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.
