Please vote NO on S.65!

[sandman2122]

I just emailed my senator from Texas to VOTE NO!!

 

[A380-800]

So if a pilot can be PIC if he is over 60 until he is 65, provided that the FO is under 60. Is the guy under 60 going to get some 'compensation' for his new job requirement? Maybe the 64 year old will want to share some of his cash, since without the FO being under 60 airplane no fly. Or better yet maybe we could alternate legs, and salaries of course.

 

[Boeingman]

I am not sure who on earth wants this job past 60. However ALPA should be pushing to redefine the PBGC payout guidelines, medicare and SS rules if it is going to oppose age 60 extensions.

 

[G4G5]

The better question is "Why" didn't you prepare for retirement?

I am 39, my retirement is being taken care of by my financial planner. Hopefully things will work out.

I would be a fool to think that sometime over the next 21 years the age restriction will not be increased. We might as well just get it over with.

 

[SWA/FO]

Exactly, Boeingman!!!

 

[ultrarunner]

I am not sure who on earth wants this job past 60.

It 'aint about a want...it's about a need.

 

[nimtz]

I am not sure who on earth wants this job past 60.

Agreed. I watched my old man fly long haul his last five years. He was a vegetable quite often on his days off despite being in good shape. Can't believe some of the big gutted fellas I see walking around today will do much better. Too each their own I guess. I wouldn't want this job to kill me by 65.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

I just emailed my senator from Texas to VOTE NO!!

Funny....but I called the same Senator from Texas and requested a "YES" vote.

Tejas

 

[canyonblue]

Based on most of the replies here it looks like it would be a moot point. Not too many pilots want to work past 60 so it should not affect that many if it were to pass.

 

[FL000]

This law needs to stay as it is. Age 60 is the madatory retirement age and should stay that way.

great reasoning. Count me in!

Not.

The way things are going, I'm gonna need the extra 5 years of 401k just to be able to afford Saltines to gum on during retirment.

Why would I give a shiznit about making room for some dude to upgrade or come onto the seniority list. Shoulda got here sooner.

 

[CoATP]

darn mouse

 

[CoATP]

really darn mouse

 

[CoATP]

Mouse problem fixed .. got computer cat .. back to the subject at hand


Let's see .. arguments against
- That's the way it is ... they should have known that
- It'll delay my upgrade
- We won't be able to hire more lower time people for low wages

... arguments for
- The pilots have experience why lose it
- Mgmt/circumstance has shafted away planned savings
- It's that way in the rest of the world, are US pilots different?


It doesn't say you HAVE to work past 60, it says you can. So if you 1000 hr guys with the ATP written done (maybe) get to be 60 in 2040 (or so) you can just drift away even if the rule has changed. You might even get some decent experience before you upgrade.

I've emailed and had others email an enthusiastic yes.

My personal guess is there will be a deal to set it at age 62 and six months when the dust clears.

 

[batsky2000]

The age 60 rule makes no sense, us that fly in the 135 world fly all over the globe, and have no schedule of where we are going from 1 day to the next like most 121 operations have, and 135 rules are not that much different from 121 rules, in some ways they are more stringent, and there are pilots that are in their 70's that fly heavy iron corporate jets all over with no problems, so what is the big deal to do the same at the airlines? NONE

 

[hr2eternity]

The age 60 rule makes no sense, us that fly in the 135 world fly all over the globe, and have no schedule of where we are going from 1 day to the next like most 121 operations have, and 135 rules are not that much different from 121 rules, in some ways they are more stringent, and there are pilots that are in their 70's that fly heavy iron corporate jets all over with no problems, so what is the big deal to do the same at the airlines? NONE

What do you mean "heavy iron corporate jets"? What's your definition of heavy? Mine is an A380 going down with 600 pax onboard and a 65 year-old Captain and 59+ FO at the controls. That's heavy.

Call your senators and ask them to vote NO!!

TH>

 

[miles otoole]

What do you mean "heavy iron corporate jets"? What's your definition of heavy? Mine is an A380 going down with 600 pax onboard and a 65 year-old Captain and 59+ FO at the controls. That's heavy.

Call your senators and ask them to vote NO!!

TH>

Mine's an A380 going down with 601 pax onboard and a 50 year-old Captain and 45+ FO at the controls. That's heavier. I called Senator Clinton and asked her to vote YES!! (BTW, I am 35 and want the option).

 

[sf260pilot]

Vote yes and preserve your career. Soon U.S. citizens will be the only in the world with this restriction. But people in this country don't like senior citizens anyway. Right?
ALPA is opposed to this in the USA but is supporting it in Canada.

