Rebuttal against age 65 (for FoxHunter and Jim Smith)

[SWA/FO]

Maybe if their lady at home looked like your avtar they might want to stay home more.

 

[fam62c]

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

 

[TheBaron]

Well, most Fords are terrible cars. Anyway, can you explain why ICAO would recommend NOT having 2 over age 60 pilots in the same two man cockpit? Can you answer the question please?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Nowhere in my post did I say that "age 60" was discrimination or that we need to follow the lead of ICAO. I could give a flying ufck what ICAO/JAA think.
My gripe is with your idiotic assertion that nothing in aviation can change without there being changes in everything else under the sun. Change is bad...you're right. Lets get rid of GPS and go back to VOR's. Then lets scrap VOR's and go back to NDB's. Then lets scrap NDB's and go back to A-N airways. Then we can get rid of airplanes 'cause damit...they put the railroads out of business...and those ba$tards put the wagon drivers out of business.
Things change. Fight it if you want. More power to you. Just don't say that it isn't "fair" because you don't like it. "Fair" is relative.

 

[TheBaron]

I can't remember if a fireman had to wake up in a different timezone each day of a 4 day trip at different hours, with different sleep patterns, and then try to land a 250 passenger vessel in bad weather? (for 25 years) You don't think that could cause fatigue, hearing loss, and just plain loss of situational awareness? Nah, that could never happen.

But, could you answer whether or not we should change the legal driving age around the country to age 14? Nebraska and Kansas do it, so everyone should. Sure, let's get the young kids out there, they can probably handle it too. Who came up with that rule? An Age limit? Come on? Why? For safety reasons? I bet 14 year olds could do it, just like they do in Kansas. Just like age 60 and over pilots do it in Europe. Who makes the rules? Public opionion, not old pilots who didn't invest well. The rule change would be an immediate safety hazzard, and an immediate downer for everyone invloved except the old captains. Care to comment on how England does it? They make the guys go to the right seat for two years at age 60. How do you feel about that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

Here is a link to the Kansas DMV. Educate yourself.
http://www.dmv.org/ks-kansas/apply-license.php

 

[Oh-ryan]

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.

 

[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