Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[Big Beer Belly]

So here's the catch: Degradation of cognitive skills can prevent a person from being able to determine that his/her cognitive skills are degraded!

Exactly my point! (minus all the colorful and helpful characterizations of "geezer and old fart"! )

A most excellent post overall Occam!

I just don't see it changing ... despite a few hunched-over, shuffling, oxygen-dependent, skin-peeling-off-everywhere, geriatric, geezers pounding their fist to the contrary!

BBB

 

[The Prussian]

Boy, Oh Boy!!!

The number of pilots who will experience a significant loss of cognitive ability after 60 is 100%, assuming some other part of their body doesn't give out first. (The percentage of pilots over 60 who will die at some point is also 100%)

Your statistics are killing me!!!:laugh: If mortality and loss of cognitive ability after age 60 are 100%...what are they after age 50....120%,...after age 40???....

Time to shut this business down before the word gets out!!!!

 

[Lear70]

The FAA considers 60 to be a "safe enough" age. The number of pilots under 60 that have lost their mental edge enough to cause safety concerns is statistically insignificant. The number of pilots who will experience a significant loss of cognitive ability after 60 is 100%, assuming some other part of their body doesn't give out first. (The percentage of pilots over 60 who will die at some point is also 100%)

That's the biggest bunch of bullsh*t percentages I've ever seen. Couched in pretty language, but lame nonetheless.

Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline.

OF COURSE your going to die after you're 60 (assuming you reach 60 to begin with). We all die, that's the only certainty.

So basically, you tried to support an argument with the known facts that we all grow old, grow physically and mentally feeble, and die. Nice job. *snicker*

 

[3BCat]

Times, they are a-changin'

British Airways (BA) is raising the retirement age of its pilots and cabin crew and plans to make a payment of £500 million ($875 million) into its pension scheme in moves aimed at clearing a £1 billion pensions deficit.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/03/23/Navigation/189/205592/BA+to+raise+pilot+and+flight+attendant+retirement+ages.html

If only our domestic major airlines would follow suit and take responsibility for their pension obligations...we might find common ground on which to stand regarding the future retirement age of airline pilots.

 

[Hawker800]

Why do part 121 cargo pilots have to retire at age 60? How is this not safe if no passengers are on board? If a person can legally fly large corporate jets (BBJ's and the like) past age 60 under part 91, and is considered safe regardless of age, then it must be safe at all times. All should have to retire at age 60 if it is unsafe. Seems to make more sense! After all corporate and Fracs haul passengers. Hmm!!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Lets Talk Money

IT IS A GREAT FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE TO BE ABLE TO FLY TO AGE 65 FOR TOTAL DOLLARS EARNED AND FOR RETIREMENT.

JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS:


Here is how much more a person would have by working to age-60 or by working 5 extra years to age-65.

Using an example of a 40-year old new hire F/O who earns 60K and will be a captain in 5 years. Captains earn 100K at this generic airline.

By retiring at age-60 that pilot will have a career earnings of $1,800,000.

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment at age-60 he will have $475,513. That is all he will have to last 20 years if he dies at 80. This is no where near enough money.



Using the same 40-year old but by delaying his promotion by 5 years if age-65 (wouldn'd really be 5 years because some pilots will still leave early) becomes law for pilots, that pilot would have a career earnings of $2,100,000

If he puts 10% of what he earns in a 401k and gets a 10% return on investment. At age-65 he will have $749,324 to last that 15 years. Better but still not good enough money.



Now if the pilot was 30-years old when he started then his career earning by retiring at age-60 would be $2,800,000 and his 401k would be $1,233,533. Better but still not good enough.

Now if that 30-year old worked until he was 65 his career earnings would be $3,100,000 and his 401k would be $1,943,725 to last just 15 years. This is enough to retire.



Do you want to retire poor or with enough money. Anyone can clearly see that age-65 and starting to put money away at age-30 is the answer.


Of course one divorce with children will put even the best case into poverty.

Also, this model assumes a 10% return on investment. That number may really be 5% or less which make it even more important to work to age-65.

Questions/comments…..

 

[Huck]

If

1. His medical makes it that long, and

2. His company makes it that long.

I still got a stack of United scantron forms at home. Things change in this business. I'll take a bird in the hand thank you.

 

[Jim Smyth]

The problem gets even more complicated ( at least for me) when you consider the ramifications of having something bad health wise happen after 60 since medicare doesnt kick in until 65. Health issues can litterally wipe you out finacially.

At Southwest we can turn in are sick bank for extened health coverage for ourselves and our wife. But if say you have some down time near the end of your career with broken bones, back/neck issues etc and have to use a huge bulk of your sick bank. They when you need it the most when you retire it wont be there. This may be a non issue for the military guys but it is an big issue for the civillian guys.

How do other airlines handle this problem? Do all the other airlines have extended medical benefits until you get to age 65?

 

[Occam's Razor]

Your statistics are killing me!!!:laugh: If mortality and loss of cognitive ability after age 60 are 100%...what are they after age 50....120%,...after age 40???....

Time to shut this business down before the word gets out!!!!

Ouch! I don't think you understand.

All of us (the "100%" figure) will experience some decrease in cogntive ability as we age past 60.

I didn't say a 100% loss of ability.

No Child Left Behind....too late for some?

 

[Occam's Razor]

That's the biggest bunch of bullsh*t percentages I've ever seen. Couched in pretty language, but lame nonetheless.

Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline.

OF COURSE your going to die after you're 60 (assuming you reach 60 to begin with). We all die, that's the only certainty.

So basically, you tried to support an argument with the known facts that we all grow old, grow physically and mentally feeble, and die. Nice job. *snicker*

Thank you.

It would've made sense to you if you hadn't carved out the effects of aging from the issue of trying to establish a means to ensure that we can self-certify our cognitive ability.

You agree that we all (100%) lose mental skills as we age.

Good!

Now tell me the age that your cognitive ability and reflexes will fall below the level you think is the minimum for a safe operation. It will vary by individual, but you agree that it will happen...no exceptions.

Now suppose you were interested in aviation safety and concerned about the ability of pilots to self-certify their ability to fly. How do you prevent a pilot from flying after he/she reaches the point where they can't keep up?

You acknowledge it will happen at some age. ["Of COURSE your cognitive ability is going to decline after 60. It may not happen until 70 or 80, but at some point yes, it will decline."] So tell me:

1. What is the minimum ability we must have?
2. How do we test for it?
3. How do we self-certify it?

My argument is that you don't have an answer to any of those.