Please vote NO on S.65!

[Flopgut]

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.

Most of my furloughed friends feel like the world has completely foresaken them. Look, discrimination IS bad. But it is not "about time the US look at this" at all. This is an all-time low for this business. There are a legion of furloughed pilots out there. This is the time to keep the rule and get some folks back into this business. This business needs renewal, people with different philiosophies, different leadership standards. We aren't going to get it by keeping the same pilots around who are currently running things and interacting with management, operations, and training. The role of "aged leader" has eclipsed them, they have not done a good job, they need to go. (I am of course talking about the legacy airlines. LCCs, frieght, fractionals, and others are doing great. Due in no small part to the fact that they posses the "renewal" espirit de corp I'm talking about)

Separately, the money issue is this: It is not about what you make, it is about what you spend. Five more years of earnings won't allow for as much recovery as you think. (especially with pay cuts) You watch, when/if this rule change comes to pass there will be a run on new cars, trucks, boats and houses in the micro-economies where pilots live. Additionally, I wonder how many ex-spouses are going to want another crack at these newly minted retirement dollars? Think of the huge transfer of wealth this will create from furloughed pilots to scorned exes and their lawyers? Wonderful, thanks a lot guys!

You are telling us that your abilities are not diminished, perhaps even better. You had the best earnings in the history of this business. That suggests to me that if you can't find something else to do with a bit of your money and and all of your talents then you're simply a wreck (figuratively speaking). A fat, ignorant burden looking for a place to be a blight on. All of our worst fears about what your added years will bring to bare in the cockpit may have been adequately dispelled. But the effect of keeping you in place with the artificially bolstered halo of "super seniority" will be an immense detriment to the legacy carriers going forward.

 

[Draginass]

If the FAA makes the medical more stringent, you're going to see Loss of License insurance probably triple, and probably not be available at age over 60. Another "unintended" consequence.

 

[Spooky 1]

If the FAA makes the medical more stringent, you're going to see Loss of License insurance probably triple, and probably not be available at age over 60. Another "unintended" consequence.

I doubt it.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

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

It's like a cat chasing it's tail BOBBLEHEADS. Even if your upgrade is delayed guys, you're also going to be given the opportunity to work an extra 5 years too!!! You have to be 67 now to get full SS benefits, a 5 year gap was doable but 7 years is a stretch man...

 

[b757driver]

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?

I am not rubbing it in - just questioning your reasoning and why you insist that everybody should be the same. People's circumstances change all the time. Some have the Midas touch, others do not.
You are not the only pilot to have gone through change. For the record I have been through 7 CARRIERS in my career so far and I had to start over each time! Only one of those carriers still survive today. So, I think I know a little bit about change.....and preparedness.
This issue is not about that however. It's about personal choice for individuals with different desires.
I am truly sorry you have had personal grief in this industry....but you are not the only one. There are many more out there who have had it 2 or 3 times worse and still survive the upheavals. I am one of those and happen to believe that the age 60 rule needs to go thereby giving the individual the choice to do what he/she wants to do. Stay or leave, your choice, not some legislator who has his/her fat retirement and job deciding what I should or should not do. This industry is hard enough without making it harder.

 

[Flopgut]

I am not rubbing it in - just questioning your reasoning and why you insist that everybody should be the same. People's circumstances change all the time. Some have the Midas touch, others do not.
You are not the only pilot to have gone through change. For the record I have been through 7 CARRIERS in my career so far and I had to start over each time! Only one of those carriers still survive today. So, I think I know a little bit about change.....and preparedness.
This issue is not about that however. It's about personal choice for individuals with different desires.
I am truly sorry you have had personal grief in this industry....but you are not the only one. There are many more out there who have had it 2 or 3 times worse and still survive the upheavals. I am one of those and happen to believe that the age 60 rule needs to go thereby giving the individual the choice to do what he/she wants to do. Stay or leave, your choice, not some legislator who has his/her fat retirement and job deciding what I should or should not do. This industry is hard enough without making it harder.

There has been plenty of adversity to go around for all of us. Why create more for those furloughed right now

 

[Full of LUV]

Wow, that is a stretch

It's like a cat chasing it's tail BOBBLEHEADS. Even if your upgrade is delayed guys, you're also going to be given the opportunity to work an extra 5 years too!!! You have to be 67 now to get full SS benefits, a 5 year gap was doable but 7 years is a stretch man...

You know, that is a stretch, that's why in the old days pilots bargained for a thing called a "Pension"! Also, why doesn't SWAPA just lobby to start getting Medicare and SS benefits at age 60 for SWAPA pilots and leave the rest of the industry alone?

 

[N1kawotg]

Good luck changing SS and medicare in this political environment- that would solve everything but washington can't think outside that box. As far as SWA and SWAPA- most want these guys to stay. They are some of the most productive within the co. Also, these guys getting ready to retire brought SWA to where it is now. Their the ones when they only had 10 planes and had to fight to stay alive.

 

[Andy Neill]

Ignorance is not an excuse. Educate yourself, before you open your suck!

At the risk of sounding ignorant and uneducated, does anyone have the text of the bill as ammended in committee? In other words, when the Senate takes it under consideration for a vote, what will it say?

 

[Andy]

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.

A better solution would be to allow pilots to fly past age 60, but never as pilot in command. That'll solve the 'someone under age 60 in the cockpit' problem.

 

[Andy]

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.

I agree, however, I think a gradual phase-in of allowing over 60 pilots (to a position other than pilot in command) to continue flying. ... say, increase retirement age by 1 month/quarter. A 5 year age increase would occur gradually over 20 years. Hell, make it 67; just take 28 years to get there.

