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

DOT seeks age 60 opinion, young guys speak up

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
HOUSTON, Oct. 21 - Early retirement may translate into early mortality, at least for those 60 or younger, say researchers here. Action Points
  • <LI class=APP>Explain to patients contemplating early retirement that this big company study found that retiring at age 55 was associated with an almost two-fold greater risk of dying compared with employees who postponed retirement until their 60s.
  • Explain that although poor health was considered a possibility for the higher mortality rate among younger retirees, the authors did not have the data to determine if there was a direct and significant association. However, retiring at age 60 did not have a mortality benefit when compared with retirement at age 65.

In a prospective cohort study of thousands of employees who worked at Shell Oil, the investigators found that embarking on the Golden Years at age 55 doubled the risk for death before reaching age 65, compared with those who toiled beyond age 60,

Failing health might have played a role in the younger retirees' higher mortality, said Shan P. Tsai, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Shell Health Services, according to the report in the British Medical Journal.

However, data were not available to assess directly whether poor health was a significant factor, and it is not clear why continued employment led to longer life, the researchers wrote.

Gender made a difference. The risk of dying early was 80% greater for men than for women, the researchers said.

Interestingly, the researchers discovered that during the first five years of retirement, the mortality rate for employees who retired at age 60 was similar to that of those who retired at age 65 (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22).

The notion that early retirement means less stress and a more relaxed lifestyle has fueled the belief that retiring young boosts longevity, Dr Tsai and colleagues wrote. However, these results indicate the opposite: Mortality rates improved with an older retirement age.

The study included men and women who retired at ages 55, 60, and 65 or who were actively working at ages 55 or 60 between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 2003.

In the main analysis, the researchers reviewed the survival outcomes of 839 employees who retired at age 55 and 1,929 employees who worked until age 60 and were still alive at age 65. These outcomes were compared with 900 employees who retired at 65. Women made up only about 11% of the total study population.

Overall, 137 workers who retired by age 55 died by age 65, while 98 workers who retired at age 60 died by age 65, the researchers reported. After adjusting for sex, the year the participant entered the study, and socioeconomic status, the researchers concluded that employees who retired at age 55 had almost double the mortality risk of those who continued working into their 60s (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 1.58 to 2.27).

Workers were divided into either high or low socioeconomic groups. Higher socioeconomic status appeared to permit earlier retirement. However, low socioeconomic status turned out to be a risk factor for workers who retired at 55. Employees in the high socioeconomic status category who retired at 55 had a 20% greater risk of dying (hazard ratio 1.21, 95% CI, 0.88-1.67), whereas poorer employees had nearly a 60% increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% CI, 1.15-2.18).

Waiting until age 60 or older to retire appeared to make little difference in the risk of death. "Mortality did not differ for the first five years after retirement at 60 compared with continuing to work at 60," the researchers reported (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI, 0.82-1.31). And in comparing retirement at ages 60 and 65, death rates were similar, Dr. Tsai's team wrote.
 
Ummm... MAYBE for the same reason YOU want to... they LOVE to fly? MAYBE they have all the money the need but still enjoy their profession?

Just a thought,,, not that you'll even attempt to understand (or could grasp the concept).


Again, who said it's all about the money?

And, incidentally, who died and made YOU king?

Get out of your seat? Typical "ME-ME-ME" mentality of Gen X or Y or whatever the hell you are. Lazy, PFT, work for sh*t Regional F/O wage, "I just wanna get to a major at any cost" so-called "professional" pilot. Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself.

No wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. Guys like you take all the honor and ethics out of the profession, and management LOVES you for it. Well done.

p.s. I'm not an "old fart", although I am a child of the 80's, and I REALLY WISH this wasn't an anonymous board... it would be really nice to know who some of you people are for future reference (like when you come to interview). I don't think we need any guys lacking moral fiber like yourself over here...

I hope they raise the retirement age to 65 and guys like you lose your medical to diabetes or a heart problem at age 60 when you're still wanting to fly. THAT would be poetic justice for you undercutting little bastards.

I feel better now...

well i wish i knew how to do individual quotes so as to not repost ALL of the garbage that you spewed. But here goes...

I have to agree with you on one point. I REALLY WISH this was not an anonymous board either, because there are so many people that sit comfortably behind a computer and spit out garbage that they know nothing off. Lacking moral character...do you know me? I think it shows less character making a personal attack on someone you dont know simply because you disagree with their opinion. I really dont care what you think of me, my goal in life is not to make you happy. The typical ME-ME-ME attitude you speak of is not something that I invented, nor is it something that I endorsed. I would agree the opposite, that your attitude is ME-ME-ME. As I explained, YOU benifited from the progression of age 60, and now that you have your coveted seat, you do not want to give it up. Now you tell me, is it being ME-ME-ME because I want to simply enjoy the same rights that you did? OR is it more selfish to get the benifit, THEN also change the rules. So if you can explain that I would be glad to listen. Also, if you noticed, there are no personal attacks in here to you. I thought the point of this was a discussion about flying topics. You need to cool your jets buddy. As for your wish that I would get diabetes or heart failure, to steal another quote from you, "Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself".
 