 

[hr2eternity]

Mine's an A380 going down with 601 pax onboard and a 50 year-old Captain and 45+ FO at the controls. That's heavier. I called Senator Clinton and asked her to vote YES!! (BTW, I am 35 and want the option).

Your profile says you're 39, and "your senator" speaks volumes about you. Do you have a job at a major yet? I suspect not--because a young guy like you ought to know this can only stymie your potential and delay your chance to upgrade. HERES THE DEAL--near 60'er' listen up: you knew the story when you signed on. quit your moaning and get out of my seat.

TH

 

[batsky2000]

What do you mean "heavy iron corporate jets"? What's your definition of heavy? Mine is an A380 going down with 600 pax onboard and a 65 year-old Captain and 59+ FO at the controls. That's heavy.

Call your senators and ask them to vote NO!!

TH>

Sorry, I thought that most people knew or could figure that out, you must be the 1% that could not figure that out, Heavy Iron in the corporate world or 135 world are aircraft like Gulfstreams,Global Express,BBJ(Boeing Business Jet,aka B737-700),etc. they don't hold 600+, but they have ranges that go from 4800 NM to almost 7000 NM, there are pilots who are in their 70's flying these all over the world, we fly into places so remote that the airlines would never ever consider them places, and fly into high terrain airports all of the time, so if you are worried about a 65 year old pilot flying from New York to London and back, think about the 70 year old flying a $50 mil. airplane into a high mountain airport down to minimums with no problems, all I can say is that I have seen guys in their 40's and 50's that need to retire let alone some pilots that are 65

The whole 60 thing was a big political thing nothing else, otherwise they would have imposed the law for part 135 pilots also, our rules are more stringent than 121 anyways, and most of our flying requires much more carful planning, so vote YES

 

[TIS]

Someone said something about facts so let’s look at some facts.

I am acquainted with someone who is presently conducting a long-term study on pilot skills and their deterioration with age. The study is task oriented and uses subjects from across the pilot spectrum so that the results pertain to HUMANS doing pilot things, so it’s not just about airline or otherwise professional pilots. Since it is as yet unpublished the results are not “official” but here’s what they’ve found.

The most important (and surprising) thing they’ve found is that our skills begin to take a SIGNIFICANT dive at an average age of 48. It matters not whether the person is a 747 CA or an owner pilot of a C-182 – the slide begins at 48. Assuming that this is the statistical norm, the age 60 rule starts to take on a little different hue, as it places retirement a full 12 years after skills normally begin to become seriously degraded.

On publication it is very possible that this study may be used to argue for a 55 rule rather than a 65 rule. In the alternative there is very solid evidence from the study that suggests that at a minimum, cognitive testing should become part of the medical certification process north of 50 – probably on a biennial basis.

Now, do I think that this means we should kick all our senior CAs to the curb? Of course not! The skills that diminish can be offloaded to the autopilot or the younger guy. The study does not examine multi-pilot dynamics nor does it examine autopilot assistance with taskloading at all and the truth is that accumulated wisdom is also a critical element in the safety equation. That’s one of the reasons the public is justified in wanting more “grey” in the cockpit. In other words, what we lose in multi-tasking ability we make up for with calm, cool, collected, and well-reasoned decision making in tough, high-pressure situations.

Now, this other thing has been raised already but I’ll sound off here too. There is an assumption afoot in this industry that guys actually want to stay beyond age 60. Now, while that may be true of some guys, in my experience the ones that make it to 60 are ready to be done. They often seem to start considering early retirement at around 55. So I think that the assumption that everyone who can, would choose to remain past 60 if the opportunity arose is an erroneous one. A change to the rule would certainly change the retirement term of the overall seniority equation – it would make retirement dates far less certain for projection purposes – but I don’t think the overall net effect would be all that significant.

Anyhow, just a couple of things germane to the discussion at hand.

TIS

 

[hr2eternity]

Sorry, I thought that most people knew or could figure that out, you must be the 1% that could not figure that out, Heavy Iron in the corporate world or 135 world are aircraft like Gulfstreams,Global Express,BBJ(Boeing Business Jet,aka B737-700),etc. they don't hold 600+, but they have ranges that go from 4800 NM to almost 7000 NM, there are pilots who are in their 70's flying these all over the world, we fly into places so remote that the airlines would never ever consider them places, and fly into high terrain airports all of the time, so if you are worried about a 65 year old pilot flying from New York to London and back, think about the 70 year old flying a $50 mil. airplane into a high mountain airport down to minimums with no problems, all I can say is that I have seen guys in their 40's and 50's that need to retire let alone some pilots that are 65

The whole 60 thing was a big political thing nothing else, otherwise they would have imposed the law for part 135 pilots also, our rules are more stringent than 121 anyways, and most of our flying requires much more carful planning, so vote YES

154,500 lbs max takeoff wt isn't heavy in anyone's book--literally, or figuratively--corporate or 121. You missed my point: Corporate jet goes down with 4 pax and a 70 year old at controls=page 10 of local paper. 747-400 with 400 pax goes down 65 year old at the controls=on the cover of every paper in the world. You must be in the 1% of people who don't understand this simple analogy of what constitutes heavy.

 

[N1kawotg]

Argue all we want for or against. The commitee passed the amendment with very few no votes.

 

[N1kawotg]

eternity-- you think age has anything to do with news coverage. I don't care how old the pilots are. 400 go down and it always makes the front page around the world, never has they age been questioned. They do tell their experince.

 

[Spooky 1]

154,500 lbs max takeoff wt isn't heavy in anyone's book--literally, or figuratively--corporate or 121. You missed my point: Corporate jet goes down with 4 pax and a 70 year old at controls=page 10 of local paper. 747-400 with 400 pax goes down 65 year old at the controls=on the cover of every paper in the world. You must be in the 1% of people who don't understand this simple analogy of what constitutes heavy.

Okay I get your drift. Can you point to any airline distaster as in the above case, where the Capt. or F/O was in his/her late fifties that age was a casual or primary factor? If so, please show us where it happened. Since there are B747's being flown all over the world and in some tough places at that, by guys who are 60+, can you document any accidents where age was a factor in these cases. I am over 60, and I fly an airliner into places that have never seen airliners much less the one I fly. Yes, I have slowed down since I was in my forties simply because there is no need to rush. This is not a competition, it's a profession, nothing more nothing less. Supermen need not apply for these jobs unless of course you are flying combat missions, then conditioning is everything. I don't expect you agree with me, just acknowledge what is driving your real concern.

 

[b757driver]

Quote<The most important (and surprising) thing they’ve found is that our skills begin to take a SIGNIFICANT dive at an average age of 48. It matters not whether the person is a 747 CA or an owner pilot of a C-182 – the slide begins at 48. Assuming that this is the statistical norm, the age 60 rule starts to take on a little different hue, as it places retirement a full 12 years after skills normally begin to become seriously degraded>Quote

Presumably this also means that the VAST majority of Congress, the Judiciary, surgeons, dentists and many others should all be put out to pasture approaching age 60. The fact that their cognitive skills are not called into question, no matter what age they are, begs the question why one rule for them and another, artificial one for another group of workers. A group of workers that are regularly tested both physically and professionally Politics maybe? How else can you explain a 40+ year old rule where the US is fast becoming the ONLY nation on earth to rigidly adhere to this rule? I thought America was supposed to be an equal opportunity country that did NOT discriminate against age, etc and that freedom of choice was a cornerstone of this democracy.
It is plain ludicrous that pilots are "forced" to retire when they cannot draw social security until at least age 62! Can you imagine our honorable senators and congressmen sitting quietly if this situation were imposed on them? Hardly!
Those that want to retire at 60 or earlier, let them. But just because they have the desire or ability to do so does not mean that everyone else has to as well. It's all about choice. So what that the younger guys may have to wait for upgrade a few extra years? They have time on their side, the olders guys, currently do not. Patience is a great virtue.
Make the medical tougher by all means but don't go harping on about that it's dangerous to have a 60-year-old at the controls. It was, and still is, a political issue, not medical. Take a look at the rest of the world, open your eyes! Times are changing, the world is a different place and not everything America does is a good thing!!

 

[SWA/FO]

Hey we just had a line check today, by a 79 year old FAA dude... He was way cool, but I found it kinda funny...

 

[CoATP]

I'll bet there was not a 22 yr old CFI waiting for him to get of of the way to get his job.

Out of committee ... floor vote next ... and then conference with HR65 ... and then ICAO approval of their version .. and implementation ... so next year about now it may come to pass.

 

[SWA/FO]

I am sure learning a whole bunch about the political process lately, with Wright and now this... I guess, I should have gone to class more.

 

[canyonblue]

Hey we just had a line check today, by a 79 year old FAA dude... He was way cool, but I found it kinda funny...

Was it OKC to STL? Might of been the same guy I had 2 weeks ago. Nice guy, I asked him if he thought I was a better pilot than Orville Wright.

 

[SWA/FO]

FLL - STL......ed was his first name?