Age 65

[realityman]

Could you elaborate?

On what? The bitching, or the differences between the airline job and frac job?
If you fly for the fracs, I'd think you already know the differences. If not, I'd be happy to explain it.

 

[Helmsalee]

Ok, to answer the thread question, there is no current pending regulation or legislation on 65 for 91 or 135.

As to the difference between airlines and frac, try this for one. Blizzard somewhere. Airline sez "It's above mins so we send the flight." Result- delays and, very rarely, a crash. Frac sez "Sir, the conditions are bad. We think that it would be much safer for you and your family to fly to ABC instead. We will limo you the rest of the way." Result- avoid the high risk situation.

Helm

 

[jonjuan]

As to the difference between airlines and frac, try this for one. Blizzard somewhere. Airline sez "It's above mins so we send the flight." Result- delays and, very rarely, a crash. Frac sez "Sir, the conditions are bad. We think that it would be much safer for you and your family to fly to ABC instead. We will limo you the rest of the way." Result- avoid the high risk situation.

Helm

Not really sure about your example. You say that conditions are "bad." What does this mean, technically? Does 121 use the term "bad conditions?" They're either above or below mins. Are the mins any different for 121 vs. 135? I've seen plenty of 135 frax flights takeoff/land right at or just above mins, no different than with 121. What does this say about your high risk scenario? You imply that there "could be a crash" at the airlines because they will operate into high risk situations (wx at mins), but there won't be crashes at the frax because they don't land anytime wx is at mins. Didn't realize the significant difference between the two.

 

[av8trinabarrel]

This is confusing. First you say everyone deserves the same service and protections, whether on 121 or fracs, but then you say you admit that the age 65 rule has nothing to do with safety.

So let me see if I have this right: If the airlines are doing something stupid, everyone else should follow?

I have nothing against consistency. I'd love to see some coming from the government. But I'd much prefer to see some actual science behind the rules, rather than basing a new rule for the fracs on "Well, the airlines have it, so we'll make the fracs have it."

By the way, you're right. I knew what I was getting into when I joined the fracs. They had/have no age-requirement for retirement. You talk about equality between the airlines and fracs. Not sure why we really NEED equality between the two (BTW, have you looked at frac accident statistics vs. airlines? Have there EVER been ANY fatalities in the frac world? How about the airlines? Why the heck would you want the fracs to be more like the airlines?!), but if that should be the case, then perhaps the government should mandate that the fracs also pay the same as the majors.

Life isn't always fair. Putting in place rules to even things up, especially if the rule has no basis on anything, is a bad road to go down.

BTW, a few folks bitching on FI when comparing airline vs frac doesn't mean the vast majority of us out there care to make that comparison. And hate to burst your bubble, but what we do is vastly different from airline flying. Yeah, there's flying involved with both careers, but that's where the similarities end.

Now you have me confused. Please enlighten me with your experience with the airlines? 737 time? MD-80 time? 747 time? 757 time? RJ time? ......... You are the ultimate hypocrite if you make all these comparisons and have NEVER flown a 121 flight. Please tell me you left off all your 121 experience in your bio.!?!?!?!?!?!?

If you have, then my apologies. If not.....

 

[CA1900]

Does 121 use the term "bad conditions?"

No, they use "rainshowers." Whether it's a hurricane, a thunderstorm, or a tornado, it's always "rainshowers." :laugh:

 

[barnyard]

Is the 73 year old with the suspenders and United retirement $ still at NJ?

 

[Fubijaakr]

As per above this is all about get out of my seat, I deserve it and you have to give it to me because I have determined I am much more important than you.

Again, exactly correct Yip. Its the "entitlement generation" flapping their gums. If, if, IF....If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas. Get over it kiddies. Its been the law for 3 years. Two more years and you can look forward to using illegal age discrimination to kick guys out of THEIR seats and take THEIR jobs. Notice I didn't say YOUR jobs...THEIR jobs.

Is the 73 year old with the suspenders and United retirement $ still at NJ?

If he can pass his checkrides, medicals and does the jobs adequately who are you to question his life choices?

 

[gunfyter]

Not only that... if not for him, its possible far fewer people would even want this job.

 

[av8trinabarrel]

Is the 73 year old with the suspenders and United retirement $ still at NJ?

Last I heard he was. The guy may be crusty as hell and not the best customer service rep, but he was a damn good stick and a very capable captain (other than throwing bags, helping with catering, being polite with our pax, etc...)

He was one of the last CA's I flew with before the layoff. On that tour we were in SFO at signature. A pax waiting for another NJ aircraft walks up to him and asked him if he enjoyed flying the XL. Without missing a beat, he tells the guy "think I'd be flying it if I didn't" and walked away. The guys jaw hit the ground as he looked at me. I shrugged my shoulders and apologized for this guys very very poor attempt at humor.

From a purely flying standpoint, he was one of the better CA's I flew with, but from a well rounded standpoint, he was one of the worst.

Not saying one way or the other if he should retire, but when you can't do the job. Get out!!! Young or old

 

[realityman]

Now you have me confused. Please enlighten me with your experience with the airlines? 737 time? MD-80 time? 747 time? 757 time? RJ time? ......... You are the ultimate hypocrite if you make all these comparisons and have NEVER flown a 121 flight. Please tell me you left off all your 121 experience in your bio.!?!?!?!?!?!?

If you have, then my apologies. If not.....

My experience, or lack thereof, in the 121 world is irrelevant. Now you're just trying to deflect because you don't have any good responses to the questions I posed.

Again, you say the age 65 rule isn't a safety thing. Therefore, why do we need it in the frac world? You claim it's all about consistency. That argument makes no sense. Why on earth do we need consistency between the airlines and the frac world? If it's not a safety thing, then the answer is simply "We don't".

In fact, safety could be argued the other way. Taking the very experienced pilots out of the cockpit because of some random age rule is degrading safety. I don't care if the guy has the strength and stamina to throw 700 pounds of bags each leg. I'm happy to pick up the slack. I'd rather do that and keep the experience in the cockpit, than have a young buck who can bench press 400#, but doesn't have half the experience of his older counterpart.

And I don't think I have to be a pilot in the 121 world to know what the job is and what it's about. I doubt the same could be said of someone who has never experienced the frac world. I'll bet you whatever you like, that any frac pilot who has never flown 121 can tell you, fairly accurately, what the 121 world is about. And I'd make that same bet that a 121 pilot who has never flown in the frac world would barely even begin to scratch the surface of what frac flying is like/about.

Still, not seeing how my flying experience has anything to do with the age-65-for-all debate.

 

[gret]

And I don't think I have to be a pilot in the 121 world to know what the job is and what it's about. I doubt the same could be said of someone who has never experienced the frac world. I'll bet you whatever you like, that any frac pilot who has never flown 121 can tell you, fairly accurately, what the 121 world is about. And I'd make that same bet that a 121 pilot who has never flown in the frac world would barely even begin to scratch the surface of what frac flying is like/about.

Still, not seeing how my flying experience has anything to do with the age-65-for-all debate.

Did you really say this?

I guess so becasue it is in black and white. Are you saying frac pilots are just plain smarter than 121 pilots?

...as the saying goes..when you are in a hole, stop digging.

 

[av8trinabarrel]

My experience, or lack thereof, in the 121 world is irrelevant. Now you're just trying to deflect because you don't have any good responses to the questions I posed.

Again, you say the age 65 rule isn't a safety thing. Therefore, why do we need it in the frac world? You claim it's all about consistency. That argument makes no sense. Why on earth do we need consistency between the airlines and the frac world? If it's not a safety thing, then the answer is simply "We don't".

In fact, safety could be argued the other way. Taking the very experienced pilots out of the cockpit because of some random age rule is degrading safety. I don't care if the guy has the strength and stamina to throw 700 pounds of bags each leg. I'm happy to pick up the slack. I'd rather do that and keep the experience in the cockpit, than have a young buck who can bench press 400#, but doesn't have half the experience of his older counterpart.

And I don't think I have to be a pilot in the 121 world to know what the job is and what it's about. I doubt the same could be said of someone who has never experienced the frac world. I'll bet you whatever you like, that any frac pilot who has never flown 121 can tell you, fairly accurately, what the 121 world is about. And I'd make that same bet that a 121 pilot who has never flown in the frac world would barely even begin to scratch the surface of what frac flying is like/about.

Still, not seeing how my flying experience has anything to do with the age-65-for-all debate.

You really need to make up your mind which arguement your trying to make. I'm all for making everything equal and you bring up in two different paragraphs how drastically different frac is vs 121. Having never flown 121, how can you beat your chest and say " why would you want to be like the airlines" or " I hate too burst your bubble, but what we do is drastically different". Really!!!Having flown 121 for years and frac for 3, your gonna burst my bubble?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me.....

I could belittle you like you have tried with me and anybody else that thinks differently than you, but your simply not worth it. I truely hope you fly till you feel like hanging it up, but don't pretend to know something you know nothing about.

 

[realityman]

Did you really say this?

