I say again, the only thing that enables the age 60+ captain to operate the flight is the FO's age. An additional portion of responsibility is dealt uniquely to the FO, with no additional authority and no additional pay.
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
Capt Prater is selling us out
- Thread starter pipe
- Start date
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
I say again, the only thing that enables the age 60+ captain to operate the flight is the FO's age. An additional portion of responsibility is dealt uniquely to the FO, with no additional authority and no additional pay.
you want to change it to 65.. fine.. then start with anyone hired on now.. or anyone under age of 30 or even 40.. something that doesnt benefit the same ppl who gained the most from it being 60 their whole career. if that was the case u wouldnt see the over 50 crowd pushing for it. if we get to vote.. i know which side im on.
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
The age 60+ F/E's weren't suddenly allowed PIC status under a rule change, they knew they were going to F/E pay.
I'm simply trying to find a way to allow them to continue to fly, at the pay scale they currently enjoy, all while making it more palatable to the F/O's who will not upgrade and enjoy the PIC pay.
It was about making this not as onerous on anyone as the age 60+ guys staying in the seat and the F/O's having to stay longer on F/O pay.
The only people who lose in THAT scenario (both drawing CA pay) would be the company having to pay BOTH people CA salary.
Just trying to make it more palatable, not that I have a say in it or anything...
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
You're placing an emphasis on responsibility where none is actually implied by the rule change.
A better way of putting it would be that an F/O required to fly with an age 60+ CA is required by FAR to be on that flight.
Draft pay or something similar should apply IF, in fact, the F/O is paired with a CA and suffers a downgrade of bid status or other hardship.
It's gonna be an implentational mess for Crew Planning and Scheduling.
Questions:
Who bears the onus for making sure an age 60+ CA gets paired with an age 59- F/O?
Which one suffers the degradation in bid lines?
Does the company create age 60+ only lines or does the company create age 59- ONLY lines.
If two age 60+ crew are paired together, which one gets removed?
How do they get pay protected?
What a mess...
Where is the responsibility? Is the FO coPIC? You are right, there is no additional authority and no additional responsibility. The FO today has to be under 60 so what changes?
so all of these 55 plus year olds took advantage of this rule while they were upgrading and now when its time for them to bow out they want more time. And if age 60 is discrimination than how is age 65 not?
The responsibility starts when the airplane leaves the pavement on landing. The captain will be happy to share it with you; won't share the money with you or the series of decisions that put you there. It's not a good thing. Stop debating me right now and think about it a bit, you'll figure it out.
Ok, don't answer the question. There is no difference in authority or responsibility. Try something else.
The FO has to be under age 60, or the airplane can't fly. That's responsibilty.
It's the same for a captain flying with an FO over age 60. If you're specific age is the only thing enabling your counterparts' role, you've got more responsibility, you should have more authority and more pay.
Golden Falcon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Posts
- 659
It gets worse when you have several fleets, widebodies and augmented crews. As we examine this closer the number of pilots who think this was a mistake will grow exponentially.
Charlie Brown
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Posts
- 339
So what we have established thus far? Nada.
How do we (as a group of professional aviators) stop this "discriminatory" law from becoming reality? And I mean all of us.
You can't have it both ways; if 60 is "age discrimination" and the pro-changers have agreed 65 is as well, two inequities don't make it right to change it, just because it benefits your cause. Like someone else said, let's just keep 'em going 'til they drop at the controls. (In light of recent events, please let this comment be left rhetorical and not literal out of respect to the CAL pilot).
How do we (as a group of professional aviators) stop this "discriminatory" law from becoming reality? And I mean all of us.
You can't have it both ways; if 60 is "age discrimination" and the pro-changers have agreed 65 is as well, two inequities don't make it right to change it, just because it benefits your cause. Like someone else said, let's just keep 'em going 'til they drop at the controls. (In light of recent events, please let this comment be left rhetorical and not literal out of respect to the CAL pilot).
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
socialism rules
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
Hey, don't go there. I simply said it was going to be a mess.
I also said Prater may have had his boys tell him it was a lose-lose scenario and to start laying ground work to minimize the damage.
Maybe we can all get together and take turns spanking him. *snicker*
Hey look, a thread we might actually agree on this week, Rez.
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
It was a financial deal that rose after deregulation by the major carriers at the time.
Long story short, it never had any basis in medical fact, just kinda one of those rules of thumb that stuck and didn't get repealed by age discrimination laws along with the "maximum hiring age" that some carriers used to have.
Age 60 accomplished a whole lot of things financially for the carrier.
1. Allowed older (more expensive) pilots to be booted in favor of a newly-upgraded, lower-pay-scale CA.
2. Allowed the company to get rid of guys as their health hazards increased (a HUGE amount of pilots from that era smoked, and the non-military pilots have, until the last decade or two of health consciousness, had TERRIBLE health histories).
