ALPA Age 60 Survey

[N2264J]

A yes vote is a stab in the back to every furloughed pilot.

In 20 years you can always go back and try to backstab the younger pilots at your company like these greedy elders are doing.

I know exactly what you mean. Yeah, I know where you're coming from.

You know what else is a stab in the back? All those uppity black people, women and foreigners who stole good airline jobs in this country from the American born, "good ole boy" white trash like us. Those were our jobs! Didn't they know what the status quo was when they applied?

You guys have wandered way off the ranch. This isn't about safety. This isn't about retirement. This isn't about furloughees. That's all red herring diversionary hyperbole. This is discrimination flat out and ALPA is part of it.

In a country built on a hearty work ethic, how did we get to the point where we rationalize firing people who want to work based on their age alone? This rule was finagled by management (American CEO C. R. Smith) and it needs to be corrected.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Hugh is correct!

It is purely age discrimination. Ya, the young ones get stiffed. You cant know what is going through someones mind unless you are in their shoes. I dont turn 60 for quite a while, and I would love to move to the left seat ASAP, but even I can see that the current rule is just plain wrong. There is absolutely no reason to keep it in place based on the original reasons to establish it. The ONLY reason I am hearing to keep it in place is pure GREED and SELFISHNESS from individuals that want it for themselves.

Life expectency in the US is 77. I would bet it is lower for pilots.

Well you bet wrong! Because pilots get physicals as often as they do, they are living much longer than they used to. On average, pilots tend to live longer in comparison to other groups.

 

[N2264J]

The +60 crowd wants it all...I think it smacks of greed from the all "about me crowd." You knew the rules when you started this profession, don't change it now have some dignity and class and pass on the whining.

I think I recognize bigotry when I see it.

If guys like you had their parochial way, Tiger Woods would only be allowed to caddy at the Masters. Isn't that right?

 

[jbDC9]

I think I recognize bigotry when I see it.

If guys like you had their parochial way, Tiger Woods would only be allowed to caddy at the Masters. Isn't that right?

No, moron, it isn't bigotry at all. It's about the guys in their mid 50s who, now that they're in the widebody left seat, don't wanna let it go. The age 60 rule helped them get to that seat... they benefitted from the rule thru their entire careers, and now that they're in the big fat left seat, they want to stay.

Tell us again how that's bigotry?

 

[pilotyip]

No, the rules were changed for many of us

No they changed the rules after I started. I would have taken a job at ACA back in 1996, but they had just changed the 135-scheduled commuter to the 121-air carrier. This forced all of us who could have worked in the regionals until SS age to now retire at age 60. It was taken away from many of us in the middle of our careers. I need to work until I am 66 to build a decent self-funded retirement.

 

[LarryinTN]

I am amazed that anyone can look at that and see anything other than baseless discrimination. Those opposing the change are rather short-sighted in my view.

I certainly understand your point of view but, if I accept the premise, isn't age 66 or age 67 (the likely result of the current legislation) just as arbitrary and discriminatory as age 60? It seems to me that if you are to base an "anti age-60" position on the elimination of discrimination then the logical conclusion would be to eliminate mandatory retirement entirely? If not, we are just arguing over against whom we should discriminate, are we not?

What I have not seen you address is how the system will evaluate the normal decline in cognitive ability associated with age. There are not any tests in the current system of recurrent checkrides and medicals which even attempt to detect and quantify the loss in cognitive ability.

I have certainly flown with pilots in their late 50s who seem to be suffering from an earlier than average loss in cognitive ability. In all cases "the system" has been unable to weed them out because their problem is not an inability to fly a checkride profile, or pass an eye test. Their problem is a decreased ability to maintain situational awareness and the increased propensity to becoming confused. I think we have all seen this in our older relatives as they age. How do we address it in the part 121 environment when we allow pilots to continue to fly into their late 60s?

 

[N2264J]

No, moron, it isn't bigotry at all. It's about the guys in their mid 50s who, now that they're in the widebody left seat, don't wanna let it go...Tell us again how that's bigotry?

To fire someone who wants to work base on their age alone is discrimination.

Substitute the words: "race," "religion," "sex," "nationality," or "sexual orientation" for the word "age" in the above sentence and figure it out yourself.

As I said before, this is not about safety, retirement, furloughees or greed regardless of how the anti-age bigots try to sell it. This is about addressing discrimination.

 

[LarryinTN]

To fire someone who wants to work base on their age alone is discrimination.

Hiring someone based on how well you beleive they will do the job is discrimination.

Buying the car which you believe will give you the most value is discrimination.

Preventing those under age 16 or 17 from driving a car, or those under 23 from holding an ATP, is also age discrimination.

Discrimination in itself is not a bad thing. There are good kids of discrimination and their are bad kinds. You seem to be saying that mandatory retirement at age 60 is wrongful discrimination. That position is fine but then how do you justify mandatory retirement at age 66 and age 67? If one is wrongful discrimination then so are they all.

A proper form of discrimination would be forcing the retirement of those who no long have a sufficient level of cognative ability. We already rightly discriminate based on technical ability and medical condition. Add a fair and quantitative test for cognative ability and mandatory retirement can be eliminated entirely ending all age-based discrimination. We don't yet have such a system.

So far I haven't heard any of the anti age-60 folks support such a plan so I have a hard time believing that they are truly concerned about ending wrongful discrimination. They just want to change the point at which it is applied.

 

[N2264J]

Preventing those under age 16 or 17 from driving a car, or those under 23 from holding an ATP, is also age discrimination.

But in every instance you mentioned, age is not the only criterion for the decision. In this example, some predetermined level of maturity and a sense of responsibility have been reached that really shouldn't be much of concern on the other end of the scale. I was driving a tractor on my old man's farm when I was six and my Grandfather's pickup truck on his farm by the time I was 10. The Age 60 rule has only one arbitrary threshold to meet. That what make's it ugly.

We already rightly discriminate based on technical ability and medical condition. Add a fair and quantitative test for cognative ability and mandatory retirement can be eliminated entirely ending all age-based discrimination. We don't yet have such a system.

But we do. Cognative ability is checked on the semi annual proficiency ride/LOFT/line check. Medicals, also twice a year.

 

[767pilot]

To fire someone who wants to work base on their age alone is discrimination. QUOTE]

You'd better have a talk with the EEOC and the courts then. They decided that there are times when age based qualifications are appropriate and not considered discriminitory. The part 121 airline proffession was considered to be one of those careers where a limit was quite legal