Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[vetrider]

ICAO is going to 65 for the captain with an under 60 FO. IF (and that's a huge IF!) that happens in the US then my question is what happens when the 61-64 yr old FO holds (by seniority) a line that a 64 yr old captain is awarded? Does the captain's seniority "push" (i.e., outweigh, is superior to?) the FO's? What if the younger FO is senior to the older Captain? This happens at my airline with surprising frequency. We have no mandatory upgrade requirement and a significant number bypass upgrade for many years due to quality of life/bidding considerations. I'm sure the old geezers have thought about all these scenarios and have ready answers. I can't imagine anyone proposing a change to a nearly 50-yr old regulation without having thought through the many challenges that are sure to be illuminated.

BBB

So far I doubt many have thought it through to that degree. I might be somewhat misinformed, but my impression is the only ones who want this changed are certain members of congress and the apaad folks. I can't see either of these caring one bit about what you are talking about, I think they would like to ram it through and think about the other stuff later, if they care about it at all.

 

[dsee8driver]

ICAO is going to 65 for the captain with an under 60 FO. IF (and that's a huge IF!) that happens in the US then my question is what happens when the 61-64 yr old FO holds (by seniority) a line that a 64 yr old captain is awarded? Does the captain's seniority "push" (i.e., outweigh, is superior to?) the FO's? What if the younger FO is senior to the older Captain? This happens at my airline with surprising frequency. We have no mandatory upgrade requirement and a significant number bypass upgrade for many years due to quality of life/bidding considerations. I'm sure the old geezers have thought about all these scenarios and have ready answers. I can't imagine anyone proposing a change to a nearly 50-yr old regulation without having thought through the many challenges that are sure to be illuminated.

BBB

Dam...I thought I was reading my post a few pages back.

BBB, another thing to think about is the 3 person crew. Now the FE can fly until he dies, and believe me we have a few. Will the Feds come up with another twist to the law and possibly, again, possibly, come up with a mandatory age for the FE also when one crewmember is 60+. I think the can of worms being openned up can get ugly.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

Dam...I thought I was reading my post a few pages back.

BBB, another thing to think about is the 3 person crew. Now the FE can fly until he dies, and believe me we have a few. Will the Feds come up with another twist to the law and possibly, again, possibly, come up with a mandatory age for the FE also when one crewmember is 60+. I think the can of worms being openned up can get ugly.

dsee, trust me I feel your pain ... I jumped on the last flight of one of our really old geezer FE's ... er, I mean soon-to-be-captains if age 60 is overthrown) ... we had to help him down the stairs, carry his bags down ... he's now in a nursing home (less than a year later!) Let's add in a 74 yr-old FE (that's how old he was) a 64.9 yr old Captain and a 59 yr old FO ... holey moley that's a lot of artery clogging fat in one cockpit!

Great safety emphasis you old geezers! And don't bother telling me how you old farts don't want to bid to be together with your denture-dependant pals ... there's more Preparation-H, Efferdent, and Viagra in that cockpit than at many professional football games!

BBB

 

[matt1.1]

Be careful what you wish for it might just happen

I hope the greedy over 60 crowd screws themselves royally if a change occurs. I hope
1) the current over 60 FE+ get the boot
2)the over 60 captains are blocked from bidding until the rest of the lines are awarded
3)the IRS keeps the AMT and takes 50% of your gross and you get less than just hanging up your hat because the over 60 crowd overlooks the tax consequences in your desire to hang onto nothing
4)new medical standards are issued that knock you out of even flying business jets or GA
5)you cause the bankrupt carriers to liquidate because of the higher payroll or continue to remain uncompetitive against the LCC's and you lose your retirement payments because you have pushed for pension reform and kept the company from sending it to the governments PBGC and were unable to take your lump sum because of the deficit in your current system
5)and whatever else could cause your greed to get more of your money and keep you off the golf courses and sweating away in the hot ######## wishing you would die to get a break.

