Rebuttal against age 65 (for FoxHunter and Jim Smith)

[General Lee]

Whatever happens with this issue I hope it happens sooner rather than later so we can quit arguing aout it and move on. I'm tired of hearing G.L. make the same point over and over and over and over and over again. I think we understand your position on this issue General. I know that you really, really, really like FlightInfo and that's fine; but making the same point over and over doesn't accomplish anything. Say it once (or even twice if it's THAT important) and leave it be. I'll bet on overnights you hit the elevator button over and over because you think it will make the elevator arrive sooner

Thanks, and I will continue. If you don't like it, seriously, just put me on ignore. I don't mind.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[General Lee]

There are some valid points to this thread, but it is inheretly flawed. Who the heck cares if it's legal that a 12-year old, wasted Frenchy drives himself to the local voting center where he casts a vote for himself to be president and then stops at the Gas-n-Sip on the way home for some blow? The reason why no one should care is because he can't come here and do it too. ICAO lets gramps fly til he is 65 and the FAA is okay with him doing it here as well. That is the problem with this argument. I understand that even if you raise the age to 65 here that it is still age discrimintation, but forcing our guys to retire at 60 while ICAO geriatric patients roam our skies is even more dicriminatory.

I like the age 60 rule, but I think that as long as the FAA allows 65 year old ICAO drivers to fly 121 in our airspace the argument of age discrimination is a valid one.

The reason for ICAO doing it is LCC expansion. Really. You need to understand the origin of this change. It wasn't to help out old pilots, but rather help with expansion. Take a look at all of the airlines and new airlines in Europe. No BK's over there. ICAO was pressured to change the rule. And again, why wouldn't they recommend allowing 2 over age 60 pilots in the same cockpit at the same time? That goes against their "hey, if they can pass the medical, then let them do it..." They know something could happen with 2 old guys, or they wouldn't have recommended that.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Oh-ryan]

The reason for ICAO doing it is LCC expansion. Really. You need to understand the origin of this change. It wasn't to help out old pilots, but rather help with expansion. Take a look at all of the airlines and new airlines in Europe. No BK's over there. ICAO was pressured to change the rule. And again, why wouldn't they recommend allowing 2 over age 60 pilots in the same cockpit at the same time? That goes against their "hey, if they can pass the medical, then let them do it..." They know something could happen with 2 old guys, or they wouldn't have recommended that.

Bye Bye--General Lee

I understand it General, but that's not how this thread was started. The opening argument was meant to mock how loose the Europeans are with their social laws (drinking, drugs, voting, etc) and just because they do it there doesn't mean we should do it here. Agreed on that subject. However, when it comes to the age 65 rule, they are not just doing it there so it really isn't a fair comparison to the other issues cited. The intent of the law change may have been primarily to help man-up the LCC's/regionals over there, but that won't stop some of the old timers from getting behind the stick of international widebody. If the FAA wants restrict the old geezers to the skies above Europe then thats great, but don't allow him to fly here and then tell American pilots they have to retire at 60.

Again, I support age 60, but as long as we allow 64 year old foreign pilots to fly 121 in our airpace its discrimination against our pilots.

 

[Freight Dog]

We should not allow foreign airline pilots over 60 in our airspace. They can fly somewhere else... then there you have it - no discrimination against our pilots if we don't allow theirs to fly here either.

 

[General Lee]

I understand it General, but that's not how this thread was started. The opening argument was meant to mock how loose the Europeans are with their social laws (drinking, drugs, voting, etc) and just because they do it there doesn't mean we should do it here. Agreed on that subject. However, when it comes to the age 65 rule, they are not just doing it there so it really isn't a fair comparison to the other issues cited. The intent of the law change may have been primarily to help man-up the LCC's/regionals over there, but that won't stop some of the old timers from getting behind the stick of international widebody. If the FAA wants restrict the old geezers to the skies above Europe then thats great, but don't allow him to fly here and then tell American pilots they have to retire at 60.

Again, I support age 60, but as long as we allow 64 year old foreign pilots to fly 121 in our airpace its discrimination against our pilots.

Since when do we always follow what Europe does? Yeah, we have their metric system for Airman Weather, but that might be it. England makes their over age 60 guys go to the right seat for two years. They will be flying over here at Virgin or BA, so should we follow that too? Which one should we do?Just because Turkish Air has a pilot shortage and allows their guys to fly their A340s over here, doesn't mean we have to. So, should we just allow INTL pilots the opportunity? Southwest will likely never fly INTL flights. Should they be restricted because they don't fly INTL flights and the Turk pilots can fly over here at 64 years old? The reason, again, is a shortage of pilots. Should we change our rules that have been around for decades (and everyone has known about them going into this job) because Turkish Air is short on pilots? You make the call. ICAO also states that women could potentially fly 3-4 more years than guys, health wise. Should women be allowed to fly until 68 or 69 and men allowed to fly until 65? That's what they say.....You seem to agree, and if Turkey allows old Grandma's the ability to fly over here nonstop from Istanbul, then we should allow our grandma's to fly domestically at Southwest......You would think that is fair, right? Capt Granny loves you now.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Oh-ryan]

Since when do we always follow what Europe does? Yeah, we have their metric system for Airman Weather, but that might be it. England makes their over age 60 guys go to the right seat for two years. They will be flying over here at Virgin or BA, so should we follow that too? Which one should we do?Just because Turkish Air has a pilot shortage and allows their guys to fly their A340s over here, doesn't mean we have to. So, should we just allow INTL pilots the opportunity? Southwest will likely never fly INTL flights. Should they be restricted because they don't fly INTL flights and the Turk pilots can fly over here at 64 years old? The reason, again, is a shortage of pilots. Should we change our rules that have been around for decades (and everyone has known about them going into this job) because Turkish Air is short on pilots? You make the call. ICAO also states that women could potentially fly 3-4 more years than guys, health wise. Should women be allowed to fly until 68 or 69 and men allowed to fly until 65? That's what they say.....You seem to agree, and if Turkey allows old Grandma's the ability to fly over here nonstop from Istanbul, then we should allow our grandma's to fly domestically at Southwest......You would think that is fair, right? Capt Granny loves you now.


Bye Bye--General Lee

You are all over the map dude and yet you still have no idea where I am coming from. Now hear this... now hear this... I AGREE with you in that we should not do something just because it's what the Europeans do. Hopefully we are clear on this. Secondly, I don't agree with what the Europeans have done with the age 60 rule (again, something that we agree on). And finally, I as long as we allow other 121 carriers to fly in our airspace past age 60 while not letting our own pilots do it is age discrimination. I don't want Gramps up there much more than you, but for the FAA and other groups that want the age 60 rule to stay EXACTLY the same and cite safety as the main reason are hypocrites if they continue to accept foreign 121 carriers to operate in our airspace with your grandmother at the controls. In your example you imply that I am prefectly fine with having an old timer at the controls of a SWA 737 because thats what RyainAir does (or whoever) over in Europe... well I am not. But what difference does it make if we ground those SWA pilots (because of safety) when sitting at the very next gate at BWI is a British Airways jet with a 64 year old captain getting ready to fly over the most densly populated air/ground space in the world. It's not about fairness, its about pointing out the hypocrisy of the pro safey crowd.

Now please continue on with your diatribe of European LCCs/regionals and your playground argument of "If all your friends jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

One thing is certainly true on this subject. The older guys are for this change for obvious reasons. The young guys are against this change for obvious reasons. Almost all FO's are against this change for obvious reasons.

For all that argue this point on this thread it is about greed. If you say otherwise then you have absolutely no credibility. You can fool yourself but not others.

There is no right or wrong answer to this issue. It would be absolutely wrong to any degree to make a guy quit when there is absolutely no valid reason to make him so. Some of the best pilots I have flown with have been young and old. Some of the worst pilots I have flown with have been young and old. But neither stand out as a group being worse than one or the other. There were some old guys that I thought were ready for retirement for attitude only. Then again there are some young guys that I thought were ready for retirement because of their attitude.

Honestly, I never flew with any pilot in the airlines that I thought age had something to do with their abilities. I know at my airline that most all the retirements I have seen seem like it was just too early. And if I didn't, I just thought they let their four stripes get in the way of them being better than they were acting.

And I have a long way to go before retirement. I'm just trying to be real about this never ending issue.