Age 65 Retirement? No Way!

[surplus1]

Personally I don't have an axe to grind about whether they change the rule or not. What bugs me is the phony statements about why we have the rule and why we can''t change it.

The FAA says they can't change it because the have no evidence to prove that over 60 is safe. That's BS. They had no evidence to prove that over 60 was unsafe, when they made the rule in the first place and since they wont let you fly over 60, they will never have evidence to prove anything. Double speak

The truth is this rule had nothing to do with safety when it was established and it has nothing to do with safety now. Sixty was an arbitraty number picked by Quesada and the normal procedures for establishing rules were not followed.

Originally, the rule was opposed by ALPA. That didn''t work so ALPA lobbied for and got some special legislation passed and then changed "spots" and started supporting the rule.

Today, this rule is about money, not safety. If they would just say that and stop the safety BS I'd be happy. It's just amazing that a guy in perfect health is forced to stop flying at age 60, but another guy at age 55 can get a quadruple bypass, get his medical back and fly for 4 more years.

Typical government and union hypocrisy. Politics and major airline pension plans. By the way, don't buy any tickets on European airlines. Most of them have pilots over 60 so this must all be unsafe.

 

[csmith]

Today, this rule is about money, not safety. If they would just say that and stop the safety BS I'd be happy. It's just amazing that a guy in perfect health is forced to stop flying at age 60, but another guy at age 55 can get a quadruple bypass, get his medical back and fly for 4 more years.

The really funny thing is the person "without an axe to grind", who digs the axe out of the shed anyway. Regardless, it IS about money, on both sides of the fence. It is about selfishness, on both sides of the fence. It is about greed, on both sides of the fence. Yes, there is a concern for sefety, but on only one side of the fence. Once again, on yet another issue, we see people claiming the high road for their own agenda.



CSmith

Doubts he will be on his death bed wishing he had worked more

 

[tbkane]

surplus 1

Do you ever agree with anyone?

 

[Timebuilder]

Once again, on yet another issue, we see people claiming the high road for their own agenda.

I'll be up front about it. My agenda:

The ability to fly if medically capable.

It has already been decided that age discrimination is against the law. As always, some powerful people think that we have to obey the laws, and they don't. For another example, because it suits the whim of Big Government, the military and several agencies (FBI, Air Marshalls, etc), can set an arbitrary cutoff age for hiring.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[csmith]

I'll be up front about it. My agenda:
The ability to fly if medically capable.

You need to be a bit more specific. There is no restriction to fly if you are medically fit. You just can't do it under 121. If this is what you meant, then my previous post stands.

 

[surplus1]

surplus 1

Do you ever agree with anyone?

Sure! I agree with me all of the time! (If you followed suit, you'd be ahead of the game). I agree with timebuilder a lot of the time, I agree with avbug most of the time, I agree wit rvrrat most of the time, I agree with enigma about 50/50, I agree wit fins, frequently, I agree occasionally with tim47sip and metrosheriff, I agree with FurloughedAgain most of the time, I almost always agree with all the ATC folks, I agree with most Comair pilots, most ASA pilots, lots of Eagle pilots, most SWA pilots, most UPS pilots, some Allegheny and Piedmont pilots, I agree with Boeingman occasionally and so on and so forth.

I almost never agree with the FAA, I used to agree with ALPA most of the time, under the present administration I don't agree hardly any of the time, sometimes I even agree with FlyDeltasJets but mostly I don't, I never agree with csmith.

You, I just haven't given much thought but I'm flexible. Do you have something to say?

 

[surplus1]

Once again, on yet another issue, we see people claiming the high road for their own agenda.

Seems I was wrong in the preceeding post. I do agree with you on something after all. I too have noticed you do that a great deal. Just never thought you'd acknowledge it. Guess I was wrong again.

Surplus1

 

[csmith]

Seems I was wrong in the preceeding post. I do agree with you on something after all. I too have noticed you do that a great deal. Just never thought you'd acknowledge it. Guess I was wrong again.

Surplus1

With you Surplus, it's always about WHO'S right or wrong. With me, it's about WHAT'S right or wrong.

I don't claim the high road, never have. I got into this business to make money, have a lot of time off, see places, and get out early. I played by the rules, and now others want to change them at my expense. That's fine. I will fight them on it, however, and I will call them on it when they claim it is more fair or just their way--aka the "high road".

Conflict between two people usually arises because they are alike and their personalities butt heads. I really don't care to start another long thread with you and your 3 part posts. Suffice to say, I see where you are coming from, and it ain't the high road.

CS

--the first step to recovery is admission

 

[NYRANGERS]

No on resolution 361

I suggest you call your state senators if you are opposed to increasing the retirement age. Just do a search on your state senators and you will get their e-mail and phone numbers.

When you call you will most likely get someone who will ask you if you are opposed or for the resolution.

Its only takes one minute and might help keep your career progressing.

 

[surplus1]

I got into this business to make money, have a lot of time off, see places, and get out early.

