Age 65 Stinks

[The Prussian]

Uhh.....any body else have any thoughts on this subject???

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

When you say senior pilots are abrogating their seniority, do you mean they're putting it aside by official means, or simply nullifying it? That word doesn't mean whatever it is that you think it means.

ab·ro·gate [ ábbrə gàyt ](past and past participle ab·ro·gat·ed, present participleab·ro·gat·ing, 3rd person present singularab·ro·gates)​

Definition:​

do away with something: to end an agreement or contract formally and publicly ( formal ) ​

Avgas, it seems it is you that is having trouble with the English language. Do you even know what abrogate means in a legal sense? The senior guys that were behind the change to Age 65 “abrogated” their seniority. That means they altered the seniority to benefit themselves. Do you even understand what happened or do I have to go more in depth for you?

Except for the pilots hired since December 2007, we all were hired under Age 60 and had career expectations based on Age 60 retirement progressions. If the senior guys were honest in their intentions with Age 65, they should have gone to the end of the seniority lists. That way, our seniority lists would not have been abrogated. But because of their greed, they instead fought their right to retain their high paying seat.

Try not to get confused between individual contracts between unions and companies which change every few years and laws changed through legislation which is done very infrequently.

Whether an age 60 pilot had a "career expectation" of this or that is irrelevant. What we have is a public law passed by congress, and it is what it is.

You're wrong. It is relevant! It was backdoored by Congress.

You haven't a right to fly. It's a privilege extended by the FAA. You haven't a right to someone else's seat. Stop whining. It's unprofessional.

Either did the over 60 crowd until they screwed they rest of us with their ill advised Age 65 legislation. Whinning?? I think you have targeted the wrong people. It was the over 60 crowd that was whinning the worst.

Forced to stay? You're not owed a dime. You don't own your job.

Either are you. Are you going to be happy if Age 65 causes you to be furloughed an extra 3-5 years?

People starving all over the world, poverty, disease, and crime...and here you sit in the land of plenty whining about having the privilege to work longer and earn more and never be in need of want. Absolutely disgusting.

And this is relevant in what way?

Perhaps you're inexperienced in the business not to have been furloughed before, not to have lost your job before, not to have had to start over. This isn't anyone's fault; you're simply too wet behind the ears and inexperienced to know what you're talking about...and it shows.

Your kidding right?? Again, you're the one in denial. Age 65 has an immediate and direct cause to the lack of hiring and career potential now. The timing of Age 65 could not have come at a worse time.

You seem to think the woes of the world fall on your shoulders.

No I don't. I just think the senior guys screwed the rest of us with Age 65.

You're concerned about the delays in promotion. You're concerned about "lost wages."

At least you have this part right.

Oh, I have a very good idea thank you. That's irrelevant to the discussion, however...though I've put in considerably more time in the service of my country than that.

What??

Ten years in the military...at a much higher wage than a civillian doing his first ten years in the industry...with much better benefits, better facilities, more advanced aircraft, and the benefit of someone else paying millions to train and maintain that pilot...is not exactly a sacrifice. Not in the least.

Another lie. I believe most here will easily recognize it for what it is. Had you any credibility to start with, this would be a surprise, but as you tell many lies and half-truths, this is no surprise, and given it's you...not even a disappointment. Though you tell this lie, surely you aren't dense enough to believe it?


Whereas the ten years in the military is hardly an hardship, and hardly a sacrifice...and is nothing but beneifts, we can establish that most who enter the military and receive the multi million dollars worth of training and maintenance have done so for that very reason. Many also do it for the reward of having served a greater good, having flown aircraft which they desired to fly, and for the experience. As for why a student today spends a hundred twenty thousand dollars in flight training, you'll have to find one that spends that kind of money. It's double the normal training costs...and a figure with which you're clearly not in touch.