The typical ME-ME-ME attitude you speak of is not something that I invented, nor is it something that I endorsed. I would agree the opposite, that your attitude is ME-ME-ME. As I explained, YOU benifited from the progression of age 60, and now that you have your coveted seat, you do not want to give it up. Now you tell me, is it being ME-ME-ME because I want to simply enjoy the same rights that you did? OR is it more selfish to get the benifit, THEN also change the rules. So if you can explain that I would be glad to listen.


Excellent post!

As for your wish that I would get diabetes or heart failure, to steal another quote from you, "Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself".
That was a pretty sh!tty thing to wish on somebody, Lear...
 
It amuses me to see these LCC pilots and those whose pensions were raped (sorry) suddenly screaming age discrimination. Have some cajones and call it what it is, for pete's sake. A money issue! You would get a little more respect. Not one of you would have played the age discrimination card on 9/10/2001.

narcolepsy is dangerous in the cockpit.
 
It amuses me to see these LCC pilots and those whose pensions were raped (sorry) suddenly screaming age discrimination. Have some cajones and call it what it is, for pete's sake. A money issue! You would get a little more respect. Not one of you would have played the age discrimination card on 9/10/2001.

narcolepsy is dangerous in the cockpit.

You must be talking about the UAL pilots, fellow ALPA members.:(
 
I have to agree with you on one point. I REALLY WISH this was not an anonymous board either, because there are so many people that sit comfortably behind a computer and spit out garbage that they know nothing off.
Everyone that's been on this board for a while knows exactly who I am, I've posted my name publically several times (do a search). PM me again and I'll be glad to give you the same information...

Lacking moral character...do you know me? I think it shows less character making a personal attack on someone you dont know simply because you disagree with their opinion.
It wasn't your opinion I had a problem with, it was your "get out of my seat" mentality combined with your dispariagement of them based on age alone. Hint: that's age discrimination and is just as crappy as any other race or gender discrimination and your post is a good example of why that kind of behavior is discouraged in most cases, and illegal in many others.

The typical ME-ME-ME attitude you speak of is not something that I invented, nor is it something that I endorsed.
Then why are you telling people to get out of YOUR seat? Isn't that something that is all for you and screw them?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I would agree the opposite, that your attitude is ME-ME-ME. As I explained, YOU benifited from the progression of age 60, and now that you have your coveted seat, you do not want to give it up.
You might want to look a little more at someone's background before you open mouth and insert foot.

I'm 35 and a first officer on a small narrow-body aircraft. What seat? I'd be stuck in the right seat for another year or two if the age 65 rule is implemented. I'd be one of the people who DIDN'T benefit from it.

I support it because it's age discrimination and I believe people should have the right to continue to fly if they are physically and mentally able. I support it because it's the RIGHT thing to do.

So where in all that is a "me-me-me" attitude? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Now you tell me, is it being ME-ME-ME because I want to simply enjoy the same rights that you did? OR is it more selfish to get the benifit, THEN also change the rules. So if you can explain that I would be glad to listen.
Hope you listened up. Just because I have a lot of experience on different aircraft doesn't mean I'm old.

Also, if you noticed, there are no personal attacks in here to you. I thought the point of this was a discussion about flying topics. You need to cool your jets buddy.
No, just personal attacks to every pilot nearing age 65 that I took offense to (along with several other people on here).

As for your wish that I would get diabetes or heart failure, to steal another quote from you, "Guys like you should be ashamed of yourself".
Yeah, I got hot-headed and was trying to make a point and it was a little strongly-worded, I apologize. Seriously.
 
Yeah, you're right. My bad... Got a little pissed off...

My wife was flying professionally when she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes last year, effectively ending her career before it really got started. Comments like that really hit close to home with me.

I want Age 60 to remain as is because every CA in the industry has benefitted from such blatant "age discrimination" yet nobody complained loudly about it until recently - when it was in their financial best interest. I want you out of "my" seat when you turn 60 because thats the way it happened for you and everybody else clamoring for this change. Is that selfish? Sure is, but its no more selfish than changing the rules we all knew about in the middle of the game once they no longer suit you.

That said, I'd never wish a medical problem on anybody...ever.
 
I want Age 60 to remain as is because every CA in the industry has benefitted from such blatant "age discrimination" yet nobody complained loudly about it until recently - when it was in their financial best interest. I want you out of "my" seat when you turn 60 because thats the way it happened for you and everybody else clamoring for this change. Is that selfish? Sure is, but its no more selfish than changing the rules we all knew about in the middle of the game once they no longer suit you.

Since you don't like change I hope you enjoy flying your BE20/40 or CL65 till you reach 60. Seems only fair since you knew what your flying. Stay where you are and let someone else get the job at a major. Sounds just as reasonable as your ignorant argument. The nothing ever changes gang.
 
Why not approve the age 65 rule change...for anyone hired AFTER the rule change takes effect? Let's see how many folks would approve of that measure...
 
How is 65 not discrimination? Why not 67 when you can collect full social security benefits?

