pilot population. Studies have shown the highest probability of a sudden heart attack is in the person’s mid 40’s. This was never about safety, it was a 1957 AAL deal to get rid of high paid pilots. It is about self interest, pilots under 47.9 want the age 60 rule to stay, those over 47.9 want the age raised to 65 or 79 or whatever.

 

[JohnDoe]

The one pilot under age 60 rule originated with the JAA.

I know that. But so what?

It still doesn't answer the underlying question of why there is the need for an under-60 pilot to accompany the older pilot......!!

It doesn't matter where that provision comes from. The simple fact of the matter is that someone, somewhere, believes that there may be an issue with an over-60 pilot. Otherwise, there is absolutely no need to mandate an under-60 pilot. Again, I don't care where it comes from. It shows that somebody believes there is an issue.

And again, every single airline pilot out there right now that is advocating increasing the age limit has, at one point in their career, benefitted from the very same rule. Now that they have their's, they want to change it. With 1000's of furloughed guys out on the street, there is not a worse time to change it.

 

[PCL_128]

Purple, who disgusts you more...the guys who want to see the repeal of age 60...or the CEO's who furloughed thousands of pilots, reduced/eliminated benefits, trashed pensions and have walked away with millions in bonuses...

Personally, I see no difference between the two. Both groups of people are attempting to walk all over the "little people" for their own selfish reasons. Management is engaged in a slash-and-burn campaign to make themselves more money with stock options and bonuses. The Age-65 crowd is willing to screw over the junior pilots on furlough just so they can get an extra 5 years at top earnings in the left seat.

 

[PCL_128]

Why?

Because it's the only argument that has any merit to it. You tell me how the FAA plans to come up with any subustantial data to discount the medical data that 37+ other nations have to back their support for 60+?

The data is already there. Andy has provided it multiple times in several different threads. The FAA's studies indicate that accident rates among professional pilots take a dramatic upward trend beginning at age 55.

Since you didn't see it the first 5,000 times that Andy posted it, here it is again for your viewing pleasure: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf

 

[JP4user]

I wonder what these age 60 plus congressman think when people complain about health of those in that age bracket?

 

[PsubS]

Wrong!

PCL, I recommend you read the Executive Summary of your much vaunted research article. To wit:

Overall, these analyses support the hypothesis that a "U"-shaped relationship exists between the age of professional pilots holding Class 1 medical and ATP certificates and the accident rate for operations under 14​

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]CFR [/FONT]§121 and §135. However, the range of mean differences across age groups was very small and not statistically different when comparing adjacent age groups on either side of the current rule.​

(Italics added for emphasis)

So, between your own research "proof" and FAA Chief Marion Blakely's remarks at Oshkosh in late July (that the FAA is officially neutral over the prospect of changing the rule) I think the FAA is not opposed to the change. Nor does it have overriding proof that there is a difference in the accident rate.

This decision is about age discrimination, pure and simple. Every person that flies professionally is certainly motivated by a "me" concern, but at the heart of the issue is discrimination based on motive, not science.

 

[bman]

One should point out that in other countries that don't have the age 60 rule flight physicals are really serious matters not some BS with a guy you've been seeing for years for 45 mins tops. With the a mjority of our populace being overweight and the proportion of pilots likely exceeeding that of the gen pop being staggering, I say go ahead and repeal age 60 and make the physical requirements across the board more stringent in the true interest of safety. This would thin the heard substantially prob. more than age 60 being in place!

But since there is no provision for this in the bill this is clearly a gift to a special interest. But I bet this is what the FAA will do in reponse!

Why?

Because it's the only argument that has any merit to it. You tell me how the FAA plans to come up with any subustantial data to discount the medical data that 37+ other nations have to back their support for 60+? Those nations have already told the FAA that they plan on letting their 60+ pilots FLY IN US AIRSPACE. So it's OK for Airfranc eto have a 65 year old pilot fly the ILS to 4L at JFK but it's not OK for a US pilot? Daaaaaaaaaa, That's why it has merit and we keep brining it up.