What does the above diatribe have to relate to anything to the discussion at hand? Sounds like you just have a hardon for military guys. That is your own personal problem. "10 years in the military is hardly a hardship." You are so wrong on this point I don't have the time to even go there now.

What's the attraction to entering aviaton? Ask a thousand pilots and you'll get a hundred different answers. Many for the love of flying. Some for adventure. Some for wages. Some for freedom. Rest assured, however, that those entering avaition today will have the same opportunity to work until age 65, if they elect to fly for a scheduled part 121 airline, as you do, and as an age 60 pilot does today.

Why don't you learn to spell aviation.

Not many even want the job or the career now. That is a major problem in attracting qualified and experienced applicants. The pay and the promotional opportunities are just too bad at present. This is reflected in the lower hiring standards. You seem to say this is due to the transfer of flying jobs to the regionals. You may be partly right. I personally know of no one that is recommending this career to anyone.

Another lie! But I'm going to call you on it. You state that "the last few regional accidents" have been caused by the age 65 legislation? Here's your chance to put up or shut up. Prove it. You waffle on and on about age 65 and your poor-me suffering under it, and now you blame bloodloss and death upon it. You show me, you show us all how age 65 has caused the death of each person in the last few (that's going to be at least three, incidentally) regional mishaps. Not insinuations. Show us. Prove it. You can't, because age 65 isn't responsible.

If you can't prove this lie you've just told, then you may shut up now. Your other lies completely destroyed your standing and credibility, but this one has gone too far. Prove it, or silence yourself like the others here have done.

I'll leave this one up to the NTSB. It's obvious you have no clue what is happening in the cockpits of many long haul flights. It's very tough on the body. I get to see it up close and personal on a weekly basis. Yes, there are some great pilots but lets just say there are some very marginal ones that are out there pushing it right now.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Again with the English language problems. If you indeed mean to say that age 65 legislation has made being a commercial pilot a bigger joke than it currently is...this means that being a commercial pilot is less of a joke than it once was.

What in the world are you trying to say??

This means that the status of the commercially certificated pilot has improved. Whereas the legislation for age 65 is recent, and the status of the commercial pilot has improved, it naturally follows that the age 65 legislation has improved the status of the commercial pilot...which leaves you telling a lie, once again.


Then again, it's just you that sees being a commercial pilot as a joke...which of course means you see yourself as a joke...which is something we already know.

Again, what are you trying to say dude??!! Talk about circular logic. Let me spell this out for you as simply as I can, the career of the profession pilot is in a death spiral. Look at your own career. Take a look at where our profession has gone over the past 30 years or just this past decade.

The compensation is a fraction of what it once was. We have thousands of pilots forced to hold second jobs because the wages are so low. We have thousand of pilots forced to commute because they cannot afford to live in their own domicile.

Age 65 only compounded this problem. You are very confused about who are the selfish ones. The junior guys never started this fight but it is us that winds up getting screwed. As to your argument about who was promised what -- it was the senior guys that were never promised an extra five years but instead changed the rules in the middle of the game to favor themselves. Talk about self centered and selfish.

Then again, I'm not filled with your sense of entitlement, and neither do I stand on the rooftops and shout "get out of my way, old man, I want your job."

That’s your own prerogative. Again, you have got this backwards. It was the senior guys that were filled with their own sense of entitlement.


Like I said, besides those hired after December 2007, the rest of us were hired with a career expectation of an Age 60 retirement. Yes, indeed, they wrongfully took a seat that wasn't theirs.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[avbug]

As to your argument about who was promised what -- it was the senior guys that were never promised an extra five years but instead changed the rules in the middle of the game to favor themselves.

