Age 65 Stinks

[Flopgut]

Avbug: Let me remind you that you are fully enschonched in a minority of airline pilots who are brimming with a greed imperative that has only grown more greedy with 65. Don't think the age will continue to increase without employers having some say. Your retirement date was no less important to them than your DOH. If you're going to orchestrate cradle to grave employment for your own selfish needs they aren't going to be able to recruit the type pilot they want to. A majority of airline pilots don't see things your way and I'm quite sure a majority of employers don't quite agree either. The next changed law probably ain't going to go your way. Plan on NOT coming to the rest of the profession for help when it's your oatmeal that get's duked in, K? I can tell you think you're God's gift to manned, powered flight and that the world will abandon air travel when your skills are no longer available, but I'm afraid you're not right.

I will leave when I've had my fair share. I intend to make some positive impacts before I go and those are fully underway. How about you try to do some good as well? I know that's a lot to ask of a guy who is devoted to being a burden, but give it a thought.

 

[avbug]

If you're going to orchestrate cradle to grave employment for your own selfish needs they aren't going to be able to recruit the type pilot they want to.

I'm not going to orchestrate any empoloyment. Neither did I orchestrate the age 65 legislation. This was an act of Congress, you see.

There is no such thing as cradle to grave employment in aviation. We don't put children in the cockpit (save for those unprofessionals childish enough to demand that others above them step aside so that they take what isn't theirs). We don't normally have people die in the cockpit. Your assertion, even by insinuation, that anything remotely like "cradle to grave" employment exists is misplaced, and therefore a lie.

Airlines have no difficulty recruiting qualified applicants. This has never been a problem.

A majority of airline pilots don't see things your way and I'm quite sure a majority of employers don't quite agree either.

Meaningless and irrelevant. Those same individuals don't agree with The Congress of the United States of America, either...but then it's the decision of Congress which is relevant and meaningful. Not that of those for whom you attempt to speak.

I can tell you think you're God's gift to manned, powered flight and that the world will abandon air travel when your skills are no longer available, but I'm afraid you're not right.

You cannot tell this, because I have said no such thing, or suggested any such thing, or provided any statement which could be construed in any way, shape, or form to be as such. This makes you a bald faced liar, and in light of your refusal to resign your job in favor of those beneath you, a hypocrical coward with little more to offer than whining about that which you want, but cannot have. This is truthful and plain, as evidenced in your own scribbling.

What you are now offering is the weakest of arguments. In complete abject failure of your agenda, your next step is to attack on a childish level..."you think you're god's gift to...". Really more the domain of a five year old. What I've done is state my unwavering support for allowing qualified, experienced airman to serve and remain employed as long as they're able. I've leaned in no other direction, nor made any statements that would suggest I have any particular value above another...never the less, you create a weak and thinly veiled suggestion to the contrary, a lie in itself. I would prefer to say you can do better, but we have seen that you cannot.

You may be a personal associate of Prater, you've certainly dropped that hint, and you may be one who writes policy (or thinks he does)...but you're also a failure in this respect as clearly the policy you do not want is law, and your own sad efforts are not.

What you think may happen in the future, of course, is also entirely irrelevant, and like your other efforts here, without merit and meaningless.

I will leave when I've had my fair share.

Then you are a hypocrite and a liar.

You want those above you to step aside for you, yet are not willing to do the same. You are fully exposed in your lies and falsehood. There is no need to waste any further time with your nonsense.

How about you try to do some good as well?

You know nothing of what I do or don't do, as I haven't elected to reveal this, and it's not relevant to the discussion.

I know that's a lot to ask of a guy who is devoted to being a burden, but give it a thought.

I am a burden because I believe a man should be able to work so long as he is willing and able? Not at all.

Your assertion, therefore, is also a lie, and as previously said, there's little need to waste any further time or thought on you. You, like the other failures who have wailed with your same rant, are now on the ignore list. Much the better to separate the chaff in order to see posts only from those who speak the truth, and have something to say.

 

[Flopgut]

Your assertion, therefore, is also a lie, and as previously said, there's little need to waste any further time or thought on you. You, like the other failures who have wailed with your same rant, are now on the ignore list.

Whew! Thank God.

Guys and Gals: I've had the distinct displeasure of flying with the most aggregious, pompous, and self interested 83 hire Lorenzo scabs you could ever imagine. Avbug's manifesto would offend even them!!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

To Flopgut and his "get out of my seat" colleagues:

The real question, since you are so interested in upward movement in the seniority list by way of retirements: Why don't you do your part to help with the up-grade process? Certainly just a few years in the left seat should be enough for you and anyone else. You lived the dream so now give it up and let some of the new pilots have their chance at the dream. That seems only fair by your way of thinking based on your postings. Please give others the chance you have had. Or maybe you could just voluntarily move to the bottom of the seniority list to help the others as the current rule change has legislated for the over age-60 pilots who have recently been forced to the Food Stamp line. Why not do your part as you advocate as the way to give others a chance.

