Hoot Gibson retires - comments on age 60

[satpak77]

sandman who is that in your Avatar

 

[atafan]

What nerve, wanting to keep his job past sixty just because he enjoys it and brings a ton of experience to it. Ahh, the rapacity of some people.

Exactly!

I've got twenty years left to fly and I'm ready to retire now but I certainly don't begrudge those that don't want to retire. All I hear mouthing off about the age 60 rule are a bunch of punks who will be kicking and screaming as they are forced to retire at 60.

I've heard this same type of talk when I was much younger and the old guys, those 30 year olds, were saying the same thing, "kick those old captains out and let me upgrade and fly the good life". Fast forward 20+ years and those same big mouths are screaming to end the age 60 rule.

Just admit it, greed and only greed is driving your resistance to pushing the age 60 rule up a hand full of years.

PATHETIC!

Thank God we have men of Hoots character, ability and drive in our country.We should all be sad that this great resource is being forced from a job he can continue to perform exceptionally well.

 

[abe44]

I don't know much about Hoot, but from the above thread he looks like an incredible guy and well-accomplished aviator (to say the least!)

My question is, Why didn't Hoot start his Age 60 retirement rant when he got hired at SWA? Why is it so important in his life now? (maybe because he is the one who had to go now??)

My dad retired from FedEx at 60. He hasn't regretted it one day. He and my mom have travelled the world, worked for several weeks rebuilding Katrina victims homes in Mississippi, and spent countless days with their grandkids.

My dad wakes up in the morning and decides if he wants to go golfing, fly-fishing, or spend time with his "little brother" that he sponsors in the Big Brother program.

My dad isn't incredibly wealthy now (but he was smart and planned ahead)....doesn't command a $200,000 paycheck....doesn't get to control a 100 million dollar jet across the globe. But he is the happiest person I know.

Why.....Because he realized that this "fun" career we all know and love is just a great way to get to the most important (and most fun) part of your life: spending time with your family and giving back to the community (and having a hell of a lot of fun on your own terms).

To Mr. Hoot Gibson, Congratulations and thank you for your incredible service to our country. I wish you luck and happiness in your retirement!


Abe 44

 

[sonny320]

Wow. Lots of people here jumping on Hoot for wanting to stay on the line.

I have been to several retirement parties and at every single one of them the guy was saying "I'm not ready to quit....". We all know that when 60 comes its time for the pasture. However when its YOUR turn to retire and you climb out of that cockpit for the last time, you might be uttering those very same words....

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he know he had to retire at age 60 when he was hired. Don't understand why people like to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to benefit themselves...also I don't think he lost his pension with SWA as compared to others. If he's so "not ready to quit" he could still fly but not at his current job. Enjoy retirement...there is more to life then flying for a living!!

 

[Big Duke Six]

Atafan:

Just admit it, greed and only greed is driving your resistance to pushing the age 60 rule up a hand full of years.

PATHETIC!

Just a quick question for ya - if the horrible "G" word (greed) is, in your opinion, so shameful a reason for the cursed majority wanting to keep the rules the same, what is YOUR noble reason for wanting to change it? Is it so you can continue to bless the world with your incredible experience and skills? The very fact that you (and Hoot, by the way) have your jobs now is due in large part to this very rule. How vile is it that you now believe that since YOU"RE there, it should now be changed for some holy reason? Your argument is SO transparent that it just about makes me sick to read it.

You should be ashamed of yourself coming out here and announcing semi-publicly that you DO NOT want to get out of this business in time to enjoy your family and the other fruits of your labor. To me, THAT is PATHETIC sir.

I'll give you one thing though. NEW RULE: If one part of the Federal gov't (FAA) forces a person to retire at a certain age, then federal retirement benefits (Soc Sec) should be available that very moment to said individual. No gap. The current situation IS WRONG and should be addressed.