 

[Andy]

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

Kinda like the Gulfstream that was supposed to take former president bush from IAH to somewhere in South America, piloted by two over age 60 pilots?

 

[Spooky 1]

Kinda like the Gulfstream that was supposed to take former president bush from IAH to somewhere in South America, piloted by two over age 60 pilots?

Andy, have you read this accident report? I have not seen it but apparently you have so please share your sources with us.

 

[Andy]

Andy, have you read this accident report? I have not seen it but apparently you have so please share your sources with us.

This'll get you started:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3090875.html


Edited to add: The final NTSB report probably won't be out until next summer; it usually takes 18 months for it to be released.

 

[Spooky 1]

This'll get you started:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3090875.html


Edited to add: The final NTSB report probably won't be out until next summer; it usually takes 18 months for it to be released.

Andy from your profile one would assume that you are a pretty accomplished pilot. I cannot believe that you would hang your reasoning for this accident on a newspaper report. The cause is yet to be determined. The fact that both of the pilots were well over 60 may or may not have had anything to do with the cause. No more than saying that some accident with a couple of 30 or 40 year olds was caused by their age. I think there is ample documentation that would counter the age factor but I would not want to get into it at this juncture, but rather let the NTSB sort out the cause and other factors.

BTW.......are you still furlouged? With your profile I would have thought you could find something pretty decent out there.

 

[Falconjet]

I just scanned the website of congress and read the bill and looked for ammendments. As far as I could tell, there are no ammendments to the proposed bill in either house. Interestingly enough, there is a bill HR65 on the back burner that pretty much mirrors the language in S65. That language is posted above and from what I can tell hasn't changed.

This info is from the ALPA website which explains briefly the effect of the Senate bill and its estimated implementation date.

UPDATE, November 19 -- In an unrecorded voice vote on November 17, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation designed to establish an upper age limit of 65 in multi-crew operations. It would become effective within 30 days after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts this standard, which is likely to take place in November 2006.
Under this legislation, a pilot could fly to 65 in operations under Part 121 of Title 14 only as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations, and only when another pilot serving as a required pilot has not yet attained his or her 60th birthday. This legislation would allow a pilot who is retired and between the ages of 60 and 65 to be re-hired, but it would not allow him or her to sue to gain re-employment. The legislation would not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement and a pilot could not sue to regain seniority. The legal foundations for these provisions are unclear, however. Twenty-four months after the legislation is implemented, the National Transportation Safety Board would be required to submit a report to the Senate Commerce Committee concerning the effect of this change on aviation safety.
This legislation now awaits consideration and a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to take place until the first half of 2006. No hearings or votes on the upper age limit in the U.S. House of Representatives have been held during 2005. ALPA will continue to keep you updated on this website as this issue develops.


END OF ALPA info.


As has been stated however, the language of the bill ties the retirement age to the start of SS benefits, so for folks born in 1960 or later the upper age limit would be at least 67. The actual bill says nothing about ICAO standards or the need for a yonger than 60 pilot to offset the older pilot, but the ALPA info mentions these.


FJ

 

[Falconjet]

BTW: Spooky: Nice, class act you are.

With your profile I wouldn't have thought you would be such a big dbag.

FJ

 

[FoxHunter]

I just scanned the website of congress and read the bill and looked for ammendments. As far as I could tell, there are no ammendments to the proposed bill in either house. Interestingly enough, there is a bill HR65 on the back burner that pretty much mirrors the language in S65. That language is posted above and from what I can tell hasn't changed.

This info is from the ALPA website which explains briefly the effect of the Senate bill and its estimated implementation date.

UPDATE, November 19 -- In an unrecorded voice vote on November 17, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation designed to establish an upper age limit of 65 in multi-crew operations. It would become effective within 30 days after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts this standard, which is likely to take place in November 2006.
Under this legislation, a pilot could fly to 65 in operations under Part 121 of Title 14 only as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations, and only when another pilot serving as a required pilot has not yet attained his or her 60th birthday. This legislation would allow a pilot who is retired and between the ages of 60 and 65 to be re-hired, but it would not allow him or her to sue to gain re-employment. The legislation would not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement and a pilot could not sue to regain seniority. The legal foundations for these provisions are unclear, however. Twenty-four months after the legislation is implemented, the National Transportation Safety Board would be required to submit a report to the Senate Commerce Committee concerning the effect of this change on aviation safety.
This legislation now awaits consideration and a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to take place until the first half of 2006. No hearings or votes on the upper age limit in the U.S. House of Representatives have been held during 2005. ALPA will continue to keep you updated on this website as this issue develops.


END OF ALPA info.


As has been stated however, the language of the bill ties the retirement age to the start of SS benefits, so for folks born in 1960 or later the upper age limit would be at least 67. The actual bill says nothing about ICAO standards or the need for a yonger than 60 pilot to offset the older pilot, but the ALPA info mentions these.


FJ

US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation

I'm finished babysitting the younger generation tonight. Sorry to say they have the same problem in the cockpit. Guess I have to chalk that off to experience, or age. or lack of?

 

[Falconjet]

No, just to being a dbag.

FJ

 

[Spooky 1]

BTW: Spooky: Nice, class act you are.

With your profile I wouldn't have thought you would be such a big dbag.

FJ

Hey Falcon Jet, maybe you could share with the rest of the Flight Hangar membership the ages of the following MD11 crewmembers:

EWR: Total airframe loss.
Manila: (or where ever your sorting ops are): Total airframe loss.

The last six trail strikes in the MD11.

Standing by for your prompt, no BS reply. All of us wnat to know about the age problems at your operation and how they may effect your MD11 ops. Come on, just the ages of the Capt.s.