This has probably been posted here before, but here it is again for those that have not yet had a chance to add their names.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/noto60/
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/noto60/
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
Eliminate age 60 rule petition
- Thread starter Brownshoe
- 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
Chperplt,
I myself have got 21 years left under the present rule and hope that I won't have to fly for a wage after 60. If at that time I want to continue in the profession or am forced to due so because of this ever changing industry, I don't want the government forcing my retirement if I can still pass a class I and a checkride.
Us "old timers" will be able to continue sharing our experience with you "youngins" that care to learn.....
I myself have got 21 years left under the present rule and hope that I won't have to fly for a wage after 60. If at that time I want to continue in the profession or am forced to due so because of this ever changing industry, I don't want the government forcing my retirement if I can still pass a class I and a checkride.
Us "old timers" will be able to continue sharing our experience with you "youngins" that care to learn.....
chperplt
Registered User
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,123
I have 30 years to go. That wasn't the point of my question though.
Many topics on this board in the past have been about the young guy screwing the old guy. Albeit the RJ issue or young guys working for peanuts at the regional level.. My question was after all that, why should the young guy help to change this now??
I guess in a very poor way I'm trying to say that we can all help each other and should do so rather than pointing fingers all the time.
NYRANGERS
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2002
- Posts
- 592
Brownshoe said:
Is there a possibliity that if the age is extened upward, you would now have to work for 30 years to get a full retirement? There are a lot of pilots who go out on medical well before their 60th birthday. I can olny hope they qualified for a full retirement.
The airline I am furloughed from requires 25 years for a full retirement. I am sure they would love to extend it out a few years. Thus disqualifying many pilots.
And before you start attacking me............I will have 33 years with my company before I retire> ()
Just some thoughts, nothing more.
Last edited:
captjim
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Posts
- 461
Is there a petition to keep the 60 rule? If so I'll sign that one. I'll be more than happy to take adivse from all of the oldtimers sitting in a rockingchair sucking down a cold one.
I don't think there's going to be a lot of sympethy for the old coggers out there that had the rule work for them and know they want to do away with it. No sorry, no support from me. There's going to be a lot of retirements coming up, and I, and a lot of young guys are looking forword to them. I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot!
I don't think there's going to be a lot of sympethy for the old coggers out there that had the rule work for them and know they want to do away with it. No sorry, no support from me. There's going to be a lot of retirements coming up, and I, and a lot of young guys are looking forword to them. I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot!
Last edited:
Why the HE!! would anyone want to work after they are 60 anyway? You hear of so many stories about how the guy retires today at 65 and then is dead tomorrow. He enjoyed his retirement, NOT! Life is to short to be working after that anyway. I don't feel a bit sorry for anyone getting the boot at 60. For one it makes room for the younger guys and there are jobs out there that can keep the old guys flying like contract stuff. Get out at 60 and enjoy what time you have left in life. Plus counting the money you made while working all those years at the airlines. I know you surely wouldn't need the pay check anymore. If you made some smart choices along the way.
pilotyip
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 13,629
post age 60 employment
You are assuming that everyone retirng at age 60 is a major airlines pilot with a nice retirement. Most age 60 pilots I know do not fit in that category, and getting a job a age 60 if you have no little airplane experieince is tuff, and you can not get Social Security until age 62 or gov't medical coverage until age 62. I would love to retrie at age 55, but I have spent so much of my "between jobs" that I will have to work until I am 66. Flying DA-20's
You are assuming that everyone retirng at age 60 is a major airlines pilot with a nice retirement. Most age 60 pilots I know do not fit in that category, and getting a job a age 60 if you have no little airplane experieince is tuff, and you can not get Social Security until age 62 or gov't medical coverage until age 62. I would love to retrie at age 55, but I have spent so much of my "between jobs" that I will have to work until I am 66. Flying DA-20's
Andy Neill
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,293
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
First, it is unlikely that any unionized carrier will be able to change the number of years required for a full pension.
Second, most of you "young uns" will need the three to five extra years that a rule change will give you. After all of the furloughs, and the difficulty getting hired, you will still be years away from the top pay you desire.
Last, you will be old guys sooner than you realize. For me, I was 21 YESTERDAY. Or, at least it seems that way. Now is the time for you to fix a rule that could very well bite you on the butt later on.
If you are going to hang back on this out of a spirit of comeuppance, you may find that you have hurt yourselves in the end, long after those who irked you so much have died.
Time waits for no man.
Second, most of you "young uns" will need the three to five extra years that a rule change will give you. After all of the furloughs, and the difficulty getting hired, you will still be years away from the top pay you desire.
