Southwest Pilots Aggressively Push Age 65

[Klako]

Incredible – talk about twisted logic. I just hope you guys fly better than you debate. Yeah, it's all the junior's guys fault.

AA767AV8TOR

You are right, I am absolutely the world’s worst debater compared to my flying ability. The facts speak loud enough though.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule. Click here to see: See the Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule":

http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA has now institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA “It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

Safety is the lie that ALPA and APA have been spouting to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots. In reality, they are promoting institutionalized age discrimination against senior pilots, insuring an accelerated job advancement scheme for junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson: “I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “ I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

 

[Klako]

Klako,
You can't have it both ways.

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

The main issue is that our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

 

[Sluggo_63]

My personal situation has nothing to do with the overall merits of changing the "age 60 Rule".

The main issue is that our Constitution is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire.

Actually, it's been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court (the decider of what's Constitutional) that a mandatory retirement age is Constitutional when the issue is public safety.

You can throw out as many studies as you like that infer that flying at age 65 is as safe as 60, but there are just as many that show the opposite. Either way, your argument has been the pilots need to fly to 65 to recoup their losses financially. That is not sufficient reason to endanger the general population.

 

[chairmano]

Sluggo,

When were you in Lightning at CBM?

 

[Sluggo_63]

Sluggo,

When were you in Lightning at CBM?

From 1996-2000 (actually to 99, then I moved to Sabre)

Who's this?

 

[BVT94]

Actually, it's been upheld numerous times by the Supreme Court (the decider of what's Constitutional) that a mandatory retirement age is Constitutional when the issue is public safety.

You can throw out as many studies as you like that infer that flying at age 65 is as safe as 60, but there are just as many that show the opposite. Either way, your argument has been the pilots need to fly to 65 to recoup their losses financially. That is not sufficient reason to endanger the general population.

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

 

[miles otoole]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

Yeah, but you won't see RJs plowing farms in KY.

 

[Andy]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

 

[miles otoole]

Nah. That's the reason why there will always be a pilot under age 60 able to reach the brakes.
I can remember telling a Captain multiple times the altitude cleared to, with him insisting on me calling ATC again so that he could hear it. I obliged. I still chuckle at what the controller was thinking - probably 'can't this greenhorn remember his clearance?' Yes, I could. However, I had a crusty old Captain on the train to Alzheimersville unable to remember the cleared altitude until he heard it seven times.

Maybe if there had been more experience behind the controls of the Legacy accident last week, they wouldn't have been flying at the wrong altitude.

 

[Klako]

I bet if this age 60 thing changes, we see Boeings plowing thru terminals like Buicks plowing thru farmer's markets.

That isn't the most immature statement that I have read on this thread, shame on you!