Promised...promises mean nothing. Nobody promised anything. Congress created a law enabling pilots to work an additional five years. What anyone was "never promised" is irrelevant. The present law enables pilots to work an additional five years...enabling experienced pilots who are senior to you to retain their jobs. You want their jobs. Again you snivel "get out of the way, old man. I want your job." You think you are entitled to what you cannot have. You are greedy.

ab·ro·gate [ ábbrə gàyt ](past and past participle ab·ro·gat·ed, present participleab·ro·gat·ing, 3rd person present singularab·ro·gates)​

Definition:​

do away with something: to end an agreement or contract formally and publicly ( formal ) ​

Avgas, it seems it is you that is having trouble with the English language. Do you even know what abrogate means in a legal sense? The senior guys that were behind the change to Age 65 “abrogated” their seniority. That means they altered the seniority to benefit themselves. Do you even understand what happened or do I have to go more in depth for you?

Oooh...avgas. You're clever, aren't you? Did you think that up all by yourself?

Why do you insist on continuing to embarrass yourself like this? No, those over 60 didn't "aborgate" anything. They didn't make the legislation, nor did they pass it. No "contract" existed, nor did they publically or otherwise change or end a contract or agreement. You're wrong. You know this, but push the point anyway...which is, of course, a lie.

You could go more in depth if you like, but as you've attempted to lie once more about what has gone on...what would be the point? To listen to you lie more? I do understand what happened. You understand too...you simply lie about it, and your motivation is driven by greed, as we've clearly established over the past few posts.

Again, what are you trying to say dude??!!

Did you just say "dude?" How might you phrase it if you wished to converse on a level higher than that of a fourteen year old?

If the senior guys were honest in their intentions with Age 65, they should have gone to the end of the seniority lists. That way, our seniority lists would not have been abrogated.

Look at that! We just heard you say once again, "get out of the way, old man. I want your job."

Seems to be a theme there. You want what you can't have. You covet the positions those more senior to you have. You want what you can't have, and it upsets you. Whining about it won't get what you don't deserve, and haven't earned. When you're senior, then you'll enjoy those privileges. Presently, you do not. Your greed will not change this.

What is it that magically requires a senior pilot to voluntarily drop to the bottom of the seniority list? The senior pilot is entitled to his place under public law...a law which he has not "aborgated," but under which he is permitted to continue flying until age 65. The senior pilot has not "aborgated" the seniority list, nor does the senior pilot make the seniority list. The senior pilot simply occupies a place of seniority on the list...based on date of hire. You were hired after that pilot, and this is why he is more senior to you. This is also why you want what he has; you envy his seniority, you tell lies about what the senior pilot has done, and you want what the other pilot has. You wring your hands and call out "get out of my way, old man. I want your job." Nothing you say will give it to you.

You don't deserve it. You haven't earned it. You may want the senior pilot to resign his seniority...but then that's just you, wanting. Being greedy. Someone else has the toy you want, and you'll keep on whining until you get it, because you think you're entitled.

You're not.

Are you going to be happy if Age 65 causes you to be furloughed an extra 3-5 years?

"Age 65" didn't cause me to be furloughed in the first place. A depressed international market caused a reduction in force within my company which cost 500 mechanics their jobs, and half the pilots. We faired much better than other firms, which simply shut their doors.

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.

This is reflected in the lower hiring standards.

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.

I'll leave this one up to the NTSB. It's obvious you have no clue what is happening in the cockpits of many long haul flights. It's very tough on the body. I get to see it up close and personal on a weekly basis. Yes, there are some great pilots but lets just say there are some very marginal ones that are out there pushing it right now.

This is your response to being challenged on your assertion that the change to age 65 has caused recent regional airline "accidents." You say you'll leave it to the NTSB...and then rabble on about long haul flying.

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.

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.

 

[Flopgut]

I was coming after you, floppy, but avbug beat me to it. Suffice it to say, you have the stink of the "entitlement" generation emanating from every post you write.

No one owes you a job. Its a seniority based system and the mandatory retirement age is 65 by law.

Let it go already. Age 60 isn't coming back. Ever.

