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.

 

[Flopgut]

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

I appreciate your sage opinion, really. But let me point out that when old guys observed ICAO airlines' pilots flying to 65, they were all over that!! Greatest idea ever!! Now when some of us point out that these same ICAO airlines staff their rosters with something other than strict seniority, that's the worst idea ever?! Come on Laker. That's sharpshooting.

 

[pilotyip]

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.

We were talking safety in the cockpit vs age. Anything that relates a certain age to a certain capability to function in a cockpit is pure age discrimination. We do not age uniformly, pilot's lose their medicals due to blood pressure, blood sugar, etc well before age 60 or 65. If there are procedures to identify safety issues, they have to be uniformly applied to all pilots over a certain age, like 40 and the EKG.

Anything else that relates to age and the ability or inability to make more money is pure "Get out of my seat"

BTW: Lets not have a different pay scale for different seats, everyone paid the same. Everyone give according to their ability, and everyone receive according to their needs. That would be really fair.

 

[JohnQ]

There are many many example of "arbitrary" age discrimination in this country.

..Air Traffic Controllers must retire at 56-even though I am sure there are many competent controllers who could still do a great job at 57.

...You must be 16 to get a driver's license--even though there are no doubt 15-year-olds who could safely drive

...You must be 18 to vote--though there may be 17-year-olds who could competently vote

...In most states you must be 21 to drink (too restrictive in my opinion), though there are certainly many 20-year-olds who do!

Etc etc etc

Where is the mass clamor to get rid of these "discriminatory" laws?

 

[Mamma]

There are many many example of "arbitrary" age discrimination in this country.

..Air Traffic Controllers must retire at 56-even though I am sure there are many competent controllers who could still do a great job at 57.

...You must be 16 to get a driver's license--even though there are no doubt 15-year-olds who could safely drive

...You must be 18 to vote--though there may be 17-year-olds who could competently vote

...In most states you must be 21 to drink (too restrictive in my opinion), though there are certainly many 20-year-olds who do!

Etc etc etc

Where is the mass clamor to get rid of these "discriminatory" laws?

There is no windfall for the other groups to change the age. At my airline, its all about greed and an amazing windfall at the expense of the next generation. Fully funded pension plan here. I had a retiring captain in our jumpseat telling us with his pension and investments he could get almost 130K a year to just wake up. Why would he bust his butt on the line for another $50K (pre-tax) a year? That's just over first year FO pay!

 

[waveflyer]

We were talking safety in the cockpit vs age. Anything that relates a certain age to a certain capability to function in a cockpit is pure age discrimination. We do not age uniformly, pilot's lose their medicals due to blood pressure, blood sugar, etc well before age 60 or 65. If there are procedures to identify safety issues, they have to be uniformly applied to all pilots over a certain age, like 40 and the EKG.

Anything else that relates to age and the ability or inability to make more money is pure "Get out of my seat"

BTW: Lets not have a different pay scale for different seats, everyone paid the same. Everyone give according to their ability, and everyone receive according to their needs. That would be really fair.

Like I said- a troll stuck on repeat-

 

[CapnVegetto]

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.

Neither system is perfect, but the problems you are speaking of are easily fixed with tweaking and accountability.

To simply say that 'oh, you only advance due to how much ass you kiss' is the opinion of a inexperienced unionite who has never worked in the real world. In the real world, this is the reality. I have been a manager in a former life. Saying that you promote/hire just your buddies no matter how bad they are is stupid. If I did that, and the person I hired/promoted screwed up, then I was the one that got the blame and had MY position and career in jeopardy. A rating system from numerous sources, and somebody higher up that has to take blame if someone fails a checkride or bends and airplane is an easy solution to too much favoritism. Realistically, you will NEVER get rid of it. I mean, come on, how did most of you get your jobs at airlines? You knew so-and-so who wrote you a recommendation or visited the chief pilot on your behalf. I see it ALL THE TIME. People with lower qualifications getting called for interviews because they know the right person. It is how it is, and it will likely never change.

Should seniority be part of the equation? Absolutely. Should it be the ONLY part? No way in hell. It encourages incompetence, laziness, and apathy. That is precisely why, in the real world, nobody does that. If you had people running companies strictly based on how long they've been there, with no consideration for experience, skill, and other factors, the company would be out of business really soon. That is how the airlines do it, though, and that is why you have bad captains, lazy captains, and tons of stories from FO's about having to babysit guys that suck at their jobs. We have captains at my company that are really $hitty pilots, have failed upgrade training 3 times, and are still in command of a 200,000 lb airplane and personally responsible for hundreds of lives per day. That is UNACCEPTABLE. And don't give me the 'well they had to pass a checkride' excuse either. Anybody can pass a damn checkride if you give them enough chances.

