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

More Age 60 perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter GoABX
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 28

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
MECH said:
The group that wants the age increased is the very same group that forced ALPA to change their opinion back in the early 80's.

This group got stuck as S/O and F/O for about 10 years. They all got together and forced ALPA to support the age 60 rule. Up to that point, ALPA had lobbied against the age 60 retirement.

Now that this group is about to retire they want the age 60 rule changed. You will never meet a greeder generation then the baby boomer generation.

That hit the nail on the head.
 
It's going to happen sooner or later, get over it and plan for it.

That's fine...let's just wait till I'm in the Left seat. Because it's all about me, just like it is all about you.
 
I have not flown with a pilot in their late fifties who I thought had a few more years left in him...everyone knows what guys are like after 60...they are losing the sharpness and attention to detail that keeps us safe. As it was said before, this is pure greed from a generation that is all about "me". That's why they are known as the "me" generation...just retire and be happy with the life you've had like those before you.
 
I'm really not to sure whether I am in favor of the age 60 rule. Some folks are still very sharp at that age and others will have problems. Although I think medical improvements will definitely improve the odds of a more vital and robust 65 year old in the future.

If it does happen I think the prudent wait and see approach would be in order. Wait another 5 years and see if there is in fact any data that supports or denies the age 65 dilema. If it is approved then it is in the hands of the training departments and the aeromedical examiners.
 
THE MILLION DOLLAR FIGHT

60 to 65 = 5 years = 5 yrs X $200K = $1,000,000

That Extra million dollars you get means I get my million dollars 5 years later. But because you enjoyed the old rules (5yr earlier upgrade) and I will get screwed by the proposed new rules, you will actually get a million more than me.

Sorry you won't get my vote or those like me. the demographic at the majors is more juniorcentric (<45 yrs old and not a captain VERSUS >50 yrs old and a captain).

If I were in the left seat of the smallest plane at my company (DC-9 @ $150-200K), then I wouldn't give a $hit. But just like the rules changed for the old f^rts (bankruptsy/lost pension), they changed for me (us) too. Instead of a 5 yr upgrade it is now 15 yrs and there are plenty of 40+ year old men getting furloughed. So none of you geezers should waste you breath trying to convince me or others like me that age 65/67 is a really a good deal for me.

The editor guy at FLTops.com doesn't have a dog in the fight and he says it's at about (your) economics. Don't BS me with science or discrimmination crap. Have enough nutsack to tell the truth and say it is "All about YOU." I did.
 
I don't think you'd find many guys with a decent pension wanting the age changed. Those guys who were banking on a fat retirement however, only to have it yanked by even greedier management types, probably want the rule changed. Heck, they might even NEED it changed. I'm seeing a thread here pointing to greed by those approaching 60, yet how many oppose it simply b/c it delays their own fat paycheck or thier own selfish desire to retire when they want to? Personally, I'd like to retire at 60. I've got over 20 years to change my mind, however. You should have the ability to work in America to whatever age you'd like - but only to the extent you're not dangerous. If 60+ guys can pass a rigorous physical every 6 mos, handle the training and the sims, then they should get to keep flying.
 
I am strickly dealing with the safety issue here,not the money. That is how a professional approaches all problems,strickly rational unemotional decision making. After all, our passengers deserve the safest ride they can obtain.
 
Age 60 it not about safety. Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism
 
Step aside you old farts and let the young studs get the jobs they need. If your so worried about money, you shouldn't have gotten involved in this industry and you should have started saving more money way back instead of buying yachts and what not. Enjoy life after 60 and quit working yourselves to death.

I want to be sitting on a beach all day after 60, not working in a cramped cockpit and putting more stress on the old ticker.
 
Last edited:
Deuce130 said:
I'm seeing a thread here pointing to greed by those approaching 60, yet how many oppose it simply b/c it delays their own fat paycheck or thier own selfish desire to retire when they want to?

Those hoping for a change are trying to put more money in their pockets.

Those who oppose it are trying to keep money from being taken from them.

Both are self-serving, but only the first is greedy.


And one thing's for sure, it won't make the industry any safer.
 
Purpled said:
Those hoping for a change are trying to put more money in their pockets.

Those who oppose it are trying to keep money from being taken from them.

Both are self-serving, but only the first is greedy.


And one thing's for sure, it won't make the industry any safer.

How is one greedy and the other not? I didn't realize that any money was being "taken" from someone else. Sure, an upgrade may be delayed, but that money will be made up down the road for that guy from 60-65 ... if he chooses to keep working. IMO, any argument for this outside of a safety viewpoint is simply about dollars. On both sides. To call one greedy but the other not is ridiculous. One guy wants to make 206/hr a few more years, the other wants to make it a few years earlier.
 
sidewalk said:
Step aside you old farts and let the young studs get the jobs they need. If your so worried about money, you shouldn't have gotten involved in this industry and you should have started saving more money way back instead of buying yachts and what not. Enjoy life after 60 and quit working yourselves to death.

I want to be sitting on a beach all day after 60, not working in a cramped cockpit and putting more stress on the old ticker.

If your goal is truly the second paragraph, then you should have followed your own advice.
 
These same greedy old creeps that have been pulling in the bucks while the rest of us sit on furlough just smile and tell us how "that's just part of the deal".

Well now they can experience their part of the "deal".

They want to have their cake and eat it too.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom