New AGE limit discussion

[The Boss]

I knew the guy and had flown with him. He is one of the three pilots who had an on-duty heart attack back in 2007. He was dead on a jetway until a FA put an AED on him. He came back to the line after that for a while, then he had both his knees replaced. Came back again after that and now he's dead walking through customs for a layover.

That's my point. It is obvious that he never should have been able to come back. If he had died in flight there would be considerable convesration about how this guy was able to fly again, but since it didn't happen in flight, it will be swept under the rug.

 

[humveedriver]

Yeah yip, you're right, here we go again- I've laid out all my reasons time and again- and you ignore them and respond with "classic, get out of my seat".
You're nothing but an irrational troll on this subject.
Refute my argument, but stop telling me what my real intentions are- I have more integrity in my pinky than most boomers have shown themselves to have in their whole body. And the difference between captain money and FO money is stupid to me- not even close to worth giving up the seniority. Upgrade thinking is regional thinking- and I get a whole lot bigger ego boost from helping to run our business, than I ever will from sitting in the left seat again-
I just don't care.
Now is it that for some? Sure. But that's not an altogether bad argument either since boomers benefitted from madatory retirement ages their whole career-
But that's not my argument - and you're reallby showing that you have flimsy arguments by always going that route

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?

 

[pilotyip]

It is sad that (sudden) deaths that happen outside the cockpit will not be used to debate this topic because they are not kept track of. Does it matter if an airline pilot drops dead of a heart attack if they are in the cockpit or sitting in their Lay-Z-Boy at home.

Point is, it can happen anywhere, anytime and the older you get, the greater the chances are. At a minimum, medical standards should get higher as the pilot gets older.

they do, age 40 EKG, should there be something else,? like maybe starting at age 45 must write a ACT test score of 29+ to ensure mental ability. That would thin the ranks out.

 

[Flopgut]

That's my point. It is obvious that he never should have been able to come back. If he had died in flight there would be considerable convesration about how this guy was able to fly again, but since it didn't happen in flight, it will be swept under the rug.

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?

 

[CapnVegetto]

Like dumb said, how do you move up? Theoretically everyone should be operating a/c to the same sheet of music, every single time. There is no individualism in the cockpit and everyone's performance should be "standard." So from there how do you decide whose a 747 captain and whose a Mad dog FO?

Like the rest of the real world does. Merit, performance, experience, and skill.

 

[BrickTop]

they do, age 40 EKG, should there be something else,? like maybe starting at age 45 must write a ACT test score of 29+ to ensure mental ability. That would thin the ranks out.

Don't count on it. Automation and reduced workload will offset any requirement of cognitive acuity. This job's aptitude requirement is like any other that is replaced by high levels of automation. The human element can be "Dumb down."

 

[pilotyip]

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?

Not at all, not just young guys but everyone to the same stds. When anyone cries safety in the cockpit and says only guys over age 60 must go, well that is pure "Get out of my seat" If we are truly interested in safety vs age. A common what ever test is the right answer. We all know guys under 60 that are in much worse shape than some guys we know over age 60. BTW I kid about the ACT test

 

[Flopgut]

Yes Yip. I know. I'm abundantly clear on what you're saying. However, if we're going to turn this into some triathalon or genius test, let's go ahead and let those enhanced standards determine your aircraft and seat as well. In other words, get rid of seniority!! The old guys don't want that...

 

[Flopgut]

We all know guys under 60 that are in much worse shape than some guys we know over age 60.

BTW: This is not reality. I'm looking at the oldest guys there are every week. And I've sat in the left seat for almost 3 years. It's a cliche Yip. Even for a guy like me, the young guys got the message. Get in shape!!

 

[ASADFW7]

That is a sad story, I have always thought aviation medicals are a joke, no wonder most of us go to the easiest doctor we can find.

 

[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.