Of course, the entire argument we are having is moot, as it ignores the entire point of the discussion. The seniority system is the biggest problem for career advancement that the airline industry has, simply because it limits the options for pilots so much. I flew corporate for a number of years. If someone started treating me like crap, increasing the cost of health insurance, cutting my pay, cutting my retirement, or something like that, I took my $30K to $50K type rating and got the hell out of there. I would then get another job with comparable or better pay and benefits, in the same seat, in the same type. Basically, companies had to COMPETE for my services, and any company that wanted to retain people had to pay them well and treat them right. Of course, you have the crappy companies that don't care, and it's OK. The worst charter/corporate job pays considerably more than any regional FO job, with a faster rate of advancement most of the time. Just like the regionals, you get in, do your time, and get out. But at least you can make a damn living.

At the airlines, thanks to the seniority system, you are stuck. If you've been there for 5 years, and you get tons of cuts, or are stuck in a stagnant seat, it sucks to be you. If you go anywhere else, you take a huge paycut and start over at the bottom, thanks to the seniority system. Airlines do not have to compete for pilots. The only real competition occurs at the bottom of the lists at regionals. It makes things considerably easier for managment, as they don't have to worry about their top experienced people leaving if they start to treat them like crap.

That is a huge problem. Of course, the system will probably never change because of unionites that worship the feet of the seniority system because they think it 'elimiates favoritism', and management loves it because it eliminates them having to compete for exprienced employees.

The whole system needs to be revamped, but it'll never happen.

 

[Singlecoil]

I have another angle on the age 60 rule that I don't think has been articulated on these boards:

Let's take a hypothetical airline. They have 1000 pilots, 500 Captains and 500 FO's. Captains make $200,000 per year, FO's make $100,000 per year. There is no pension. Everybody is at top of scale, there are no step raises.

The airline's total payroll for those pilots is $150,000,000.

Every year, 10% of the pilots, or the top 100, turn 60 and are forced to retire. 100 pilots are hired to replace them and 100 FO's are upgraded.

Then, overnight, the age 60 rule is changed to 65. The next year, those top 100 pilots do not retire, they keep drawing their $200,000 per year for a total of $20,000,000 that they weren't expecting to receive one year prior.

The airline still has 500 Captains and 500 FO's and its total payroll is still $150,000,000.

The next year there are no retirements either. So now we have 200 pilots that would have retired drawing their $200,000 per year for a total of $40,000,000 and yet the airline still spends $150,000,000 on payroll.

$40,000,000 per year, just two years after the change in the retirement age and the airline's payroll hasn't changed a dime.

Where did that $40,000,000 come from then? It is money those pilots didn't expect to receive and I've shown that the airline's payroll didn't change.

FO's know where it came from. Perhaps the perceived "get out of my seat" indignation is really "get your hand out of my wallet".

 

[pilotyip]

Like I said- a troll stuck on repeat-

Trolling is a two way street, except when you do it, it is not trolling. What is it then? I already know the answer, it is the truth from you and disinformation from me. Right?

 

[waveflyer]

I haven't been repeating "get out of my seat" again and again- that's the difference.
Ok Yip, you want increased testing, I do not. I am not saying it isn't age discrimination. I am saying that this age discrimination has bought airline pilots stability and quality of life and decreased government scrutiny. You want more scrutiny bc you want to get back in the flight deck- that's understandable- but think about it- you're willing to expose all pilots to an expanded government bureaucracy bc you think a system that has been in place your entire life is unfair.
Discrimination, backed by statistics and reality, is a good thing.
And the reality that you are not addressing is that very few humans are good at judging their own age related deterioration.
You are asking FOs, check airman, and some new invention of a bureaucracy to monitor age related deterioration, instead of us choosing an age where statistically a vast majority of pilots are safe.
Sounds expensive- and lacking in common sense.
Remember, we are doing a job here. It isn't a hobby for old men to play with- we have a responsibility- and I have zero problems saying that >65 yo pilots do not need to be in the flight deck- and I don't believe any captain should be older than 60.

 

[laker4284]

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.

Didn't happen that way at my airline, nor others. In part that might be due to size of pilot group (bargaining power) and how good the negotiators are. Also, it's my understanding that the age 60-65 grouping is not statistically different than that of the 55-60. Might be different to the actuaries when you get above 65 but I can't speak with authority on that.