Age 65 2007

[ivauir]

The only current federal law that protects persons from age discrimination applies only for those age 40 or older. Sorry

Just because it is legal to discriminate against the young doesn't make it ethiical.

 

[Bringupthebird]

How about change the rule such that the PIC must be under 60 but that one could act as SIC until 65? That would be the most equal compromise; preserves career expectations of younger pilots yet keeps over 60 pilots flying and earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

That would turn a bad rule into an unworkable solution. What about the mid-level or junior F/O's who stagnate as Capt.'s come back to take the top slots? And the point is that the 60+ PIC is fully qualified to continue in his current position. Why penalize him for turning one day older?

The one-pilot-under-60 rule is a stopgap and everyone knows that. It will allow a controlled environment where it can be proven that pilots are fully capable of flying beyond 60. Once the data is in, I see an end to forced retirement, but somewhat more stringent oversight of medical issuance.

If the opponents of change argue the safety aspect - they lose based on statistics. If they argue on the basis of entitlement to promotion - they lose based on a lack of public sympathy. Any way you cut it, opposing the change to Age 60 is a losing proposition. The world has had to adapt to new realities and the piloting profession is not immune.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

How about change the rule such that the PIC must be under 60 but that one could act as SIC until 65? That would be the most equal compromise; preserves career expectations of younger pilots yet keeps over 60 pilots flying and earning a paycheck for another 5 years.

Personally, I would be fine with that. It might be a contractual mess for some, but fixable.

 

[EWR_FO]

Any way you cut it, opposing the change to Age 60 is a losing proposition. The world has had to adapt to new realities and the piloting profession is not immune.

Unfortunately for the pro-change crowd, Washington D.C. disagrees with you.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Wait a second, what about the perfectly healthy 64 year-old. Why should he be penalized? Are you concerned about him? Do you think he poses a safety risk? Why not focus the attention on medical qualification instead of age? And I'm certain that the bulk of the accidents in the futuer, as in the past will still be the result of pilot error, not pilot incapacitation, regardless of age.

The retirement age restriction is written for the weakest chain in the link not the strongest. Having a set age for retirement prevents some subjective call on when a pilot should retire. It also prevents doctor shopping. Even with the age 60 retirement, everyone knows the “easy” AME to go to, now imagine if the age moves to 65. It will be sure madness. Age 60 was written for your safety and the safety of all our passengers. It has well served the flying public for over 40 years.

We were all hired under the same rule, have known the risks, and should have planned for it. There were other airlines in past years that went belly up and the rule was never changed. Do these current pilots think they are some sort of prima donnas that deserve to keep their high-paying job for another five years at our expense?

The age 65 crowd is concerned about one thing and one thing only – more money in their back pocket. The only pilots that truly win in any 65 ruling are those at the top of the seniority list or those in the 55 – 60 age bracket. It’s a million dollar plus windfall for them. The rest of us will find ourselves working in an already unstable industry for an extra five years for very little gain. Run the numbers.

If this group is successful in its quest for Age 65, it will be the worst thing to hit the airlines since B-scale in the 80’s. B-scale took almost 15 years to run its course. Age 65 will continue to harm the junior pilots for a similar length of time if it’s implemented.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

The one-pilot-under-60 rule is a stopgap and everyone knows that. It will allow a controlled environment where it can be proven that pilots are fully capable of flying beyond 60. Once the data is in, I see an end to forced retirement, but somewhat more stringent oversight of medical issuance.

This has got to be one of the most selfish schemes yet on this thread. So now you want to conduct age tests with passengers on board. Do you think the flying public will approve of your idea?

ICAO along with the FAA is considering putting a pilot under the age of 60 along with a pilot above age 60 for one reason and one reason only -- SAFETY – everyone knows that!!!! What a deal for the junior guys, we get to baby-sit this selfish generation of pilots and guess what – we get to do it at 30% - 40% less pay plus the stagnation it will cause. How fair is that????!!!!

