Over AGE 60 PILOTS TO FLY IN UNITED STATES

[Occam's Razor]

Says who?

The FAA, in their testimony in court, and in their presentations to the A.T.A.

 

[Boeingman]

The FAA, in their testimony in court, and in their presentations to the A.T.A.

I was speaking more from a position that nothing has been decided on how they will proceed.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Any safety issue regarding age must be viewed as a health issue. If these Age 60 proponents champion the cause of safety (actually, " the world would be safer if I was captain") then they must also advocate stricter medical standards for all pilots.

Ok...you don't understand the argument. That's cool.

Here's the part you're missing: The current system is working. It is not broken. Need proof? - The safest form of transportation on the planet is provided by US airlines operating under Pt. 121 .

One of the rules that ensures this ne plus ultra safety record is Age 60...even without specific standards for cognitive ability and reflexes, and without testing for same.

Before you start cutting-and-pasting a reply, please be sure you include admission that the current system is producing the safety record desired...the best. Also, please include empirical evidence that safety would be enhanced by changing the rule.

As simplistic as it may seem, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is tough nut for you to crack. If you can't provide a compelling argument for change that includes benefits for the system (ie: enhanced safety), then it's simply a "What's best for ME!" issue.

Why stop with just kicking out the old guys? Why not fat guys with high cholesterol? Why not disallow all special issuance medicals and waivers? Why not bring back 20/20 vision?

There are rules for cholesterol and vision. There is a rule for Age 60. Together, the result has been the safest model for transportation in the world.

When the feds grounded Bob Hoover, they hit the issue head-on...there is no standard for cogntive ability. It would be nice if the traveling public accepted the ability of a pilot to perform dead-stick acro as proof that he can fly them safely, instead of relying on his ability to recite a spoken 9-digit number sequence backward (one of the cog-screen tests given to airline pilots returning from LOC or depression-related suspensions). But that's not the way rules work, is it?

The sixty-year-old of today in no way resembles the sixty-year-old of 1958. In fact to gain an actuarial equivalent you would have a retirement age of 71, so 65 is no great stretch.

Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?

 

[FN FAL]

Did anyone stop to think that it's safer when you have a young guy and an old guy in the cockpit?

The young guy says, "Let's fower one oh it dude!"

The old guy says, "No, lets not!"

Safety is achieved, lives are saved and the old man doesn't forget to put the landing gear down on approach, because the hand-eye coordination of the child pilot saves the day.

Teamwork.

 

[Dash Power]

Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?

Quantifying whether today is safer than 1958 because of the age requirement is difficult to do. Many other factors such as technology and experience of time may cloud the water so to speak. If 55 years old is more safe than 65 years old then 50 years old should be safer than 60 years and so on and so on. If there is a maximum age that is safer then shouldn't there be a minimum age as well? I know I'm a better pilot now in my forties as I was in my twenties. Not judgment based on experience, but judgment based on maturity.

I believe that the people who do not want the reg change use safety as an argument that is simply not clearly proven. And on that note, the people who do want the reg change automatically say it is not a safety issue when in all reality, it really is not the issue on hand. The issue is about seniority and money.

Not admitting this is truly denying this to yourself.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Quantifying whether today is safer than 1958 because of the age requirement is difficult to do.

Agree.

I was questioning the logic, not stating a thesis. Here is is: "Using the same logic; since the air transportation system is safer than is was in 1958, we should do whatever it takes to continue the trend. Why change something that has made us safer?"

If there is a maximum age that is safer then shouldn't there be a minimum age as well?

I believe there is. You must be 23 to fly as Pt 121 PIC. You must also have 1,500 hours TT. Based on the safety record of Pt 121 carriers, it appears those rules are doing their part too.

I know I'm a better pilot now in my forties as I was in my twenties. Not judgment based on experience, but judgment based on maturity.

Unfortunately, the FAR's aren't written for you...or for me. They are written for all of us. Many of them are written in blood. What is the compelling reason to change something that is working?

I believe that the people who do not want the reg change use safety as an argument that is simply not clearly proven. And on that note, the people who do want the reg change automatically say it is not a safety issue when in all reality, it really is not the issue on hand. The issue is about seniority and money.

Agree!

 

[Phaedrus]

Rock on Dash.

 

[Dash Power]

I believe there is. You must be 23 to fly as Pt 121 PIC. You must also have 1,500 hours TT. Based on the safety record of Pt 121 carriers, it appears those rules are doing their part too.

After reading my statement I apologize for not being
more clear.

If safety is the issue...would you rather ride in the back of a 737 with a 23 year old Captain...or a 64 year old Captain? If we are going to question the reg of 60 years old, then naturally we should question the age of the 23 year old? That is my point.

Why change something that has made us safer?"