You tell me where it is in the FAA's budget to fight this? If you have not noticed the JAA is telling the FAA what to do, it's not the other way around. I just had to install enhanced flight ID into my aircraft at a cost of $25k. Not because the FAA tells me I need it. No, because the JAA tells me that if I don't have it on my aircraft by 3/07, I can't fly in Europe.

Man, you are so far off, you had better come up with an argument that supports why we shouldn't do it where the rest of the world is doing it.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

Studies have shown the highest probability of a sudden heart attack is in the person’s mid 40’s. This was never about safety, it was a 1957 AAL deal to get rid of high paid pilots. It is about self interest, pilots under 47.9 want the age 60 rule to stay, those over 47.9 want the age raised to 65 or 79 or whatever.

This is like the Wright debate. No one really cares about the actual origin of said rule. Instead people assume why it was created and combine that assumption with why they think it should stay. I bet this is how history books get all dorked up.

Lots of heated arguments because of what individuals want. Their logic supports their passionate thoughts about what is in their best interest.

As for all the name calling, it cracks me up. Hope you jackasses feel better doing that. (It made me feel better)

Reality-- The age is going up. Hope you find a way to deal with it.

If it is in your best interest you probably just say so what and go fishing, skiing or whatever it is that you do. If it isn't the whining and complaining reaches ridiculous speed before the news story is even over.

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

One should point out that in other countries that don't have the age 60 rule flight physicals are really serious matters not some BS with a guy you've been seeing for years for 45 mins tops. With the a mjority of our populace being overweight and the proportion of pilots likely exceeeding that of the gen pop being staggering, I say go ahead and repeal age 60 and make the physical requirements across the board more stringent in the true interest of safety. This would thin the heard substantially prob. more than age 60 being in place!

But since there is no provision for this in the bill this is clearly a gift to a special interest. But I bet this is what the FAA will do in reponse!

I agree big time

Those that want the age 60 repealed may be dorking up the good deal on medicals that currently exists. We'll see.

 

[JohnDoe]

Those that want the age 60 repealed may be dorking up the good deal on medicals that currently exists. We'll see.

I too whole-heartedly agree with this one if the rule changes.

How does that saying go: "watch out for what you wish for, you might get it?"

I can see the FAA coming up with some real "invasive" new medical exams to react to this one. Guys thinking they are going to age 65 that get the boot at 58 due to their usual "drag yourself through the door" medical is gone......

 

[G4G5]

Quite simply, because this sovereign state is free to mandate anything it wants over those it subjugates. The Euros do not, although this may be a shot over the bow, set policy here.

All this will do is fuk the furloughed guys, but nobody wants to talk about that. Some brotherhood. Any change that results in furloughed guys staying on the street one minute longer is unconscionable.

To the pro change crowd...you disgust me.

Dude,
You are so far out I don't know if I can reel you back in.

First off, I am furloughed AA, so I fully understand the ramifications of how this will effect the F'ed pilots. That is why I am trying to tell people, plan for it, it's going to happen.

Once again, I am not for it but the thousands of F'ed pilots really need to have plans set in place for the future, to cover the very real possiblity that they will be out 5 years longer then previously planned

 

[G4G5]

http://www.icao.int/cgi/goto_m.pl?/cgi/statesDB4.pl?en

go to search and type in age 60 the link just takes you to a list of ICAO nations

 

[PCL_128]

PCL, I recommend you read the Executive Summary of your much vaunted research article. To wit:



(Italics added for emphasis)

So, between your own research "proof" and FAA Chief Marion Blakely's remarks at Oshkosh in late July (that the FAA is officially neutral over the prospect of changing the rule) I think the FAA is not opposed to the change. Nor does it have overriding proof that there is a difference in the accident rate.

This decision is about age discrimination, pure and simple. Every person that flies professionally is certainly motivated by a "me" concern, but at the heart of the issue is discrimination based on motive, not science.

The section you quote of the report is referring to the two age groups immediately adjacent to the current Age 60. The statement is supporting the idea that it is virtually impossible to pick the "perfect" arbitrary age, because there isn't one specific point where everything goes from safe to dangerous. What you have to look for is a trend. There is an obvious trend that develops at the age 55 group and continues to rise as age progresses. The Age 60 rule attempts to select a reasonable age that takes into account this trend. It is much preferable than subjecting every pilot in the country to an "astronaut-style" physical to determine safety of flight.

