Age 65 2007

[walkthasky]

This just in " AGE 65 is discrimination too" ... CRAP!

 

[whoknows]

Oh shut up.... those senior pilot didn't have pensions and retirements yanked from them... or lose up to 60-70% of their pay. This isn't about money,

WHAT? I thought you said this was not about money. Are not pensions made of money?

 

[Phaedrus]

Are not pensions made of money?

Not anymore.

 

[SuperFLUF]

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.

The captain that just passed away on the CAL flight was 58 1/2.

 

[pilotyip]

Back in the 70's a 45 year old AAL Capt passed in flight, what does that have to do with anything?

 

[SkiFishFly]

The captain that just passed away on the CAL flight was 58 1/2.

The only thing the CAL incident proves is that it is a good idea to have 2 qualified flight crew.

 

[The Prussian]

Are not pensions made of money??

Not anymore.

Now that's funny...enjoying a good laugh!!!

 

[SpoolDaddy]

The only thing the CAL incident proves is that it is a good idea to have 2 qualified flight crew.

Actually, and sorry to be picky, it may prove more than that. Class 1 or equivalent medical certificates are issued world wide under criterea which varies widely country to country, where the USA falls about in the middle. We have all seen and flown with 50 year olds barely able to climb a flight of stairs, while I've watched 65 year olds smoke olympic distance triathlons. Like most legislation, the devil will be in the details, and our Class 1 criterea is probably overdue for an overhaul considering the advances of modern medicine.

Just to disclose my .02, I think the age should be raised to 65 only with the following completely unrealistic caveats:

1. Any pilot currently employed by a 121 carrier is allowed to retire at 60 with the contract provisions in place the day the age 65 legislation becomes effective.
2. Any pilot currently employed by a 121 carrier may work to age 65, but moves to the bottom of the seniority list upon their 60th birthday in recognition of the fact that their seniority is largely due to senior and older pilots having retired ahead of them at age 60. New hires after the age 65 legislation becomes effective may work to their 65th birthday without penalty.

Clearly, I'm against age 65 without my mythical caveats, but also realize that a pilot's or labor group's opinion on the matter counts for very little.

 

[RichardFitzwell]

I think once one turns 60 they should be given the option to fly until 65 as a First Officer only.

Those which lost some of their pensions can still earn a very good living in the right seat and those that wish to hold the left seat are not penalized for five more years from stagnation.

 

[bubbers44]

Who's court will that stand up in?

 

[Phaedrus]

Judge Wapner's. Of course then you'd be forced to converse with Doug Lewellyn after the bitter defeat.

 

[pipe]

I believe Doug Lewellyn has retired. He recognized that he had lost a bit of the edge off his game and hung it up. It's that type of character that has always made Doug Lewellyn an American hero in my book.

PIPE

 

[angry tanker]

Doesn't the government allow older people to "catch up" on their retirement/401K? So not only do they want to put more money away because they screwed up their retirement, but now want extra time to do it? It is about the money and piss poor planning.

How will this effect me...I'll get screwed because I will be paying for social security that I won't see, I'll be hit with a huge penalty for retiring at age 60, and I'll be stuck in my current seat due to no movement for the next 5 years since the retirements will slow down. Yeah it is fair for everyone, NOT! Please write to yor congress rep and senators to not allow it.

 

[Oh-ryan]

Compromise solutions regarding the implementation of increasing age 60+ pilots abound and many viable options are possible. The age 65 crowd is not trying to do the right thing concerning discrimination. The age 65 crowd is trying to simply create a windfall for themselves.

APAAD is not concerned about age 65 passing for another four years. Paul Emens needs the near retirement pilots to retire, improve his seniority, and then force the rule change so he can sit on top for another five years.

The age 65 crowd is the most vial, selfish, self serving, discriminator type of pilot possible other than a scab. The age 65 pilot wants what they want regardless of safety, discrimination, or ICAO policy.

The age 65 crowd will not compromise, we must not in support of age 60. Senator Inyofe has introduced the same bill Stevens did last year. The bill has no compromise or fairness in an age extension. Do not compromise the age 60 position the opposition is not willing to negotiate.

So I am assuming that you want to keep age 60 purely for safey and not because it would delay your upgrade time? Otherwise, that would be... how do you say... vial, selfish and self serving wouldn't it?

 

[pilotyip]

oh ryan this a pilot board stop dealing in reality. It is only self serving if it is some one else's position.

 

[Andy]

oh ryan this a pilot board stop dealing in reality. It is only self serving if it is some one else's position.

pilotyip,
My opposition for a change to the rule would be significantly decreased IF the change were incremental, say 6 mos every year, rather than a single leap from 60 to 65. Why are those who want a change unwilling to compromise?

 

[XJTAv8r]

So I am assuming that you want to keep age 60 purely for safey and not because it would delay your upgrade time? Otherwise, that would be... how do you say... vial, selfish and self serving wouldn't it?

I'm sorry, but most of those wanting an 60 rule change are those who are 55+, who benefited their whole careers from this rule and now want to extend their top scale salaries for 5 additional years, at the expense of everyone else (increased LTD and health care costs, decreased profit sharing, diluted wages on future contracts, stagnant movement, etc.) I would call that much more "vial, selfish, and self serving" than wanting the status quo or a phased in rule change.

 

[Flybynite]

Heard from one of my sources, very, very high up in Washington, that the rule will remain unchanged. Reasons given: Those greedy SOB's knew the rules going in, they all have four wifes, they all are poor financial planners with six houses and two yachts, they are delaying the upgrades of the truly deserving and at 60 most tend to drool over themselves causing delays due to increased aircraft cleaning. They thank all the posters from FI for bringing these important safety issues to light and request continued input, but only from those under the age of 40, the rest are just scooter driving, walker shuffling morons. Almost forgot, alzheimers sets in at day 60 plus 1.

 

[pilotyip]

60 means nothing

Almost forgot, alzheimers sets in at day 60 plus 1. For many it sets in well in advance of age 60

 

[XJTAv8r]

Heard from one of my sources, very, very high up in Washington, that the rule will remain unchanged. Reasons given: Those greedy SOB's knew the rules going in, they all have four wifes, they all are poor financial planners with six houses and two yachts, they are delaying the upgrades of the truly deserving and at 60 most tend to drool over themselves causing delays due to increased aircraft cleaning. They thank all the posters from FI for bringing these important safety issues to light and request continued input, but only from those under the age of 40, the rest are just scooter driving, walker shuffling morons. Almost forgot, alzheimers sets in at day 60 plus 1.

So, judging by your sarcastic logic, perhaps you should also push for a repeal of the age 16 driving rule and age 21 drinking rule to avoid having a double standard. I guess at age 20 and 364 days you're not at all responsible enough to handle alcohol?...hmmm. I don't see these "righteous" rule change people trying to change all age based laws. Hmmm....it's only the one that benefits them financially. Interesting. Maybe they should also fight for all of us to get paid social security right away instead of a set age. That's "age discrimination" isn't it? Oh, I forgot, social security will be bankrupt when my time comes, but it'll be fine for the current retirees.

 

[Flopgut]

oh ryan this a pilot board stop dealing in reality. It is only self serving if it is some one else's position.

Self serving is looking to your coworkers for a raise and letting your company and the govt off the hook. We are ALL just employees. You're not supposed to steal money from your fellow employees. If you need more dough, get a job. Or get a raise, we'll be glad to help with that! Or maybe even...offer a COMPROMISE??? Why not people?! Like: Pay protect the junior folks. Or go to FO when you turn +60. Or maybe when you turn +60 you should let one of us write your wrinkly, scaly butt off our taxes! Why not? You're going to cost us more money than a child dependant!

 

[Oh-ryan]

I'm sorry, but most of those wanting an 60 rule change are those who are 55+, who benefited their whole careers from this rule and now want to extend their top scale salaries for 5 additional years, at the expense of everyone else (increased LTD and health care costs, decreased profit sharing, diluted wages on future contracts, stagnant movement, etc.) I would call that much more "vial, selfish, and self serving" than wanting the status quo or a phased in rule change.