That Captain is perhaps the basic difference between us. I got into this business because I love airplanes and most of the people who fly them. When I first did it, I had no idea how much money I would make, did not care about how much time I would have off (I enjoyed being at work) and did not know what places I would wind up seeing. It really didn't matter much as long as I was doing what I love to do. That is an immense difference from your perspective.

As it turned out, I was very, very lucky. I got to fly some wonderful machines, made more money than my wildest dreams, met some of the greatest people on the face of the planet, was fortunate to fly all over every Continent except (far) Asia and Australia, and never once sat in the cokpit of an airliner whose empennage I could see while in flight. There have been up's and down's and furloughs and strikes, riches and poverty, and way too much politics. All in all, it's been one hel1 of a ride. I'd do it again in a heartbeat and can't remember even one day that I wanted to get out early.

I played by the rules, and now others want to change them at my expense. That's fine. I will fight them on it, however, and I will call them on it when they claim it is more fair or just their way--aka the "high road".

I think I've played by "the rules" too and I've also been stepped on by people that didn't. I really don't want to change them, certainly not all by myself, but I'm way past the simple and obedient acceptance of rules made by others for their benefit at my expense.

We are having this "dispute" because you believe that I do want to change the rulse and I believe that your group has already done that, at my expense and that of my fellows. Like you, I will fight for what I believe with anyone at all and never submit to intimidation or coercion. I do not accuse you personally of either, but I do accuse our union. I am just as determined to change that as you appear willing to prevent me. I am truly sorry it is that way, but it is.

Conflict between two people usually arises because they are alike and their personalities butt heads. I really don't care to start another long thread with you and your 3 part posts. Suffice to say, I see where you are coming from, and it ain't the high road.

Unfortunately, we seem to belong to a mutual admiration society. Since I don't know you I really can't tell how much we are "alike" but if what you write is the indicator, the similarities are limited. I'll not convince you of anything, your mind is made up and there is nothing I can do about it. My mind is still open however. If and when you come up with a better idea, I'm still willing to listen. However, as long as you believe that listening equates to doing things your way, never the twain shall meet.

Butting heads is a waste of time. Dialogue could lead to a mutually satisfactory solution (even if we shout sometimes). I can't force you to have dialogue and you obviously don't want any. That's up to you.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

Fly Safe.

 

[csmith]

That Captain is perhaps the basic difference between us. I got into this business because I love airplanes and most of the people who fly them.

As expected, you've spun again. There is a big difference between aviation and the business of flying airplanes. Herein lies the crux of this BUSINESS.

There are people who will go to any lengths in order to fly these machines. They will spend endless time talking about it. They will spend endless hours at the airport. They will spend endless hours in front of their computer blanketing the world with their vast experience to whomever does and, whomever does NOT, want to hear it. You can reference it in the number and frequency of their posts.

As long as there are people out there with this attitude, downward pressure will continue to exist on labor. Of course the blame will be pointed elsewhere, but the simple fact is that there is someone, somewhere who will fly more cheaply than you. This is the stuff that steals your love for this business.

There are many other things in this world besides the airline biz. There is aviation, there is family, there are friends, there is a world to see. Too many pilots ignore the really important things in life and learn the all too harsh consequences of such behavior. Like I said, I got into this to get paid, get time off, and get a retirement. The love of aviation is dying quickly in the airline biz--too many opportunists just waiting to knock you off your pillar.

We are having this "dispute" because you believe that I do want to change the rulse and I believe that your group has already done that, at my expense and that of my fellows. Like you, I will fight for what I believe with anyone at all and never submit to intimidation or coercion. I do not accuse you personally of either, but I do accuse our union. I am just as determined to change that as you appear willing to prevent me.

Whatever. You just can't leave it out of any thread. You remind me of my father-in-law. You just have to hold on. A very miserable man he is.

I can't force you to have dialogue and you obviously don't want any.

Constructive diaogue means I lose money and you gain it, or you sue. Not constructive. Sorry. We are off thread and I am through with you. Sorry for the banter folks. I'll join you in another thread, another time.

 

[BigFlyr]

Surplus1,

You will be 59 one day and may be in the same situation as those US Airways pilots you describe. Now who is only thinking about "number one"?

The age 60 rule is age discrimination and whether or not the rule changes should have absolutely nothing to do with the state of our economy or industry.

I too stand to loose if the age limit is increased at this point in my career but one has to look at it from a non biased point of view.

 

[Timebuilder]

Indeed!

If there is a "high road", it is occupied by the idea that we are not above the law.

I don't have to point out that we once kept a good portion of the population from voting, do I? That was changed because it wasn't right.

So too, will the age 60 rule go the way of the dodo.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Why should a mandatory retirement FAR be about anything OTHER THAN the ability to do the job?

I truly have no axe to grind. Think about this in the context of ANY OTHER JOB.

There is no mandatory retirement age for football players, or supreme court justices, or movie actors. If they can continue to do the job then they should not be prevented from doing so.

To arbitrarily say in the law that you can't fly 121 after age 60 is the classic denial of opportunity. Let's be honest, its un-American.