Last, you will be old guys sooner than you realize. For me, I was 21 YESTERDAY. Or, at least it seems that way. Now is the time for you to fix a rule that could very well bite you on the butt later on.
If you are going to hang back on this out of a spirit of comeuppance, you may find that you have hurt yourselves in the end, long after those who irked you so much have died.
Time waits for no man.
Nope, not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.
Besides, the only people I know who are in support are the guys who couldn't seem to keep their pecker in their pants and are stuck supporting numerous wives. We've worked too long to get the retirement plans we currently have to change things for the few who had no self control or planned poorly for retirement.
Besides, the only people I know who are in support are the guys who couldn't seem to keep their pecker in their pants and are stuck supporting numerous wives. We've worked too long to get the retirement plans we currently have to change things for the few who had no self control or planned poorly for retirement.
3
350DRIVER
Agree or disagree this "rule" has been debated and challenged many many times (more than I can remember) and each and every time it has been upheld- I cannot see how this rule is going to change since I cannot see how the majority of people against it can attempt to "justify" why we need to change this- "If it ain't broke then don't attempt to fix it"....... I truly feel that once again this rule may be "challenged" but in the end the same result as the previous time (s) will prevail-
I feel that this issue has very little to do with "age" and has alot more to do with giving others the opportunity to move in and earn a job that they have been working many many years in which to obtain and I feel that when one hits the "magic 60" they should gracefully step aside with their heads up relatively high and "allow" someone else the same opportunity that they were once given many many years ago (food for thought)- why challenge this- "IF" you want to continue to fly then 135 may work out well for you or some 91 flight department will probably be honored to welcome you aboard BUT why attempt to harm many others just for your own satisfaction of "prolonging" an already long, productive, and great career--
Once again I would be very surprised if this rule is changed any time in the near future however if it is then great news for some pilots and bad news for others.
C H E E R S
3 5 0
I feel that this issue has very little to do with "age" and has alot more to do with giving others the opportunity to move in and earn a job that they have been working many many years in which to obtain and I feel that when one hits the "magic 60" they should gracefully step aside with their heads up relatively high and "allow" someone else the same opportunity that they were once given many many years ago (food for thought)- why challenge this- "IF" you want to continue to fly then 135 may work out well for you or some 91 flight department will probably be honored to welcome you aboard BUT why attempt to harm many others just for your own satisfaction of "prolonging" an already long, productive, and great career--
Once again I would be very surprised if this rule is changed any time in the near future however if it is then great news for some pilots and bad news for others.
C H E E R S
3 5 0
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
I guess I should be surprised that a lot of younger pilots will think that this retirement age will be just fine with them when they reach 60, and that this will be based on an indictment of bad behavior.
Consider this, When the rule was written, 60 was then like 80 is now. By the time you reach 60, it will be like 40 is now.
But go ahead. I won't have to live with you decision.
You will.
Consider this, When the rule was written, 60 was then like 80 is now. By the time you reach 60, it will be like 40 is now.
But go ahead. I won't have to live with you decision.
You will.
3
350DRIVER
At some point in life some times the "mind" wants to carry on and never wants to "quit"- One can say that someone at 80 & in perfect health who can hold a medical should be able to "continue" as a 121 crew member-
where is the cut off point then and why??
C H E E R S
3 5 0
Time- the way you make it appear to sound is that their should be "no limit"??
where is the cut off point then and why??
C H E E R S
3 5 0
Time- the way you make it appear to sound is that their should be "no limit"??
Timebuilder wrote:
"Second, most of you "young uns" will need the three to five extra years that a rule change will give you. After all of the furloughs, and the difficulty getting hired, you will still be years away from the top pay you desire."
As far as "all the furloughs, and the difficulty getting hired,".......You think its hard now to get hired by a major......just wait and see what happens if this rule change passes.
I think most people can agree that no major airline (except SW, and I expect even their hiring would change if this rule passes) in this country is going to hire any new pilot for probably the next 3-5 years (or more) with the current furlough situation. Airways, forget about it; Delta, still furloughing; NWA still furloughing; AA just announced they expect more staffing cuts; etc. etc. etc..
Most of these airlines are retiring 200-300 pilots a year for the foreseeable future. So that was a small glimmer of hope. Now you extend the retirement age by another three years!!! We're now looking at the possibility of no new-hires for another 6 or 7 years........just food for thought for those trying to make it to a major......
