Age 65 Stinks

[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.

 

[Flopgut]

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

And every single one of them passed an interview to be there. They had to demonstrate sufficient discipline, professionalism, and enthusiasm to be there. You can not say the same of the ones the airline is forced to keep because of 65. It's the opposite. 90% of them you wouldn't hire to fly trafic watch.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

All too often it's rightfully so. They've been out to pasture since age 55 and their give a damm meter is broke. They stall airlplanes at altitude, offend customers and coworkers and haven't read the AFM in a decade.

 

[Flopgut]

Age 60 retirement was young enough that pilots who still had it together could go find another job. (and in the case of NJA, it was a pretty good one) There will still be a few pilots who can cut it at 65 just like 60 but it's just too old. They won't get hired at 65 and that will be absolute age discrimination and very unfortunate indeed. But that's what you get when guys like Avbug get their way.

The pilots who had thier crap together left at 60. The ones you wouldn't trust to reheat your lunch in a microwave are staying to 65. And want to stay longer.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Blood? What blood? Another lie. Age 65 isn't a safety issue. Your assertion to the contrary is, of course, a lie.

When you can respond without constant distraction and lies, by all means feel free to play again. Presently you're so far misguided and so full of mistruth that anything further you have to offer is lacking credibility, and therefore a waste of time. Perhaps in the future, you can do better.

Avgas,

Still think Age 65 isn’t a safety issue? I like to hear your spin on this one. I guess we’re all liars.

Nice save by the Continental FO’s!! Great job!!

AA767AV8TOR

Continental spokeswoman Kelly Cripe declined to comment on the report and said the airline did not plan to release the pilot's name. The airline has previously said the captain was 60 years old and had served Continental for 32 years.

The co-pilots for Flight 61 safely landed the plane with 247 passengers at Newark airport shortly before noon after a doctor on board tried to revive the captain with a defibrillator.

According to the khou.com report, Lenell, a father and grandfather, lived on a farm with his wife outside Houston.

Lenell's wife Lynda said her husband appeared to have no known heart problems, according to the report. Lynda Lenell said co-pilots thought he was asleep, but realized something was wrong once they could not wake him up, the report said.

Lynda Lenell said her husband served in the Vietnam War as an Air Force pilot, the report said.

Dr. Julien Struyven, 72, a cardiologist who answered a mid-flight call from the crew for medical assistance, said there was no chance to save the pilot. He was dead when Struyven arrived at the cockpit, though Struyven attempted to revive him with a defibrillator.

 

[Turbine Pilot]

The truth is I would rather have my family in the back of an airliner being piloted by an over 60 guy than one of these 22 year old, green behind the ears "under 60" pilots any day of the week. You need look no further than the Hudson and BUF. Harsh but true.

Funny I don't see any 60 plus year old pilots flying F-16's in the military. I also wonder why they have a cut off date of 30 years old to BECOME a pilot. They even let low time pilots fly there missions in Iraq with very nice fighter jets and stuff. You think they would let a 60 plus dude in a cockpit like that and think he is medicaly fit? Your logic makes no sense.

 

[The Prussian]

Three and a half more years of listening to this crud!!! uke:

 

[waveflyer]

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.

So why aren't they hired? Loss of perspective? Superiority complex? Inflexible attitudes?
Noone in this career made up the age 60 rule- but it's been here for all of us since we started. And proving that boomers are in fact the entitlement generation- you took a power grab. You can't actually compete, you got weak- protected by seniority- so you keep your "position" for another 5 years since "competing" would be out of the question....

Right.

 

[Flopgut]

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.

Waveflyer: Avbug reveals a whole lot with the "very different, rigid environment" statement. Classic mantra of the arrogant airline pilot who's become a pig that no one can stand. Usually a marginal aviator, these types are rarely hired after normal airline retirement and there is always a long list of real good reasons why. But if you ask them? It's because they are "from a very different, rigid environment".

 

[Flopgut]

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,

This pretty much sums it up, I think. Avbug shoots his mouth off and then events unfold that prove him to be the completely clueless, lying hypocrite he assails everyone who disagrees with him as, and he's suddenly silent?!

 

[Flopgut]

Three and a half more years of listening to this crud!!! uke:

I plan to complain for at least another 8.5 years, and frankly, you better like it! Because that will be less than half the time I've had to listen to guys like Prater gripe about scabs and the strike (which was no different than 65) so you consider yourself lucky.