Greed is what is driving the politics of this dicussion. Safety is not even a consideration.

I just hope those rocking the boat wanting the change get what you deserve.

 

[Big Beer Belly]

So far I doubt many have thought it through to that degree.

I'm simply shocked you would assert such an irresponsible position vetrider ... shocked I tell you! You mean to tell me all these old farts who have steadfastly maintained they are at the tops of their game have not thought out the most basic of challenges to their absurd proposition?

BBB

 

[FoxHunter]

I'm simply shocked you would assert such an irresponsible position vetrider ... shocked I tell you! You mean to tell me all these old farts who have steadfastly maintained they are at the tops of their game have not thought out the most basic of challenges to their absurd proposition?

BBB

hmmm? Wonder why when one airline has to 3 engine ferry their broken 747-400 it is done by guys 60+.

 

[vetrider]

I'm simply shocked you would assert such an irresponsible position vetrider ... shocked I tell you! You mean to tell me all these old farts who have steadfastly maintained they are at the tops of their game have not thought out the most basic of challenges to their absurd proposition?

BBB

I'll go even one further, if they have thought about it I doubt they give a rats a..

 

[Big Beer Belly]

hmmm? Wonder why when one airline has to 3 engine ferry their broken 747-400 it is done by guys 60+.

My guess ... since it's not war time and no one is shooting at us ... no one else is STUPID enough to do it?

BBB

 

[Big Beer Belly]

I'll go even one further, if they have thought about it I doubt they give a rats a..

DING, DING, DING ... give that man a prize!

BBB

 

[3BCat]

ICAO is going to 65 for the captain with an under 60 FO. IF (and that's a huge IF!) that happens in the US then my question is what happens when the 61-64 yr old FO holds (by seniority) a line that a 64 yr old captain is awarded? Does the captain's seniority "push" (i.e., outweigh, is superior to?) the FO's? What if the younger FO is senior to the older Captain? This happens at my airline with surprising frequency. We have no mandatory upgrade requirement and a significant number bypass upgrade for many years due to quality of life/bidding considerations. I'm sure the old geezers have thought about all these scenarios and have ready answers. I can't imagine anyone proposing a change to a nearly 50-yr old regulation without having thought through the many challenges that are sure to be illuminated.

BBB

They are going to mandatory retirement for F/O's who reach 60 to avoid the conflict with older Captains. I hope I upgrade soon.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Who here doesn't understand the confidentiality of Pro Standards?

Actually, in my 20+ yr career, I have had to call the Professional Standards guys twice. Once I asked for and received feedback. The second time was a "sit down" with both of us in the room.

Don't have to give us names.....Anyway, i was just asking....

Tejas

 

[FoxHunter]

My guess ... since it's not war time and no one is shooting at us ... no one else is STUPID enough to do it?

BBB

Dear Mr. BBB and others,

I would like to be the first to thank you for so clearly addressing the real issues driving the age 60 debate. No single individual or group such as APAAD could have provide so much documentation as to why the Congress should pass S.65.

Regards,

FoxHunter

 

[Lear70]

My point is prove that it will affect safety.

Exactly.

I'm not "trotting out" anything. We all know that this issue is about greed not safety. But the ones who bring up the "safety issue" are fooling themselves.

Granted.

I just don't see where there is any proof on either side of the issue.

Both sides are giving "proof" in their medical professional's testimony. The question is who is more believable when a large percentage of the people RECEIVING the testimony (Congressmen and Senators) are age 60+? They think they're at the top of their game, so you're going to have to explain to them why they're not. Unlikely.

And I personally think the burden of proof is on those to prove it won't.

I disagree. Since the rule is already set to change for the ICAO crowd and the rule change has so many supporters on the Hill, the onus of proof is on the crowd WHO DOESN'T WANT IT TO CHANGE.

You're going to have to convince the powers that be that the rule needs to stand because, as it sits right now, the rule is probably GOING to change. If you want to stop it, better get off your duff and PROVE TO THEM why it's unsafe.

