New AGE limit discussion

[The Boss]

Not at all, not just young guys but everyone to the same stds.

Alright, I'm OK with that. That is what loss of license insurance is for. I just hate that they increased the age without looking at the medical issues further (and that we are talking about doing it again).

 

[The Boss]

This guy would walk through the terminal and passengers would stare. He was heap of stinking, loud flab and outright flaunted his near inability to walk. He was like too many IAH CAL pilots are (like I nearly was) and refused to take care of himself in any way other than his line value. (which to be fair, he did donate a great deal of to a lot of charities) "I'm going to keep doing this til they tell me I can't" is the Houston Bubba battlecry. Roster the airline on seniority (and steal every bit of that you can) and threaten the young guys with increased medical standards. Sound about right Yip?

Believe me, as an orignal COEX guy, I know exactly who this was. I won't be shedding any tears, but all of that is an entirely different issue.

 

[laker4284]

This thread is about the age of retirement and we're talking about a merit system for advancement?

If you are serious about that I would say two things:

1. Not all that long ago (back in the 40s and 50s) advancement was based on a so-called "merit system". Before the modern contracts were fought for and won, the schedule you flew and whether or not you were a Captain were dependent on being allowed to advance. Buy off the crew schedulers with gin from London (imported by your very own self) and you had Christmas off.
As for upgrade, you had to be allowed. Based on what? Whether you were good? In whose opinion and how judged? Merit is pure subjectivity. Get on the bad side of the boss (forum posters beware!) and you'd be held back. Too outspoken? You're not ready. Not a team player? You're not ready. Super stud and good all around good guy? You get the nod even if you a not-so-hot pilot. The possibilities are endless.
That's the way it used to be.

Seniority, on the other hand, took the subjectivity out of it. You advanced - PROVIDING you didn't screw up badly as an FO, passed your upgrade, passed your PCs, passed your line checks and passed your medicals. Really, what more do you really want or need for an FO to move to the left seat?

The old system was a mess. The new system, to someone who is (or thinks themselves to be) better than the rest, can be frustrating. Still, it's better than the old system or the new-age merit system that, in the real world, is a utopian dream.

What you really want is to advance quicker, because the seniority system puts you in line. OK. But...YOU could be the one who doesn't advance due to some Chief Pilot who has a hard-on for you. What then?

There have been ups and downs in advancement due to the economy or the health of an airline. That's part of the business. Airlines aren't growing right now. The retirement age change to 65 imposed another delay on top of the economy. It couldn't have happened at a worse time. However, that delay taps out in December and the seniority/retirement game resets. Advancements due retirements again come into play. Growth and a healthy airline will provide the real impetus for advancement.

Dreaming of a merit-based system for advancement? Tried before; failed badly. It's just a dream.

 

[laker4284]

Interesting thing, the idea of tougher medicals. If you perceive (the FAA does not) that the present system is failing, you could be wishing for something (tougher medicals) that would bring down all sorts of unexpected problems on the pilot group.

ALPA, by the way, has always fought the idea of tougher medicals because they see the danger. They also note there is no need, so why cause damage to fix something not broken?

Dr. Tilton, head of the FAA's medical team, tells an interesting story about the effort to install super fly-boy medicals back in the service. They grabbed all these pilots and began running them, taking blood, etc. And..."voila!" First one was grounded, then two, then three. It got so bad that the squadron could no longer function. Why? Because the super-tests highlighted too many things that were anomalies, not problems. One by one (and in relatively short order) they made their way back to the flight line.

Dr. Tilton has been (and is) very firm on the lack of need for advanced testing. Why, then, would anyone on this forum (or elsewhere) advocate something different? There are no statistics to support such a move.

As for the driving force behind the idea, at least on this forum, it's to get the so-called old guys out of the cockpits. Well, that ain't gonna happen. If increased testing comes to airline pilots you can bet it will be across-the-board, with everyone falling into the program.

IF pilots were such a wreck that this were needed, it would be one thing. But they are not.

As a reminder, the FAA was tasked by Congress, as part of law changing the age rule, to follow the pilots over 60 and report to Congress on any medical issues. Four years into the change there have been no red flags raised.

As Dr. Tilton said, which has been reaffirmed over the past four years, there is no NEED for change. I'd suggest you let that sleeping dog lie.

 

[laker4284]

Mickey D said it partly right:

there needs to be strict enforcement of First Class Medical standards as well as severe punishment for doctors who are lenient

He went a little off-the-tracks when he called older pilots

farts

The name calling wasn't needed to make his point.

 

[The Boss]

As a reminder, the FAA was tasked by Congress, as part of law changing the age rule, to follow the pilots over 60 and report to Congress on any medical issues. Four years into the change there have been no red flags raised.

You're making my point. Is a pilot that drops dead mere minutes after completing a flight going to raise the same red flag that one does when he dies in-flight? I doubt it.

 

[laker4284]

If the age was raised to, say 67 or 70, how long would one's disability insurance run if you medical'd out at 60 or so?

For starters you'd get Social Secruity Disability at the rate of your retirement age (as opposed to a reduced rate at 62, for example).

Your LTD and Loss-of-License is a negotiated insurance item. When the age of raised to 65 four years ago the age was negotiated up 65 from 60 (at least for the airlines I know about). It did NOT raise premiums. For many (most) pilots their pay is protected at 100% as long as you still have sick leave. LTD drops out at some point (negotiated) and LOL picks up the full tab at something like 70% of your salary until age 65.

IF the age were to go up again (something I doubt), the upper limit for LTD/LOL would again have to be addressed and likely raised to 67.

 

[laker4284]

You're making my point. Is a pilot that drops dead mere minutes after completing a flight going to raise the same red flag that one does when he dies in-flight? I doubt it.

Yes. That IS something the FAA was tasked with monitoring. It's all in the "system" you know, so medical issues are far easier now to follow than they used to be. You might prowl around on their (awful) website and see if you can find those reports. They're public record.

I think the stories of "old guys" dropping dead are far overblown (lots of red meat imagery for the younger pilots...dying int he jetway, dying in flight, dying right after a trip, dying all over the place). Of course, the same things (if they happened?) that happen to younger pilots aren't mentioned.

No one, for example, makes a big deal about a 37-year-old FO who had a seizure and the Captain (old man that he was) still controlled the aircraft, held the FO off the controls, summoned help, and flew the rest of the flight solo.

Balance is important, dontcha think?

 

[The Boss]

It did NOT raise premiums.

At XJT our premiums went up by 50-60% this year. I ain't no math whiz, but it only makes sense that if you have to now pay someone for another 5 years that the premiums are going to have to go up.

 

[waveflyer]

Upgrade thinking is regional thinking? Not really. You work for a company that pays its pilots very well regardless of what seat they are in. I would venture to say only UPS and FedEx pilots have that kind of luxury. It's hard to raise a family and get ahead financially on typical major FO pay. Unless your spouse chooses to work also. If you are single, then the money may not be as much of an issue. I know some folks with families simply live on less to enjoy a better schedule. But thats a personal choice, that typically changes as the family gets older. So I don't think the difference between CA vs FO is stupid.
As far as ego goes, don't sell your future FO's short either. As an FO who would you rather fly with? A guy who lives to be a Sky God? Or someone who doesn't take themselves too seriously?

Humvee- I do get that- and what did I say- there are some who make the $$ argument and it is not invalid-
But as Yip keeps harping to me about "get out of my seat" I'm simply saying it's not MY argument.