Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[TAZ MAN]

49 and a 76

but I still dont get your point. 91 and certain 135 can flys past 60 and that fine. Big 135 and 121 can not and it not ok to start allowing it.

I thought you were younger.

The easiest job I had was flying a 76. The most challenging was a brasilia. Many would agree. You pointed out a difference in the size of aircraft being important in medical standards. Poor, poor argument.

I can't figure out why your trying so hard to make a point that you can't see that your fooling yourself.

You should be putting every once of energy on this issue and guide it to your elected officials. Here, your not being very logical.

 

[The Prussian]

49 and a 76

????!!!...??...

 

[Lear70]

decided not to respond to lear 70s insults and erased it myself

Excuse me?

MY insults of YOU? If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. I'll use, for example, a few posts after this one:

Contrary to newbie, Lear 70's page 2 or 3 comments who starts his career Monday, the FAA is going to be involved in the implementation. Even if Congress puts some language in the change outlining medical standards stay the same, the FAA will find ways around it and medicals will be changed.

I start my career? Oh, we'll just ignore the Part 121 727 Captain part; convenient for you, I'm certain.

I also said in my 2nd or 3rd post that the FAA was MORE THAN LIKELY going to be changing some of the health standards. Ignored that part too, didn't you?

You're batting pretty much zero with what you CLAIM that I have said. You've gotten almost every single one of them wrong. How do you do that?

You are the classic example of why there are two people in the cockpit. You are so sure that your way is the correct and ONLY way, that you'll ignore any semblence of rational disagreement, right up to the point of impact. I guess I should thank the people pushing the age 65 increase if it delays your upgrade. Scary thought with your single-mindedness and refusal to debate points that you might actually command an aircraft.

Flamebaiter. 42 posts and almost 1/3 of them on this thread alone. No urge to provide proof for his claims. Completely inaccurate claims of what people have said in previous posts.

Pretty lame attempt though. Sorry, won't get me throwing insults like you've thrown my way in every post you've addressed to me...

I think this thread has about reached the point where I bow out, nothing new or interesting is being said,,,

 

[dsee8driver]

I just wonder how you are so sure the medical standards are going to change? I have been told that in the event the age limit does go to age 65 the FAA sees no need to change the present standards. I think you will find that most pilots are not grounded during a FAA physical, but because of an occurance after the medical was issued such as cancer, heart problem.

This is just a quote on an ICAO article refering to Argentina's position. Here is the link too:
http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2004/AN.2004.WP.7982.EN/AN.2004.WP.7982.APPC.EN.HTM

[FONT='Times New Roman', serif]STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS[/font]​

Argentina
Note.— See appropriate partial language version of this AN-WP for original text.
1. It is our opinion that psycho-physiological capacitation can eventually be granted to pilots up to the age of 63, provided that the following conditions are met:[/font]

a) No medical history of chronic, metabolic, cardiovascular and/or neuropsychotic illnesses;[/font]

b) No aviation accidents and/or incidents involving a pilot's human factors in the last five years.[/font]

2. As such, pilots must undergo a bi-annual medical examination that should consist of the following components:[/font]

Complete neuropsychiatric examination, including an electroencephalogram; echo-doppler of the neck vessels; Rey Complex Figure Test; MSG Test; Weschler Test;[/font]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Clinical examination of the heart, including a graded ergometric test; an echocardiogram; and a rectal exam;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Laboratory: Complete routine analyses including a creatinine test; serum lipid profiling; liver function test; PSA; fecal occult blood test (FOBT); and complete urinalysis;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Ophthalmological examination, including fundoscopy;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Audiometric test [the result of which should be] within normal limits.[/FONT]

 

[pilotyip]

Big 135 what is that, the B-737 BBJ with 29 seats from the factory is a pure 135 airplane flown by over 60 pilots.