Doesn't this statement directly infer that the age change is a safety issue?

 

[Phaedrus]

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

 

[CaptainMark]

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...

 

[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".

 

[TAZ MAN]

Tp.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".

Thats right. I use to be that 23 year old. Young, dumb and full...you know the rest. Fortunately my humility took over for my pride and I learned a whole lot from those "old" guys that I am now their age.

They are, to this day, the best guys I have ever flown with. They knew how to be the Captain. Of course that was in a day that they were respected as the Captain.

 

[Flopgut]

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).

No, no. Your just clinging to the issue. You think there is something for free at the end of this so you're going along.

I'm not afraid of negotiating. I welcome the chance to improve our lot in life through honest work. Additionally, I don't think it will be difficult for a majority of us to ignore the over 60 Captain demographic in negotiations. Why try to get them any more? They got more than they should have. Matter of fact, if this passes, I think the payscale ought to reverse or count down exponentially past 60 in the left seat. Or be zero! Why not? You can work past 60, but the pay will be zero. Lets drop your health care too. We can put some sort of hicky on your ill gotten gains via the CBA.

What I'm worried about is what people like you are going to dream up next. You don't want to do the heavy lifting via negotiating. You want to rip off your fellow pilots. If it works once, you'll try it again. Your probably going to want to work to 70 or 75 next. You've tried so hard to prove workers are living longer and are healthier, the govt will probably take notice and bump up medicare and SS age more quickly. You'll be crying like a baby again.

 

[Lear70]

I'm not afraid of negotiating.

For everyone's sake, I'm glad this won't be a negotiating point.

I welcome the chance to improve our lot in life through honest work. Additionally, I don't think it will be difficult for a majority of us to ignore the over 60 Captain demographic in negotiations.

The nice thing is, ALPA national has to approve your contract before it's ratified. Do you know the average age of most of the voting MEC leadership? Incidentally, if ALPA did this, as a private organization, they could be sued for age discrimination. You really should think through your "ideas" before you post them.

Why try to get them any more? They got more than they should have. Matter of fact, if this passes, I think the payscale ought to reverse or count down exponentially past 60 in the left seat. Or be zero! Why not? You can work past 60, but the pay will be zero. Lets drop your health care too. We can put some sort of hicky on your ill gotten gains via the CBA.

Like I said, we can all be grateful you won't be allowed to cash in on your bitterness.

Nice try, though.

What I'm worried about is what people like you are going to dream up next. You don't want to do the heavy lifting via negotiating. You want to rip off your fellow pilots.

"rip off" your fellow pilots?

Oh man, you need some serious therapy for your anger...

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Why doesn’t everyone get it? Age-65 means quit (retire) when you want. When you have the money for retirement you quit. And as I've shown in earlier posts, run the numbers yourselves, unless you're very lucky in the stock market, there will not be enough money in anyone's 401k to retire at 60. Age 65 is the normal retirement age in most of the world (except France) for all jobs. Pilots should be no different if their health is OK and they can pass their FAA simulator and airplane checks.

The battle to keep age-60 is most likely lost this year. And if not this year it will surely happen soon there after. I think everyone agrees on this. When an age-60 pilot is forced to retire that is really the extermination of a person and his career. These pilots are supposed to be your colleagues and they are facing extermination. When the war is lost why not see the good age-65 does for everyone instead of stoking the fire for the ovens of the exterminators. Instead of doing everything you can to resist and prevent this inevitable change, why not do the right thing by your senior colleagues and support the change.

This does remind me somewhat of WWII and the mentality of the Germans as they kept up the exterminations as the Allies were only a few miles away and closing in quickly. The more undesirables they got rid of the better, even in defeat.

Are the age-59 pilots on your airline really the undesirables that you want exterminated to the greatest numbers possible before the change comes? Is that why this change is being resisted by some?

Exterminations of the Seniors, is that going to make the younger pilots and their lives better?

 

[Falconjet]

Forget the age 60 debate, can anybody tell me how you can make those multiple quote, page long threads without getting timed out?

I can't even read one page of the thread without being timed out by the time I get to the bottom of the page. It is really getting annoying.

Anybody else having this problem?

Oh by the way, I hope that age 60 stays, and I promise to not change my mind when I hit 59. I can't see doing this a day past 60, way too much to do and see out there.

Anybody have any ideas on some settings or something that I can change to keep from getting booted off the board every 3 minutes?

Thanks.

FJ

 

[Flopgut]

For everyone's sake, I'm glad this won't be a negotiating point.


The nice thing is, ALPA national has to approve your contract before it's ratified. Do you know the average age of most of the voting MEC leadership? Incidentally, if ALPA did this, as a private organization, they could be sued for age discrimination. You really should think through your "ideas" before you post them.