Everyone can argue all day about this issue. But when it comes down to it, the ones who don't want the rule change are FO's and young Captains. The irony is that they will change their mind when they are not one of those.

That's a pretty big assumption, given that I'm a (relatively) young F/O (or will be starting on Monday) and I support the rule. The support / opposition is all over the map on this one, depending on someone's personal needs and desires.

I've seen some older guys violently opposed and some younger guys all in favor.

I hope the greedy over 60 crowd screws themselves royally if a change occurs.

Man, someone's a little bitter.

3)the IRS keeps the AMT and takes 50% of your gross and you get less than just hanging up your hat because the over 60 crowd overlooks the tax consequences in your desire to hang onto nothing

If you're paying the AMT, you need a better accountant who can steer your yearly financial planning in ways of contributions to charities, retirement funding, etc. There is no reason anyone in this business should be subject to that unless you simply ENJOY giving your money to the IRS.

4)new medical standards are issued that knock you out of even flying business jets or GA

A very real risk.

5)you cause the bankrupt carriers to liquidate because of the higher payroll or continue to remain uncompetitive against the LCC's and you lose your retirement payments because you have pushed for pension reform and kept the company from sending it to the governments PBGC and were unable to take your lump sum because of the deficit in your current system

Ummm... that rant is pretty much contradictory. First, if you believe in any way that NWA's or DAL's A-fund is going to be around much longer, you're dreaming. CAL's is even starting to look a little "iffy".

Second, most of the legacies have lost their "lump sum" already and I'd be very surprised to see it return.

Lastly, pilots will never lose their ability to collect PBGC benefits, IT'S INSURED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. So unless the United States ceases to exist as a government, they'll bail the PBGC out if and when they need to, regardless of pension reform (there's nothing in any of the proposed bills that elliminates the PBGC's responsibility to take over if the airlines default on their pension guarantees).

5)and whatever else could cause your greed to get more of your money and keep you off the golf courses and sweating away in the hot ######## wishing you would die to get a break.

Wishing they would die? Seriously, with that much animosity, it might be you who dies of a stroke if you don't relax a little...

Originally Posted by FoxHunter
hmmm? Wonder why when one airline has to 3 engine ferry their broken 747-400 it is done by guys 60+.

My guess ... since it's not war time and no one is shooting at us ... no one else is STUPID enough to do it?

BBB

Actually, we used to two-engine ferry 727's back and forth from Europe. Only the most senior Captains were allowed to do it.

There's a LESSON in there, if you'll drop the "super pilot" mentality for a minute and realize that MOST aviation corporations, airlines, fractional, charter, and corporate alike, VALUE older pilots on the flight deck. Young is NOT the preference when a passenger looks up front and sees a 24 year old CA and an 18 year old F/O.

There's a lesson there, too. I'll give you a hint: even the most untrained person realizes that older USUALLY equals MORE EXPERIENCED which USUALLY equals SAFER.

Now the onus lies on those opposing the rule to prove that age 65 isn't just as safe as 60. Again, since the rule is facing less and less opposition, the losing team must step up to the plate and push it back the other direction. If you continue to say "the onus is on the other team when they're winning", you're basically burying your head in the sand hoping the predator about to eat you will go away.

 

[matt1.1]

Lear 70 starts on Monday

Lear 70- go start your new job on Monday, get about 20 years of seniority and get a clue. Till then your just some new kid on the block pissing in the wind.

I also hope you never upgrade as a result of this change. Your career earnings will be substantially lowered ever year you are delayed. Captains make 40% a year more. And every year you lose that 40% sitting there saying I will be working an extra so many years because of a change you will be lossing 40% in todays dollars invested in today investments verse 30 years from now when the dollar will be worth less and the time you have to invest it will be much less. Making it on the back end does not make up for the loss on the front end.