 

[FoxHunter]

This is just a quote on an ICAO article refering to Argentina's position. Here is the link too:
http://www.icao.int/ICDB/HTML/English/Representative%20Bodies/Air%20Navigation%20Commission/Working%20Papers%20by%20Year/2004/AN.2004.WP.7982.EN/AN.2004.WP.7982.APPC.EN.HTM

[FONT='Times New Roman', serif]STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS[/font]​

Argentina
Note.— See appropriate partial language version of this AN-WP for original text.
1. It is our opinion that psycho-physiological capacitation can eventually be granted to pilots up to the age of 63, provided that the following conditions are met:[/font]

a) No medical history of chronic, metabolic, cardiovascular and/or neuropsychotic illnesses;[/font]

b) No aviation accidents and/or incidents involving a pilot's human factors in the last five years.[/font]

2. As such, pilots must undergo a bi-annual medical examination that should consist of the following components:[/font]

Complete neuropsychiatric examination, including an electroencephalogram; echo-doppler of the neck vessels; Rey Complex Figure Test; MSG Test; Weschler Test;[/font]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Clinical examination of the heart, including a graded ergometric test; an echocardiogram; and a rectal exam;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Laboratory: Complete routine analyses including a creatinine test; serum lipid profiling; liver function test; PSA; fecal occult blood test (FOBT); and complete urinalysis;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Ophthalmological examination, including fundoscopy;[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]∙ Audiometric test [the result of which should be] within normal limits.[/FONT]

All that is just fine, but the FAA was asked about medical changes if they are forced to go to age 65. The answer was that he believed that no changes were necessary.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

No changes in medical standards for anyone when age-65 passes. That is what FAA executives have said. Yes that has been confirmed.

 

[Occam's Razor]

No changes in medical standards for anyone when age-65 passes. That is what FAA executives have said. Yes that has been confirmed.

So they perjured themselves in court testimony when they said otherwise?

 

[Flopgut]

Hey BringinguptheTird: Why don't you let those mentors you appreciate so much know that you want to merchandise the physical flaws and ailments of your fellow pilots? Let them know that when it gets tough in this business you be there to sell out your coworker. See if you still have any friends.

Lear70: You do the same thing.

I can take about anything. Merger, BK, medical out or whatever. But I can't take weakness in my coworkers. Lear70 and BringinguptheTird have been revealed. Pay no attention to their science or financial reasoning. They feel like changed medical standards will propel them into something they would not have had otherwise. That is greed.

Captain Smythe: I can't imagine anyone who has recently had a better career. One with a company that cannot be separated from the demise of so many other companies that provided better careers. And you need more money? Thats sad. You need to check yourself.

Foxhunter & Undaunted and other old guys: Seniority provides equally for the chance to be the "old guy" (or at least the oldest guy you can). Don't confuse that to think that just because your the old guy right now you're something special. There were old guys before you doing those 3 engine ferry flights so back off a little. Looks like you might get a freebie on this. a gift really. I hope you can accept it with a degree humility. It is a pot of gold for you two, it could be the ruin of many. My respect for you will be diminished. The proudest act in this business should be letting it go. If you are good with the handlebars and feel good, find another job! If you really are good, THAT is how you show the world. NOT by bawling for some administrative change, hoarding the top spots, and on (top of that) proclaiming how great you are! If you want to do that then lets abandon seniority entirely. Lets rebid our companies and go with rostering and assignments. Then we will find out who should be doing those 3 engine ferry flights!

I'm outa here. Good thread.

 

[Lear70]

Let them know that when it gets tough in this business you be there to sell out your coworker. See if you still have any friends.

Lear70: You do the same thing.

How's that, exactly? I'm not selling out anyone; quite the opposite, I'm allowing both sides of the age equation to keep doing what they want as long as they can.

You can try to badmouth me and twist my views as much as you want, just like Matt1.1, but it doesn't change the FACT of my position on this which has not changed one iota since we started discussing this.

I can take about anything. Merger, BK, medical out or whatever. But I can't take weakness in my coworkers. Lear70 and BringinguptheTird have been revealed. Pay no attention to their science or financial reasoning. They feel like changed medical standards will propel them into something they would not have had otherwise. That is greed.

Again, explain this sh*t to me, because it makes sense to exactly 2 people on this board, you and Matt.

Greed? I'm more than 2 1/2 decades away from realizing any kind of benefit to this. The point I made is that, if you choose to fly past 60, it becomes cost-neutral. You can't change the math, buddy, and if me saying that everyone can survive this without severe damage is "greed", then you need to take some serious deductive reasoning classes.

Are you and Matt related?

I'm outa here. Good thread.

I should know better than to keep posting, but you people who keep insisting I'm saying something I HAVE NEVER SAID pisses me off.

Good thread? Yeah, OK, what you said.

 

[CaptainMark]

The proudest act in this business should be letting it go.

amen to that!!!!

 

[FoxHunter]

So they perjured themselves in court testimony when they said otherwise?