K. Comment on this please:

I am losing my seat in the fall. Two+ years as captain and I'm getting bounced out. I'm not happy about it, but there are worse things that could happen. However, clearly in my case, it's not as though I'm trying to take some other pilots seat in all this. In fact, at my seniority I will be flying with a lot of the 60+ guys (many of them I'm familiar with already) and at the time I was awarded [earned] upgrade these pilots had no claim to that seat. They had campaigned outside the CBA process for seniority abbrogation and supported a low minority inititive to get more seniority. (Yes, I know about ICAO. However, the rule change was occasioned at the exact time and in the exact manner Prater wanted it. The change probably would have looked different and been more fair if he had not acted as he did.) Again, I can deal with losing my seat. It's much worse for our furloughs.

My question is: How is it that when someone like me is adverse to losing the seat they are already in and losing a decades long established rule of seniority progression is called an "entitlement" type? If you feel I'm not entitled to what I already have and somehow simultaneously feel you are entitled take anything from me you want then what could you possibly be but the entitlement type in this equation? Anybody could understand this. In fact, let's not mince words: You're acting like an idiot. Furthermore (and this is very important), we happen to be talking about 65 but it could easily be another subject. Guys like Avbug, Kwick, Roman, Prussian, etc are simply weak links. Another tough issue surfaces and they will be looking to pull the ladder up again. They aren't solid people.

As I mentioned before, I'm already familiar with a lot of these 60+ guys I will be flying with. Some are scabs from the 80's and some aren't. It's fascinating how a non-scab, age 65 supporter rationalizes things. Without exception, they believe it is completely wrong that a scab has any seniority rights. But in the exact same breath can turn to me and say I have none either!! On top of all this, they don't acknowledge 65! There is no healthy context for which a pilot like myself can discuss a future of increased seniority without being "greedy". And then they wonder why they aren't your favorite guy to fly with?!

 

[Flopgut]

Dude, He's the Captain. You're an FO trying to take his job, which you may or may not be qualified to do.

In light of my above post can you explain to me who the scab is?

 

[Flopgut]

The above statements are 100% crap.

I've been laughing about this sentence for days! Fricking hilarious. You don't know whether to sh!t or go blind, do you? Anybody who wants to read you ranting and check the facts can do so on the "Age 65 Informal Poll" thread.

You could have single handedly lended more credibility to the age 65 campaign than any one person has lifted an issue! All you had to do was come back like you said you would. Even if it would have been for just one training event and only one bid month you would have been a Christ figure to the cause. Instead, you couldn't muster the professionalism to fly as FO for a once junior to you pilot. Even though they would have been a fellow ALPA/UAL pilot it was too much for your ego. You didn't do it. Sad.

 

[avbug]

My question is: How is it that when someone like me is adverse to losing the seat they are already in and losing a decades long established rule of seniority progression is called an "entitlement" type? If you feel I'm not entitled to what I already have and somehow simultaneously feel you are entitled take anything from me you want then what could you possibly be but the entitlement type in this equation?

I see the former embarrassment of your posts wasn't enough. You're back to embarrass yourself further. Very well.

You're not entitled to anything. Period. Your job, or that of anyone else.

If you're downgraded or furloughed...that's the way the ball bounces. That someone above you gets to keep their job because they are senior is a privilege of seniority. That individual was here first. You do not comprehend this concept?

If you were senior, then you'd have that opportunity...but you don't. Therefore, you simply want the other person's job. You want the senior man's position, and once more we hear nothing more than the pathetic whine of "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

The senior man isn't taking your job, isn't entitled to your job, and doesn't want your job. He simply retains his. When furloughs arise, when downgrades take place, the higher in seniority one is, the safer one is. A pilot who is senior to you, who holds seniority over you may very well be in a better position to keep his or her job. Every bit as much as you are in a better position than those beneath you, on the seniority list. People beneath you are not entitled to your job. You are not entitled to the job of someone senior to you. You don't understand this, clearly. Or perhaps you simply wish to ignore it, because you greedily want what others have...you want what you cannot have.

