Please vote NO on S.65!

[semperfido]

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

It is too easy to throw that one out there. Plans change, situations change, the norm changes, economic environment changes and Laws change. The age 60 rule is as old as Methusela (whoever he was).

 

[miles otoole]

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.

So with that reasoning, if the media and the public say that airline pilots are overpaid, then it must be true. Oh, but I'll bet you are the first one to throw the newspaper guys under the bus and call them and the rest of the public idiots.

 

[Flopgut]

It is too easy to throw that one out there. Plans change, situations change, the norm changes, economic environment changes and Laws change. The age 60 rule is as old as Methusela (whoever he was).

So if things change again, say your Beemer needs a rather expensive brake job or your in need of cosmetic surgery, in 6-7 years are you going to need to work indefinitly? Are you going to insist then, like you are now, that this is discrimination and you should be allowed to occupy the pinnacle of this profession forever?

This change is too far reaching and does little for people who really need it and too much for those who should not. If you are a senior captain and 55+ then you have benefited from this rule your entire career. You knew when you were going to retire. Why aren't you ready?

I bring this up because, as I have mentioned in another thread, this very same thing became a reality in my own family many years ago. We had to gut it out, and we did. If any of you unprepared potential retirees were half as capable as you portray yourselves you could secure another position.

 

[G4G5]

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.

What class is a 757?
Here is a little FYI, when flight 77 left DCA for LAX it had 35,510 lbs of fuel
What class is a 767?
How much more fuel does a 767 need to get to LAX?

A fully loaded G5 holds over 41,000 pounds of fuel.

You missed the point, a Global Express, G5 or BBJ could be loaded with more fuel then American 77 had on board.

You must be part of the 1% that doesn't understand the kind of HEAVY damage 41,000 pounds of jet fuel can cause.

 

[b757driver]

So if things change again, say your Beemer needs a rather expensive brake job or your in need of cosmetic surgery, in 6-7 years are you going to need to work indefinitly? Are you going to insist then, like you are now, that this is discrimination and you should be allowed to occupy the pinnacle of this profession forever?

This change is too far reaching and does little for people who really need it and too much for those who should not. If you are a senior captain and 55+ then you have benefited from this rule your entire career. You knew when you were going to retire. Why aren't you ready?

I bring this up because, as I have mentioned in another thread, this very same thing became a reality in my own family many years ago. We had to gut it out, and we did. If any of you unprepared potential retirees were half as capable as you portray yourselves you could secure another position.

And you, sir, are making far too many assumptions....you don't know other people's circumstances just like we don't know yours. Ready? Ready for what? To retire when YOU say so! I don't think so. That is akin to me saying that you should get another job if you don't like it but that is, of course, nonsense. Nobody is saying forever, just the "normal" retirement age. Nobody is making a fuss about the rest of the world and other industries. Why are we so special? We are NOT!
It's about CHOICE, not mandating what you and I should do. Either way, it's on the way. Get prepared.....change is always painful and oftentimes resisted.

 

[semperfido]

Are you going to insist then, like you are now, that this is discrimination and you should be allowed to occupy the pinnacle of this profession forever?

.

probably not forever, but maybe 62 or 63. It should be a personal choice, up to the individual. It isn't all about finances and i sure don't want you deciding what i can live on.

 

[FoxHunter]

http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/news_header.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Melanie Alvord w/Stevens (202) 224-8456
Aaron Saunders w/Stevens (202) 224-3991
Andy Davis w/Inouye (202) 224-4546
http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
Commerce Committee Approves Legislation to
Amend the Age Restriction for Pilots



http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee today approved a substitute amendment offered by Senator Burns to S. 65, a bill to amend age restrictions for pilots, by voice vote. The bill was introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.).

Since 1960, federal regulations have specified that individuals age 60 and older may not serve as airline pilots on any commercial flights. The European Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) permits airline pilots to fly up to age 65, but also requires that another pilot on the flight be age 60 or younger. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has proposed adopting a worldwide standard based on the JAA standard.

The Burns substitute directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter. ICAO is scheduled to consider the measure in November 2006. The DOT is only authorized to adopt the new modification if it is consistent with the previously agreed upon Air Navigation Commission directive which allows commercial carrier pilots-in-command to fly up to their 65th birthday, if the co-pilot is 60 years old or younger.

As in the underlying bill, the Burns substitute allows pilots, who have previously been terminated or had a cessation of employment at a commercial air carrier because of the Age 60 restriction, to seek re-employment at a commercial air carrier. However, pilots cannot file suit to gain re-employment and cannot file suit to reclaim seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in commercial operations.

The substitute requires the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to submit a report to both Senate and House authorizing committees of jurisdiction concerning the effects, if any, the age modification change has on aviation safety.

The bill now proceeds to the full Senate for its consideration.

<A href="http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/age60-3.pdf">Click here for a copy of Senator Burns' substitute.


http://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://commerce.senate.gov/images/spacer.gif

 

[TIS]

Someone's avatar is gonna get banned!

 

[sandman2122]

What a crock of s**t: If you're over age 60 your F/O has to be under 60.

They just admitted there's an underlying SAFETY problem.

Let's wait til next year to see if it's even addressed by the icao GEEKS.

Hopefully the full Senate has some common sense and disapproves it.

