Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age 67?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
"Now that I have upgraded, age 65 is discrimination"

How many FOs support raising the age to 67 (or no limit), not many...this is all about the CPs keeping the seat as long as possible (at the expense of the FOs)...
 
Good even keeled response-
So youre Canadian- how does it work? When did retirement age go away? Do you have domestic only lines? Or is your airline allowed to retire pilots at 65 due to ICAO -

And you didn't answer - but the question needs a new frame- were you a captain, top of the food chain when Canada abolished contractual retirement ages?
Lends to credibility-
And here is one of the safety issues- many of the senior pilots charged with evaluating pilots have a lot to gain themselves if pilots are allowed to captain without limitation.

I'll say it again- if a properly rated and qualified pilot cannot be a captain until the arbitrary age of 23- then they ought not be able to captain after 60-
Yip is correct, pilots do not age uniformly- we need the statistically sharper group evaluating and monitoring pilots as they age

December 2007? In my forties.

I have no personal experience with pilots over age 65. My airline, like all other Canadian airlines, is going to have to deal with the impact of legislation that has banned fixed retirement age in the Federal workplace. However, we will have to comply with the ICAO standards for crewing international flights.

At my airline the medical screening process appears to be working. The incidence of pilot disability does clearly increase with age. But those that can meet the standard get to come to work if they pass the technical standard every 6 months. When should it end? The Federal Government has said that assigning a number is now illegal.
 
That is because all pilots at 59, 11 months and 29 days are 100% capable and all pilot two days later are incompetent.

Yip- I have never been in an auto accident- I was an athlete and am an airline pilot, like most of us have above average reaction times and am great at multi tasking. I do speed and I have texted while driving. Still no accidents.

Shouldn't it be legal for me to text and drive? Shouldn't it be legal for me to speed???

A friend's cousin was a commuter pilot in 2001- very good pilot- very mature- got a pilots license before his DL- experienced, 4 year degree earned while flying commercially- had to wait for every minimum age in order to proceed- in 9/11 he was constantly flying with captains junior and less experienced than him- but he could not be a PIC until age 23- do I need to continue this story?

You're debating statistics and uniform laws created by valid statistics and personal freedom for us to "give it a shot"

Again- how many people do you know are good at evaluating their age related decline? At anything? Now attach a few million dollars and good benefits and how many will push the edge of their limits? And they'll have the AUTHORITY of a PIC.

To me- fly forever, but no PIC after 60
 
"Now that I have upgraded, age 65 is discrimination"

How many FOs support raising the age to 67 (or no limit), not many...this is all about the CPs keeping the seat as long as possible (at the expense of the FOs)...
At least one (to 65 at least). I supported it from the time I was a new-hire at a major in my 30's. Even if it delayed my upgrade, it was worth it because it was right. I separated the false argument of safety from the real argument of featherbedding.

Why should the government protect your right to an upward career by promoting a retirement age that had no basis in safety? That's your union's job and they should be held accountable.
 
Again- how many people do you know are good at evaluating their age related decline? At anything? Now attach a few million dollars and good benefits and how many will push the edge of their limits? And they'll have the AUTHORITY of a PIC.

To me- fly forever, but no PIC after 60
No PIC after you are unable to meet the standards of PIC, regardless of age. Upping the standards? I'm all for that. But up them for all.

Good luck with that, though.
 
No PIC after you are unable to meet the standards of PIC, regardless of age. Upping the standards? I'm all for that. But up them for all.

Good luck with that, though.

Yeah- the "right thing"... Was it the "right" thing to hire pilots in anticipation of retirements, and then furlough them after they just gave up decent jobs elsewhere?

And you guys always want to "up the standards" but never focus on the reality of a beauracracy charged with administering those standards-

Should I have the DMV create a new standard for me so that I can legally text and speed while driving-?
 
Good even keeled response-
So youre Canadian- how does it work? When did retirement age go away? Do you have domestic only lines? Or is your airline allowed to retire pilots at 65 due to ICAO -

And you didn't answer - but the question needs a new frame- were you a captain, top of the food chain when Canada abolished contractual retirement ages?
Lends to credibility-
And here is one of the safety issues- many of the senior pilots charged with evaluating pilots have a lot to gain themselves if pilots are allowed to captain without limitation.

I'll say it again- if a properly rated and qualified pilot cannot be a captain until the arbitrary age of 23- then they ought not be able to captain after 60-
Yip is correct, pilots do not age uniformly- we need the statistically sharper group evaluating and monitoring pilots as they age

Well, I guess in the US you can proselytize all you want based on subjective opinion but in Canada the argument is moot. The abolishment of mandatory retirement comes into effect in December 2012 so my status is irrelevant. I neither support it nor challenge it. It is what it is. This business is about adapting and this will be just another bump in the road.
 
And you guys always want to "up the standards" but never focus on the reality of a beauracracy charged with administering those standards-
The bureaucracy that administers standards is the same one you want to protect your job with a phony retirement age. The FAA delegates that administration to airlines via training programs and staff. Those airlines can submit whatever they like for approval provided it meets the minimum requirement of the FAR.

So the FAA can't be trusted. The Flight Surgeons can't be trusted. The senior pilots can't be trusted. I am beginning to see why you want to stick it to 'da man.

Except that you are "da man" eventually.
 
Well, I guess in the US you can proselytize all you want based on subjective opinion but in Canada the argument is moot. The abolishment of mandatory retirement comes into effect in December 2012 so my status is irrelevant. I neither support it nor challenge it. It is what it is. This business is about adapting and this will be just another bump in the road.

Well, in this country the issue is still in the air and we even had several unions who voted on whether to support the current change-
You gave your opinion that you see no age related decline and I find that incredible- I've witnessed a decline from age 30 to 40 in my own memory- so IMO you're dodging valid questions
 
So you're saying that age related decline is an individual thing and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket policy that really does nothing to enhance safety?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top