One more time: it's not your job. You want it, but you can't have it. Wait your turn. When you're the senior pilot, others may be wanting your job. Presently, you're not the senior pilot. If you're being downgraded, welcome to today's economy. That's unfortunate. It still doesn't mean you're entitled to someone else's seniority or job. This isn't rocket science, you know.

My question is: How is it that when someone like me is adverse to losing the seat they are already in and losing a decades long established rule of seniority progression is called an "entitlement" type?

This isn't really your question. Your seniority number hasn't gone away. It hasn't slipped. You're upset because those above you wont' retire as fast as you'd like. You want those above you to get out of the way, in order that you might have what they have. You want their jobs. Again, loud and clear, we hear you whine "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

No matter how many times you snivel, it sounds just as childish.

It's fascinating how a non-scab, age 65 supporter rationalizes things. Without exception, they believe it is completely wrong that a scab has any seniority rights. But in the exact same breath can turn to me and say I have none either!! On top of all this, they don't acknowledge 65!

You're simply rambling, now. You're sorry for yourself because nobody wants to hear you cry "get out of my way, old man. I want your job."

Who has said you have no rights? Your "rights" have not changed. Your seniority hasn't changed. You may not be moving as fast toward the top as you like...and your solution is to call for those at the top to sacrifice their careers so you can have what they have.

Your career is stymied at this point given the global economy. Regardless of the passing of age 65 legislation, companies have cut back, furloughed, downgraded, shut down, gone bankrupt, parked entire fleets, and reduced flights presently...and one's career may indeed not move in the direction it did and at the same pace it did a year ago, or two years ago. Big deal. The rest of the world is dealing with the same. Welcome to reality.

Career expectations are irrelevant. Your rights and your seniority hasn't been taken away. Nobody is entitled to your job, and nobody is taking it from you. Certainly nobody junior to you is taking it away from you.

You're the junior...and want what those senior to you have. You believe you're entitled, and you are not.

In light of my above post can you explain to me who the scab is?

You're still having this same trouble with the English language, aren't you? This is an education problem on your part. This will require some effort on your part, as the error and the misunderstanding is yours.

Like others, you continue to misuse that word and banter it about, thinking you know what it means. You don't. You may save yourself some embarrassment by taking the time to learn what it means, before posting further. You may save yourself considerable embarrassment by not posting further. Your choice. Just like the ability to work past 60. It's a choice.

It's one you'll possibly get to make one day too.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

Promised...promises mean nothing. Nobody promised anything. Congress created a law enabling pilots to work an additional five years. What anyone was "never promised" is irrelevant.

You are completely wrong on this point. Promises do mean something, especially in the world of law. Congress created a law that was pushed through by a couple of unions. Due to safety concerns, our own union, APA, was adamantly against any change in the law.

The present law enables pilots to work an additional five years...enabling experienced pilots who are senior to you to retain their jobs. You want their jobs. Again you snivel "get out of the way, old man. I want your job." You think you are entitled to what you cannot have. You are greedy.

Again, you have this backwards; they wanted my job (and got it). Quite simply and much like B-Scale, this is a transfer of wealth from junior to senior.

Why do you insist on continuing to embarrass yourself like this? No, those over 60 didn't "aborgate"(sic) anything. They didn't make the legislation, nor did they pass it. No "contract" existed, nor did they publically or otherwise change or end a contract or agreement. You're wrong. You know this, but push the point anyway...which is, of course, a lie.

No, it's you that continues to humiliate yourself. Indeed, the greedy pilots didn't make the legislation – although, it was them that pushed hard to change it, for well over 10 years.

Seniority and promotional opportunities that existed under Age 60 were bound by contract. Age 65 changed all of it (and for the worse for most of us).

I do understand what happened.

No, you still don't understand or even want to understand.