For me personally, no way in heck I want to work past 60......full retirement or not. Besides, if these "old folk" at the majors can't make ends meet on an 80k a year pension versus a 90k per year....something is very wrong. (those financial figures were only used for illustration, your actual retirement figures may vary)
Good luck to all
P.S. Timbuilder, please don't take this as a personal attack against you, it was a "soundbite" that had an issue I wanted to address as far as hiring went.
"Second, most of you "young uns" will need the three to five extra years that a rule change will give you. After all of the furloughs, and the difficulty getting hired, you will still be years away from the top pay you desire."
As far as "all the furloughs, and the difficulty getting hired,".......You think its hard now to get hired by a major......just wait and see what happens if this rule change passes.
I think most people can agree that no major airline (except SW, and I expect even their hiring would change if this rule passes) in this country is going to hire any new pilot for probably the next 3-5 years (or more) with the current furlough situation. Airways, forget about it; Delta, still furloughing; NWA still furloughing; AA just announced they expect more staffing cuts; etc. etc. etc..
Most of these airlines are retiring 200-300 pilots a year for the foreseeable future. So that was a small glimmer of hope. Now you extend the retirement age by another three years!!! We're now looking at the possibility of no new-hires for another 6 or 7 years........just food for thought for those trying to make it to a major......
For me personally, no way in heck I want to work past 60......full retirement or not. Besides, if these "old folk" at the majors can't make ends meet on an 80k a year pension versus a 90k per year....something is very wrong. (those financial figures were only used for illustration, your actual retirement figures may vary)
Good luck to all
P.S. Timbuilder, please don't take this as a personal attack against you, it was a "soundbite" that had an issue I wanted to address as far as hiring went.
3
350DRIVER
I tend to agree with JD- With the way the industry is today as well as what it is expected to be in the near future I cannot see how a rule change will positively have a good outcome that is in the best interest of anyone other than the pilots nearing the "magic 60"- "money" is not happiness and will not make you a "better" person so money aside lets look at the big picture and realize that "IF" this rule does change it will cause far more damage than what it will do "good" for the industry as a whole-
C H E E R S
3 5 0
(leave the champagne on ice I guess)
C H E E R S
3 5 0
(leave the champagne on ice I guess)
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
Believe it, it isn't personal. I will never work 121, and I'm fine with it. It's a different issue, having to do with illegal discrimination, a hot topic in America today.
>>I cannot see how this rule is going to change since I cannot see how the majority of people against it can attempt to "justify" why we need to change this- "If it ain't broke then don't attempt to fix it"....... I truly feel that once again this rule may be "challenged" but in the end the same result as the previous time (s) will prevail-
The fact that advances in medicine have made a physiological support for this argument of denying the rasing of the maximum age moot. The fact is that employers are prevented from discriminating against people on the basis of age.
In 1965, there was good reason to have a 60 year cutoff. Medical standards for the airlines were lower, and being 60 years old was, for want of a better term, old. Now, a human of sixty is just as sharp and vital a person as a forty year old was in 1965. When you reach age 60 in say, 2035, you may posess the faculties of a thirty year old. In addition, it will be uncommon for people to retire at such a "young" age by then, and social security payments may not start until age 70 as the boomer generation drains the coffers of social security. Your FICA payment will likely swell to over 40% to 50% of your wages unless the retirement age is raised.
So, if you are certain that you will be able to get a non-121 job at age 60, then be my guest. You will have a LOT of competition, and you will have to look back on the fact that you failed to support this legislation thirty years earlier, when you had the chance. Your friends will still enjoy the personal satisfaction of remaining useful and wise in their jobs, and you won't be able to enjoy the kind of flying you love.
Plan ahead.
>>I cannot see how this rule is going to change since I cannot see how the majority of people against it can attempt to "justify" why we need to change this- "If it ain't broke then don't attempt to fix it"....... I truly feel that once again this rule may be "challenged" but in the end the same result as the previous time (s) will prevail-
The fact that advances in medicine have made a physiological support for this argument of denying the rasing of the maximum age moot. The fact is that employers are prevented from discriminating against people on the basis of age.
In 1965, there was good reason to have a 60 year cutoff. Medical standards for the airlines were lower, and being 60 years old was, for want of a better term, old. Now, a human of sixty is just as sharp and vital a person as a forty year old was in 1965. When you reach age 60 in say, 2035, you may posess the faculties of a thirty year old. In addition, it will be uncommon for people to retire at such a "young" age by then, and social security payments may not start until age 70 as the boomer generation drains the coffers of social security. Your FICA payment will likely swell to over 40% to 50% of your wages unless the retirement age is raised.
