Age 65

[linder]

Look at the history of when age 60 rules started. Who started it? Airline managements. Why? It's all about the money. Force the higher paid types out to be replaced by lower paid types. Medical fitness had nothing to do with it. Since when did an airline care about that stuff.

 

[pilotyip]

Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety? It is like motherhood and patriotism. If we really want to do this retirement age correctly in the name of safety, we take the age of youngest pilot that experiences an in-flight incapacitation, say a heart attack at age 47, and that becomes the new retirement age.

 

[Helmsalee]

Here we go again.
Helm

 

[rettofly]

Okay, keep going...why should they be allowed to fly their own Cessna?


I'm not trying to put anyone out to pasture here, but here is how the FAA protects people. They do it by assumed risk.

People on the ground get the most protection. They have done NOTHING to assume ANY risk. The FAA really hates it when airplanes kill or hurt people on the ground.

Next is passengers (part 121). They have assumed some risk, but are most protected of all those airborne. The FAA hates it when passengers are killed.

Last is pilots. They have assumed the most risk. They know the consequences of their actions and are held to a higher standard. The FAA dislikes it when pilots are killed.


So, where are fractional pax? Well, they own the plane and assume the risk. Before 91K they owned all the risk and were equal with "pilot" on the FAA concern chart above. Now they are between 121 pax and pilot. A nice little niche that the powers that be have lumped in with charter pax (part 135).

My guess is age 65 is not going to make it to fractional operators. Our pax know the risk. Now, that's not to say that enough owners at a particular company won't get together and protect themselves and demand an age cap.

Time will tell.

Well stated, Glass.

There is one factor that could drive a move to mandatory age 65 retirement: The growing number of card members being carried under Part 135. If Age 65 comes to Part 135 operations, I expect most frac operators will not have two separate pilot groups.

 

[RJ Bum]

No fractional would have a guy on the street if it did....

 

[pilotyip]

no fractional would have a guy on the street if it did....

again not about safety, but about get out of my seat

 

[ozpilot]

yea same thing in the on-demand 135 we are pushing for a age 90 rule, I mean those guys are going to keep us from upgrading unless they quit flying ha ha

:laugh::laugh:

 

[ozpilot]

Every pilot thinks mandatory age retirement is a great idea, right up until the time they start planning their own retirement.

The argument - while never ending - is like trying to convince your mother-in-law that your wife is wrong - pointless.

 

[Helmsalee]

Good analogy Oz.
Helm

 

[Semore Butts]

Well said Pilotyip and Oz

I'm tired of try to reason with myopic young pilots.
So I wont.


Carma is a biatch young "birdmen".