Age 65

[doh]

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

It is anecdotal, but that is my experience.

 

[Fozzy]

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...)


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

If that is how he does his job, he should be shown the door. 35 or 70, that is unacceptable.
Other than flying, he does nothing. I think there is a starter position opening up at his local golf course if he needs to keep busy.

 

[ExJmbDrv]

I've read 7 pages, and I still don't know the answer, but since everyone is throwing in their $.02, here's mine.

1. If they can do the job, "I want to move up the ladder" is not a good reason to fire someone. The flying public values wisdom and experience. Right or wrong, the gray haired captain is preferred to the captain that hasn't started shaving yet.

2. I doubt any solution the FAA/Congress put forth would be based on logic or safety or anything resembling common sense, therefore, I would not really look in that direction for a "solution."

3. The last statistics I saw (several years ago) showed no significant improvement in accident statistics after the "500 hour / 500 hour in type spike." This is why it is wise to pair a brand new captain with an FO that is highly experienced in the type. (assuming the upgrade is from different equipment)

4. The last Human Resource class I took pointed out that if you have an excessive pool of qualified applicants for a position, your salary is probably to high. While I don't like the sound of that as a pilot, it tells you where management is coming from and what they think of their labor supply.

5. I'd be worried if I were a senior pilot with a lot of seniority at an operation that does 135 ops. I could see management lobbying for an age 65 rule. Force a guy that makes $150k to retire and replace him with a new hire that makes $40k + the cost to upgrade a FO to Captain ($60k to $90k pay raise at a fractional). You still save the company $80k. In the management world, you'd be on your way to stardom. If you could do it to 13 people, you'd have saved the company over $1,000,000. You'd probably be promoted to senior VP.

6. #5 is why I don't understand why the older guys are resistant to unionization. I'm not taking a pro or anti union stance here. I'm just saying - a pilot with a lot of seniority (pay) has more to lose than the young FO. From an economic perspective, it should be the old guys encouraging the young to organize. I've seen several Captain terminations for small/insignificant things. It has saved the company a lot of money in pay. It also saved them a lot because the next time they told another Captain to jump, he said how hi?

OK, sorry, I gave $.06 instead of $.02

 

[Hawkered]

Congress and the FAA will surely enact an age 65 rule soon. Who in office wants the speculation of the national media when two crew members in their 70s go down with some former head of state on board.

 

[gunfyter]

70 is the new 50 ....

You need to get a Life Extension membership at www.LEF.org

 

[jonjuan]

Congress and the FAA will surely enact an age 65 rule soon. Who in office wants the speculation of the national media when two crew members in their 70s go down with some former head of state on board.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/singl...ots-faulted-in-houston-gulfstream-crash-3973/

 

[pilotyip]

Congress and the FAA will surely enact an age 65 rule soon. Who in office wants the speculation of the national media when two crew members in their 70s go down with some former head of state on board.

but it won't be age related when two 30 year old pilots land short of the runway with a some former head of state on board.

 

[jonjuan]

but it won't be age related when two 30 year old pilots land short of the runway with a some former head of state on board.

That's like my 88 year old grandmother who regularly claims that she's had fewer driving accidents than kids in their 20s. Maybe, but she's caused her fair share.

 

[Semore Butts]

but she's caused her fair share

And you base that on what knowledge?

Your 3000+ hours of experience?

At what hour level does you're experience become a detriment?

So your saying that older people don't have a higher amount of car wrecks, they just cause them?

Then why does your insurance go down as you age with no accidents or tickets?

I can't believe you actually wrote that?

 

[DAS at 10/250]

And you base that on what knowledge?

Your 3000+ hours of experience?

At what hour level does you're experience become a detriment?

So your saying that older people don't have a higher amount of car wrecks, they just cause them?

Then why does your insurance go down as you age with no accidents or tickets?

I can't believe you actually wrote that?

It's not because of her age. It's because she's a woman.






:bomb: