New AGE limit discussion

[The Prussian]

Age 65 is just an asinine way to make up for the lost income/retirement.

Then so is 60, or 55, or 50, or 45, or....

 

[Dumb Pilot]

Does your airline advance based on your performance?

You gentlemen are talking about two very different subjects here, my comments were in the context of the comparison of the merit system vs. the seniority based system, not about the effects on stagnation that has been experienced due to the rewrite of the rules and the movement of the gol post.
Under the seniority system, your date of hire will determine the start of your upgrade training, there is no assessment ( at least not anywhere near a command assessment like you would experience in Cathay, ANA, British Airways, Emirates) you pretty much are going to class when your date comes provided there is movement, if there is stagnation, there is no movement in any of the two systems, the only thing that will prevent you from reaching your command is if you fail training, hence my comment that it is mostly your performance that will be the determining factor. Under the merit system, there is a selection criteria that has to be met, all you records will be brought into the mix, your performance during your initial, recurrent, your record of missed days and the reasons, your personnality, how you get along with your coworkers, even the cabin attendants and ground staff sometimes have a say in your overall grade, it is an elaborate pleasing of the tribal elders ritual that in some companies is quite frankly demeaning. Evidently under neither of the two systems there would be movement if the sircumstances affecting the US industry today were present.

 

[waveflyer]

Then so is 60, or 55, or 50, or 45, or....

I don't follow-
Are we in your hypothetical world, or the real one?

 

[dedazo]

BS.... retire at 65 and be done....we need the retirements so we can all climb up the ladder (seniority, upgrades, quality of life). It was bad enough to extend the age to 65. Those old timers had their run, it is now our turn to become old timers.

 

[GG747]

BS.... retire at 65 and be done....we need the retirements so we can all climb up the ladder (seniority, upgrades, quality of life). It was bad enough to extend the age to 65. Those old timers had their run, it is now our turn to become old timers.

I agree, let us make the big bucks in the left seat so we can plan to retire. As long as these old timers have the left seat we can't upgrade.

 

[relief tube]

should have never gotten to 65 even. Worst case-take it to 62... a decade or so later 65 maybee, but not a 5 year "you're f-ed" all in one.

And nothing past 65, or we will find a way to revolt.

 

[waveflyer]

and nothing past 65, or we will find a way to revolt.

+1 ^^^

 

[flyboyike]

And nothing past 65, or we will find a way to revolt.

No, we won't. We'll take it lying down, just like we took age 65.

 

[laker4284]

Remember how quickly they shoved through 65, practically in the dead of night.

What in the world makes you think it was "shoved through, practically in the dead of night"?

Can't really respond to that on an IPad in my mother's living room but I found that comment to be un-freakn'-believable! Do you really believe that?

 

[Andy]

What in the world makes you think it was "shoved through, practically in the dead of night"?

Can't really respond to that on an IPad in my mother's living room but I found that comment to be un-freakn'-believable! Do you really believe that?

Please walk us through your scenario where you see it differently. The legislation was bottled up in subcommittee by Rep Mica. ALPA had Rep Mica release it from subcommittee on 5 Dec 2007. Bush signed it into law on 14 Dec 2007 after passing both the House and Senate. If that's not 'dead of the night' in Washington lawmaking terms, let me know how you define 'dead of the night'.

 

[Flopgut]

What in the world makes you think it was "shoved through, practically in the dead of night"?

Can't really respond to that on an IPad in my mother's living room but I found that comment to be un-freakn'-believable! Do you really believe that?

As you go about helping Mom and prepping your threatened retaliation at my earlier "cut the crap" comment, just so we're clear--this is the "crap" I was talking about. If it looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap, It's crap! Of course it was shoved through in the middle of the night!! This behavior of yours (not owning up to the facts of the matter) is what I was talking about.

So for planning purposes, don't go off on some tangent if you plan on following thru.

 

[vetrider]

Does anyone foresee another dead of the night operation to 67, 70, or no age limit?

 

[Andy]

Does anyone foresee another dead of the night operation to 67, 70, or no age limit?

ABSOLUTELY YES!!

Do you really think that these guys are going to exit gracefully at 65 when they didn't exit gracefully at 60?
Of course they'll claim discrimination. Well, I also claim discriminatation. I don't need no stinking 8 hours of rest. I don't need 30 hour weekly/100 hour monthly limitation. That's discrimination against those of us who don't need as much sleep or rest. I'm sick and tired of this discrimination; if they raise the retirement age, they damned well better allow us to fly unlimited amounts of time daily/weekly/monthly/yearly.

 

[vetrider]

I forsee a bunch of pilots squeeling at 64.5 just like they did at 59.5. I figured all 65 did was buy us 4.5 years of silence. I hope they don't get any traction, but I'm worried that they may. The rest of us still haven't recovered from the first go around.

 

[waveflyer]

Umm, I agree with Andy's first sentence....we need to watch our back.

 

[Andy]

I forsee a bunch of pilots squeeling at 64.5 just like they did at 59.5. I figured all 65 did was buy us 4.5 years of silence. I hope they don't get any traction, but I'm worried that they may. The rest of us still haven't recovered from the first go around.

Vetrider, many of them claimed that they'd retire at 62. Didn't happen. They'll say anything to get the age increased, including that it's safer to have flying fossils. They'll say that there's no such thing as age related cognitive decline in spite of medical evidence to the contrary. And they'll pull out the discrimination card at any chance they get.
And let's not forget the pity card; they played that card to get the age raised to 65.

 

[flyboyike]

I forsee a bunch of pilots squeeling at 64.5 just like they did at 59.5. I figured all 65 did was buy us 4.5 years of silence. I hope they don't get any traction, but I'm worried that they may. The rest of us still haven't recovered from the first go around.

Exactly right.

 

[flyboyike]

Vetrider, many of them claimed that they'd retire at 62. Didn't happen. They'll say anything to get the age increased, including that it's safer to have flying fossils. They'll say that there's no such thing as age related cognitive decline in spite of medical evidence to the contrary. And they'll pull out the discrimination card at any chance they get.
And let's not forget the pity card; they played that card to get the age raised to 65.

One thing that seems to decline very quickly after age sixty is any semblance of integrity.

 

[pilotyip]

all pure "Get out of my seat"

 

[Kalifornia]

all pure "Get out of my seat"

Based on your age (late 60s) and Jerry Springer redneck attitude, shouldn't you be playing with your great grandchildren instead of instilling your wisdom on all us aerodrome "whippersnappers"?

 

[fob727]

Based on your age (late 60s) and Jerry Springer redneck attitude, shouldn't you be playing with your great grandchildren instead of instilling your wisdom on all us aerodrome "whippersnappers"?

Plain and simple...just a moron!

 

[The Prussian]

ABSOLUTELY YES!!

Do you really think that these guys are going to exit gracefully at 65 when they didn't exit gracefully at 60?
Of course they'll claim discrimination. Well, I also claim discriminatation. I don't need no stinking 8 hours of rest. I don't need 30 hour weekly/100 hour monthly limitation. That's discrimination against those of us who don't need as much sleep or rest. I'm sick and tired of this discrimination; if they raise the retirement age, they damned well better allow us to fly unlimited amounts of time daily/weekly/monthly/yearly.

Andy...I think you're all "getting whipped up" over nothing...and I mean that in the sense that there just is not the fervor in the movement that there was for age 60. You would know if it was passed in the dead of night, because you followed it very closely on Capitol Hill. But that "dead of the night" movement had its beginnings 20 to 30 years earlier, and had almost passed muster several times, before being pushed back successfully by you and others. Had it passed back in the 90's, the pain and suffering would not have been nearly as noticeable as it is under this current economic environment. And YES...I do understand that there has been much pain and suffering. But I think that to say there is another imminent and strong push for 65+....I just don't see it. The medicare and SS gaps were effectively taken care of for those whose pensions were decimated.

Also, to imply (if that's what you're doing) that these new rest rules and limitations that are coming down the pike are to compensate for the over 60 crowd...really? Those upcoming changes, which I have serious problems with anyway, were pushed thru for another whole different issue, and probably still won't "fix" whatever it is that they were designed to fix. Just don't burn the whole house down yet... Down the road aways, when I turn 60, I don't think I'll need no stinking 8 hours of rest either, but it is what it is.

Anyway, back to the issue...I just don't see the push for 65+...it's just not there, as it was for 60+.

 

[tomgoodman]

Nothing new about that

Vetrider, many of them claimed that they'd retire at 62. Didn't happen.

Back when the max age was 60, many claimed that they were going at 57 or thereabouts. Didn't happen (at least, not until lump sums were in jeopardy). When the papers are right in front of you, the pen suddenly weighs a hundred pounds. It's human nature to put off a decision that, once made, cannot be reconsidered.

