Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[TAZ MAN]

Obviously the 23yr old has his sh$t together...the 64 yr old has his sh$t in a bag strapped to his leg..i will go with the 23yr old...

The 64 yr old may hve it strapped to his leg and keep it there....but he will make a more sound decision....the 23 yr old will leave it in the seat.....in my opinion.

I don't think Dash was questioning your abilities at 36 Mark.

 

[Flopgut]

Boeingman

If everyone on here knew the real story about CALALPA I think they would see that your failing a cognitive test right now! You are clueless. Look, you are probably a decent enough pilot and probably a fair guy to fly with. You are probably safe and well studied etc. However, figuratively speaking, with regard to your ALPA/career/retirement/leadership perspective, you are at 1000agl, IMC, unconfigured, indicating 340 kts, with the GPWS blaring. And by golly, you ain't goin to listen to NO ONE! "I'm not worried about my A plan!" sounds a lot like: "whats that mountain goat doing at this altitude?"

I stand by my earlier comments. CAL and other legacies will benefit from the age 60 rule staying in place. We need renewal; new standards and philosophies. I wish you the best, but your generation needs to go. Your generation has done more damage to this world than any previous socio-ecomically, environmentally, politically...you name it. It is going to be a huge burden for me and my kids to pay for. Keeping you all for five more years is bad enough, let alone you get to stay at the top of our seniority lists in our most esteemed positions. This industry, and CAL especially, is a good example of this. Most of our Captains were hired in a seniority coup and took a place in this business that, one could argue, really never belonged to them. (Not you though, right? You said your old CAL, you have friends that never returned after the strike I'm sure)

The retirement age increas effort is really just another seniority coup! It looks like its going to have the same players as the first coup [strike] of 83. Everybody can rationalize why they are going to covet the system, believe me I have heard ALL the reasons it was OK to cross the picket line. Most are desparate, just like the guys coming up on retirement who aren't ready. They don't care how a change might end up bad. "Just shake it up! Something may change and I can pick up a few more months Captains pay, might ruin it for everyone else but I don't care". Or you got guys like Lear70 who obviously feels like he's advantaged with better health than most. A change might wash out a few senior to him and he likes that! Jim Smyth is scared to death a hang nail will turn septic and he might be caught less than incredibly well insured, placing himself precariously close to mortality without the first dollar SWA paid him. (I'm sorry Jim, no one is answering your earlier question about what do other cariers do for bridge medical to medicare. All I know is the way it used to be: airlines had pensions! That pretty much took care of pilots until SWA came along. I'm not right? Ask your dad.) Bringupthebird is just one of those clingers that will get in line for anything free. And then there are the genious types that want to overproduce some scientific answer that will suit their own desire to take something. They go even further and attach the argument to a more powerful one like discrimination and try falsely assume more credibility. Dr. Occam is the only one with a correct diagnosis. But all that science does not outweigh the more moral question: Should one group get a windfall at anothers expense? What if the resultant effects of the age change had to be arbitrated? Do you age 65 proponents think you would get everything you stand to get in a simple change scenario? No way! You would have to give up something up. It would probably be something like Ivauir is talking up (putting age 60+ guys in the right seat).

What I would like to see at CAL is one of these bonds like UAL now has and DAL is negotiating. UAL got 550 million and DAL is probably going to get around 1 billion. This would work for lots of us if you think about it, even SWA. Negotiate, with your employer, for your monetary gains (Jim!). DO NOT mortgage or re-amoritize the career progression of your fellow pilots. We don't want to be your bank and you should know better than to ask! These bonds have the potential to create a lot of money. I don't know what the DAL 1 billion bond would do, but if CAL could do that it would probably double Boeingmans retirement monies. But trend-forward thinking like that might actually benefit BOTH Boeingman and me so he isn't going to dig that. This guy would rather lose it all than acknowledge a better way or better thinking.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

If anything happens on one of OUR flights, I call Pro Standards.

