Age 65 Stinks

[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.