Age 65 Stinks

[AA767AV8TOR]

In the meantime, if I go back or not, it makes no difference. If pilots at my company elect to stay for five years, I say more power to them. They've earned the opportunity to be there, they've been there longer, and unlike me, they can't simply go somewhere else and go to work. I can. In fact, I did. I'm working as a line pilot, mechanic, instructor, and check airman. I've got other jobs waiting for me, and whether I go back or not, I'll work, I'll stay busy, and I won't look over my shoulder and cry about what's fair and not fair. You should do the same.

Glad to see you such a talented and valued individual. Many find themselves in very different shoes. Loaded up with debt and virtually no job opportunities at any of the majors for the next 3-4 years, the environment is very bleak for most individuals. Again, this is worsened by the impact of Age 65. Due to this bleak outlook, many individuals will find themselves looking for greener pastures and leaving the industry for good. This is our future that is leaving the industry in sizable numbers. Again, this will have an impact on our future safety and is aggravated by Age 65.

Also, please tell me why a motivated and capable individual such as you cannot find a job over the Age of 60? Like you said, you were able to find a job. Why can't they?

Competitive minimums with my employer over the past year jumped to about 20,000 hours, with multiple type ratings and 15 years or more of international heavy experience. The hiring standards didn't go down. They've gone up. Plenty of pilots on the street who are more than qualified, who are looking for work...and by no consequence of age 65. It's happening globally. You need to open your eyes a little.

Perhaps you're the one that needs to open your eyes. Of course, with as many unemployed pilots running around and the very few employment opportunities available, hiring minimums at the better places of aviation employment are going to increase. For those companies at the top, it's a buyer’s market. It's the reason why minimums are higher at places such as LUV and FedEx. Good luck on trying to find a job there though.

Contrary to your opinion, hiring minimums at the low end of the aviation spectrum have decreased. American Eagle had new hires with as little as four hundred in the recent past. Quite simply, people don't want the job especially at the lower wage scales. Regionals are not the stepping stone they were in the past. Regionals are now the entire career and most people just don't see the economics in spending $100,000 - $120,000 (state universities are now running between $20,000 - $30,000 per year) for a job that starts at $20,000 and ends at $60,000. Again, Age 65 only exacerbates this problem.

Regional flying isn't long haul flying. Further, you're unable to show a connection between regional mishaps and age 65, because there isn't one. You're unable to back up anything you say...you can't even point to an NTSB report that would back you up...because you've been caught once more telling a lie.

Since it usually takes the NTSB at least a couple of years to issue an official report, you and I both know it is way too early in the ball game for any “official” conclusive reports to be made on the impact of Age 65. The rule has only been around for 18 months. What I do know at this early juncture is what I am able to see with my own eyes.

As for flying long haul...I understand what this means very well...having just come from an international widebody job flying long haul. You?

Flying long haul has nothing to do with age 65, of course.

Again, you’re wrong. At the larger carriers, due to the higher pay rates, most of the over age 60 crowd is very senior and is found flying long haul.

If you haven't figured out by now, I do fly long haul and over the years had the opportunity to flying thousands of hours with many individuals approaching their retirements. Let's put it this way, flying through 10 times zones is very hard on an individual's body. It only gets harder as one age. It's hard on my body even at 48.

I also used to fly with the old 2 stripers that flew well into their 60's and 70's. Some were great but some slept for virtually the entire flight. Have you have ever flown with someone over age 60 through 10 time zones and in the middle of the night. I have.

Moreover, if you are true to your views, you should also strongly support no age cap (Age 65 is also age discrimination). You should also support the view that all those that retired under Age 60 should able to return with their seniority intact. Both views, if you’re honest with yourself, would deny countless others their own careers in which they worked so hard to achieve, diminish safety, and destroy this once proud profession. But as we both know by now, you are both mean spirited and intellectually dishonest with those that have a different opinion than you.

Finally, this has developed into a circular argument. You have your views and I have mine. You can keep calling me “liar liar pants on fire” all you want, hide behind your keyboard, and keep presenting your distorted views, but it will never changed the fact the senior guys just pulled a fast one and screwed the junior pilots.


AA767AV8TOR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Yeah the 25 year old flying B-1's around the world on 16 hour missions sure is scary

Age 65 guys sorry but you knew the game when you entered to complain after the fact and use "threats of inexpereince in the cockpit" does not fly.