Like I said, we can all be grateful you won't be allowed to cash in on your bitterness.

Nice try, though.


"rip off" your fellow pilots?

Oh man, you need some serious therapy for your anger...

Seriously. I sound a lot more bitter than I am. This is just business.

And we certainly can negotiate these sorts of things. There are different layers of harshness. ALPA supports no age change now and they are on solid ground. Additionally, things are probably going to change at ALPA national as well. Remember, it is often the most absurd ideas that become reality. This issue is a good example.

You know the CAL A plan is in danger just as I do. If CAL mgt comes back to threaten it I would like to see our pilots pattern the negotiations of UAL and DAL and seek a bond. Or at least do SOMETHING intelligent. They could probably better themselves. But no. Too many of the senior pilots want the junior pilots to give them a "bond" in the form of re-amoritized career progression. I don't want to be their bank! They didn't have to finance a few extra years work for anyone.

 

[3BCat]

Anybody have any ideas on some settings or something that I can change to keep from getting booted off the board every 3 minutes?

You could try the corporate forum...

 

[Lear70]

Seriously. I sound a lot more bitter than I am. This is just business.

Well that's good... was worried about your blood pressure there for a while.

And we certainly can negotiate these sorts of things. There are different layers of harshness. ALPA supports no age change now and they are on solid ground. Additionally, things are probably going to change at ALPA national as well. Remember, it is often the most absurd ideas that become reality. This issue is a good example.

I disagree. If the President signed a bill requiring the age limit to be increased to age 65 and ALPA actively fought against it by attempting to negotiate it out of existence, they'd be sued so fast by the over-60 crowd that there'd be no ALPA coffer left.

The government can get away with age discrimination. Private businesses can't.

You know the CAL A plan is in danger just as I do. If CAL mgt comes back to threaten it I would like to see our pilots pattern the negotiations of UAL and DAL and seek a bond. Or at least do SOMETHING intelligent. They could probably better themselves. But no. Too many of the senior pilots want the junior pilots to give them a "bond" in the form of re-amoritized career progression. I don't want to be their bank! They didn't have to finance a few extra years work for anyone.

I agree with you about the CAL A Fund, no doubt about it.

I also understand your aggravation, but you have to look beyond your own needs and see that a lot of your peers may enjoy the opportunity to fly longer if they want to.

Personally, I'd love to be able to go "part-time" as soon as I could afford it (wouldn't that be a nice thing to be able to do as a pilot?). Turn this job into an enjoyable hobby while my off-time is spent doing other things I enjoy.

Oh yeah, p.s. Falconjet. Multiple quote page-long posts are easy if you type 100+ word per minute.

 

[Flopgut]

The battle to keep age-60 is most likely lost this year. And if not this year it will surely happen soon their after......Instead of doing everything you can to resist and prevent this inevitable change, why not do the right thing by your senior colleagues and support the change......

What if we have done all we can do for them? What if they won't even help themselves? I'm certainly not waiting on them to do anything for me. Senior pilots at my airline would sell out junior ones for a ham sandwich.

This probably will change this year. Its as close as it has ever been. I'm worried about what they will try to pull next. I fully expect that if we increase the age to 65, in 5 years we'll all be subjected to part 2 of this crap and they will want to work til 70!

BTW, why don't you do the right thing by YOUR senior colleagues and support their return to work if they are under 65? Not one of you are advocating anything like that.

 

[Flopgut]

Well that's good... was worried about your blood pressure there for a while.


I disagree. If the President signed a bill requiring the age limit to be increased to age 60 and ALPA actively fought against it by attempting to negotiate it out of existence, they'd be sued so fast by the over-60 crowd that there'd be no ALPA coffer left.



I also understand your aggravation, but you have to look beyond your own needs and see that a log of your peers may enjoy the opportunity to fly longer if they want to.

No, lets let them work, just change the pay dynamic. In a past career endeavor, I worked in a shop where we negotiated overtime to be quite lucrative in the first two hours, but then drop to zero after what we all agreed was too long. It was a safety thing and what we had to worry about was the greedy guy who would try to work two shifts and cut his arm off or get a coworker killed.

I am looking past my own needs. I'm looking at what my unions position is and I'm looking at the results of the comprehensive study they did. The majority of airline pilots don't want it changed. Plain and simple. You need to look past your own needs and tow the line. I was not happy when ALPA ambushed us with the retirement age survey. I thought they timed it in a way that would exclude a lot of furloughed and yet to be hired types, especially at CAL! But I decided before that came out I was going to go along with it. Well, the results came out and the majority don't want it changed. That what makes this such BS. Just like a bunch of prima donna airline pilots, go mustang on the clear majority and try to advantage themselves.