Also concerning AMT, you don't understand it at all. I know a B767 DAL capt. that made over $400k in 2004 flying his butt off. The pay cuts are only making those that stay fly more to make up the loss. Those old greedy pilots will still earn over $200k working 100 hours a month which many of them will do. Now with a second income of any kind, AMT is sure to be paid even with the correct contributions to charities and the like.

Also, I hope those medical standards knock brain dead newbies like you out. Better take a look at that next HoHo you knock down from the vending machine on your 20 minute turn. The real hope is that if a change does occur all those pilots with the wide berths running off to smoke in the stairwell drinking like a fish will be eliminated and even keeping some of the over 60 crowd the list will substantially shrink.

Furthurmore, the retirement plans will survive with pension reform and the companies will be responsible for the liabilities paid. And if they do tank it the PBGC will pay even less after they assume the responsibilites. And if uncompetitive wages from pay cap employees damage the companies furthur because of a change they will get less in the end. The solution to all those at retirement age is to retire. Move on with your lives and start another job if you have to work to keep getting up.

30 years is a long time to fly airplanes and your desire to do it for 40 is pathetic. Get a life.

 

[CaptainMark]

Lear 70- go start your new job on Monday, get about 20 years of seniority and get a clue. Till then your just some new kid on the block pissing in the wind.

I also hope you never upgrade as a result of this change. Your career earnings will be substantially lowered ever year you are delayed. Captains make 40% a year more. And every year you lose that 40% sitting there saying I will be working an extra so many years because of a change you will be lossing 40% in todays dollars invested in today investments verse 30 years from now when the dollar will be worth less and the time you have to invest it will be much less. Making it on the back end does not make up for the loss on the front end.

Also concerning AMT, you don't understand it at all. I know a B767 DAL capt. that made over $400k in 2004 flying his butt off. The pay cuts are only making those that stay fly more to make up the loss. Those old greedy pilots will still earn over $200k working 100 hours a month which many of them will do. Now with a second income of any kind, AMT is sure to be paid even with the correct contributions to charities and the like.

Also, I hope those medical standards knock brain dead newbies like you out. Better take a look at that next HoHo you knock down from the vending machine on your 20 minute turn.

Furthurmore, the retirement plans will survive with pension reform and the companies will be responsible for the liabilities paid. And if they do tank it the PBGC will pay even less after they assume the responsibilites. And if uncompetitive wages from pay cap employees damage the companies furthur because of a change they will get less in the end. The solution to all those at retirement age is to retire. Move on with your lives and start another job if you have to work to keep getting up.

30 years is a long time to fly airplanes and your desire to do it for 40 is pathetic. Get a life.

oouuuuucccchhhhh!!!!!!!!! easy! hey if this rule passes..my B-Fund could be in jeorpardy...not cool!!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Does anyone know the name of the retired 747-400 pilot who flew the F4 in Vietnam and is now age-60, driving for an airport shuttle service?

 

[Flopgut]

Its all business guys!

If your going to take a chance on a hull loss doing a three engine ferry, you put pilots in it that you think can do it. But more importantly, if it doesn't go well, the lawsuits are going to be a lot cheaper for geezers than a crew of 29 year olds with families. Go ahead and tell the old guys you need them to do it cause their the greatest (they'll eat it up), then review your insurance policy carefully.

You folks have misconceptions about members of congress. I believe they all remember the "summer of love" at UAL a lot more than they can see themselves in airline pilots (age). They remember air transportation being turned on its ear wrecking commerce for so many so pilots could make 350K+ per year. It is probably far more fascinating to them how much gall these pilots have.

And again, most importantly, this issue is useful to continue to divide our profession and I think Congress can see that. It will keep the profession more like fueding tribal factions than a single movement. In this case, old pilots will focus on taking their gains from the junior ones, instead of from companies. You old farts and old fart lovers are all too happy to accomodate them, aren't you? If a 50 year old rule, that is supported by the majority has no sanctitiy within our group, then I doubt anything ever will.