No I'm sorry, but he didn't specify that the major proponents of age 65 were 55+. If he had then I wouldn't have said a word, but he didn't. He just lumped everyone together into the "Age 65 crowd". I bet there are quite a few 30/40 somethings who have seen the turmoil that can happen in this industry and wouldnt mind having the opportunity to fly til 65 at a 121 carrier.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but anyone who opposes 65 and cites not being able to upgrade quicker as a reason while calling those who support it vial, selfish and self serving needs to put the stones down or build a house that isn't made of glass. In this case, both groups are acting selfish. The biggest argument for 65 is that Europeans are allowed into our airspace. The biggest argument against it is that, if enacted, the copilot needs to be under 60 (what kind of message does that send?). Spare me the safety arguments, the arguments that "So we should do what the French do?" and the "Get out of my seat" arguments.

 

[Black Hawk]

No I'm sorry, but he didn't specify that the major proponents of age 65 were 55+. If he had then I wouldn't have said a word, but he didn't. He just lumped everyone together into the "Age 65 crowd". I bet there are quite a few 30/40 somethings who have seen the turmoil that can happen in this industry and wouldnt mind having the opportunity to fly til 65 at a 121 carrier.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but anyone who opposes 65 and cites not being able to upgrade quicker as a reason while calling those who support it vial, selfish and self serving needs to put the stones down or build a house that isn't made of glass. In this case, both groups are acting selfish. The biggest argument for 65 is that Europeans are allowed into our airspace. The biggest argument against it is that, if enacted, the copilot needs to be under 60 (what kind of message does that send?). Spare me the safety arguments, the arguments that "So we should do what the French do?" and the "Get out of my seat" arguments.

Good comments. I'm one of those 40 somethings that thinks using a safety rule for career progression is a crock. When the limit changes to 65 the unions can negotiate better pay for FO's based on the number of age 60+ pilots on staff.

 

[Flybynite]

So, judging by your sarcastic logic

Nothing sarcastic about it. I've finally seen the light and come over to the other side. I'm just following the lead of the rest of the anti change crowd and am writing all Senators and Congressmen with the safety concerns that have been so eloquently outlined here on FI. I encourage everyone to do the same, feel free to use my list as an example. I have also made up a bag tag in support of no change:

Get out of MY seat old man
(for safety reasons of course!)

 

[Uncle Bort]

It's another form of corporate welfare. Push retirement obligations down the road another five years.

 

[XJTAv8r]

I bet there are quite a few 30/40 somethings who have seen the turmoil that can happen in this industry and wouldnt mind having the opportunity to fly til 65 at a 121 carrier.

The only people I have any respect for in the pro-change crowd are those who you describe, the younger ones who are more principled and are less likely to be looking at lining their pockets at their younger co-worker's expense.

In this case, both groups are acting selfish.

True, but I think there's a significantly higher degree of selfishness associated with those who are nearing age 60 and want to extend their time at the top earnings scale verses those wanting the status quo maintained. I'm already paying for their SS retirement, now I have to pay for their 5 extra years of 6 figure salary?

 

[Flopgut]

This IS a safety issue. It's a durable rule that we have in fact grown into over the years, and it works. Remember: Changes relaxing 02 mask requirements were close to reality prior to Cypress. This is another rule that has served us well we don't need to relax.

O-Ryan: Here is why you can "lump them all together": They are the minority and don't care about the affects on collective bargaining. They want more, and are happy to take from their peers. "Ingredients" are falling into place for pilot labor to take back what we lost. Let's try to get everyone a raise by getting the dollars back into these contracts. Let's not squander it by accepting a 20% longer career as a "raise". This will bring to a halt the growing liklihood of additional money from our employers and simultaneously reduce the portion of dollars already going to our junior members. It's bad policy, you don't run any sort of concern that way.

 

[The Prussian]

Question:

The only people I have any respect for in the pro-change crowd are those who you describe, the younger ones who are more principled and are less likely to be looking at lining their pockets at their younger co-worker's expense.

How about those who have been actively seeking change for over 15 years, having started in their mid to late 30's. Now that they are in their 50's...why should they suddenly be deemed and branded "selfish"???

 

[BoilerUP]

How about those who have been actively seeking change for over 15 years, having started in their mid to late 30's. Now that they are in their 50's...why should they suddenly be deemed and branded "selfish"???

What percentage of the current "Abolish Age 60" crowd has been actively seeking change for over the last 15 years - half of which were some of the best times in aviation history?

I'd wager less than 5%.

 

[Flopgut]

I'd wager less than 5%.

I'd wager that correct.

While theirs is perhaps a more principled one, it's still a very small percentage of a whole that wants something else.