Not one guy should be laid off because of this ruling. Congress should have made it clear the day furloughs start time to move on gents

Again,
The military excuse is pulled.....again. That 25 year old in the B-1, is at the end of a selection/training process that wouldn't even allow you to apply. Get over it, those guys have THE RIGHT STUFF, your stuff is a backpack full of hair gel and guitar picks, toss in an iPod and there you go. If you have to get furloughed so I can continue to work and acquire the necessary stuff for a comfortable life, well...too bad. You could always sell your kids into white slavery, they really should not be living in a refrigerator box under the freeway anyway! After I get the 3rd house paid off, I think I want a P-51 for the weekends. Senority is ruff!
PBR

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I got to enjoy flying with one the over sixty crowd. He should have stepped aside at sixty. We flew just over 20 hours on a 4 day trip. He fell asleep every single leg. Of the 20 hours of flying was awake for 12 of them. Flying into EWR we had a 20 knot x-wind. The non revs in the back came up to ask what had happened.

It was like doing IOE with a new hire, but the new hire was your boss.

On the flip side I have also flown with some guys, that are over sixty, that have been great. I have learned a lot from each of them. It always up to the individual.

He was recovering from a long week off with too much booze and too many teenage hookers, cut him some slack, you will get there someday. Until you have had a hotel suite with a full sized bar, a candy bowl full of Viagara, and hot and cold teenage hookers(with giant plastic cans), you really haven't had a good set of days off.
PBR

 

[tomgoodman]

What changed?

Indeed, the greedy pilots didn't make the legislation – although, it was them that pushed hard to change it, for well over 10 years.

It's quite true that efforts to raise the retirement age had been made, without success, for many years. Why did they suddenly succeed? I submit that it was the rash of pension-dumping, not ICAO, which finally lit the fuse. I also submit that, justified or not, this was quite foreseeable.
Note: I realize that your company did not do this, and I was retired well before it happened, but we were both affected by the actions and inactions of others. It is what it is.

 

[saabservant]

Whether we fly left or right seat is a function of management's business plan, and our timing on getting hired, nothing else.
I went from six-year captain to right seat in 2007, due to mgmt. decision to cookup a phony bankruptcy and to replace half the fleet. Earning it had nothing to do with it....

Again, age 65 is a function of PERCEIVED safety by faa, discrimination, and the before-stated ICAO. It is discriminatory to require a fit, healthy, sharp 60-year old to
retire, just for YOUR career progression. Do you hear yourself?
Why don't you just say that women, blacks, whomever, are taking your seat?

this is pointless.....I'm out

Semper Fi

 

[avbug]

Have you have ever flown with someone over age 60 through 10 time zones and in the middle of the night.

Many times, yes. Many times around the globe, yes. And every one of them, I'd go around again. Not a worry.

Also, please tell me why a motivated and capable individual such as you cannot find a job over the Age of 60? Like you said, you were able to find a job. Why can't they?

I can, but then I'm not over 60. Whether they can or they can't is really irrelevant. They don't have to. They already have a job. You want that job. You want what you cannot have.

Yes, I can find a job. Then again, there isn't much I haven't done in aviation thus far. I hold five different FAA certificates, and am as comfortable flying low level in the mountains as flying IFR, as turning wrenches as instructing. Further, I'm current in all those areas...very current. Those coming out of an airline seat who have done nothing else, not so much. Add to that trying to leave an airline and fine work over the age of 60, they have a challenge.

That challenge is irrelevant, however, because they don't have to leave their seat and find work. They're already employed, and thanks to a sensible, lawful increase in the age limit for them, they may continue with that employment until the age of 65. It's a congressional mandate, you see.

Of course, with as many unemployed pilots running around and the very few employment opportunities available, hiring minimums at the better places of aviation employment are going to increase. For those companies at the top, it's a buyer’s market. It's the reason why minimums are higher at places such as LUV and FedEx. Good luck on trying to find a job there though.

This completes at least one of your lies, previously told. Before, you told us that hiring minimums were at an all time low...now you admit they are not. You previously lied to support your invalid point, just as you continue to lie...

Contrary to your opinion, hiring minimums at the low end of the aviation spectrum have decreased. American Eagle had new hires with as little as four hundred in the recent past.

We could give you the benefit of the doubt and make the assumption that you've simply had your head buried in the sand for the past few years...but given your propensity for telling lies this would be wasteful and unnecessary. You know that hiring minimums for regional airlines have been in the region of several hundred hours for the past few years. This was the case prior to the age 65 issues, and thus were not a consequence of the age 65 legislation. That you associate the two, is of course, a lie.

Furthermore, wages have not decreased, and there is no shortage of applicants ready to jump at the chance to enter the regional airlines at those wages. Again, you tell lies.

people just don't see the economics in spending $100,000 - $120,000 (state universities are now running between $20,000 - $30,000 per year) for a job that starts at $20,000 and ends at $60,000.