There is a new guy in town. The old guy has retired, people say in part because he could not answer some tough questions on the issue when he last testified.

 

[pilotyip]

never never never let go, I am flying with some fantastic B-17 pilots in their 70's all still love doing it and do a great job.

 

[ivauir]

The point I made is that, if you choose to fly past 60, it becomes cost-neutral. You can't change the math, buddy,

I'm not going into the math (because I am too lazy) but a year of Captain today traded for a year of Captain 20 years from now in NOT cost-neutral. The concept is the "time-value of money". It is covered in every econ 101 course if you care to look at the math. All other arguments not with standing SR 65 is not cost neutral for very many people; it is either HUGE windfall (current senior Captains), a significant reduction of career earnings (really Junior FOs at stagnant companies) or something in between. It will be cost neutral for a few people in the bubble, but they get to work an extra five earns to make the same amount.

Ignoring these economic realities is going to doom this and every other effort to defeat the age 60 rule. The lawmakers have little to gain by supporting a change, even less when the pilots are deeply divided in their feelings.

Instead of dissmissing the economic impact this WILL have on junior folks why not address it? Maybe then the lawmakers would see a (somewhat) unified pilot group requesting the change and have a reason to support something that the public doesn't care about, the FAA, most airlines and most unions wants to leave alone.

Or just ignore us junior guys, you don't need our support - it has been going SO well without us.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

The above post is a bunch of crap.


Here is Math 101, this a repost of #106:

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 (very optomistic ROI) 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. With a 5% ROI the 401k amount would be about 60% of the numbers shown.

 

[pilotyip]

undaunted, please this is a pilot board, it is no place for reality

 

[Lear70]

I'm not going into the math (because I am too lazy) but a year of Captain today traded for a year of Captain 20 years from now in NOT cost-neutral.

Yes, it is.

The concept is the "time-value of money". It is covered in every econ 101 course if you care to look at the math.

I'm well aware of the concept, as I said, I've testified in Federal Courts about pilot salaries and expected career income potential.

All other arguments not with standing SR 65 is not cost neutral for very many people; it is either HUGE windfall (current senior Captains),

When I said it was cost-neutral, I was referring to the first officers who will be delayed in upgrading. You're absolutely correct about the huge windfall to near-60 Captains.

a significant reduction of career earnings (really Junior FOs at stagnant companies) or something in between.

Incorrect. See post below.

If you like, I can forward a spreadsheet to you or post it on my website to download that details this. A 5 - 7 year delay in upgrade with a 10% B-fund or max 401k deduction and match (also assumed at 10%) with a modest 7% growth will cost a pilot around $250,000 to $300,000 over his entire career, depending on the salary base.

At just about every airline out there, that can be made up in 2-3 years at max CA pay, then they can retire cost-neutral OR continue to work for that extra $$$.

Read the above post, then PM me for the spreadsheet if you like.

Ignoring these economic realities is going to doom this and every other effort to defeat the age 60 rule. The lawmakers have little to gain by supporting a change, even less when the pilots are deeply divided in their feelings.

Instead of dissmissing the economic impact this WILL have on junior folks why not address it? Maybe then the lawmakers would see a (somewhat) unified pilot group requesting the change and have a reason to support something that the public doesn't care about, the FAA, most airlines and most unions wants to leave alone.

You might want to make CERTAIN you have the mathematical FACTS, IN WRITING, before you start such a campaign. Would hate to get egg on your face by raising a concerted effort based on erroneous information when we, as pilots, are supposed to double- and tripple-check every piece of data we use.

Not trying to flame you or piss you off, just trying to educate people.

 

[ivauir]

You can repost the same junk over and over again but you are failing to win over the junior guys.

Yelling louder isn't getting the job done. Try a different approach, or just keep failing. Junior folks have legitimate concerns; ignoring, trivializing, and even disputing those concerns won't make them go away or earn our support.

 

[vetrider]

You can repost the same junk over and over again but you are failing to win over the junior guys.

Yelling louder isn't getting the job done. Try a different approach, or just keep failing. Junior folks have legitimate concerns; ignoring, trivializing, and even disputing those concerns won't make them go away or earn our support.

Its just airline reality, its always about the senior guys. Always has been, always will be. Union heirarchy, same thing.

 

[pilotyip]

Yea if all the 121 union pilots want this age 60 retirement thing, then put it in your contract and leave the rest of the world alone.