The part that kills me about the proposed change is the requirement to have an FO under age 60 in the cockpit with the elderly. If that doesn't speak volumes about the hypocrisy of the pro-65 camp I don't know what does. And, if your argument really was genuine, then you would be railing for NO AGE LIMIT, because 65 is just as arbitrary as 60 is. If you really want to be noble, push for the change, but then slide in a mandate that says it kicks in AFTER you personally retire at age 60. That way, we'll know you had nothing to gain in all this and are doing it for all the "right" reasons.

Thanks for your service Hoot. This really is not the end but merely the beginning of a new chapter.

 

[satpak77]

The following is not a strike against Hoot's obvious contributions to aviation and his dedicated military service. It IS however, a common theme amongst military, police/law enforcement, pilots, and other occupations.

Duke has had institutional structure in his life from Day-1 in the Navy. Since age 22, 23, someone has told him when the chow hall opened, when it closed, and told him what he will do between those times. This continued into NASA, then SWA, where he is told where to fly and when. Sure he can pick and choose as a Capt, but at the end of the day, he is still living and working in a structured environment with rules and regulations. At both NASA and SWA, he had mandatory sim checks, physicals, etc. He had structure.

Now, the structured life he has known since 22 is over. BOOM. Age 60. Mandatory retirement. BOOM. No more structure provided by an institution, by a "bigger" entity. Now Hoot must live and operate in a post-ShawShank Redemption environment, free of rules and reins. Financially, he is set. NASA Pension, SWA benefits package, etc. MD Wife, also an astronaut, etc.

Finances are not the issue. Even "the love of flying" is not the issue. Hoot is active in EAA and is a sought after speaker. So its not like he is "leaving aviation." I am sure Boeing, FlightSafety, SWA, Higher Power, would love to tap him and hire him in some sort of capacity. He lives in Houston. CAL and NASA also in some sort of capacity.

When a guy like Hoot says he is "not ready", there are bigger things at play, even if guised as "I will miss the cockpit" type of remarks.

In law enforcement, hard charging cops and detectives who worked cases their whole career, and then retire, unless they have an "outside life" and hobbies, etc, they typically drop dead within 5 years, since "their life" of work is now stopped, so literally their biological life stops also.

FYI. When we all retire, or actually pre-retirement, we should all have outside hobbies, interests, grandkids to pickup, RV trips to Grand Canyon, small businesses, etc etc waiting.

The alternative is statistically not a good one.

Good luck to you Hoot and relax and enjoy your retirement

 

[atafan]

You should be ashamed of yourself coming out here and announcing semi-publicly that you DO NOT want to get out of this business in time to enjoy your family and the other fruits of your labor. To me, THAT is PATHETIC sir.

If you re-read my post you will read that I stated I was planning on exiting the industry. I am planning on exiting this industry only because of personal issues and wanting to spend more quality time with my family. I will take another huge pay cut but making money and pushing aluminum around the world has become less important to me.

You won't see me attempt to mandate others to make this same decision, this is mine and mine alone.

The very fact that you (and Hoot, by the way) have your jobs now is due in large part to this very rule.

Hoot only put in 10 years at SWA, the responsiblity for his position in his airline career was due mainly to SWA's keen management and expansion plans.

As for me, been with three upstarts, commuters, one major airline, plumbing, construction, garbage collecting, truck driving and at ATA, FO - CA and FO again. Yeah, I really owe a tremendous amount to captains retiring ahead of me affording this stellar career. But having said that, I've been flying commercially since I was 18 years old and wouldn't change a thing.

And, if your argument really was genuine, then you would be railing for NO AGE LIMIT, because 65 is just as arbitrary as 60 is.

BINGO, I think a mandatory retirement at any age is wrong and should be changed. I think you will find some guys flying past 65 and many more not making it past 55 if you applied more strict medical requirements the older you get.

Listen friend, I'm not trying to get into a mud slinging contest. I just want you and everyone else to step back and look at this issue with a fair and thoughtful mind. Forget about the argument, "you knew what you were getting into 20 years ago so just suck it up". That statement is so un-American, so backwards thinking and doesn't solve anything.

The real issue should be, are you healthy and sharp enough to do your job safely and efficiently. How do you decide this issue should be at the fore front not a mandatory age. Real medical testing with requirements escalating after say 40 is the real answer. Trust me, I know some 40 year olds that will never pass a stress test.

I apologize for the Greed slam. We are all greedy in one form or another, let's just say, I think if you believe in mandatory retirement you are just not looking at the issue clearly and informed as well as you should be.

And for the record I thought this same way when I was a teenager, and I never thought I would get old.........

 

[Purpledog]

But Gibson said ALPA members don't want the change because pilots who retire at 60 enjoy a hefty benefits package.
.

except at:

Southwest Airlines, whose pilots are not represented by the ALPA, is on record as supporting a change in the age limit, spokesman Ed Stewart said Friday, as does the Southwest Airlines Pilot Association.

That sums it up. All about money. They keep referring to ICAO. The only reason ICAO adopted the change is because they are critically short of pilots. Go move to the UK old timers and fly til they cart you off the plane in a pine box.

 

[SWA/FO]

I'll give you one thing though. NEW RULE: If one part of the Federal gov't (FAA) forces a person to retire at a certain age, then federal retirement benefits (Soc Sec) should be available that very moment to said individual. No gap. The current situation IS WRONG and should be addressed.

above is angle that this whole argument should be attacked.

I also think you can still work and enjoy your Family. You don't have to be retired to "enjoy" you Family.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Atafan:

Nice post. I didn't realize when you said you were ready to leave it meant you were going to leave. This business is hard on families and it sounds like you have your head on straight. I hope you continue flying, at least for fun, if you do leave this profession.

The more I self-reflect about this subject, the more I realize that the current age 60 rule is a blessing in disguise. For many of the same reasons you are considering leaving now, I will be thankful that I will not have to make that decision at age 60 if it stays as-is. I truly feel that many of the guys trying to change the rule now don't see the big picture. Their judgement is being clouded by thoughts of huge paychecks rolling in for 5 more years, not realizing it will be 5 more years of being away from home with the people that love them. It will be 5 more years of self-induced stress on a family that will go unsaid because "that's what Dad does". Yes, some got royally screwed by our system and currupt airline management, but ultimately, money doesn't bring happiness.

I have about 15 more years left to go to age 60. I'd rather put myself under the pressure NOW to save money to retire by 60, rather than later have the option to keep working. I am scrambling hard now trying to get ready for retirement by flying more than I should sometimes. I want to get ready to retire NOW and not be tempted when I turn 60.

One of the best things I ever read asked "What will your kids remember about their childhood when they grow up?". Will they remember that Dad made 120k one year instead of 100k? Will they know or even care that the car you drove them around in was a year old or 10? No, but they will remember when Dad was there.

So, I believe keeping the age 60 rule is for the best. Yes, I may miss out on a lot of money at the end of my career. Since nobody has a crystal ball though, I think it better to be more disciplined and smart now rather than hope I'm still fit to fly 15 or 20 years down the road. I've seen people deteriorate rapidly after 60, and I think it's a mental attitude to a large degree, but I want to go have fun when I retire, not be tempted to work 5 more years. For what?

 

[Big Duke Six]

Another point no one has brought up is the time value of money. I don't have a business calculator with me but hypothetically if I moved to the left seat tomorrow, my pay would go up say 30k a year. So if all else remained the same, and I have 20 years left, and not considering any other pay increases, invested at an average amount I bet I at least break even by taking the money now rather than earning it at the tail-end of my career. And personally I'd rather let my money work for me, not the other way around.

Can anyone post an actual example with numbers?

 

[Nindiri]

It's a simple issue for me; I just don't see that it's any of my business to tell someone else that they MUST retire so that I can move up a number.