 

[FoxHunter]

If a 50 year old rule, that is supported by the majority has no sanctitiy within our group, then I doubt anything ever will.

It is a rule that came about because ALPA won in arbitration. It is a rule that ALPA fought for the first 20+ years of it's existence.

Forty years ago more that 50% of the membership would have opposed women or blacks in the cockpit. Times change, and eventually the right thing is done.

 

[Lear70]

Lear 70- go start your new job on Monday, get about 20 years of seniority and get a clue. Till then your just some new kid on the block pissing in the wind.

"New kid on the block"? Are you freaking kidding me?

I've been a Captain in the Part 121 world for almost a decade now, including on the 727, so you can take your "new kid on the block" and shove it wherever feels good to you.

Obviously you haven't upgraded yet, so you're pissed. WAAAAHHHHH. Get over it.

I also hope you never upgrade as a result of this change. Your career earnings will be substantially lowered ever year you are delayed. Captains make 40% a year more. And every year you lose that 40% sitting there saying I will be working an extra so many years because of a change you will be lossing 40% in todays dollars invested in today investments verse 30 years from now when the dollar will be worth less and the time you have to invest it will be much less. Making it on the back end does not make up for the loss on the front end.

That all depends on how much you can make on the back end. Go back about 5 pages and do the math (hint: someone's done it for you). I have it on Excel spreadsheet, I can email it to you if you like.

I'm well aware of the financial impact, you're lecturing to someone who has testified as an expert witness on career earnings expectations in class action lawsuits. I suggest you go bark up another tree.

Also concerning AMT, you don't understand it at all. I know a B767 DAL capt. that made over $400k in 2004 flying his butt off. The pay cuts are only making those that stay fly more to make up the loss. Those old greedy pilots will still earn over $200k working 100 hours a month which many of them will do. Now with a second income of any kind, AMT is sure to be paid even with the correct contributions to charities and the like.

At 400k? probably, but there's like what, 1% of the total pilots nation-wide who made this much? At the new levels everyone's going to be at? INCLUDING $200k. Not likely. Get a good tax attorney, I have one I can recommend.

Also, I hope those medical standards knock brain dead newbies like you out. Better take a look at that next HoHo you knock down from the vending machine on your 20 minute turn.

Brain dead? Just because I disagree with you drops my IQ? You must be absolutely MISERABLE to fly with.

Incidentally, I don't eat HoHo's (not even sure what they are). I'm about 5' 11", 170 pounds, run and work out regularly, and have perfect blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Again, you're making a lot of ASSumptions and barking up the wrong tree.

Furthurmore, the retirement plans will survive with pension reform and the companies will be responsible for the liabilities paid.

I never said they wouldn't. Read my post again, genius... I said there was nothing in the proposed bills that would elliminate the PBGC's responsibility to pay them out if they STILL defaulted AFTER pension reform.

"FurthUrmore"?

And if they do tank it the PBGC will pay even less after they assume the responsibilites.

EXACTLY where do you get THIS from? Please link to the appropriate proposed bill on Senate.gov or Congress.gov

And if uncompetitive wages from pay cap employees damage the companies furthur because of a change they will get less in the end.

FurthUr?

You're killing me...

30 years is a long time to fly airplanes and your desire to do it for 40 is pathetic. Get a life.

Guess you're not one of those people who love to fly just for the sake of flying... Some people might think that flying 10-12 days a month IS a hobby rather than a job.

 

[Flopgut]

It is a rule that came about because ALPA won in arbitration. It is a rule that ALPA fought for the first 20+ years of it's existence.

Forty years ago more that 50% of the membership would have opposed women or blacks in the cockpit. Times change, and eventually the right thing is done.

When the "right thing is done" (your opinion) you remember this: I'm the one paying for it! My contemporaries and I are going to have to do more with less to finance your joyride.

What I'm really worried about is what are you going to dream up next? Any thoughts? If oneday a quality issue presents itself that benefits the real majority and maybe yourself a little less so, will you support it?