This whole issue is about money! I fly that captains that lost on average $200,000 to $300,000 dollars when their retirement was frozen. They want to work an extra 5 years to make it up. By calculations the most they will need to make it up is 2 years. Why the extra 3 years?

This same group that is pushing for the change is the same group that forced ALPA into supporting the age 60 rule.

If it does change and I am stuck in my current seat for an extra 4 years. Then lose my medical at age 60 plus 1 day it will cost me about $200,000 dollars in lost retirement.

How can I support this change.
 
Posted on the UAL board by a pilot - easy instructions on how to comment:

Easy way to comment on Age 60
https://dms.dot.gov/submit/

Page one
click continue

Page two
enter docket no 26139
enter operating administration FAA
enter docket existence does exist
enter submitter information
click continue

Page 3
enter your comments
enter submit


If you read the comments, it looks like the pro-change crowd has been able to rally the troops and 'get out the vote.' They are much more organized with APAAD and PPF. It looks like they've been able to send the message to their members, trying to keep it off of the radar screen for us younger pups. Great work, PVB BEACH.
 
Why not approve the age 65 rule change...for anyone hired AFTER the rule change takes effect? Let's see how many folks would approve of that measure...

Why not make it age 65 and let all the Pilots that were forced out at age 60 be able to come back immediately at there original seniority after they get there First Class back and pass there check ride? Sounds fair too doesn't it! That way no one benefits from being forced out at age 60!
 
I'm very sorry to hear that, Boiler, that really sucks and yeah I feel bad for posting it and will remove it if you like (Hansom quoted it anyway so it would stay up regardless). Again, my apologies.

I know how most guys my age feel about it, and I understand you don't want your career to suffer by sitting another 2, 3, or even 5 years in the right seat, but it's age discrimination, and it has to end SOMETIME... if not now, when?

I'm willing to take that extra time in the right seat in order to make it happen now because I believe it's the right thing to do and I will always go with what I believe is right, even if it hurts me financially, but I'm a bit of an idealist.

Personally, I don't have a problem with 67 either, as long as the medical requirements are stringent enough to weed out problems, but 65 is the accepted ICAO age and I think it's fair to match that.

Just my opinion, backed by a bunch of medical research and pilots in other countries currently flying to that age that shows it's perfectly safe. Opinions vary,,,
 
When you were hired at your (hopefully) 30+ year career at your dream major AND (since career progression is based on an age limit) you understood that you would have a conceivable finite limit in the left seat of a widebody, you accepted it. The person who had to retire in order for your slot to open up accepted that fact too. For you to then attempt to change the rule DURING your career would be a freebie for you, shouldered by those who would come after you.
If you were hired as a government employee knowing you could only make GS-16 as a final career position, changing Age 60 would be like asking for a GS-20 position to be created specifically for you.
If you started out as an O-1 in the military, knowing you could only aspire to O-11 (on a first-name basis w/ the Pres) it would be like altering the rank structure for yourself to become an O-16. You would effectively undermine the stature of the folks senior to you, and undercut the careers of those junior to you.
Seems to me, if it's about safety, then it's certainly as safe, or safer, to allow the rule to change only for those entering the business after the rule changes.
OTOH, if it's about money, and greed, and recouping personal losses incurred as a result of corrupt, ethically questionable managers liquidating your retirement assets, I say don't try to make two wrongs into a right. Address the real problem. Don't attempt to take stop-gap measures which affect everone else, mostly negatively.
Just my pair O' pennies...
 
I'm very sorry to hear that, Boiler, that really sucks and yeah I feel bad for posting it and will remove it if you like (Hansom quoted it anyway so it would stay up regardless). Again, my apologies.

I know how most guys my age feel about it, and I understand you don't want your career to suffer by sitting another 2, 3, or even 5 years in the right seat, but it's age discrimination, and it has to end SOMETIME... if not now, when?

I'm willing to take that extra time in the right seat in order to make it happen now because I believe it's the right thing to do and I will always go with what I believe is right, even if it hurts me financially, but I'm a bit of an idealist.

Personally, I don't have a problem with 67 either, as long as the medical requirements are stringent enough to weed out problems, but 65 is the accepted ICAO age and I think it's fair to match that.

Just my opinion, backed by a bunch of medical research and pilots in other countries currently flying to that age that shows it's perfectly safe. Opinions vary,,,

The main reason ICAO recommended this was not because they decided one morning that old guys should fly longer and later in life, but rather Europe is short of pilots. The expansion of LCCs in Europe has caused a shortage. That was the imputus. It's great you feel like you want to "do the right thing." But that is the real reason ICAO asked for this--Ryanair and Easyjet expansion.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Why not make it age 65 and let all the Pilots that were forced out at age 60 be able to come back immediately at there original seniority after they get there First Class back and pass there check ride? Sounds fair too doesn't it! That way no one benefits from being forced out at age 60!

Fairness? There is no fairness in business, is there? How about we negotiate a deal. We get rid of seniority entirely and go on merit. And we can all work till our little tickers stop mid trip. How's that? Everybody's right, this is not a safety issue at all. O'l Frankie L. would be proud of us lazy pilots about now, well he probably is.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top