Pilots may get extra years of flying Time.

[semperfido]

its not that bad ......(with three guys )...you'll get used to it.

 

[SWA/FO]

Just think with 16 hours of flying we can now do 24 legs a day!!! Instead of the 8 legs aday we do now, everyday, no long haul nothing, sucks.

 

[Kane]

Who cares! If you don't have your life and finances together by age 60, working to 65 in this business isn't going to help very much.

 

[Jim Smyth]

I have seen many of my friends retire as of late. Some of them were the ones that helped me along my way in my early FO years. It wasnt as much of a party atmosphere at there retirement party either, more like a funeral! I also cant think of many of them that had medical conditions that would have precluded them from continuing to fly past 60 at the time. Alot of them went to get other part 91 flying jobs afterwards to bridge the gap to age 65 Medicare and Social Security benefits. So I wouldnt be holding my breath that the majority of them wont make it to 65. I would think the ones that want to continue to fly to 65 will be able to do so without much trouble.

 

[HawkI]

Who cares! If you don't have your life and finances together by age 60, working to 65 in this business isn't going to help very much.

If I could work 1 more year, until 61, I would make more in that 1 year than I have in the first 10 years of this career combined. That is why management will oppose it, and I will support the change...............when I'm 59, oh god no don't change it now.

 

[Spooky 1]

That's what I was implying to. God forbid we ever have 16 hours of flight time in a day.

Obviously never flown non-stop from KLAX to VHHH. Don't recomend it for everyone, but still found it interesting.

 

[Guppiedriver]

What that means is that whether you are flying now or not, you should have more years in the cockpit.

Who wants more years in the cockpit?

Don't forget that our contract allows retired pilots to come back to the airline if the retirement age changes.

I can't believe any F/O would support this change. More years in the cockpit...INDEED!

 

[skykid]

Well, you got through the interview before. I have all the confidence that you can get through it again.

Odds are good you'll interview again too.

 

[viking737]

When it says copilots must be below 60, what exactly does that mean?
A copilot has to retire at 60 if he hasn't upgraded?
Or can a captain over 60 only fly with an FO under 60?
No CA and FO both over 60? Sounds like a scheduling nightmare...
Let's keep age 60 as is and don't mess with it!!

 

[JohnDoe]

I find it interesting, that one of the "battle cries" from the age 60 opponents is that there is no definitive proof that over 60 would be an issue in the performance of the job.

Why then, is there a requirement to have an under-60 copilot flying with an over-60 captain?? If there was no issue, there should not be a need for such a requirement.

Some will say "it just follows the icao standard" or some cop-out like that. Well, why do they have the requirement.........???

Seems to me, somewhere, the powers-that-be do think it is an issue.

 

[FoxHunter]

When it says copilots must be below 60, what exactly does that mean?
A copilot has to retire at 60 if he hasn't upgraded?
Or can a captain over 60 only fly with an FO under 60?
No CA and FO both over 60? Sounds like a scheduling nightmare...
Let's keep age 60 as is and don't mess with it!!

Only one pilot needs to be under age 60. Either the Captain or F/O in a two pilot crew. The F/O can be over 60, the Captain will just have to be under.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The FAA has actually done safety studies. Most of them don't show any difference between under and over age 60 pilots. The ones that show a difference show that pilots over age 60 are safer than pilots under.

Cliff
GRB

PS-The stuff I was reading earlier did not set a retirement age of 65. The retirement age was linked to the elligibility age for Social Security, which, for some people starts at age 65 and creeps upwards. I'm age 67, so I believe I could not be forced to retire before 67 under the current proposal.

 

[ivauir]

Don't forget that our contract allows retired pilots to come back to the airline if the retirement age changes.
!

Which companies have this in their contract?

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"The FAA has actually done safety studies. Most of them don't show any difference between under and over age 60 pilots. The ones that show a difference show that pilots over age 60 are safer than pilots under."



So again, I have to ask:

Why then, is there a requirement to have an under-60 copilot flying with an over-60 captain?? If there was no issue, there should not be a need for such a requirement.

Some will say "it just follows the icao standard" or some cop-out like that. Well, then why do they have the requirement.........???

Seems to me, somewhere, the powers-that-be do think it is an issue.

 

[FoxHunter]

quote:
"The FAA has actually done safety studies. Most of them don't show any difference between under and over age 60 pilots. The ones that show a difference show that pilots over age 60 are safer than pilots under."



So again, I have to ask:

Why then, is there a requirement to have an under-60 copilot flying with an over-60 captain?? If there was no issue, there should not be a need for such a requirement.

Some will say "it just follows the icao standard" or some cop-out like that. Well, then why do they have the requirement.........???

Seems to me, somewhere, the powers-that-be do think it is an issue.

The original S.65 has no such restriction, neither does Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Japan. It originates from the JAA in Europe, the same people that require 13 written exams for the ATPL. The restriction was inserted to make it easier to get the law passed, no other reason.

 

[Falconjet]

How about some data?

Hi!

The FAA has actually done safety studies. Most of them don't show any difference between under and over age 60 pilots. The ones that show a difference show that pilots over age 60 are safer than pilots under.

Cliff
GRB

PS-The stuff I was reading earlier did not set a retirement age of 65. The retirement age was linked to the elligibility age for Social Security, which, for some people starts at age 65 and creeps upwards. I'm age 67, so I believe I could not be forced to retire before 67 under the current proposal.

Cliff: How about some links to the data or studies you refer to. I don't buy it because the FAA are the only ones keeping this from having happened a long time ago. So I have a hard time believing they have studies to support a change but have been against it from the outset. Please supply us some links or something to these studies.

Thanks.

FJ

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

I don't have the time to give the info now. The reason the FAA hasn't changed is it's their official position that the Age 60 rule is for safety. It's complete hogwash, but the FAA is sticking with their official line. You won't see the FAA advertising their studies, as none of them support their case.

I wrote a paper on the AGE 60 rule and did probably 40 hours of research on how it originated and how various entities have tried to get it changed over the years.

If, for logical reasons, you believe 60 is safer than 65 because older pilots are less safe, then it stands to reason that 55 would be safer than 60. So, if the FAA and us pilots really believed that younger pilots are safer, we should all be clamoring to change the age to 30, as that would be light years safer than 60. Think of how early we could retire!!!

Have a nice day!

Cliff
GRB

 

[Fins Up]

Just retire already. Make room for someone else to chase the dream.

 

[pilotyip]

anotherwannabe, wait your turn, you are used to hanging around, loitering 2 engines so you hang around longer.

 

[Falconjet]

Yeah, that is what I thought.

FJ

Have a nice day.