AGE 65 now LAW!!!

[JPAustin]

AHHHHHHhhhh yet again. ALPA has succesfully served its minority elitist group of elders through its tried and true practice of totalitarian democracy (look it up, it is a real form of government). Isn't it amazing how narrow-minded people can be?

In the end, all that was "won" out of all this, is reduced safety, and a little less faith in the hope that there is a shred of humanity left in ALPA.

 

[sleeves]

The rest of your comment was motivated by your greed, but this first part touches on something that will have to be dealt with: how do we know when "it's time to go"?

Age, by itself, is obviously not the determinant. Performance is.

There are already several performance checks that all pilots (regardless of age) are subjected to:

Sim checks.
Line checks.
FAA physicals.
I.O.E's.

The problem is that in the past, these were more "Pro Forma" than functional. We can all tell stories about the FAA designated docs who are blinder and deafer than the pilots they are supposedly checking. We have all seen pilots pass Sim checks that were abortions from begining to end. We have all see pilots fresh off their IOE's who couldn't locate the cockpit.

These mechanisms for quality control are already in place, but they need to become meaningful and now that the age 60 rule isn't in place, they probably will. The downside is that if you are a sub-performer, you might find yourself "gone" way before age 60.

To arbitrarily choose an age to force ALL pilots to retire is capricious and discriminatory; it doesn't get at the root of the problem. One age does not fit all.

Yes! There is a point at which we need to stop flying; there is a point at which we need to stop driving; there is a point at which we need to start wearing Depends, but performance is the criterion, not age.

Let's move on from the dark ages of the "age 60 rule" and refine how we define and check pilot performance. The age 60 rule short circuited this process and kept it from evolving all these years. Now we must catch up and develop modern metrics to evalutate PERFORMANCE.

60 was in place to make us retire at the top of of our game, before we started to make mistakes.

The idea that sim checks, line checks, or our medical exams be the only threshold for performance is laughable. Many performance based careers such as law enforcement, military, ATC use age as an effective safety net. We have just made ours weaker.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

60 was in place to make us retire at the top of of our game, before we started to make mistakes.

Granted, back in the 1950's when the life expectancy was 15 years less than now. This issue has nothing to do with the public safety or the weakening of our profession and has everything to do with each individuals career expectations.

The point is mute now since it is a done deal anyway

 

[ironspud]

Safety First!!

Congress, Pilots Celebrate Passage of Law to Increase Aviation Safety
Monday December 17, 7:21 pm ET Law Halts Early Termination of Most Experienced Pilots
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Congress and commercial airline pilots will come together tomorrow to celebrate the enactment of legislation that will increase aviation safety by changing federal rules that prematurely force our safest pilots to retire. The legislation also treats our pilots with equity in the wake of the 2006 ICAO age change to the new world standard of age 65. The event will be held Tuesday, December 18 at 2 pm in 2253 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
Summary HR 4343 -- the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act of 2007
H.R. 4343 requires the FAA to sunset the current age 60 rule and raises airline pilot retirement age to 65 immediately upon the President's signature. The legislation;
-- Requires ICAO split cockpit restriction (one pilot under 60 if one is over 60) for International flights, but not for domestic flights; split cockpit provision automatically sunsets if ICAO changes its rule. -- Allows pilots over 60 to be employed as new hires without credit for prior seniority or benefits prior to the date of rehire; does not permit pilots over 60 to return to previous positions with seniority or benefits unless they are still employed as a flight deck officer. -- Contains liability protection for airlines and unions from and employment-related lawsuits that might arise from implementation. -- Permits legacy carriers and their unions to work out any inconsistencies in their pension plans that might arise from the new age. -- Includes safety provisions that would require all first officers over 60 to have a first class medical and may require some first officers over the age of 60 to have an additional line check or simulator check. -- Requires GAO to do a study on the safety impact of the new age limit within 24 months. Contact: Scott Brenner 202-222-8825

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Yeah, your right. You just go ahead and keep blaming the membership and in short order ALPA will lose another major carier. I know, I know us line pilots are just a bunch of dumb $hits and you Nat'l guys have it all figured out.

Well, I was a member of an idependent union (IACP) and I have heard calls for a return. Let the falures continue and ALPA will finds itself with some serious problems. Maybe then all you full time trip loss tools can go back to work. There is no hiding the discrace Nat'l had become.

Just because you paid dues (or taxes) doesn't mean you understand the user's manual!!

When all else fails.... READ THE INSTRUCTIONS!!!!

 

[Wesb737fo]

Relax G.. You will feel better when you start going to those meetings and saying the "Serenity Prayer".. If you don't know it you can Google it or just wait it out.

"You know George...that serenity now stuff doesn't work...

what do you know? you were in the nut house....

What do you think put me there?
...remember...serenity now....insanity later."

Jhill, I have no idea what you meant by your post.

 

[SuperFLUF]

I'm curious as to how many FOs out there are truly upset with it. I just want to see what others think. I for one don't think it is a bad. I know it will delay a CAPT upgrade, but we will be employed for 5 more years. What does everyone else think?

I think you will find that those who planned for and desire to retire at 60 are the ones that are most upset.

Those who want to work to 65 see it as a wash (unless they are in a crappy position or seniority now).

 

[SuperFLUF]

Age 65 is also discriminatory. Why have a mandatory retirement age at all? Pass a physical, then you're qualified. The requirement to have a pilot under age 60 to babysit the geezer is discriminatory. If a pilot is qualified, he should be qualified period.

It's discriminatory to exclude the current retirees from coming back to the pit.

These pro-65 geezers are the biggest hypocrites of all.

Many of those who support the change to age 65 admit that it is a first step to eliminating an age limit entirely. It is a compromise for them and it is an experiment to "prove" that safety will not be compromised by over 60 health deterioration. Once they have the data on the 60+ airline pilots that they hope will prove their point they will push for a higher limit and/or eventually no limit at all.

It won't be long and "they'll" be back at it again.

We can fight it but the cat is out of the bag now. The momentum is in their favor. The best way to focus our energy is to keep age 60 as the "normal" retirement age so that those who are allready losing income and retirement becuase of the change won't be forced to work to 65. If penalties are imposed on those who retire at 60, like pension early out penalties, loss of bridge medical and higher LTD premiums, then it will be even worse than the current losses from age 65 that we're stuck with now.

 

[NoJoy]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i86/poetknight/evenkittens.jpg?t=1168992345

 

[Lear70]

I think you will find that those who planned for and desire to retire at 60 are the ones that are most upset.

Those who want to work to 65 see it as a wash (unless they are in a crappy position or seniority now).

First, those who planned to retire at 60 can still retire at 60 with zero loss to their pensions or bridge medical until their CBA's are renegotiated.

Until the contracts are negotiated, they remain in force, and if they say you are entitled to retire at age 60 with those benefits, you keep them. Period.

If you negotiate those benefits away in your next CBA, that's your own fault.

Secondly, those who want to work to 65 don't see it as a wash, they see it as a win. They were fighting for the increase, why would they see a victory as a wash?

Some people want to work until dead, others just wanted to work until they had Medicare and Social Security.

It's not rocket science.