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
That said ask me about the 63 yr old guy I took a ride with in a very fast citation jet. I was single pilot on my pic portion and single pilot on his pic portion. I did the box on BOTH rides. While I working an emergency on his PIC portion we got 300 BELOW MDA. He had no clue. I had to talk him through the whole ride, no joke. It was bloody. He had been on the plane for YEARS. I'm not slamming the guy but he should have retired years ago, he knew it and I knew it. Just because you have flown with guys that are spot on does not deminish the fact that declining skills can happen Very fast above age 60. Even in between first class physicals.

Same dude tried to take off on the centerline lights on a runway with me in the right seat. Thing is there were NO centerline lights on that runway. (Think about it)Thank god the brakes work well and their were no pax. I think the tower heard me screaming at him to STOOOOOOPPPPP...... I thought he was making a wide md80 turn till he poured the coals to it. Then he blamed me for the whole thing. Something to the effect that he knew what he was doing. yada yada yada. That made me laugh.

Sorry guys, I've flown with too many over 60 guys that were weak. Yes I also flew with many that were great but should we or the paying public hope that the Geezer in the left seat is one of the 50 % that is still on his game? Don't think so. Not on my ticket and not with my family in back.
 
Last edited:
ferlo said:
as professional pilots should know, always have a plan B. Not just a B Plan. Too bad, you had your shot and you blew it. Get out of the way and let a furloughed guy, in real crisis get his job back.

Would that guy "in real crisis" be you? When you got in this industry, you knew that furloughs do happen, right? So how did your Plan B for your furlough work out?

Hope you're not in a "crisis"

Tejas
 
Tejas-Jet said:
Would that guy "in real crisis" be you? When you got in this industry, you knew that furloughs do happen, right? So how did your Plan B for your furlough work out?

Hope you're not in a "crisis"

Tejas

He's not asking that the law/rules be changed to his advantage. That's markedly different. Don't take opportunity out of his pocket, just to put it in yours...if you are supporting the change.
 
m80drvr said:
That said ask me about the 63 yr old guy I took a ride with in a very fast citation jet. I was single pilot on my pic portion and single pilot on his pic portion. I did the box on BOTH rides. While I working an emergency on his PIC portion we got 300 BELOW MDA. He had no clue. I had to talk him through the whole ride, no joke. It was bloody. He had been on the plane for YEARS. I'm not slamming the guy but he should have retired years ago, he knew it and I knew it. Just because you have flown with guys that are spot on does not deminish the fact that declining skills can happen Very fast above age 60. Even in between first class physicals.

Same dude tried to take off on the centerline lights on a runway with me in the right seat. Thing is there were NO centerline lights on that runway. (Think about it)Thank god the brakes work well and their were no pax. I think the tower heard me screaming at him to STOOOOOOPPPPP...... I thought he was making a wide md80 turn till he poured the coals to it. Then he blamed me for the whole thing. Something to the effect that he knew what he was doing. yada yada yada. That made me laugh.

Sorry guys, I've flown with too many over 60 guys that were weak. Yes I also flew with many that were great but should we or the paying public hope that the Geezer in the left seat is one of the 50 % that is still on his game? Don't think so. Not on my ticket and not with my family in back.
Well, you've convinced me! Nobody should be allowed to pilot a transport-category aircraft past the age of 60.

Now let me tell you about my last SVT. I had an F/O that was so weak, that...well...I won't bore you with the details. But he was weak.

And...he was from TEXAS.

Your post set me to thinking about how many other guys I've known who were from Texas, and how many of them were weak. Quite a few, actually. Oh, most were pretty good, but some were bad, and who wants to take a chance when lives are at stake?

Some of the worst airline disasters in history have occured in Texas. Others have happened in other places when pilots who lived, or learned to fly, in Texas were at the controls.

Where did the Space Shuttle Columbia blow-up? Why, Texas, of course!

C'mon...the evidence is everywhere! You can't tell me there's no connection between all these disasters, and the state of Texas, can you?

So...we'll leave the retirement age at 60. That alone won't address the problem of the younger guys not upgrading fast enough, but it will keep our skies safe from doddering old guys like Al Haines and Dick Rutan.

The other thing we'll do is deny (or revoke) airman certificates issued to anybody who listed Texas as their state of residence on, say, "January 1st of this year." THAT will help junior guys at virtually every airline, (especially Southwest) upgrade more quickly. (Which, after all, is what this is really all about anyway, right?)

Of course, if your upgrade doesn't come quickly enough to suit you, we can always take a look at those guys from Florida. I hear they're a real weak bunch, too...
 
Last edited:
age 60

m80drvr,

You're absolutly right, it is a crap shoot, you just don't know. There are a lot of clueless younger guys too. A cognitive test would probably be a good idea at some point in everyone's career. I'm 32 now, but I hope when the time comes, I'll know when to say when. It'll be hard, even on the worst days, there's nothing else I'd rather do. There are those guys flying that that probably shouldn't be(young and old). Be nice if their were an avenue to let them know they shouldn't. My grandfather is the perfect example of not knowing when its time to stop. He was just a private pilot, but he was sharp in his day. When I was little, I flew with him everywhere. He sold his Bellanca Super Viking in the late 70's and didn't fly whole lot in the 80's, but kept current. In the late 80's he had a couple of mild strokes, they didn't affect him physically. You could tell though, that something wasn't quite right. My father bought an archer in the early 90's and would let my grandpa fly with him. He would get so flustered with the radio's, he never used to. Things that used to come so natural, just really confused him or he had to stop and think about it. It just wasn't safe. We knew he could never take the plane alone. He was more than capable of passing a medical, based on physical condition alone, but we had to stop him. It would have been nice for us not to have had to be the bad guys. It would have been nice for the medical examiner to have some test for the mind as well as body. When it comes to cognitive ability, we ALL self certify. My only point was to not lump everyone together. Like you said, it's a 50/50 shot. But that's true with alot of people you fly with. I guess the real answer to the safety issue would be to know how many pilot error accidents are due to age related shortcomings.
 
So then...

Deuce130 said:
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.
So, all these 58+ year old pilots want what's right and good since they had the misfortune of having their pensions yanked. I'm sure when all these guys/gals were 43-45 years old in 1990-1991, they were very concerned about how all of the now out-of-work and out-of-a-pension pilots from Eastern and Pan Am were going to recoup all of their pension losses. I'm sure these then-younger pilots lobbied their airline and union to put all out of work Eastern/Pan Am pilots ahead of them on their seniority lists, to 'help them out.' I'm sure it would have been fine with this group of selfless aviators... delaying their upgrades and pay raises so those poor pilots who were out of work could earn back what was so greedily taken from them. That's how it worked then... didn't it?
 
Sluggo_63 said:
So, all these 58+ year old pilots want what's right and good since they had the misfortune of having their pensions yanked. I'm sure when all these guys/gals were 43-45 years old in 1990-1991, they were very concerned about how all of the now out-of-work and out-of-a-pension pilots from Eastern and Pan Am were going to recoup all of their pension losses. I'm sure these then-younger pilots lobbied their airline and union to put all out of work Eastern/Pan Am pilots ahead of them on their seniority lists, to 'help them out.' I'm sure it would have been fine with this group of selfless aviators... delaying their upgrades and pay raises so those poor pilots who were out of work could earn back what was so greedily taken from them. That's how it worked then... didn't it?
Noooo... that's NOT the way it worked then. The way it worked then was that those of us who had jobs, did what we could to secure interviews for our friends who had been displaced from the airlines you mentioned. We didn't "delay upgrades" on their behalf, because we had no say in the matter. We did what we could.

Not once did I hear anybody say to a displaced pilot, "Why should I help you? You knew what you were getting into when you took the job at Pan Am/Eastern/Braniff/TWA/US Air," or wherever. We certainly didn't gloat over their misfortune, nor hold ourselves as somewhat "superior of intellect" because we'd had the foresight to somehow know that their airline was doomed to failure, while ours was not.

As for "putting [them] ahead of us on our seniority lists," that has no bearing on this argument. Nothing in the move to repeal the "Age 60 rule" changes anybody's relative seniority one bit. True, it does keep guys at every strata of the seniority list for an additional 5 years, but that's only because the seniority list is, in theory, 5 years longer than it was. They'll get an additional 5 years at the top of the list, when their earning potential is at it's highest.

And of course, nobody is mandating that every pilot work those additional 5 years. When your 401K is fat enough to take care of you, you can hang up your Ray-Bans, buy a boat, and go smoke dope if you like. Working to age 65 becomes an option, that's all.

If this apparent notion that "pilots are not 'entitled' to anything more than they could reasonably expect at the time they joined their airline" has any merit, then a LOT of people are in for a rude awakening. Northwest 747 Captains, for example, who started out at Republic when the biggest airplane they flew was a DC-9. Or the Fed Ex guys who started out in Falcon 20's, with no idea that 727's would be coming along a few years further down the road. And of course, anybody who joined a non-ALPA carrier whose pilot group later voted for representation.

Of all the key issues that have received special attention from pilot groups and negotiating committees over the years, repeal of the age 60 rule is probably the most egalitarian. It surprises me that pilots, who are supposed to be accustomed to "situational awareness" and "thinking ahead," are so behind the knowledge curve on this issue.
 
WslnDan, nice touch. You took it away from the what's in it for me slant of most age 60 threads.
 
Having to wait that 5 years is not a trivial consequence. You get more now, others have to wait 5 years to get it. That's wrong.
 
Anybody that thinks you'll be able to retire at 60, or whenever you want, if this rule is changed is probably ALREADY smokin' dope. Airline managements aren't going to be willing to hire and pay a new replacement pilot and simultaneously pay a fully funded retirement to someone who still has legal years left in them. I certainly couldn't retire from my airline at age 50 right now without taking a big hit financially.
Couple the fact that pilots with night-flying careers have a considerably shorter life expectancy with a change in the rule that will allow (and subsequently DEMAND) they work until 5 years closer to that average life expectancy, and management scores twice - less retirement to pay and fewer new-hires to pay.
No thanks...
 
Purpled said:
Having to wait that 5 years is not a trivial consequence. You get more now, others have to wait 5 years to get it. That's wrong.
The point is, we BOTH get it. Get it?

That's not "wrong," that's seniority. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your parents...they're the ones who determined your seniority number.

Two of my 3 kids don't have any problem understanding this. When the 17-year-old asks to extend her turn on the dirt bike from 15 minutes to a half-hour, the 14-year-old knows that his turn will be extended to a half-hour as well.

It's the 5-year-old that cries because his big sister "gets to ride the motorcycle all the time."
 
Whistlin' Dan said:
The point is, we BOTH get it. Get it?

That's not "wrong," that's seniority. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your parents...they're the ones who determined your seniority number.

Two of my 3 kids don't have any problem understanding this. When the 17-year-old asks to extend her turn on the dirt bike from 15 minutes to a half-hour, the 14-year-old knows that his turn will be extended to a half-hour as well.

It's the 5-year-old that cries because his big sister "gets to ride the motorcycle all the time."

Don't be so obtuse as to portray that these are logical arguements.

Comparing your kids riding a dirt-bike to taking money from other working adults demonstrates that you don't understand economics...perhaps you're blinded by your own greed.

A more fairer example would be if the sun set and the dirt-bike lost power about 10 minutes after your 17 year old got off it; then your 14 year old died 20 minutes later...think he'd want to spend 10 of his last 30 minutes on earth riding a dirt bike?
 
Whistlin' Dan apparently DOESN'T get it!

Whistlin' Dan said:
The point is, we BOTH get it. Get it?

Whistlin ... here's a recycled post I've made before when an old fart tries to con a younger guy into believing he won't be harmed financially by an age change from 60 to 65.

>>Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even! The young guys are getting conned by the old geezers into believing this is a good thing for the younger pilots. Quite the opposite, this is a huge financial loss for the young pilots!! <ng> <<

BBB
 
Sluggo_63 said:
So, all these 58+ year old pilots want what's right and good since they had the misfortune of having their pensions yanked. I'm sure when all these guys/gals were 43-45 years old in 1990-1991, they were very concerned about how all of the now out-of-work and out-of-a-pension pilots from Eastern and Pan Am were going to recoup all of their pension losses. I'm sure these then-younger pilots lobbied their airline and union to put all out of work Eastern/Pan Am pilots ahead of them on their seniority lists, to 'help them out.' I'm sure it would have been fine with this group of selfless aviators... delaying their upgrades and pay raises so those poor pilots who were out of work could earn back what was so greedily taken from them. That's how it worked then... didn't it?

I have no clue what happened in the early 90's - I was busy chasing girls, graduating from High School, and drinking beer back then. Nor, frankly, do I care. I never said anyone had unselfish reasons for doing what they do. I merely offered up what I thought was the potential reasoning on thier part. Let's face it, they want the money. Let's also face this, you want the money. We all want the freakin' money! For you to sit there and call BS on this simply b/c you want to upgrade as soon as possible is really no different than the age 60 guys wanting to continue to work. Point fingers and complain all you want, but the same could be said of you or me. it's coming and I would learn to deal with it if I were you.
 
Big Beer Belly said:
Whistlin ... here's a recycled post I've made before when an old fart tries to con a younger guy into believing he won't be harmed financially by an age change from 60 to 65.

>>Say you are 40 now and delay your upgrade to 45. In those 5 years you would lose 100k/yr (salary and B-fund) at my airline. I don't have a FV calculator handy at the moment, but at 45 you would have given up approx 700k by not upgrading. 700k over 20 yrs (age 45-65) at market 50 yr avg of 10% (actually 10.3%, but we'll round) return would yield approx $5.5 MILLION!

You will need to be paid in excess of $1 MILLION/yr by your airline from age 60-65 to come close to breaking even! The young guys are getting conned by the old geezers into believing this is a good thing for the younger pilots. Quite the opposite, this is a huge financial loss for the young pilots!! <ng> <<

BBB

Isn't that assuming you save or invest every nickel of your salary?
 
Whistl'n Dan

I feel your pain! Now every pilot junior to you. Will work hard, to get you an interview for a job overseas or at a 135 carrier. These jobs will be at the bottom of a seniority list, but those are the rules and we must play by them. Just like you did in the early 90's.
 
I think we shouldn't let old people fly, lets throw in women, black people, hispanics, Jewish folks. I flew with a black guy once and he went 300 ft below MDA. That is evidence enough!

I see both sides, but the rule is age discrimination pure and simple. I'm not sure how you can argue that it's not.
 
Deuce130 said:
Isn't that assuming you save or invest every nickel of your salary?
Yep. The broader point is the value of compounding that Whistlin' is failing to acknowledge. The numbers are purely illustrative.

Another angle to consider:

The medical FACTS are well documented and unambiguous. As we get older statistically the body starts failing and we require more medical services the older we get. By losing 5 years as a captain when you are young (say 40-45) and then hoping to remain healthy enough to recoup them at the end of your career (60-65) is (statistically) not a wise bet. Again, statistically only a small percentage will medical out late in their careers, but to these few who were "promised" by Whistlin' and others that they would get their same years in the left seat, they're in for a financial surprise should their health fail in those last 5 years. If I were a gambling man, I'd put my money on the captain successfully maintaining his medical qualification from years 40-60, versus 45-65.

BBB
 
Judge said:
I see both sides, but the rule is age discrimination pure and simple. I'm not sure how you can argue that it's not.


I take it that you are OUTRAGED that Congress is considering raising it to an equally offensive arbitrary age 65? :rolleyes:

BBB
 

Latest resources

Back
Top