 

[G4G5]

The data is already there. Andy has provided it multiple times in several different threads. The FAA's studies indicate that accident rates among professional pilots take a dramatic upward trend beginning at age 55.

Since you didn't see it the first 5,000 times that Andy posted it, here it is again for your viewing pleasure: http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf

That's great a real nice study.

But it doesn't seem to be worth the paper it's printed on. Take a close look at what the US had to say to ICAO on the age 60 issue. Try to remember that this is the UNITED STATES ICAO representive talking:


United States

At some age, every individual reaches a level of increased infirmity leading to decreased reliability. That age will vary from person to person but cannot yet be predicted in a specific individual. While science does not absolutely dictate the age of 60 for commercial passenger pilot retirement, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and morbidity occur. Clearly, there is a progressive anatomic, physiological, and cognitive decline associated with aging, albeit variable in severity and onset among individuals. There is no absolute, scientific formula that may be readily applied.

It is indisputable that, as people age, they experience more illnesses and disorders, and suffer more cognitive decline. Cardiovascular disease rises with age, steeply, beginning between ages 55 and 65, and, though mortality has dropped since 1960, cardiovascular disease remains the most frequent cause of death in pilots and the general population. With this increased incidence of cardiovascular disease in the older population, the risk for unexpected events that could be a threat to safety of flight is increased. Cardiac events (e.g., heart attacks, sudden death) during flight have continued to occur in low but fairly consistent numbers over the years and have caused general aviation accidents.

Other health conditions are known to increase in incidence or to become more complicated with aging. Many present greater difficulties of detection and risk assessment than do cardiovascular disease. Among these are cerebrovascular disease; malignancies; endocrine dysfunction; neurological disorders; psychiatric disorders, including depression; and decline in sensory and motor capabilities. There has been an increasing awareness of the more subtle adverse conditions affecting performance, such as those related to cognitive functioning.

The “Age 60 rule” has served well as a regulatory limit in the United States. It remains the best determination that can be made of the time when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive capabilities has reached a level where decrements in a pilot's performance may jeopardize safety. The “Age 60 rule” has been repeatedly reviewed to determine whether new and sufficient evidence exists to warrant a reconsideration of the regulation. Studies conducted to date do not present sufficient information that would address concerns about negatively impacting the current level of safety by changing the rule. (That's what they think of yours and Andy's study)

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has invited the public to provide comments on the viability of the “Age 60 rule.” The most recent comment period was opened in September 2002 in relation to a petition for exemption to the rule filed by a coalition of U.S. pilots approaching age 60. Nearly 7 000 comments were submitted during the month-long open comment period. Overwhelmingly, the commenters favored retaining the current “Age 60 rule.” They cited safety and medical issues most often as reasons for retention of the current rule.

Several U.S. Courts of Appeals have reviewed the “Age 60 rule” and studies related to the rule. Uniformly, these courts have denied petitioners' requests for relief from the rule. In September 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a Judgment refusing to review FAA's denial of a petition for exemptions from the rule. In May 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments on the matter.

In recent years, the U.S. Congress has introduced, but has not enacted, several bills to revise the age limit for airliner pilots. In March 2001, a bill to modify the “Age 60 rule” to age 63 was drafted to be reported by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Neither of those two bills was enacted. Most recently, legislation was proposed that would tie an age limit for air carrier pilots to Social Security legislation.

Modifying the long-standing baseline of age 60 in the U.S. requires that the public be shown how such modification would maintain an equivalent level of safety. The “Age 60 rule” is a long-standing operational rule that pre-dates subsequent studies completed over the years. None of the studies completed since implementation of the rule provide satisfactory data that conclusively supports changing the rule. No protocols exist to reliably predict when or whether an over-age-60 pilot might experience a medical event that could jeopardize aviation safety.