 

[atafan]

Big Six,

We are about the same age and we echo many of the same sentiments. I just don't agree with forcing people to quit doing something that they are fit to do.

I said I had no regrets. I really should have said I have no regrets professionally but I have some regrets personally. I mostly regret not seeing my kids grow up and spending quality home time with them while they were young. The youngest one is graduating high school and I missed out on so much. It's too bad we can't start life in reverse and be able to retire at 25.

I have many good friends who made the choice to be firemen and cops, they were envious of me being this jet pilot while we grew up. They have all made a steady salary through the years, participated with family activities everyday and have all retired, on their own. They all have a nice pension and still young enough to start a second career. Funny, even one friend is starting to fly for the regionals - families grown, pension set and ready for his retirement career. He's my hero!

After you've been in this profession long enough you realize how much you've paid to be where you are and just when you can start to really enjoy it you have to quit.

Just not fair.

 

[Big Duke Six]

It's a simple issue for me; I just don't see that it's any of my business to tell someone else that they MUST retire so that I can move up a number.

Nindiri: You already did. If you're at an airline now, you must admit that a big factor in you getting your job at all was because someone before you was forced to retire. It's not just about you gettting to the left seat - it's that the job opened up at all. And once you took it, you benefitted from that guy before you. If we change it now, it will be at the expense of some freight dog or RJ nazi with a family too, missing out on all their holidays. It affects EVERYONE, from the top to the bottom.

I said I had no regrets. I really should have said I have no regrets professionally but I have some regrets personally. I mostly regret not seeing my kids grow up and spending quality home time with them while they were young. The youngest one is graduating high school and I missed out on so much. It's too bad we can't start life in reverse and be able to retire at 25.

ATA: Amen. That's why I want the insanity to end as soon as possible. Admittedly, it will still be too late for my kids. I love my job though, and couldn't imagine doing anything else, it's just that the price is MUCH greater than the public, or management, will ever know.

 

[Nindiri]

Of course I benefited from it; it was either that or not have a job. My taking the job , however, was in no way relevant to their retirement. They would have been forced to retire regardless of any decision I made, so it is pointless to say I benefited from it as if that somehow made it a good rule.

I keep hearing that we can't changethe rules in the middle of the game. Well, the "game" is going to go on as long as there are airlines; does that mean we can never get rid of a bad rule? There are a lot of things that were here when we started that need to be changed.

And if I hear one more RJ driver or maddog FO whine and complain about "old geezers", I think I'm going to puke. Damn, how about a little respect for the senior pilots that went before us and made this a better place.

 

[Cyclone]

Do Something

If you have a strong opinion and you want to see it your way...whatever way that is…write or call your lawmakers. Make sure they understand that the lobby for change is a minority. And that it is an organized and vocal one. Tell them why you think changing the rule is bad.

That is exactly what precipitated this whole debate. The old farts got organized and started a grass roots effort on the hill, at the FAA, etc. Do something constructive instead of crying about your delayed upgrade on a silly internet blog. Write a thoughtful letter to the people in DC who represent you or write to the FAA and tell them this change will make the skies less safe. That's about all you can do. If enough of you do it maybe the old curmudgeons in congress won't want to let the old cranky pilots association fly past 60.


Talking points for your call:
Hello, my name is ____ from _______ calling on behalf of the young pilots who want to make sure commercial air traffic here in the US is as safe as possible. I would like to speak to the person on your staff who is responsible for aviation issues, specifically the House H.R. 65 or Senate S. 65.
Please help us keep the status quo for age 60. Please don’t allow the FAA to make a mistake and force me to fly with pilots over age 60. Please don't allow a double standard that will force pilots under age 60 in the right seat to fly with pilots over age 60 in the left seat. I know age 60 is an arbitrary age but it has served us well. If safety wasn't an issue then why does the current proposal include language that specifies if one pilot is over 60 that the other pilot must be less than age 60? It is ironic that the proposed new law gives credence to maintaining status quo. This new law actually acknowledges that there is a need to discriminate based on age because it is a safety concern and that is why we should keep the current law. It is in the interest of safety.