 

[flyboyike]

Anyway, back to the issue...I just don't see the push for 65+...it's just not there, as it was for 60+.

I have a feeling it's there just fine, except it's even more underhanded and insidious than last time.

 

[waveflyer]

all pure "Get out of my seat"

There you go parrot- all pure "greedy old ********************s" nothing more
Standard boomer

 

[EngineThunder]

all pure "Get out of my seat"

You really need some new material.

 

[pilotyip]

Based on your age (late 60s) and Jerry Springer redneck attitude, shouldn't you be playing with your great grandchildren instead of instilling your wisdom on all us aerodrome "whippersnappers"?

Don't have any of those G G kids yet, but it is my duty to instill wisdom. That is the role of the experienced. It is also the role of the inexperienced to gain from the distribution of wisdom. However as is normally the case, it is ignored. But that is life.

BTW I found that my mom and dad got a lot smarter as I got older.

Plain and simple...just a moron!

There you go parrot- all pure "greedy old ********************s" nothing more
Standard boomer

You guys are so cool and witty, that why it is so easy to hurl insults and names when you hide behind a screen name

You really need some new material.

Oh! you mean new material like, "It is not fair that these guys get to stay to 65 when they should have retired at 60" or "These old guy are unsafe, and should be banned from the cockpit" or "I have paid my dues, and I should be a Captain by now" You those kind of new material

 

[Andy]

Also, to imply (if that's what you're doing) that these new rest rules and limitations that are coming down the pike are to compensate for the over 60 crowd...really? Those upcoming changes, which I have serious problems with anyway, were pushed thru for another whole different issue, and probably still won't "fix" whatever it is that they were designed to fix. Just don't burn the whole house down yet... Down the road aways, when I turn 60, I don't think I'll need no stinking 8 hours of rest either, but it is what it is.

No, that was just poorly worded sarcasm on my part to deflect the discrimination card. The over 65 crowd will play the age discrimination card; I was playing the rest discrimination card ...
Safety rules are there for a reason. The rest rules are there for safety, as is the mandatory retirement age.

While many approaching 65 will attest how they're better pilots than they were 20 years ago - better vision, more stamina, smarter, sharper, stronger, etc - I find that incredibly hard to believe. I'm amazed at how many who are pushing for increasing the age limit once again make themselves sound like real life Benjamin Buttons (probably including looking like Brad Pitt in their mind's eye).
Age 60 was put in place for safety. One can make sinister comments besmirching Quesada's relationship with CR Smith and soil both of their reputations with unfounded accusations but Quesada's staff chose 60 in spite of some members of the committee favoring 55 as a mandatory retirement age.
I will grant that there have been medical advances and healthier living choices made over the intervening years that make 65 possible. But I have also seen older flight engineers, some of which I wasn't sure would be able to find their car in the parking lot, much less even find the employee parking lot. I have no doubt that, given the choice, many will want to stay in the left seat well past the time that they become unsafe. That's why we must have a mandatory retirement age. It isn't for the ones that can competently pilot an aircraft well into their 80s; it's there to eliminate those that are bordering on unsafe. Just as the rest rules are there to ensure that those that need more rest are able to get an appropriate amount of rest.

 

[pilotyip]

Age 60 was put in place for safety. One can make sinister comments besmirching Quesada's relationship with CR Smith and soil both of their reputations with unfounded accusations but Quesada's staff chose 60 in spite of some members of the committee favoring 55 as a mandatory retirement age.

And remember ALPA fought this ruling up until about 1972 attempting to get it repealed.

BTW from what I have read, this was passed so CR could get rid of his higher paid pre-WWII pilots.

 

[Andy]

And remember ALPA fought this ruling up until about 1972 attempting to get it repealed.

BTW from what I have read, this was passed so CR could get rid of his higher paid pre-WWII pilots.

Yip, just because ALPA fought it doesn't mean that age 60 wasn't there for safety reasons. I read quite a few of the medical committee reports; they went through a LOT of data in order to come up with their recommendation. To say that this was merely a backroom deal is insulting to that board of medical professionals who arrived at that decision.

As far as CR wanting to get rid of higher paid pilots ... I've also read that we've got the UFO from the Roswell incident in a hangar at Wright Patt. Just because you or I read something doesn't make it true.