You’re living in a dream world.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Bringupthebird]

The retirement age restriction is written for the weakest chain in the link not the strongest. Having a set age for retirement prevents some subjective call on when a pilot should retire. It also prevents doctor shopping. Even with the age 60 retirement, everyone knows the “easy” AME to go to, now imagine if the age moves to 65. It will be sure madness. Age 60 was written for your safety and the safety of all our passengers. It has well served the flying public for over 40 years.

So now doctor shopping is now the problem? Why not deal with that issue? You could apply for your medical online and FAA Aeromedical randomly spits out who you are to see based on location. Focus on the problem at hand, and don't wast your time inventing phantom problems. If the problems of 60-year old incapacitation are real and documented, then address them, but don't use an arbitrary age limit to avoid dealing with the problem.

We were all hired under the same rule, have known the risks, and should have planned for it. There were other airlines in past years that went belly up and the rule was never changed. Do these current pilots think they are some sort of prima donnas that deserve to keep their high-paying job for another five years at our expense?

This rule change has been gathering momentum for 10 years and has been embraced by ICAO. Folks should have been planning for it. And do you suppose ICAO flagrantly disregards safety?

The opponents to change are the cake and eat it crowd who have an Ozzie and Harriet view of retirement at 60 from the left seat and maybe a little military pension and VA health care to boot. They aren't about to let the reality of the carnage of the past 6 years upset their fantasy retirement. And if it takes tossing those who have had the least amount of time to prepare under the bus to do it, that's life!

Everyone assumes that the ones fighting hardest for this are greedy top-scalers. In fact most of the work is being done by average pilots who have experienced the pain, firsthand or by association, of starting over again at the bottom, through no fault of their own. They face retirement as mid-level F/O's at 60 with no retireee health insurance, no A-plan, and little likelihood of landing a job because of the stigma the FAA puts on the number 60.

The age 65 crowd is concerned about one thing and one thing only – more money in their back pocket. The only pilots that truly win in any 65 ruling are those at the top of the seniority list or those in the 55 – 60 age bracket. It’s a million dollar plus windfall for them. The rest of us will find ourselves working in an already unstable industry for an extra five years for very little gain. Run the numbers.

Ok, that's relatively easy. What do you expect to make during your final year? Multiply that by 5. Given the apparent zeal for leaving aviation at 60 (at least that's what people say) why would you expect more than 30% of those eligible to take advantage of age 65? And of those that do, their assumed decrepit health should prevent them from continuing to hold a medical, so take another 50% out there. Now you're down to 15%. As we enter a growth cycle, this 15% could delay the average upgrade time by a few months, but it could mean the world to those who need the opportunity to continue earning and rebuilding a shattered career.

If this group is successful in its quest for Age 65, it will be the worst thing to hit the airlines since B-scale in the 80’s. B-scale took almost 15 years to run its course. Age 65 will continue to harm the junior pilots for a similar length of time if it’s implemented.

The B-scale pilots could have chosen not to come to work at an airline that had a B-scale. No can choose not to turn 60.

 

[Andy]

but it could mean the world to those who need the opportunity to continue earning and rebuilding a shattered career.

Shattered career? Do some research. The piloting profession has always been that way. A series of peaks and valleys.
Their careers are no more or less shattered than those that came before them and those that come after, such as myself (on furlough for almost 5 years).
Stop the melodrama.

 

[Andy]

What do you expect to make during your final year? Multiply that by 5.

More like multiply by 4, eventually multiply by 3. You'll still work an additional 5 years, but for less money.

 

[Andy]

They aren't about to let the reality of the carnage of the past 6 years upset their fantasy retirement.

Carnage of the last 6 years? More melodrama! More like 60 years! Weren't you paying attention to the boom and bust cycles in the industry in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s? It's always been feast or famine for pilots. If you were foolish enough to think that the feast would last forever, you need to blame yourself for being gullible enough to believe everything that Kit Darby pumps out. And it's even more foolish of you to believe what management told you.