Pilot physicals don't really test for mental fitness to do the job. The assumption is that most 60 year olds are mentally fit enough to do the job. The truth is that probably not 100% of them are fit. Changing the law to 65 greatly increases the potential for age-related problems. As a group 65 year olds are not as mentally agile as 60 year olds. This is exactly why Age 60 is a good rule.

We have a fail-safe system with at least two pilots in a cockpit. Usually this is a Captain and a first officer. If we allow these old-timers to stay in the Captain seat the burden is now on the first officer to make sure the small mistakes made in the course of every flight are recognized and corrected. In effect, changing the rule to 65 will make the first officer's job more hazardous. However, don't look to the airlines or the Captain-dominated unions to offer up hazard pay for those first officers. This is because these same people who want the law to change are doing it purely because of greed. This is the predominant reason they are arguing for change to this rule--they have talked to their financial planners. That is a bad reason for change.

The FAA and the airlines testing and training regime does not screen for fatigue and mental alertness that is "on-the-line" at an airline. A checkride may last several hours. This is a poor replication of what happens in day-to-day operations as an airline pilot. This is where the old timers have a really tough time because they simply don't have enough energy to do the job. This is when they make mistakes...not in the simulator during training.

Please don't change the rule. If you do our skies will be less safe for our children and grandchildren.

http://www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov

Write to the FAA address on the other age 60 thread.
DO SOMETHING...it's almost too late.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Guys...guys...guys....when you write to your elected representatives on the age 60 issue....don't use the old tired "skies will be less safe" arguement.

Believe me, all the members of congress go and ask the FAA if removing the age 60 will make the skies less safe and the official FAA line is now that they are "neutral" on the issue....which effectively neuters the "less safe" discussion.

Find another reason...but remember...make sure it's a reason that the FAA will agree with...

Tejas

 

[pipe]

Guys...guys...guys....when you write to your elected representatives on the age 60 issue....don't use the old tired "skies will be less safe" arguement.

Believe me, all the members of congress go and ask the FAA if removing the age 60 will make the skies less safe and the official FAA line is now that they are "neutral" on the issue....which effectively neuters the "less safe" discussion.

Find another reason...but remember...make sure it's a reason that the FAA will agree with...

Tejas

You ever call a congressman?

"What's your address? What's your issue? For or against? Thank you, bye, bye".

You might as well give your well thought-out argument to the family dog. But if he's nearing sixty in dog years you may want to try something else - or you could kick him. If he's sixty in dog years it won't hurt him any more than if he was thirty in dog years - he's still just as sharp. In fact, he probably has much more experience being kicked.

PIPE

 

[lostplnetairman]

If you have a strong opinion and you want to see it your way...whatever way that is…write or call your lawmakers. Make sure they understand that the lobby for change is a minority.

But you have to understand that the rules dictate that ALL public input into rulemaking is solicited--it's now designed to prevent the very thing that created the Age 60 Rule in the first place.

You also have to understand that when a government agency puts out a notice for comments it generally means that they are moving in that path and just want some input, if at all, since they are now required to solicit input.

HRDiva

 

[satpak77]

individual pilots, Joe, Larry, and Moe, writing to Congress, will not make a difference. Congress listens to lobbyists and industry groups, and the general public. Not a bunch of guys whos agenda is clearly to benefit from the rule change. "What does the public think?" "What do the industry groups think? etc etc

ALPA, the biggest airline pilot union, is AGAINST it.

http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/...View.aspx?itemid=2675&ModuleId=3357&Tabid=256

ALPA recently reexamined its support of the Age 60 rule. In September 2004, the ALPA Executive Board voted to begin a thorough communications effort to educate its members about the rationale for the FAA’s Age 60 rule, ALPA’s policy regarding the rule, and the possible implications of increasing the mandatory retirement age. The Board also directed ALPA’s president, Capt. Duane Woerth, to conduct a poll of its members to determine their views regarding the issue.