Seems to be a theme there. You want what you can't have. You covet the positions those more senior to you have. You want what you can't have, and it upsets you. Whining about it won't get what you don't deserve, and haven't earned. When you're senior, then you'll enjoy those privileges. Presently, you do not. Your greed will not change this.

Again, you have this backwards. In your world of twisted logic, the pilots that just got screwed are somehow the greedy ones. Really!! You can try to keep selling this BS story all you want but very few are buying.

What is it that magically requires a senior pilot to voluntarily drop to the bottom of the seniority list?

Explain to me why the senior pilot that had no career expectations of flying over the age of 60, suddenly has the right to hold the top (and thereby the top paying positions) seats going all the way to 65.

It's funny, the over Age 60 crowd wasn’t too interested in starting all over again. They wanted to keep their seats that they weren’t entitled to for an extra five years. That is called getting your cake and eating it too -- all at the junior guy's expense.

The senior pilot is entitled to his place under public law...

Just as the junior pilot was entitled to his/her place under the law before the change. They had their right to upgrade "taken away" (or abrogated) when the law changed.

Again, with your twisted logic, you are not able to comprehend this concept. We will have to agree to disagree.

a law which he has not "aborgated," (sic) but under which he is permitted to continue flying until age 65.

Avgas, learn the word – it’s abrogate. Again, we'll have to disagree on this point. It was indeed abrogated.

"Age 65" didn't cause me to be furloughed in the first place. A depressed international market caused a reduction in force within my company which cost 500 mechanics their jobs, and half the pilots.

I'm not talking about just you. Across the board and in the United States, there is virtually no hiring taking place. At almost every major, there is no hiring at present. This is due to the economic downturn and acerbated by Age 65. At AA, there have only been a few retirements since the 1st of the year. Again, this is due solely to Age 65.

The only reason, ICAO sought Age 65 was because of a pilot shortage problem overseas. We had no such problem here in the United States and thereby had no need to increase the age to 65. The only reason it changed was due to the greedy desires of the senior pilots.

 

[Flopgut]

God you are verbose Avbug. First off, I'm not nearly as upset as you are portraying me. I'm not thrilled, for certain, but I can deal with downgrade. I just wanted to point out that I'm getting moved out of an earned position as a result seniority aggression on the part of guys like you. You keep saying over and over I have not "earned" it and you needed to be corrected. Your welcome.

Regarding seniority: Date of retire is really no different than date of hire. So it's 65; we'll all plan accordingly. And in doing so, I have a few questions for you. Can you get yourself ready to retire? I mean, I know you can mouth off on FI.com, but can you be financially predictable? Because that's really what we are getting at here. I've got a front row seat to how/why this is going on and it's all about the dollars. Guys with your point of view are unreliable/unpredictable and guys like me have to make adjustments where you come up short. Can you retire at 65? Or should it be 70? Is there an age, or will you flip on whatever standard we all set for ourselves? Just let us know, if you can. Because there are guys who do retire on schedule and who are predictable. They are invariably good people/pilots and those of us who are working within your rank would like for you try to be more like them.

Again, prior to 65 the discussion was all about the lost pensions and the money going away. I know guys my seniority are working through this and I've seen some senior types who could manage. What I don't hear enough of is how guys like you are getting prepped to retire. Any discussion usually results in what we have here: you spinning out of control mentally and spring loaded to crazed anger. The economy is still bad and the clock is running on 65. Why am I not hearing any honest dialog about retirement needs out of your camp? Pilots like you aren't focusing on how little 65 is going to help in reality. I'm saying this because I would prefer to skip this same argument with you over age 70. Seriously, for me the silence is louder than words. I don't think 1 in 10 pilots who support working past 60 have the fiscal situational awareness my 7 year old has.

Anyway, I look froward to getting on with things. Retirements will resume soon enough and I think things will improve. The only thing I'm concerned about is what unreliable pilots like you will try to pull next.

 

[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?