Age 65

[pilotyip]

even better why would they make 91K age 65 aand not address 135 where lots of pax are carried

 

[glasspilot]

And why leave part 91 out of it? An 80 year old John Travolta in his B-707 will kill just as many people in a house as a United A-320. Maybe all pilots should hang it up at 65.

Or maybe that's retarded and what I said before about part 121 pax getting the most protection from the FAA and people rolling up requesting a charter onto a pretty glacier or frozen lake to view wolves getting less is the way it SHOULD be.

 

[realityman]

I think most guys that are bitching would like to see some equality and consistency when comparing airline vs. frac. Is there any difference flying pax on our side of the fence or 121? NO! They all pay money for a service........some way more than others. So why does one get kicked out the door while the other guys on the fly till you die program? Thats right....the govt bureaucracy is running this show.

We all know why 60 and now 65 :nuts: came about. Its not about passing medicals and checkrides. This topic has been beat too death longer than any of us care to remember. We knew what we were getting into when we entered the fracs.

I'm done with flying until I get the callback, so this thankfully doesn't affect me. Either way, give us both 65 or take the damn thing away. 65 aint going anywhere with the airlines, so that leaves one solution in my eyes..........

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.

 

[gret]

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.

Could you elaborate?

 

[pilotyip]

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

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.

 

[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.