 

[ultrarunner]

As in the underlying bill, the Burns substitute allows pilots, who have previously been terminated or had a cessation of employment at a commercial air carrier because of the Age 60 restriction, to seek re-employment at a commercial air carrier. However, pilots cannot file suit to gain re-employment and cannot file suit to reclaim seniority under any labor agreement in effect

Well, this pretty much assures those that are gone, will stay gone. Although there will be a few that just can't wait to be the plug on the list....

...could you imagine...

 

[FoxHunter]

What a crock of s**t: If you're over age 60 your F/O has to be under 60.

They just admitted there's an underlying SAFETY problem.

Let's wait til next year to see if it's even addressed by the icao GEEKS.

Hopefully the full Senate has some common sense and disapproves it.

I agree. The Captain and F/O should both be allowed to be over age 60 but it was the JAA that originated the rule of only one pilot over the age of 60 on the crew. The age 60 rule has never been about safety, only about your upgrade.

 

[Dizel8]

"As in the underlying bill, the Burns substitute allows pilots, who have previously been terminated or had a cessation of employment at a commercial air carrier because of the Age 60 restriction, to seek re-employment at a commercial air carrier. However, pilots cannot file suit to gain re-employment and cannot file suit to reclaim seniority under any labor agreement in effect."

Yep, just until someone mounts and wins a class action lawsuit. If age 60 is changed, why do you think this part of the amendment will become permanent?

 

[Flopgut]

And you, sir, are making far too many assumptions....you don't know other people's circumstances just like we don't know yours. Ready? Ready for what? To retire when YOU say so! I don't think so. That is akin to me saying that you should get another job if you don't like it but that is, of course, nonsense. Nobody is saying forever, just the "normal" retirement age. Nobody is making a fuss about the rest of the world and other industries. Why are we so special? We are NOT!
It's about CHOICE, not mandating what you and I should do. Either way, it's on the way. Get prepared.....change is always painful and oftentimes resisted.

My circumstances were the worst possible scenario. And so from that experience I look at this with a certain degree of disgust. My family pulled ourselves together after an airline shut down unexpectedly. Turning age 60 should not surprise anyone. Knowing that in this business many things, including your retirement plans, are quite provisional one should be better prepared. Additionally, with a lot of hard work we were able to do pretty well after the big change. If any of you truly had the amazing faculties, wisdom, and talents that you cite as credence for flying past 60, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I have known a lot of change and I am prepared. Do you suppose you could muster the least amount of grace or professionalism? Or do you prefer to rub it in?

 

[Flopgut]

probably not forever, but maybe 62 or 63. It should be a personal choice, up to the individual. It isn't all about finances and i sure don't want you deciding what i can live on.

Oh, but aren't you deciding how much others can live on? Are you not deciding [supporting] that those on furlough, can stay on furlough, while you hoard the most wealth and esteem this business has left?

I'm prepared for this to change. But what I want to verbalize here is that I don't want it to change it twice. I think that it is about finances enough so, that what we should do is garnish the wages of those over 55+ and save for them. Obviously you folks have a problem with your finances. Afterall, we are about to change federal law so you can make more money, uniquely to the detriment of many more than it helps. So, I think we should be able to tell you what you can live on. That way we won't have to endure this bullsh!t again when you get to 65 and your still broke.

 

[Flopgut]

The age 60 rule has never been about safety, only about your upgrade.

About YOUR upgrade. Not mine. Mine will take longer, evidently. It will be both more significant and harder earned.

 

[fox51ramprat]

Flopgut,
Most of my friends feel as though they have been fired for turning 60. This has nothing to do with money. It is Age Discrimination. It is about time that the U.S. look at this the same as they look at all other discrimination. This is a Civil Rights thing as much as a money thing.....Unless you are in Airline Mgmt. Just as C.R. Smith was. This was a Union busting trick in the Fifties, and it is still wrong.

 

[hr2eternity]

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.

I'm sorry but you're not 'getting my drift'. Its all about the perception that age=liability. We all (pilots) know there's little difference between the abilities of a 40 year old and a 60 year old--except maybe more experience witht he latter. But try telling that to the aviation-ignorant masses. The same public who buys that the jet blue airbus is out dumping fuel to reduce it's weight before landing at LAX. Its the perception that will kill this reform now or later. (And you're still in my seat).

TH

 

[hr2eternity]

So with that reasoning, if the media and the public say that airline pilots are overpaid, then it must be true. Oh, but I'll bet you are the first one to throw the newspaper guys under the bus and call them and the rest of the public idiots.

I'm not saying it's right for them to draw the conclusion in the event of an accident that age=liability. I'm just saying they will.

 

[Full of LUV]

Age discrimination???

Let's take the greed quotient out of it and just make the age 60 rule vanish in 20 years, I wonder how much support it would garner then if anyone over 40 wouldn't immediately profit?

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"It is Age Discrimination. It is about time that the U.S. look at this the same as they look at all other discrimination."



Oh please. Are you going to start banging the drum against the age 23 for an ATP as well?? Whats to say a 22 year old is any less qualified than a 23 year old?? Or how about 18 for your commercial?

I doubt you would expend much effort against those because it most likely doesn't affect you. Which brings me to the point of drop the age discrimination crap......its all about what an individual stands to gain or lose. "Age discrimination" is just pretty wrapping paper.