Age 65

[J3guy]

Is age 65 coming to the fracs? I haven't heard much about it lately, but was under the impression that it is on the agenda. Anyone's guess?

 

[cldsfr79]

Is age 65 coming to the fracs? I haven't heard much about it lately, but was under the impression that it is on the agenda. Anyone's guess?

Although I can't guess if it's true, I sure hope it is. Some "retired" guys use the fracs as a "get-out-of-the-house" entertainment after their 30 year career flying 777 across the pond. It's quite annoying for the furloughed guys and FO's that will never upgrade when you have a "retired" guy that flys for fun and wont leave until they lose their medical or die....which has happened.

I really hope when I hit 65 I can enjoy the fruits of my labor and relax in a country home.

And before anyone throws in the statement that "the retirees lost their pension or 401k and have to work until they die"; I will tell you that I have flown with enough of them to know that the bulk of them have summer homes, and winter homes, and luxury cars, and toys and more. I get to hear all about it at 41,000 feet.

 

[av8trinabarrel]

Is age 65 coming to the fracs? I haven't heard much about it lately, but was under the impression that it is on the agenda. Anyone's guess?

One can only hope!!!!! this should be entertaining:bomb:

 

[NoJoy]

Age 65 rule across the board IS a great idea.

 

[Fubijaakr]

If someone aged 65 can't be allowed to fly passengers on a 737, why should they be allowed to fly passengers on a Gulfstream?

 

[glasspilot]

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.

 

[transpac]

Just wondering, has there ever been an accident caused by the incapitation of an over-65 pilot flying a transport category airplane? I haven't heard of any. If there haven't been any this makes the subject a little lame from a safety standpoint.

 

[kwick]

Just wondering, has there ever been an accident caused by the incapitation of an over-65 pilot flying a transport category airplane? I haven't heard of any. If there haven't been any this makes the subject a little lame from a safety standpoint.

Probably get rid of Age-65 across the board.

If you can pass the physical, the flying public deserves the most
experienced, safest pilots available.

 

[Humphreybogart]

Although I can't guess if it's true, I sure hope it is. Some "retired" guys use the fracs as a "get-out-of-the-house" entertainment after their 30 year career flying 777 across the pond. It's quite annoying for the furloughed guys and FO's that will never upgrade when you have a "retired" guy that flys for fun and wont leave until they lose their medical or die....which has happened.

I really hope when I hit 65 I can enjoy the fruits of my labor and relax in a country home.

And before anyone throws in the statement that "the retirees lost their pension or 401k and have to work until they die"; I will tell you that I have flown with enough of them to know that the bulk of them have summer homes, and winter homes, and luxury cars, and toys and more. I get to hear all about it at 41,000 feet.

EXACTLY my thoughts as well!

 

[pilotyip]

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

 

[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".

 

[J3guy]

so i take it no one has any good info on legislation regarding this?

As to all the back and forth going on here, I fly with a lot of 65+ even 70+ now. These folks were fortunate to fly for a living during what I think was the best time this industry will ever know. Somehow they weren't able to sufficiently save up for retirement. Hell most of them can't even answer a basic question about a 401k plan or remember what freq center just gave us. They are where they are because of the lousy choices they made all their lives. Of course there are always a few that work hard, have a great attitude and do well. If the only thing you're good at is cashing the check, its time to GO! While i'm young yet, i will retire before 65, most likely 60. I have diversified in my retirement strategy and will always have the same wife. I have always lived within my means, even as a regional FO. Not bragging here, but there seems to be a scarcity of common sense.
Fire away

 

[FLYLOW22]

Is age 65 coming to the fracs? I haven't heard much about it lately, but was under the impression that it is on the agenda. Anyone's guess?

Frax don't rely on crude federal law to deal with issues like cognitive and physical ability of pilots.

We have committees for this sort of issue.

No age 65 coming here...

 

[glasspilot]

That's interesting...

What sort of committee and how's it work? I'm serious, I've never heard of that before and it sounds impossible yet necessary.

 

[pilotyip]

so i take it no one has any good info on legislation regarding this?

As to all the back and forth going on here, I fly with a lot of 65+ even 70+ now. These folks were fortunate to fly for a living during what I think was the best time this industry will ever know. Somehow they weren't able to sufficiently save up for retirement.

could it be they are flying because they like to?

 

[BuckMurdock1]

could it be they are flying because they like to?