That said, it's only happened 3 times, once on our aircraft and twice on Northwest, so they're relatively isolated events and the above-described channels have worked for me.

So, did you get any feedback on those pilots? Or are they still flying? What did the Professional Standards folks say to them, specifically?

And its only happened 3 times? In how many years?

Tejas

 

[Quack]

This age 60 thing is rediculous. If they try to up our age limits, how about lowering that of those 75 year old FA's who need their walkers out to get up and down the isle. If our's becomes 65 (God Forbid), then theirs should be somewhere around 40.

 

[TAZ MAN]

Easy. 64. But that isn't really the question, is it? Those aren't, in reality, my choices.

Yes it is. I see the point. If 65 is a concern, then why not 23? If you are to step outside the box and look at objectively safety should be a concern at both ends.

Just because its not much of a concern of 23 year old 737 captains..it makes a valid point into the selfishness of the argument.

You can't judge safety on the rule change.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Occam

Proof positive that dull razors do more harm than good.

What makes the current level of air safety sufficient? Could you explain that to the families of air crash victims? Should we dismantle the NTSB as their work here is clearly done? I'll let you mull that over.

Meanwhile, why do you suppose we enjoy this level of safety? I'll explain. It's because the FAA has adopted many recommendations from the NTSB culled from many accident investigations, none of which have been related directly or indirectly to the age of the pilot. Advances such as ILS, jet engines, GPWS, TCAS have done far more to boost the safety record than keeping qualified pilots from continuing to fly. The age 60 rule was not borne from any accident, it was and is purely political.

Occams argument (if you can call it that) would be akin to, "Who need TCAS? We're safer now than when we flew the mail in Jennys! It's safe enough!"

Occam, Flop, et.al. need to face two facts: First- Age 60 is going away like it or not. Second - If you want the featherbed protection of an Age 60 retirement rule, you'll have to negotiate it into your next contract. And from what you tell us about the widespread support your side has, it should be a shoe-in. Right Boeingman?

 

[Bringupthebird]

So, did you get any feedback on those pilots? Or are they still flying? What did the Professional Standards folks say to them, specifically?

And its only happened 3 times? In how many years?

Tejas

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

 

[Bringupthebird]

Flop- (I leave off the "gut" symbolically to make a statement)

Did you really call me a "clinger"? I've got 18-23 years left. That's alot of clingin'!

Believe it or not, the pro-Age 60 crowd has alot in common with the pro-abortion crowd. Both are relying desperately on laws or judgements that simply don't hold water. Almost every respected lawyer will agree that Roe v.Wade is flawed from a legal standpoint. So too is the Age 60 rule. But it's better (in their eyes) than nothing.

They would be better off to shed the feeble protection they currently have and get a legally rock-solid judgement (in the case of pro-abortion) or iron clad age 60 protection in their respective CBAs (Lossa luck with that civil war).

 

[CaptainMark]

The 64 yr old may hve it strapped to his leg and keep it there....but he will make a more sound decision....the 23 yr old will leave it in the seat.....in my opinion.

I don't think Dash was questioning your abilities at 36 Mark.

i know..just another bad attempt at humor...sorry

 

[Lear70]

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

That would be Tejas.

I have no idea what Pro Standards said to them. They don't tell me that. Obviously you've never worked with Pro Standards - everything is confidential, even the reporting person never hears about it. My job is to let Pro Standards know, it ends there.

Yes, 3 times in 12 years of working for a living in aviation, including 2 years on the 727 flying with a lot of older guys, 90% of my Captains were within 5 years of retiring, 30% of my engineers were age 60+ and were some pretty sharp cookies.

p.s. the only reason the 23 year old ATP at 1,500 hours doesn't contribute to an accident is because of the 55 year old 20,000 hour guy sitting in the left seat next to him making sure nothing stupid happens a la "oh look, hahaha, stick shaker at 41,0".