In May 2005, the ALPA Executive Board received the results of the poll. The polling data indicated that 56 percent of ALPA pilots oppose a change to the rule, while 42 percent support a change. The polling results are accurate to within a 1 percent margin of error. In response to the poll, ALPA’s Executive Board (the pilot chairmen from each of ALPA’s pilot groups) unanimously renewed its support for the Age 60 rule, and has urged members of Congress to oppose any legislation that seeks to change it.

So ALPA is not only stating "we are against it", they are URGING Congress to not change it. How nice. You would think just quietly not supporting the change would be enough.

You think Joe Blow pilot writing to Congress is gonna do anything?

Save your stamp money.

 

[bubbers44]

ICAO rule changes next month will force us to change our age 60 rule. Why just let foreign pilots over 60 fly in our country?

 

[satpak77]

ICAO rule changes next month will force us to change our age 60 rule. Why just let foreign pilots over 60 fly in our country?

You might tell the FAA that. The are "discussing" whether they "should" change it

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=7415

So, uh, you might call the FAA and tell them that since ICAO is doing it, we must do it.

The "Rulemaking Committe" in above press release is co-chaired by former ALPA President Woerth

wonder how they are gonna vote.....

 

[Cyclone]

blood priority

If enough people die at an intersection, eventually the local politicians will put a red light there...that is what is known as blood priority. You guys are right...the DC bonehead politicians probably won't listen to us. Except for one thing.

Remind them of this little tidbit:

If you change the law and there is an accident involving a pilot who is over age 60 and it can be attributed or even suggested that this was a factor...you sir mr. politician...you have blood on your hands. They don't like that prospect at all. They need to be reminded. Maybe they will be thinking about this before they press the yea/nay trigger...we can only hope.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

We may be missing a golden opportunity here.

Let the FAA be as reluctant as they want. What we need is to lobby Congress for is a special issuance of Social Security for pilots, since we are forced to retire at age 60. We are a small-enough group that it wouldn't be noticeable in the federal budget. Piggybacked on to the right bill, it would only take one Congressman to get it in.

 

[hoover]

Just because retirement is pushed back to age 65 does not mean you have to keep flying. If you want to retire at 60, go right ahead. Just don't tell me I have to as well.

 

[Sluggo_63]

ICAO rule changes next month will force us to change our age 60 rule. Why just let foreign pilots over 60 fly in our country?

Here's a great idea from an ICAO carrier. Maybe we should adopt this as well. Gotta go write congress.
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3440271

SAA's controversial plan to get co-pilots flying September 16, 2006 Edition 1, Saturday Star
Sheena Adams

South African Airways is on the brink of introducing a radical new pilot training programme, which will see trainees taking their place as
co-pilots after 70 hours actual flying time.

The bulk of the training - 250 hours - will take place in flight simulators, which allows trainers to slash actual flying hours in a real aircraft by more than half. SAA spokesperson Jacqui O'Sullivan has confirmed the details of the new programme.

The cost-cutting initiative is part of efforts by the national carrier to introduce more black people into its pilot ranks.

Called a Multi-Crew Pilot Licence (MPL), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is currently drawing up programme standards And regulations, which could be ready in mid-2007, according to Captain Colin Jordaan, general manager of SAA's flight operations.

However, pilot associations around the world, including the Airline Pilots Association of South Africa (Alpa-SA), do not support the MPL, Saying the safety of passengers will be compromised.

Jordaan said in an interview this week that the initiative would fast-track the number of black pilots employed by the national carrier.
At present, the airline employs just 66 black men and women pilots out of a total of 796.

SAA's target, introduced in 1996, was to have 300 black pilots by last year.

Jordaan said the new type of licence would be "a heck of a lot cheaper" to implement than the airline's cadet school, which costs SAA R750 000 per person for the intensive 18-month course.

SAA already owns four simulators required for the new training And would thus only be paying for electricity and maintenance costs, he added.

Jordaan said the airline was intrinsically involved in the ICAO steering group drawing up the MPL regulations and that information was fed regularly to the South African Qualifications Authority to ensure that the programme, when implemented, would comply with the country's training regulations.

"We will be able to take a person off the street and train them in our simulators for between 12 and 18 months.

"They will then be able to move into the right-hand seat of a Boeing 747 as co-pilot," Jordaan said.

He said the course would be designed specifically for airline Flying and would not devote any time to "unnecessary aspects" such as using topographical maps.

The course would entail just 70 hours of flying time in a real aircraft as opposed to the 200 flying hours required in order to get a commercial pilot's licence.

MPL graduates would only be able to fly in a "multi-crew environment" for the first few years, he added.

Opposition to the plan has been widespread, with organisations Such as the European Cockpit Association (ECA), representing 29 professional pilots' associations, saying that the MPL risks downgrading the standards of commercial flight training when aircraft are becoming increasingly complex and when air traffic is expected to rise substantially over the coming years.

"Downgrading of these standards can not be accepted in an industry that relies on a permanently increasing safety profile and which faces numerous challenges over the coming years," the ECA said.

Alpa-SA president Harvey van Rooyen said he was concerned that while simulations could be useful, weather patterns such as storms could not be simulated.

The new licence was "obviously about costs" and Alpa-SA did not believe that 18-year-olds off the street would be able to handle intensive pilot training.

More thought should be given to taking in university graduates Who were PC literate and had certain "technical advantages", said Van Rooyen.

"It is a little bit of a leap forward and people are just assuming it will work but I have my reservations. Flying is not monkey see, monkey do. You need to create people who can think under pressure.

"You can't pluck a rabbit out of a hat and then say: 'There you go! Transformation has been sorted out'," he said.

Jordaan brushed off claims that SAA's program me would compromise aviation safety. He said today's aircraft design and training programmes placed emphasis on co-operation between crew members unlike "in the old days when all the decisions were made by the captain".

Co-pilots would spend 10 years in the right-hand seat of aircraft before attaining commander status, he added.

 

[rcbullock]

He also flies with the Air Force out of Tinker Air Force base on the 737s ( as a contract instructor).

Is the AF doing that too now? When I was there, it was just the Navy. E-6's at TAFB.

Now there's a tough deal for the Navy. We (AWACS) called it the 'Southwest Airlines Transition Program'. The Navy higher ups didn't like that.

The AF tried to get on board that boondoggle too but concluded the 737 wasn't enough like a 707. Go figure huh?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

We may be missing a golden opportunity here.

Let the FAA be as reluctant as they want. What we need is to lobby Congress for is a special issuance of Social Security for pilots, since we are forced to retire at age 60. We are a small-enough group that it wouldn't be noticeable in the federal budget. Piggybacked on to the right bill, it would only take one Congressman to get it in.

Whether or not I like age 60 or not is immaterial. I don't worry about it.

But I do think you are underestimating the pressure on congress and the money involved.

From the article at the beginning of the thread

"A study earlier this year by airline analyst Darryl Jenkins determined that Senate Bill 65 would save the federal government almost $1 billion in delayed pension payments and added Social Security, Medicare and tax payments."


Do you really think we would stand alone as the only group to get special treatment? Others would follow. We aren't the only ones forced to retire before SS kicks in.

 

[Itsallsogood]

For every 1 "Hoot" Gibson there are 2-3 "Age 60's" that should be retired.

 

[FoxHunter]

For every 1 "Hoot" Gibson there are 2-3 "Age 60's" that should be retired.

For every 1 "Hoot" Gibson there are "9-10" well under "age 50s" that should have taken up Law rather than flying.