I must say that if you don't want to do this, you are, just as AVBUG says, a hypocrite by definition. Right?

 

[Huggyu2]

Guys and Gals: I've had the distinct displeasure of flying with the most aggregious, pompous, and self interested 83 hire Lorenzo scabs you could ever imagine. Avbug's manifesto would offend even them!!

Really? How's that?
I rather enjoyed the read.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Strange, but it seems not one person is retiring "early." They talked the talk about leaving early; even before age 60, but then they all stay. It seems everyone should leave early except themselves!

What liars they are!

Age 60 has no meaning at all, nor should it.

 

[Flopgut]

Really? How's that?
I rather enjoyed the read.

Avbug is too much of a systemite.

Are you perhaps an CAL 83 hire that appreciates this guy?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Avbug is too much of a systemite.

AVBUG should be paid to post on FI.

 

[Flopgut]

Avbug is like a parakeet in a mine shaft. If you don't like the guy, or are at least skeptical, you're OK. If you're in tune with him: definite character flaw.

If there was a way to accurately portray the Avbug persona to the rest of mankind, as a sort of warning that if you get into big time flying this is who you will have to suffer, he would be quite useful in steering solid people from airline flying. If the first guy like him had not weasled his way into this, we would have never had the second guy like him. And we could all rely on each other.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Ahhh, Avgas! Such a profile in courage that he won’t even post his age, credentials, or even the airline he is furloughed from.

We need more like him – not!

It’s easy to simply call other’s liars and run from the scene. He may have thought he was so sneaky but all he amounts to is just another coward hiding behind his computer screen.

Sorry Undauanted, but by following someone as blind and narrow minded as Avgas, you are simply defining yourself.

I had the opportunity to speak to many, many pilots about the Age 65 issue and practically none carry a more warped view of it than Avgas. He is truly living in own little world. Even the guys now flying past 60 realize this was a gift thrown in their laps courtesy of the US Government.

Rationalize it all you want but the Age 60 pilots just took a seat from a fellow pilot. The truly ironic thing over at AA is that for the guys that stayed, their B Fund took a pounding that will most likely take years to recover. In essence, they’re now working for free.

Like it or not, Age 65 is here for now. As for the safety implications, only time will tell.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Ahhh, Avgas! Such a profile in courage that he won’t even post his age, credentials, or even the airline he is furloughed from.

We need more like him – not!
AA767AV8TOR

Anonymity is the idea here at FI.

AVBUG is probably the most prolific and accurate poster here. What we need is more like him, a member who researches what he posts and tells it like it is. The only emotion I see in his posts is calmly tearing apart the emotional BS that many members post, and on this issue, that is you. You are so close to this you can not be objective.

As an A/A pilot, you are naturally out of touch with the age issue as long as you have a defined benefit retirement plan In other words, your company, by negotiation with your Union, pays the Captains to retire early. I guess I'd feel betrayed too if those pilots didn't retire after your negotiating sacrifices. And then, to see them stick around would be hard to take. Hey, it’s now their right to do this. But what you forget is the fact that the rest of the industry doesn't have such a retirement model, with pensions. Their retirement model is only based on what they individually have in their retirement funds. Of course, this is the future for all Americans: Pilots, doctors, lawyers and yes even factory workers as well as most all others. The only people with pensions will be government workers. So in this new retirement structure, unless you have a government pension, it's got to be "work till you think you have enough money saved."

Yes, we now have age-65 as a limit for pilots and in reality, I don't expect that will change. Age-65 is here for good.

 

[CDub]

Now, you bring up the past and how pilots were promoted because of age-60. Let me say again, age-60 was wrong, just as slavery was wrong on this country and it took a civil war to eliminate that wrong. The wrong of age discrimination (age-60) has been eliminated, just as slavery has been eliminated. So it seems to me that by your way of thinking about how thousands had been benefited from age-60 in the past and therefore it should continue, right or wrong; that means that slavery should have been continued because so many plantation owners had benefited from it before 1865 and those that tried to grow cotton after that time were not benefiting from the same use of slave labor. I guess that was unfair to the plantation owners after 1865, right? That is what you are saying and I hope you understand that. I’m sure that even you realize the flaw in your argument.

Terrible analogy... Age 60 and slavery are no where near being close in comparison. One big thing that keeps the analogy from working is the fact that working under the rules of Age 60 was completely voluntary. If you didn't like Age 60 then you could get a job somewhere else.