So, if you are certain that you will be able to get a non-121 job at age 60, then be my guest. You will have a LOT of competition, and you will have to look back on the fact that you failed to support this legislation thirty years earlier, when you had the chance. Your friends will still enjoy the personal satisfaction of remaining useful and wise in their jobs, and you won't be able to enjoy the kind of flying you love.
Plan ahead.
3
350DRIVER
Time- As I stated in previous posts this is not as much an "age" issue as it is regarding other pilots "attempting" to advance in their career aspirations and goals which I believe is the bottom line and should this rule be changed it is going to hurt many many pilots and will definately have negative results... There has to be a cut off at some point and I don't feel that the "physiological" angle is going to change how people feel regarding this issue- Once again I can go hand pick atleast 10 people who are in their 80's and probably could pass a 1st class medical tomm. morning with their eyes closed.( we have one pilot who is in his 70's and he has no "want" to hang it up)- what does this imply-?? YES pilots definately can and are very capable and are "sharp" in their older years...........
Lets weigh the ramifications other than "assuming" we are "discriminating"- How many 320lb flight attendants do u see running up and down the isles??- Well isn't this "discrimination"?
23 for the ATP??- Isn't this along the same lines?- Can you see a "trend"...........- I could name many many more "hot" topics in which we can "claim" discrimination- - -
C H E E R S
3 5 0
Lets weigh the ramifications other than "assuming" we are "discriminating"- How many 320lb flight attendants do u see running up and down the isles??- Well isn't this "discrimination"?
23 for the ATP??- Isn't this along the same lines?- Can you see a "trend"...........- I could name many many more "hot" topics in which we can "claim" discrimination- - -
C H E E R S
3 5 0
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
The reason I am talking about physiology is because that was the basis of the original rule. Certainly it may impact a lot of people if the rule is lifted, but then we would have to introduce another new rule, the Fairness to Younger Pilots Rule, etc, etc., and that isn't what this question is about.
>>Lets weigh the ramifications other than "assuming" we are "discriminating"- How many 320lb flight attendants do u see running up and down the isles??- Well isn't this "discrimination"?
Well, can 320 lb attendants meet the requirements? I doubt it. Can they shimmy through an emergency exit? Just like police requirements, many rules exist for a good reason, like the age 60 rule did back in 1965. Philadelphia now has a whole lot of female police officers who couldn't chase a blind man with a broken leg, but the rules were changed in the interst of "fairness" to these applicants, never mind their inability to catch a running criminal. I'd like to serve in the Air Force reserve, but I am over 37. The military now argues that I cannot stay in long enough to complete the service years required for me to be eligible for a government pension before reaching age 65. You see, it is always legal for the government to discriminate, unless an aurgument can be made to prove that it is without merit.
In this case, science has changed enough to provide a totally different environment from the time that the regulation was enacted, and the original reasons for the rule no longer exist. Like it or not, this will be hard to resist. The AARP is one of the most powerful and vocal lobbying groups, and they have all day to fight battles like this.
Will a whole lot of pilots still retire at age 60? You bet. More than enough to make room for all of you. Wouldn't you like to be able to make that choice yourselves, without being forced out?
I know that I would.
>>Lets weigh the ramifications other than "assuming" we are "discriminating"- How many 320lb flight attendants do u see running up and down the isles??- Well isn't this "discrimination"?
Well, can 320 lb attendants meet the requirements? I doubt it. Can they shimmy through an emergency exit? Just like police requirements, many rules exist for a good reason, like the age 60 rule did back in 1965. Philadelphia now has a whole lot of female police officers who couldn't chase a blind man with a broken leg, but the rules were changed in the interst of "fairness" to these applicants, never mind their inability to catch a running criminal. I'd like to serve in the Air Force reserve, but I am over 37. The military now argues that I cannot stay in long enough to complete the service years required for me to be eligible for a government pension before reaching age 65. You see, it is always legal for the government to discriminate, unless an aurgument can be made to prove that it is without merit.
In this case, science has changed enough to provide a totally different environment from the time that the regulation was enacted, and the original reasons for the rule no longer exist. Like it or not, this will be hard to resist. The AARP is one of the most powerful and vocal lobbying groups, and they have all day to fight battles like this.
Will a whole lot of pilots still retire at age 60? You bet. More than enough to make room for all of you. Wouldn't you like to be able to make that choice yourselves, without being forced out?
I know that I would.
NYRANGERS
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2002
- Posts
- 592
Timebuilder said:
There is so much more to it than making room for the "young guys". The potential contract ramifications are limitless. I understand that not all companies have a great retirement, but come on. It's much more complicated than saying "I should be able to work for as long as I want"
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
beezlebozo
Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2002
- Posts
- 13
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:
