Hoot Gibson retires - comments on age 60

[PurpleInMEM]

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?

Why not? The actions of foreign carriers don't affect our laws.

What about the furloughed pilots? I guess no one wants to talk about them. Another 5 years out??? NO PROBLEM

...and who the hell is Hoot Gibson?

 

[Freight Dog]

Bye Hoot! Enjoy the retirement!

The pro-change crowd just doesn't get it why ICAO is changing the rule. Why is it that other ICAO countries have 300 hour wonders in the right seat of 737s, 757's, 777's?

They have a genuine pilot shortage. In order to protect their economies, this is an acceptable risk. If they are forced out at 60, who will fly their planes and move their economy?
In the U.S. that's hardly a problem. You have a glut of young and qualified pilots, so the issue doesn't apply. Why risk it? Why the headaches?

I mean if ICAO did away with the rule altogether and didn't place a restriction on one pilot having to be under 60, the pro-change crowd might have a better argument.

 

[Cobra]

A continuing thing with these guys that are getting ready to RETIRE that irritates me most of all, is the lack of class with how all the furloughees are being treated. Maybe the first step of actually acting like a collective union with unity is to not bitch anymore about the age 60 to 65 thing until all of the furloughees are back to work.

G

 

[Freight Dog]

A continuing thing with these guys that are getting ready to RETIRE that irritates me most of all, is the lack of class with how all the furloughees are being treated. Maybe the first step of actually acting like a collective union with unity is to not bitch anymore about the age 60 to 65 thing until all of the furloughees are back to work.

G

Ah, but it's seniority! Who gives a sh*t about the furloughees? They weren't hired when I got hired, so screw them! I want 5 more years at the top of the payscales, and furloughs or other FO's be danged!

After all, when it's time to go, I wanna go like my grandpa, quiet in his sleep, not screaming like his 150 passengers.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

We aren't the only ones forced to retire before SS kicks in.

FBJ, school me on this one. What other occupation has a retirement age mandated by the federal gov't?

 

[Freight Dog]

Air traffic controllers and firefighters for starters.

 

[B727Driver]

atc and firefighters have federal or state funded retirement and health benefits that the private companies do not offer or have cut from the retirement benefits. Bottom line: It is blatant age discrimination. If the federal govt wants us out at 60, pay us a federal retirement, health insurance and/or let medicare and Social Security benefits kick in at 60. Not all pilots who retire at 60 have company retirement, lump sum payouts or military retirement aviailable.

 

[Freight Dog]

Then you want to contact your congressmen and tell them that you want airline pilot pension reform legislation to pass. I don't know the bill number off the top, but they'd know what you're talking about.

Both of my senators do not support S.65 but in turn support this other legislation that would allow retirees to be eligible for full retirement and not be penalized for retiring at 60.

 

[B727Driver]

Great idea, I couldn't agree with you more. Pension reform is necessary as pensions were negotiated as part of compensation during contract negotiations (does benefit pay = FAE of last 5 yrs of svc. x 60% ring a bell?). Over the years, lots of $$$ was deferred and promised in pension/retirement benefits. Those same negotiated pensions were gone with the stroke of a bankruptcy judges' pen. Remember Carty at AMR, after all the givebacks and cuts, hundreds of managers were given bonuses at the expense of labor.

 

[seefive]

atafan, you are right. It's greed and only greed. Unfortunately, it's the age 60 guy who is the greedy one. Anyone who says he still wants to work and be away from his family/loved ones obviously didn't make some good life choices. Unless, that is, he/she needs the cash flow. Once again, more bad choices.
If they truly want to continue to fly.............they absolutely can. Good luck and good retirement.

 

[satpak77]

Air traffic controllers and firefighters for starters.

Federal law enforcement, such as FBI. Age 57 mandatory. Age 50 eligible if you have 20 years. Any age eligible with 25 years of service.

 

[satpak77]

lets not forget had Hoot been hired at UAL he possibly would have been on the street and turned age 60.

Wonder what his campaign platform would be like then?

He is a former Top Gun, then Shuttle Astronaut, drawing two retirements now. He can't say "life has not been fair to me." Go to your 100 acre farm and fly your C-185 out of your grass strip and enjoy life.

 

[zonker]

The Jenkins report is completely bogus:

http://www.alliedpilots.org/Public/publicrelations/pressreleases/20060929-2.pdf

 

[B727Driver]

Since when did this become 'Hoot's' campaign?