 

[avbug]

Perhaps you're seeing the wrong aspect of the use of slavery and age 60 restrictions. The two weren't being compared. Both represented wrongs which have been set aside.

Age 65 is wrong too, in that it also prescribes an artificial restriction on an airman's ability to work, which is unwarranted. Perhaps in the future this nonsense will also go away, and we can look at eliminating age restrictions for pilots, as it should be.

 

[CDub]

Age 65 is wrong too, in that it also prescribes an artificial restriction on an airman's ability to work, which is unwarranted. Perhaps in the future this nonsense will also go away, and we can look at eliminating age restrictions for pilots, as it should be.

Yes, I got that part about both being wrong but that is where the similarities end. There are so many other "wrongs" out there which provide much closer comparisons to Age 60 other than just being wrong. If you want to stick with historical examples, examples include race or sex discrimination in the military in the past .

Once again, slavery is not even close to age 60 discrimination.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Age 65 is wrong too, in that it also prescribes an artificial restriction on an airman's ability to work, which is unwarranted. Perhaps in the future this nonsense will also go away, and we can look at eliminating age restrictions for pilots, as it should be.

I know this is a Part 121 discussion but the statement above is not completely correct. There are plenty of airmen continuing to work well past 60 (or 65 now). Until recently, there were many on-demand, fractional, air tour, and med-evac jobs to be had and many operators welcomed the high experience levels offered by 60+ aviators. So an airman still has the ability to work flying airplanes.

I will let you folks continue the age 65 debate. I have no axe to grind in the discussion since my segment of the industry has no mandatory retirement age. But let me pose one question: Why is it "unsafe" for a Southwest, United, American, et al pilot to fly a 737 for an airline the day after he or she turns 65 but they can run over to Van Nuys and bop around the planet on a BBJ until they can't pass a medical or stop breathing? I would only say that "safety" wasn't and still isn't the primary reason for the regulation.

 

[avbug]

I know this is a Part 121 discussion but the statement above is not completely correct. There are plenty of airmen continuing to work well past 60 (or 65 now).

Actually, you and I agree completely on the topic. There is no reason an airman's ability to work should be impeded by the regulation. This is what I said, and yes, it's completely correct. Therefore, I'll say it again: Age 65 is wrong too, in that it also prescribes an artificial restriction on an airman's ability to work, which is unwarranted.

Yes, I got that part about both being wrong but that is where the similarities end.

Even Christ's analogies were far from perfect, and weren't intended to be universal Let's keep it in context. UndauntedFlyer made no statement regarding comparing age 60 to slavery. He said that slavery is wrong, and that the age 60 restriction was wrong. Both have been done away. Any effort on your part to carry it beyond that is reading into his statement what's not there, and putting words in his mouth.

However...

You asked a question which should be addressed...

If you didn't like Age 60 then you could get a job somewhere else.

All good and well unless you're 60 and put on the street...where nobody will hire you. Even though you may have another fifteen years or more of good work left in you. Age 60 limits took away a man's ability to keep working in a job and field where his longevity and skill made him a valuable asset. Age 65 does the same thing, just five years later.

If a man is restricted by high blood pressure or bad eyesight, that's one thing. But his age? Utter nonsense.

Your comparison between age 60 and slavery, likewise, is beyond the mark and also nonsense. It's out of context and inappropriate. It's a comparison that only you have made. Accordingly, you're arguing with yourself. Hardly a productive endeavor.

 

[gutshotdraw]

All good and well unless you're 60 and put on the street...where nobody will hire you.

There are several hundred retired 121 airline pilots at Netjets alone that would tell you THIS statement is an abject falsehood.

 

[avbug]

Netjets, then, is the solution to improperly capping one's service in the 121 environment?

 

[gutshotdraw]

You have a point of view in the argument. Perhaps a valid one. Use FACT to make your case. Not falsehoods and speculation.

The FACT is that turning 60 or 65 does not necessarily end a career in aviation. Mandatory retirement is a double-edged sword. Quite frankly, I can see merits to both sides of the argument.

 

[avbug]

The fact is that most pilots who retire from the airlines don't find other work. Many charter operators won't type them, they've been in a very different, rigid environment far too long for most corporate and charter jobs, and very few find work. That a few have managed to find employment doing fractional is great...but that's a small percentage of those who retire. By and large, those who do retire are done when it comes to finding work.

To toss a man to the street when he's still got work left in him, but when he can't get it elsewhere, is wrong. The Age 60 restrictions were wrong, and age 65 is somewhat of an improvement...but still a restriction that should be pushed back or eliminated. No falsehood about it.