What one spends on a university degree is irrelevant, as a degree is not required to do this work. It may make one competitive, but it's completely unnecessary at the regional level...and whereas a degree is applicable to far more than simply flying an airplane...one can hardly count the cost of a degree into one's flight training costs. You grossly over-exaggerate the cost of learning to fly, which of it's own accord is another lie. You tell lies, and cannot help yourself.

Your arrogance in assuming that flying for an airline is the be-all and end-all of aviation is astounding, though perhaps not so much given that you are a habitual liar with a strong self-serving arrogant sense of entitlement. Many more pilots are employed in the industry than simply flying for an airline. Corporate salaries go considerably higher than the figures you have cited; either it's another lie, or you're woefully out of touch. Either way, it continues to represent your bankrupt state of credibility, as you either don't know what you're talking about, or simply are lying. Again.

Wages have always been low for those entering the industry. Nothing has changed.

You recently stated that somehow age 65 has caused "the last few regional accidents." You now tell us you can't prove this because the NTSB won't release the reports for several years. I challenged you. I called you out on this, as you've stated several times now that the blood is on my hands and on all others who support increasing the working age for pilots. You are unable to support your claims. You are therefore, a liar.

Don't come on this board and accuse me of having blood on my hands if you can't back it up. You've been exposed. You've lied, and you can't back up your lies. One after another, and when your lies are exposed for the greedy little child you are, all your statements say over and over is "get out of the way, old man. I want your job."

A greedy liar who has been caught in his lies again and again, who has done nothing to earn what he wants but cry and whine, who has no credibility in this conversation whatsoever, you can safely be discounted with anything further you have to offer on the subject.

You are added to my ignore list, as one unworthy of further discussion.

 

[kwick]

Whether we fly left or right seat is a function of management's business plan, and our timing on getting hired, nothing else.
I went from six-year captain to right seat in 2007, due to mgmt. decision to cookup a phony bankruptcy and to replace half the fleet. Earning it had nothing to do with it....

Again, age 65 is a function of PERCEIVED safety by faa, discrimination, and the before-stated ICAO. It is discriminatory to require a fit, healthy, sharp 60-year old to
retire, just for YOUR career progression. Do you hear yourself?
Why don't you just say that women, blacks, whomever, are taking your seat?

this is pointless.....I'm out

Semper Fi

This guy gets it!

 

[pianoman]

Wait...just so I have this straight.... age 60 is discriminatory, but 65 is A-OK? If you guys seriously want to make this argument, get ready for movement to stop because we're going to look like the flight attendants pretty soon.

 

[Flopgut]

Whether we fly left or right seat is a function of management's business plan, and our timing on getting hired, nothing else.
I went from six-year captain to right seat in 2007, due to mgmt. decision to cookup a phony bankruptcy and to replace half the fleet. Earning it had nothing to do with it....

Again, age 65 is a function of PERCEIVED safety by faa, discrimination, and the before-stated ICAO. It is discriminatory to require a fit, healthy, sharp 60-year old to
retire, just for YOUR career progression. Do you hear yourself?
Why don't you just say that women, blacks, whomever, are taking your seat?

this is pointless.....I'm out

Semper Fi

I do not agree with this post. Age, as it relates to the criteria necessary to fly an airplane, is less related to exact discrimination.

But more importantly I don't think this subject is pointless. There ought to be a way to discuss this issue without having the thread dominated by the Avbug, Undaunted Flyer, and Kwick type guys on here. The issue can not even be hinted at without the same emotional defense mechanisms being thrown up by the same pilots. When we air this out we need to include some dialog on how exactly we're going to move forward. Right now, we can't do that. Hyper senstitve guys who want to defend 65 need to back off. It doesn't need to be defended, it's already changed. We need to have some discussion about the effects, whether or not it's going to work, and what adjustments (if any) need to be made.

 

[avbug]

I'm hardly defensive about it. My own perception is that it's really a non-issue, insomuch as it doesn't affect me appreciably. I'm for the legislation, and I'd support extending the age further out than it is now.

What it is that I'm opposed to is the arrogance and the entitlement that some here perpetuate. This includes you.

I gain some measure of enjoyment in battering and smacking down pride and arrogance...and entitlement is certainly in that category. I've nothing to gain or defend in the age 65 legislation. I'm certainly disgusted by those who feel it's their lot to take what's above them in the food chain.

You cry moderation now, and that's good and well...but it's not been your mantra thus far. Are you now prepared to be reasonable?