See-5, choices made in ones career many times are not made by the pilot himself. i.e. company files Ch7 or 11, BK circus and the list goes on. For some, the only choice they made was getting hired by Braniff, Eastern, Pan Am, TWA, PSA (west coast one) and todays legacy carriers (minus benefits and pensions)...... Fact: age 60 is discrimation at its finest. Healthy and able today, gone at the stroke of midnight. It's just not right and cannot be backed by any facts for its existance.

 

[satpak77]

It's just not right and cannot be backed by any facts for its existance.

It may not be right, it may not be this or that, etc.

But one thing it is, and that is that it is on the books and is the rules until otherwise changed.

Its not right I can't drink till age 21, no scientific reason stating I am less likely to be drunk at age 21.2 versus 20.8. Its not fair. No facts.

20.8 years old, my buddy is 20.9 years old. Boom, the stroke of midnight, my buddy is legal to drink. And I can't participate with him.

Not fair at all. Age discrimination.

Let me call my congressman and file some lawsuits.

 

[Flybynite]

It may not be right, it may not be this or that, etc.

But one thing it is, and that is that it is on the books and is the rules until otherwise changed.

Its not right I can't drink till age 21, no scientific reason stating I am less likely to be drunk at age 21.2 versus 20.8. Its not fair. No facts.

20.8 years old, my buddy is 20.9 years old. Boom, the stroke of midnight, my buddy is legal to drink. And I can't participate with him.

Not fair at all. Age discrimination.

Let me call my congressman and file some lawsuits.

Damn, I was legal at 18. Did a law change? Is that what I hear? A law changed? Say it isn't so. Boys on flight info say laws never change. Must be a mistake. It was 18 for 30, 40, 50 years? How could it change, we all knew the rules coming in. What about all those poor folks who had to wait 3 extra years to get their first legal drink? You old farts get off of my barstool!

 

[satpak77]

dang, I was legal at 18. Did a law change? Is that what I hear? A law changed? Say it isn't so. Boys on flight info say laws never change. Must be a mistake. It was 18 for 30, 40, 50 years? How could it change, we all knew the rules coming in. What about all those poor folks who had to wait 3 extra years to get their first legal drink? You old farts get off of my barstool!

get your Congressman involved, write letters, start a website

www.drinkbefore21.org

 

[B727Driver]

you support your family drinking??

 

[satpak77]

you support your family drinking??

nope

nor do I support gramps flying

now get out of my seat

(humor..humor...nothing personal B727Driver)

 

[Freight Dog]

Fact: age 60 is discrimation at its finest. Healthy and able today, gone at the stroke of midnight. It's just not right and cannot be backed by any facts for its existance.

Healthy and able? Are you as healthy as say... me? I'm in my early 30's sitting in the right seat flying back and forth across the Pacific. I fly with some of the finest gentlemen and some ladies who have served this airline, our industry and our military for decades. But I can't tell you how many mistakes I catch from older guys, from simple math and simple paperwork, to them just not quite "getting" the re-route clearance, to confused looks when things don't quite go the way things normally do, to simple multitasking, to them "forgetting" to flare, the list goes on and on. But man, God help me if I so much as suggest that they're not quite as healthy and able as they once were. They are up at arms, and they ALL think they can keep trucking well beyond 60.

I'll tell you what... take away ANY financial reason for me i.e. pay-protect me or upgrade me, and I'll be singing the same tune.... AGING IS REAL, OUT AT 60. Personally, I'm all for Cathay Pacific system - out at 55. The worst part about this whole thing is that these senior folks refuse to believe it and accept it that they're not quite as healthy and able as they once were.

How often do you see old drivers who have no business being on the road? Same thing... they'll get defensive, pissed, and tell you they are better qualified and safer driver than you. Yet, here are some results:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06302/733286-58.stm

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20061021-9999-1n21crash.html

http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=403

Like I said earlier, most ICAO countries do not have a glut of pilots on their market. As such, they have to keep their economy moving, and increasing the mandatory retirement age to 65 might be an acceptable risk to them. They also acknowledge it's a risk because they require the other pilot to be under 60.

In the U.S., we don't have that problem. We have an abundance of young, qualified pilots to keep up with the demand. We have a supply overabundance of pilots. As such, raising the retirement age to 65 is nothing but an unnecessary risk-taking.

You pro-change folks are fighting the wrong battle. Your battle should be pension reform, not raising the mandatory retirement age.