From Apaad We Won!!

[likeitis]

Just refuse to fly with anyone over 60 for safety reasons.

 

[XJTAv8r]

Deleted.......already posted.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Just refuse to fly with anyone over 60 for safety reasons.

What about the NJA factor?

 

[waveflyer]

You know who got screwed. Every young pilot that sacrificed what they are worth today for the carrot "promised" tomorrow.

 

[eaglefly]

Just refuse to fly with anyone over 60 for safety reasons.

You'd probably be terminated from your company for age discrimination. ALPA won't help you because they're the ones who supported it in the first place.

LOL !

You're "retirement" will come earlier than most.

So sorry, but you'll have to fly the rest of your career with a chip on your shoulder and a sore anus.

 

[Shutr9]

I agree with the majority of pilots on this board, and the overwhelming majority of ALPA pilots. ALPA has blatantly ignored its membership and let us down. The extension of retirement age will do irreparable damage to our labor force long term. Contract leverage will be instantly reduced, existing pensions will be further damaged, career advancement for F/O's and seniority advancement for everyone will be degraded. These are the immediate and tangible issues, which don't begin to address the body fatigue and health issues of an admittedly experienced, but undoubtedly tired portion of the pilot group. Our group as a whole is already pushed to extremes by our current FAA duty limits and the continued efforts of crew scheduling to be more efficient. Current pilot mortality rates exceed that of the population, they aren't going to improve by flying after age 60.

Understanding that there are pilots who are benefited by the change, they are severely outnumbered by those who are adversely affected.

 

[Poahi]

Ah! The trumph of greed over safety.

 

[Caveman]

The language of this legislation calls for review in 2 years. If you flood your airline with ASAP/FSAP reports and if you need to, fill out a NASA report separately, also report to the FAA any and all issues you encounter on the line with pilots over 60, perhaps they'll rethink the rule in 2 years despite of what the rest of the world with REAL pilot shortage is doing.

That's when it'll come out - there are not enough pilots abroad, hence to ensure their own economic growth, they have to bend the safety rule a tad.

We have plenty of younger, healthy, well-qualified pilots - we don't have to bend any safety standards.

Nice. Take bonafide and effective safety programs and distort them for personal gain. Even if this would work the way you hope, what's to stop the older pilots from doing the same in retaliation?

If you do attempt this it will be readily transparent to your safety team that indiscriminate ASAP reports are being filed and my guess is the only one feeling any negative results will be you.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Since Bush could never sustain a veto with the kind of margins present on this bill, my guess is he will allow the bill to become law without his signature. That takes a few days if memory serves.

 

[Vne]

The House voted and the Senate passed it with "unanimous consent" no names/ numbers of votes just NO one that was there "objected" to the "unanimous consent" that is not a veto proof method of passage....If Bush wants to thumb his nose at the Congress and unions he can veto and force a "counted vote"....imo not likely but Bush is unpredictable when it comes to "union favors"....

 

[Freight Dog]

Nice. Take bonafide and effective safety programs and distort them for personal gain. Even if this would work the way you hope, what's to stop the older pilots from doing the same in retaliation?

If you do attempt this it will be readily transparent to your safety team that indiscriminate ASAP reports are being filed and my guess is the only one feeling any negative results will be you.

Only a caveman (pun somewhat intended) cannot understand that aging has an adverse effect on one's mental and cognitive performance. That performance significantly degrades in one's 50's, let alone 60's.

Are you suggesting not reporting unsafe situations?

My personal experience is that for every 1 pilot that could clearly press on above 60, we had 4 or 5 that were falling behind the power curve as they were approaching 60. 5 more years? Sure... as long as they're safe and don't age me prematurely by scaring the daylights out of me.

 

[4got2flare]

I follow this with great interest since it will affect my life in the foreseeable future.
The approaching age 60 guys say it is age discrimination even though you don't see them fighting at all to bring the over 60's (who were senior to them) back on property. The younger groups see a stagnation of the industry since the about to retire will now camp in the CA seat that through natural progression should have moved to them. The old in their letters/petitions argue that with a younger generation of pilots coming into the system that the safety of every man, woman, and child is dependent on them continuing to work. Yet for decades a new breed of pilot has followed in the footsteps of those before and safety has increased.

If the argument is pushed that this is in fact age discrimination then all pilots of any age at any company should be welcomed back with open arms. The APAAD should make this there goal. “90 and able to hold a medical, you get your seat back sir. Our apologies.” This is not the case. The APAAD argue age for themselves but none before. There goal is yet again “I got mine, Screw you!”
Everyone in this industry knows that seniority is everything. Your SKD, Vacation, Aircraft, Pay, Lifestyle is all based on seniority. For one group to plead discrimination and safety, just to keep flying when it is about money in embarrassing. Don’t think this is the case. Then all Unions should argue that we need to have the most experienced pilots in Cockpit at all times, yet the Captain cannot be over 60. They can fly forever if they are in any other seat, as long as they can hold a medical. You cannot be forced to retire for age at all. Progression to the left seat will continue for all pilots and then the (as argued) most experienced pilots will still be there to hold all those 15 year longevity inexperienced new captain hands when things get tough.
Better yet, since there is a segment in the industry that does need the experience of these seasoned Captains we should establish a flow to the Captains seats of the Regional carriers who are having a hard time finding pilots with more than 500 hours. Then the argument of safety will stand merit. Teach these 300-1000 hour pilots how to fly their shinny new jets that keep flowing from Brazil and Canada.

So which is it? Safety? Age Discrimination? Money?
If it is a safety argument then you should be fine going back to the right seat and allow the natural career advancement of pilots to continue. Remember both sides of the aircraft have controls.
If it is age discrimination then you should fight for all, regardless of age to be placed back in front of you. Since you have slowed the career expectations of younger generations in the name of doing what is right. Then you should fight for those who were senior to you regardless of what impact it might have on your future career.
My bet is money…..

 

[LeonPhelps]

Do you think...

...that Bush will sign this into law immediately, or would he tell Congress to pass a spending bill for the war before he'll sign anything? Just curious, because I hadn't seen anything in the news that he signed it into law today like the guy with the space shuttle in his avatar said he would. Just curious...now back to my regularly scheduled bottle of courvossier.

 

[vetrider]

...that Bush will sign this into law immediately, or would he tell Congress to pass a spending bill for the war before he'll sign anything? Just curious, because I hadn't seen anything in the news that he signed it into law today like the guy with the space shuttle in his avatar said he would. Just curious...now back to my regularly scheduled bottle of courvossier.

Either way, you'll be able to make your houthboat paymenth with your new job.

 

[gutshotdraw]

...that Bush will sign this into law immediately, or would he tell Congress to pass a spending bill for the war before he'll sign anything? Just curious, because I hadn't seen anything in the news that he signed it into law today like the guy with the space shuttle in his avatar said he would. Just curious...now back to my regularly scheduled bottle of courvossier.

Whenever a bill passed by both chambers of Congress is forwarded to the President, he has three choices:

1. Sign it
2. Veto it
3. Do neither and it becomes law without his signature after a prescribed period of time.

Therefore, he can't demand Congress do something else before he'll sign this one or that one. Allowing a bill to become law without a signature is a President's way of saying "I don't really like this bill but I don't hate it enough to veto it or I can't sustain a veto anyway." My guess is Bush will choose option 3 on this bill.