Due respect to the 65+, 70+ crowd for whom this may be true;
GO BUY/RENT A PLANE AND LET THE NEXT GUYS TRY TO MAKE A LIVING-- you've had your shot.

 

[pilotyip]

Due respect to the 65+, 70+ crowd for whom this may be true;
GO BUY/RENT A PLANE AND LET THE NEXT GUYS TRY TO MAKE A LIVING-- you've had your shot.

So it has nothing to do with safety, as per above it is all about "Get out of my seat"

 

[J3guy]

could it be they are flying because they like to?

No, most have little to no savings. Paying on your house at 71?? cmon man

 

[BuckMurdock1]

So it has nothing to do with safety, as per above it is all about "Get out of my seat"

Not true; if you re-read the post, I was referencing someone's argument that these folks are doing it because they "just love to fly"..inferring that for some in this demographic, there is not longer a financial necessity to fly professionally..just a 'hobby job' to keep them busy during what should be retirement years (and are for almost every other profession...Supreme Court Justices excepted).

Now as for safety; would you want to 70+ cardiologist cracking you open? Given: he has about as much wisdom in his profession as one can have, just like similarly aged pilots. Both professions, however, require a steady hand with fast reflexes. They also require good short-term memory, and above average cognitive ability.
I'll be the first to admit: when I near my 70th decade on this ball of mud, I don't expect to meet the above physical standards (father time usually doesn't allow it), and will be enjoying my family and free time.

Granted, with the proliferation of automated flight decks in the last 50+yrs, a pilot can still maintain a minimum level of proficiency into more advanced age ranges. Father time, however, doesn't miss anyone. He may get to some earlier than others, but he maintains a 100% completion factor.

 

[jtf]

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

NetJets has about 250 pilots overall (about 100 or so of them are FOs) that will be age 65 or older in the next 5 years. NetJets has nearly 500 on furlough. The math doesn't add up for no furloughs if the old pilots were forced out. Sure we all see older pilots from time to time, but the vast majority of pilots flying for the fractionals are in their 40s and 50s (more in their 40s at that). The only way we are getting the furloughed back is growth and/or younger FOs bailing for the majors when the age 65 pilots are forced out there and hiring really ramps up. There is a reason management at NJA told the furloughed it would be many years before recall.

I would like the ability to fly as long as I want or need (provided I can prove I am really safe to do it). I've got nearly 30 years before 65 would push me out, ready or not. I hope to retire well before 65, but even maxing out the 401K probably won't be nearly enough. People live longer and longer, health care is more and more expensive, and if all the younger pilots truly believe they will have enough to retire at a similar standard of living without saving roughly half of everything they make their entire career they are kidding themselves. That doesn't even include how much more screwed up things will likely be do to total governmental mismanagement by both political parties. Watch what you wish for in case you accidentally get it. What do younger guys plan on doing to make money after age 65 because probably over 90 percent won't be ready to stop working at that time? There isn't anything else I want to do (outside of porn, but that has rather limited opportunities for retirees).

 

[rettofly]

Not true; if you re-read the post, I was referencing someone's argument that these folks are doing it because they "just love to fly"..inferring that for some in this demographic, there is not longer a financial necessity to fly professionally..just a 'hobby job' to keep them busy during what should be retirement years (and are for almost every other profession...Supreme Court Justices excepted).

Now as for safety; would you want to 70+ cardiologist cracking you open? Given: he has about as much wisdom in his profession as one can have, just like similarly aged pilots. Both professions, however, require a steady hand with fast reflexes. They also require good short-term memory, and above average cognitive ability.
I'll be the first to admit: when I near my 70th decade on this ball of mud, I don't expect to meet the above physical standards (father time usually doesn't allow it), and will be enjoying my family and free time.

Granted, with the proliferation of automated flight decks in the last 50+yrs, a pilot can still maintain a minimum level of proficiency into more advanced age ranges. Father time, however, doesn't miss anyone. He may get to some earlier than others, but he maintains a 100% completion factor.

I retired from a desk job at age 56 to fly full time after many years of part-time flying. Took a huge paycut and never looked back. Retired again when I reached 68. All done with the weekly airline hassles, long duty days, etc. Additional factor was the recognition that I was working harder on the checkrides. In other words, Father Time was creeping up on me. Figured I owed it to the profession to move on (and open up a move-over slot for a young'un).