I guess so becasue it is in black and white. Are you saying frac pilots are just plain smarter than 121 pilots?

...as the saying goes..when you are in a hole, stop digging.

Are you intentionally being this obtuse, or are you just trying to pick a fight?

Where did I say frac pilots are smarter?

If you really need to be spoon fed, here is what I meant: It's pretty common knowledge amongst most professional pilots what being an airline pilot is about (or freight). Yeah yeah, we could get into the all the nitty-gritty about how everyone trains, follows company policy, etc......But long story short, in 121 you climb into the plane, turn left, and fly the same routes over and over ad nauseum. I think ANY pilot could describe pretty well what 121 flying is about. It's been around for a very long time.

But if you ask someone who has no experience in the frac world to describe what a typical day for a frac pilot is like, I doubt they'd give even a good generalized description (beyond "they fly planes"). Do you think they could describe the customer service we, the pilots, are often required to provide? Or that it'd occur to them that we toss our own bags, clean the plane, cater the flights, and many times act as our own dispatchers?

It's not about anyone being smarter than anyone else. I never said that. I'm saying that the job of a 121 pilot has been fairly well defined over the years and is well known. The frac pilot's job hasn't been around as long and isn't as well known by those outside the industry.

And no, I'm NOT trying to imply anything about who has a harder job either. But I suppose you'll try that approach too so that maybe we can get this thread up to 300 pages of ridiculousness.

 

[Semore Butts]

"often required to provide" You of course meant "always" I'm sure?

"Do you think they could describe the customer service we, the pilots, are often required to provide? Or that it'd occur to them that we toss our own bags, clean the plane, cater the flights, and many times act as our own dispatchers"?

We do that daily, every "live leg"!

We do the same job as the "big iron guys" except we have to give a safety brief instead of going up the stairs and "hanging a left".

I know every passengers name that gets on my flight.

That name may be "Kennedy", "Brown", "Smith", "Buffet", "Jordan", or whatever? (Throw in Hurley,Midler,Plant, Annistan, Led Zeppelin (OK, I made that up, I've never flown any of those people) But, you get the message!

I dig knowing that, but it doesn't matter.

I sling the bags, lay out the catering, and "wressle" the baby seats.

I'm good with it. I work out, and am in my opinion, in better shape then alot of the fat asses (sorry guys) that are alot younger then me.

Look at yourselfs in the mirror boys before you slam the "old geezers"!

By the way, when your "old geezer" FO offers to help you move the 67 lb. raft from the back to the front of the aircraft for overwater (680 Sovereign)? Do it you "dip sh!t". dont be an idiot! (Cause if I'm the CPT, you will be helping me.

I will do my best to protect you from yourselves!!!!

Merry Christmas....Semore

 

[realityman]

You really need to make up your mind which arguement your trying to make. I'm all for making everything equal and you bring up in two different paragraphs how drastically different frac is vs 121. Having never flown 121, how can you beat your chest and say " why would you want to be like the airlines" or " I hate too burst your bubble, but what we do is drastically different". Really!!!Having flown 121 for years and frac for 3, your gonna burst my bubble?!?!?!?! Are you kidding me.....

I could belittle you like you have tried with me and anybody else that thinks differently than you, but your simply not worth it. I truely hope you fly till you feel like hanging it up, but don't pretend to know something you know nothing about.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone. If it seems that way, then I apologize. Sometimes the written word doesn't come out like I intend it to.

But do I really have to have flown 121 to know that it's different than the frac world? I admit I'm not familiar with all the details of 121 flying, but I think I have a pretty good general idea what the job is about. I've certainly flown with enough retired/furloughed 121 folks to have learned a lot about what they did at their respective airlines. And even before speaking with them, I had a decent picture of the job. 121 flying has been around for a long time. I never said I was an expert about it. But to say I know 'nothing' about it is false.

Have you ever driven a truck for a living? If not, I'll bet you could still give a pretty good general description of a truck driver's job and life on the road. That profession has also been around a long time, and most folks have at least a general knowledge of it. At any rate, I'd bet almost anyone could point out the major differences between driving a truck for a living and driving a cab. Don't need to have actually done it.

Your attitude of "I've been there and done it and you haven't, so you know nothing about it." is what's belittling.

But as to how any of this pertains to the topic at hand, I'm just pointing out that even you admitted that the age 65 rule isn't based on anything safety related. And I sure don't want to see a rule implemented just because the airlines have it. If the rule made some kind of sense, then maybe. But I still pose the question, why do we need to have uniformity between the airlines and the fractionals? Especially regarding a rule that even you admit doesn't make much sense (from a safety standpoint).

Fortunately, there isn't anything in the works (yet) pushing this issue. I hope it stays that way. And I hope that those younger pilots who would like to see a rule like this implemented, stop and think about how this could affect them later down the road.

Anyway, continue to debate however you like. I'm done with this thread. It appears we all have our minds made up. Good luck to all! It's a tough industry to be limiting future options in.

Peace!

 

[jppt2000]

I'm not trying to belittle anyone. If it seems that way, then I apologize. Sometimes the written word doesn't come out like I intend it to.

But do I really have to have flown 121 to know that it's different than the frac world? I admit I'm not familiar with all the details of 121 flying, but I think I have a pretty good general idea what the job is about. I've certainly flown with enough retired/furloughed 121 folks to have learned a lot about what they did at their respective airlines. And even before speaking with them, I had a decent picture of the job. 121 flying has been around for a long time. I never said I was an expert about it. But to say I know 'nothing' about it is false.

Have you ever driven a truck for a living? If not, I'll bet you could still give a pretty good general description of a truck driver's job and life on the road. That profession has also been around a long time, and most folks have at least a general knowledge of it. At any rate, I'd bet almost anyone could point out the major differences between driving a truck for a living and driving a cab. Don't need to have actually done it.

Your attitude of "I've been there and done it and you haven't, so you know nothing about it." is what's belittling.

But as to how any of this pertains to the topic at hand, I'm just pointing out that even you admitted that the age 65 rule isn't based on anything safety related. And I sure don't want to see a rule implemented just because the airlines have it. If the rule made some kind of sense, then maybe. But I still pose the question, why do we need to have uniformity between the airlines and the fractionals? Especially regarding a rule that even you admit doesn't make much sense (from a safety standpoint).

Fortunately, there isn't anything in the works (yet) pushing this issue. I hope it stays that way. And I hope that those younger pilots who would like to see a rule like this implemented, stop and think about how this could affect them later down the road.

Anyway, continue to debate however you like. I'm done with this thread. It appears we all have our minds made up. Good luck to all! It's a tough industry to be limiting future options in.

Peace!

I've done 121, and fractional flying, realityman is spot on with his comparisons.
Long time ago, a very wise check-airman called it "big rig" syndrome.

 

[doh]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long. I have never flown with anyone over seventy who wasn't in constant need of babysitting. Some of the people I have flown with who were over sixty-five have been pretty sharp though. So I say someplace between 65-70 is where we need to make it mandatory to get out. 67 sounds like a nice compromise.

 

[rettofly]

I've done 121, and fractional flying, realityman is spot on with his comparisons.
Long time ago, a very wise check-airman called it "big rig" syndrome.

Big Rig Syndrome strikes a chord with me.

I've flown with several furloughed Big Rig drivers who absolutely detested having to fly the little birds. One in particular (PIC, junior to me) whined for two days about having to be SIC, so I called Dispatch and talked them into switching seat assignments for the rest of the tour. He still wasn't happy, but at least he wasn't bitching about being SIC. Last time I saw him, he was Captain on an MD80 on which I was a paying passenger. He still didn't seem too happy. Go figure.

The other side of the coin is represented by the furloughed big rig guys who were some of the best sticks and crew mates a pilot could ask for.

 

[jppt2000]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long. I have never flown with anyone over seventy who wasn't in constant need of babysitting. Some of the people I have flown with who were over sixty-five have been pretty sharp though. So I say someplace between 65-70 is where we need to make it mandatory to get out. 67 sounds like a nice compromise.

Yeah, sounds great to you.
Easy to post this tripe on an anonymous chat board.

 

[jppt2000]

Big Rig Syndrome strikes a chord with me.

I've flown with several furloughed Big Rig drivers who absolutely detested having to fly the little birds. One in particular (PIC, junior to me) whined for two days about having to be SIC, so I called Dispatch and talked them into switching seat assignments for the rest of the tour. He still wasn't happy, but at least he wasn't bitching about being SIC. Last time I saw him, he was Captain on an MD80 on which I was a paying passenger. He still didn't seem too happy. Go figure.

The other side of the coin is represented by the furloughed big rig guys who were some of the best sticks and crew mates a pilot could ask for.

Yup,
"I've flown the big rigs so let me tell you how it is"
Regional- small jet pilots can tell you many stories of encounters of pilots with big rig syndrome.
Go back in posts about 2 years ago and you can even see evidence of BRS in my company, but thankfully with education and an LOA its all but disappeared or mostly gone underground.