3. Allowed the company to plan exactly how much a pilot would cost the company over their career by knowing the max age at entry into the company and max age at exit.
Other stuff too, but I don't want to get too long-winded. I do that when drinking.
Fly4hire
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Posts
- 861
Concur. Kind of blows the arguement when we say age 65 is not a safety issue, but we need a -60 pilot in the other seat. Why? Either let both seats fly to 65 because it's age discrimination otherwise (nevermind proposing to discriminate against older F/O's, but I guess that's OK), or get real and acknowlege that they are insisting on this provision to better the odds that there is not an incapcitation or other event statistically increased by 2 over 60 pilots.
With thier own logic it makes sense to have the under -60 pilot the PIC, otherwise it is obviously just an economic gambit on the whole rule.
The comment period is going to be interesting........:bomb:
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
It was a financial deal that rose after deregulation by the major carriers at the time.
Long story short, it never had any basis in medical fact, just kinda one of those rules of thumb that stuck and didn't get repealed by age discrimination laws along with the "maximum hiring age" that some carriers used to have.
Age 60 accomplished a whole lot of things financially for the carrier.
1. Allowed older (more expensive) pilots to be booted in favor of a newly-upgraded, lower-pay-scale CA.
2. Allowed the company to get rid of guys as their health hazards increased (a HUGE amount of pilots from that era smoked, and the non-military pilots have, until the last decade or two of health consciousness, had TERRIBLE health histories).
3. Allowed the company to plan exactly how much a pilot would cost the company over their career by knowing the max age at entry into the company and max age at exit.
Other stuff too, but I don't want to get too long-winded. I do that when drinking.
How about the CAB and AMR?
warbirdfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2004
- Posts
- 128
Capt. Prater is probably taking a realistic look at what it would cost the membership in time and money to fight the age 60 change. Years ago, ALPA fought the third man issue to the bitter end and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process to keep a policy that had been doomed from the start. In addition, Wein Airlines pilots went on strike for the third man and the company went into bankruptcy.
Are you willing to look beyond the standard BS myth?
The govt started to look at maximum age for pilots back in the early 50s; it was cited in the Doolittle Commission report titled The Airport and Its Neighbors: The Report of the President's Airport Commission (May 1952, pp 59-60). Based on the Commission's recommendation, a committee of aeromedical doctors was formed (1953) to study pilot aging, and many recommended ages of 60 or lower. The Navy had conducted fairly extentsive studies and recommended a lower age than 60.
NAA Pilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2004
- Posts
- 103
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
And why do you think that was included in there?
Just for grins and giggles?
This is more smoke and mirrors bullsh*t.
THIS REPORT was NEVER intended to be used outside the military.
OF COURSE you want a fighter pilot under 60. And if you want to try to tell me that flying a civilian passenger or cargo freighter that weighs 250,000+ pounds requires the same skills (even in an emergency) as flying a military fighter that does 5 times its speed (or better), is armed to the teeth, and requires 2-3 G's (or more) in regular combat sequence maneuvers, you can go piss up a tree.
Doesn't have anything to do with POST-REGULATION NON-MILITARY retirement ages.
For the love of God, talk about thread dilution...
It was about the money, not a series of accidents that lead to a conclusion, not an independent study of physical fitness a la' NASA pilot search in the 80's, just money, and a CAB that said, "Hey, no problem, we can do that", and everyone else just followed suit.
If it's how the membership wants the money spent that way, then spend every dime. Or display a little leadership and help us all understand your vision, Captain Prater, of how we're to polish this turd into something good for everyone.
BTW, FAL had their MEC placed into trusteeship over third man. It would be nice to put the votes of the APAAD crowd into trusteeship.
You really need to get a grasp. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Those reports were in the mid-50s and a Navy Admiral/Flight Surgeon submitted them to the committee studying pilot aging. It was specifically addressing mandatory retirement ages for commercial pilots, and was released before the existance of the FAA.
Actually, the change from no age limit to age 60 happened about 20 years or so prior to Deregulation.
BoilerUP
Citation style...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Posts
- 5,311
Done. Thank you!
Lear70
JAFFO
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2003
- Posts
- 7,487
Then I guess my instructor in Aviation History class instructed and ENTIRE class in total B.S.
Wouldn't be the first time... I'll go look it up later this evening. If so, then thanks for the clarification.
Even so, the argument stands. Flying a military combat aircraft has little to do with flying a commercial airliner other than basic physics. The retirement ages for both I would EXPECT to be drastically different.
Discuss...
Wouldn't be the first time... I'll go look it up later this evening. If so, then thanks for the clarification.
Even so, the argument stands. Flying a military combat aircraft has little to do with flying a commercial airliner other than basic physics. The retirement ages for both I would EXPECT to be drastically different.
Discuss...
aussiefly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Posts
- 384
Done!
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