 

[G4G5]

SECRETARIAT'S COMMENTS​

France and IFALPA believe that there is no medical or scientific basis for changing the age limits in Annex 1. Whilst it is true that the scientific evidence for change is not conclusive, neither is the evidence for maintaining the current upper age limit and there are studies which demonstrate an improvement, or little change, in performance with increasing age in the range up to 65 years. Although the Secretariat agrees that, ideally, scientific ‘proof' should underlie any changes to the Annexes, it accepts the reality that such proof is sometimes difficult or impossible to obtain. The Secretariat believes that the evidence that is available, combined with the positive experience of Contracting States that have already raised the age limits above those currently in Annex 1, makes a strong case for increasing the age limit, as proposed.

The Secretariat agrees with the United States that there is a progressive decline in functioning ability with increasing age, and that this differs amongst individuals in a way that is not predictable in any reliable way. The Secretariat cannot agree, however, that there are ‘sharp increases in disease mortality and morbidity' between age 60 and 65 years. There is certainly an increase in morbidity and mortality in this age range but this reflects a progressive change with increasing age, rather than a sudden increase above age 60.

The United States identifies the increase in cardiovascular disease with increasing age, which occurs in all ICAO Contracting States, and that the incidence of a first cardiovascular event increases progressively with increasing age. However, since the early 1970s incapacitation training has been mandatory in airline operations (see Annex 1, paragraph 2.5.1.5 e)) and the Secretariat is unaware of any fatal accident in the last 25 years in a multi-pilot airline operation where cardiovascular incapacitation was cited as a causal or contributory factor. This is despite the fact (as mentioned by the United States) thatin-flightcardiac events, including sudden death,continue to occur. This indicates to the Secretariat that the risk to flight safety from cardiovascular incapacitation is adequately contained by the multi-pilot environment and the requirement for incapacitation training. Further, the change in age limit does not apply to single pilot operations, where the risk is greatest, which will remain at 60 years.

It may well be the case that the ‘Age 60 Rule' has served well as a regulatory limit in the United States, as agreed by IFALPA. However as mentioned by the United States, such a limit is somewhat arbitrary since ‘science does not absolutely dictate the age of 60 for commercial passenger pilot retirement' (THAT"S WHAT THEY THINK OF YOURS AND ANDY"S STUDY). The Secretariat does not believe that it is possible to state with any certainty that 60 years of age is the time in a pilot's career ‘when a general decline in health-related functions and overall cognitive capabilities has reached a level where decrements in a pilot's performance may jeopardize safety'. In some individuals this may be the case, but the evidence from Contracting States that have introduced a higher age limit suggests that it is safe to continue operating as a professional pilot, in two-pilot operations, beyond 60 years.

The United States indicates that it is required to show to the public how modification of the ‘Age 60 Rule' would maintain an equivalent level of safety and it does not feel that data are available to conclusively support changing the rule. However, the current ICAO Standard is long-standing and there have been three major changes since its introduction which should be considered. The general health of the population has improved, so that 60 to 64 year-olds in many Contracting States are now less likely to suffer a sudden incapacitation than were their predecessors. Further, should an incapacitation occur in flight, incapacitation training has been introduced which mitigates the flight safety risk of such an event. The responses to the ICAO questionnaire on upper age limits (State letter AN 5/16.1-03/110 refers) indicated that sixty-four States permitted airline operations by pilots over age 60, which was estimated to represent at least 15 000 pilot-years of experience. Nine States indicated that they do not impose any upper age limit on pilots licensed in their State.

IFALPA believes thatthe older pilot may be more affected by the physiological effects of jet lag, fatigue and circadian disruption in long-haul flying, but the Secretariat is of the view that this is adequately mitigated by the two-pilot environment, with, for very long flights, one or two additional pilots to permit in-flight seat, or bunk, rest.

IFALPA argues that the upper age limit of 60 is a safety requirement and therefore should not be changed for current economic, political or legal reasons. In principle, the Secretariat is in agreement with this position and considers that the age limit should not normally be changed, or maintained, forreasons other than technical reasons related to flight safety. However, if desirable for social, economic or other reasons and if possible without adverse effect on safety, a change may well be considered. It has been found 83 per cent of States believe that an international age limit above 60 years would be appropriate for airline pilots.

The purpose of simulator checks, line flying checks and regulatory health examinations is to contain the risk of pilot ‘failure' during the period of validity of the rating or medical certificate; it appears from available evidence that such checks do ensure adequate protection of flight safety for those aged under 60 years. The Secretariat knows of no reason to believe that they will fail to do so for those aged 60 to 64 years. Moreover, as stated by AsMA in response to State letter AN 5/16.1-03/110, dated 31 December 2003, there is insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone.

Still want to base your argument on that FAA link? Like I have said, I am not for it but read the above ICAO data objectivly and then try to tell me that they aren't going to ram this down our throats

 

[bman]

Yeah,

Just wait until things like BMI and cholesterol levels are added to the requirements to pass a flight physical.

Eeek!!


Put down the doughnut and let the little boy go!!!!!

In all seriousness if safety concerns are not just lip service this should be done anyway.

1st class medicals should require blood work, urinalysis, ekgs, etc.. and there should be standards set for all variables based upon as conclusive of scientific data attainable.
Then we can remove all age based restricitions. Just be prepared to get flushed way before age 60! This is truly fair!

 

[PCL_128]

G4G5, 90% of the information in the cut-and-paste jobs you just did support the idea that an increase in age over 55 in concurrent with an increase in health problems. The only things that support your position are the editorial comments. All facts that are presented still lead to the conclusion that health-related incidents begin an obvious upward trend beginning with the age of 55. You have absolutely no evidence that refutes this.

 

[pipe]

ICAO has changed the world standard to a max Age 65 for airline pilots effective November 23, 2006. ICAO has adopted the JAA(Europe) rules that have been in effect for a number of years. The one pilot under age 60 rule originated with the JAA. This is the same organization that required you to sit 14 written exams for the ATPL vs the one required by the FAA. ICAO has adopted the JAA standard but has also stated the one pilot under age 60 is expected to be temporary.

All the issues brought up by the anti-change individuals have been brought up and discussed at length with every Senator or Legislative Aides. They are well aware of where the opposition to the change comes from and the true reasons. Thanks FI.

Yeah, and the other new world standards are good too. The majority of the world's nations are meeting in Cuba. Kofi Annan is leading the charge. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are all in total agreement - guess the opinions coming out of there are "WORLD STANDARDS".

That, my friend, is a good indicator of what your "WORLD STANDARD" is worth.

PIPE

 

[Tejas-Jet]

The Age-65 crowd is willing to screw over the junior pilots on furlough just so they can get an extra 5 years at top earnings in the left seat.

Actually it is failed managerial strategies that are keeping pilots on furlough. By destroying morale, maintaining hub inefficiencies, encouraging tribalism among the different employee groups, ignoring the customer, not keeping costs under control and no growth ( except for the Regionals), is what will keep thousands on furlough longer than any age change.

Tejas

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Actually it is failed managerial strategies that are keeping pilots on furlough. By destroying morale, maintaining hub inefficiencies, encouraging tribalism among the different employee groups, ignoring the customer, not keeping costs under control and no growth ( except for the Regionals), is what will keep thousands on furlough longer than any age change.

Tejas

.....:beer:

 

[PCL_128]

Actually it is failed managerial strategies that are keeping pilots on furlough. By destroying morale, maintaining hub inefficiencies, encouraging tribalism among the different employee groups, ignoring the customer, not keeping costs under control and no growth ( except for the Regionals), is what will keep thousands on furlough longer than any age change.

Tejas

Hub inefficiencies? Tribalism? What a crock.

The reason pilots are still on the street is because the pilots at the legacies continue to look out for "number 1." The concessionary contracts increased productivity and eliminated no-furlough clauses. That is why thousands of pilots are still on furlough. And now, the same pilots that voted in new contracts that kept these guys on the street longer are trying to increase the retirement age to keep them on the street yet another 5 years! Reprehensible.

 

[groggy]

good for some, bad for most....it will pass. Unfortunately.

 

[G4G5]

G4G5, 90% of the information in the cut-and-paste jobs you just did support the idea that an increase in age over 55 in concurrent with an increase in health problems. The only things that support your position are the editorial comments. All facts that are presented still lead to the conclusion that health-related incidents begin an obvious upward trend beginning with the age of 55. iYou have absolutely no evidence that refutes ths.

No, all facts lead to the FACT that ICAO will support the abolishment of age 60. Let me put it simply for you, ICAO is the equivalent of the NFL and the FAA is the equivalent of one franchise. What ICAO says goes and you have yet to come up with anything that proves me wrong. ICAO and 83% of their member nations oppose age 60, what do you think will happen when they meet in November?

"I have provided no evidence," What have you been smoking?

All you have is one FAA report. I am providing you with the doctors and aviation authoritites from 64 Countries around the globe ,which equal 83% of the ICAO member nations. Coutntries like:Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, New Zealand, Japan just to name a few and all you have is one report.

No, I think it's the other way around, you my friend need to come up with some more evidence.

 

[G4G5]

G4G5, 90% of the information in the cut-and-paste jobs you just did support the idea that an increase in age over 55 in concurrent with an increase in health problems. The only things that support your position are the editorial comments. All facts that are presented still lead to the conclusion that health-related incidents begin an obvious upward trend beginning with the age of 55. You have absolutely no evidence that refutes this.

That's a bunch of BS!

Go to the ICAO web site, it's pretty clear that they are for the abolishment of age 60

Or do you disagee?

I am getting tired. You have not done one ounce of research on your own. I provide exact quotes from ICAO reports, list member nations in favor of getting rid of age 60, quote the US ICAO representitive's to the age 60 issue.

All you do is offer one link from a report Andy found. Start coming up with something fresh, you are boring me.

 

[PCL_128]

I simply don't care what ICAO says. ICAO doesn't govern aviation in America, the FAA does. We may have to allow 60+ pilots from other countries land here, but we don't have to change our own rule for US pilots. The people in "old Europe" can do what they please. In America the rule is 60, and it should stay that way.

 

[G4G5]

I simply don't care what ICAO says. ICAO doesn't govern aviation in America, the FAA does. We may have to allow 60+ pilots from other countries land here, but we don't have to change our own rule for US pilots. The people in "old Europe" can do what they please. In America the rule is 60, and it should stay that way.

"Old Europe" Since when is Japan, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand old Europe. You really are out of your league on this one.

Do you understand what ICAO is? Have you ever heard of the Chicago Convention?

When the FAA mandates that every single aircraft that fly's outside the 12 mile limit needs a 406 mhz elt, where do you think that came from, some guy in a bar? No it was ICAO and this is where you are WRONG, ICAO does govern aviation in America

FYI:
Annex 6 and Annex 10 ICAO Standards, which came into force on 1 January 2005, require aircraft operated on long-range, over-water flights or flights over designated land areas to be equipped with Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) which transmit simultaneously on 121.5 MHz and 406 MHz. The FAA had NOTHING to do with this, yet every single one of us needs to have a 406MHZ elt on our aircraft.

When the JAA tells me I can't fly in Europe with out an enhanced transponder, where do you think that comes from?



I can't make it any clearer, they drive the BUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not the FAA, that is why I keep telling people to prepare.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Dude,
Once again, I am not for it but the thousands of F'ed pilots really need to have plans set in place for the future, to cover the very real possiblity that they will be out 5 years longer then previously planned

What makes oyu think that this will keep you out 5 years longer? That is really an unknown.

For example....if 300 pilots scheduled to retire this year at AA, DAL or UAL...really think they are gonna recall 300 furloughed pilots?

Tejas

 

[Tejas-Jet]

And now, the same pilots that voted in new contracts that kept these guys on the street longer are trying to increase the retirement age to keep them on the street yet another 5 years! Reprehensible.

Whaaaa??? Repeal of the age 60 rule will keep the furloughed pilots out another 5 years? What a crock....

What if all those hub inefficiencies are addressed and corrected....employees start working together....management makes real changes to control costs...you could see some real growth coming your way ....Oh, almost forgot....and sustained profitability....that would help too

Tejas