Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

speak up today

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Maybe they ought to just move 'em to the right seat. That wouldn't penalize the FO's in regards to upgrade to upgrade, and it would keep pressure on management to raise FO pay.


.
 
SkiFishFly said:
Perhaps you are mistaken about who is the majority and who is the minority...
Click to expand...


You are way off. The majority do NOT want this change, and I think 3/4 of the pilots out there agree. Getting old farts and their families to write in to the FAA doesn't show the "majority", but rather a good "get out the word to your grandchildren" campaign. "Come on kids, write in for me so I can still fly and bring you presents for Xmas...." That is what it is. You know that. Only the old pilots and people nearing that age want the change. Everyone else doesn't think it is safe, or wants an upgrade or to move on from their regional.

I have a question, would the old guys still flying allow every retired pilot who just left the ability to COME BACK and take the left seat back for another 4-5 years? That would be fair, right??? How about a 64 year old, could he come back for one more year and assume the seniority he once had for one more year? That owuld be fair and safe, right? Yikes! But he could get his doctor friend to give hima first class medical..... (don't want to get bumped back in seniority, eh??? Riiiiiiiiiight.)

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
Last edited:
Ty Webb said:
Maybe they ought to just move 'em to the right seat. That wouldn't penalize the FO's in regards to upgrade to upgrade, and it would keep pressure on management to raise FO pay.


.
Click to expand...

That is how they do it in England. At 60 they can go to the right seat for 2 years. That preserves upgrades, atleast, and the old farts can't make crucial decisions while they are napping. But, walk arounds take longer.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
I have a question, would the old guys still flying allow every retired pilot who just left the ability to COME BACK and take the left seat back for another 4-5 years?
Click to expand...

Yes I do think they should come back and have voiced this many times already in previous threads! I think they should be brought back immediately at there old senority after they go get there first class back up to date and get some simm training and a check ride out of the way. Its the only fair thing to do!
 
Jim Smyth said:
Yes I do think they should come back and have voiced this many times already in previous threads! I think they should be brought back immediately at there old senority after they go get there first class back up to date and get some simm training and a check ride out of the way. Its the only fair thing to do!
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line?

Let's say they raise it to 65. Should a guy who's been gone 4 1/2 years be able to come back, for a few months of service? At what cost to the Company?

Do you draw the line at 12 months? 6 months? What about the guys who are 1 day past the 'cutoff'?

Letting guys who are already gone come back opens a 55 gallon drum full of worms.
 
General Lee said:
That is how they do it in England. At 60 they can go to the right seat for 2 years. That preserves upgrades, atleast, and the old farts can't make crucial decisions while they are napping. But, walk arounds take longer.

Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

This would absolutely be the right thing to do. Preserves safety, and preserves the fair advancement that all the old farts enjoyed but now want to do away with.

A nice compromise.

At 60, the old guys used to go back to the FE seat. It worked out well. Now let us let them go to the F/O seat as a fair solution. But keep the traditional command pilot age at 60.
 
BigRed1 said:
This would absolutely be the right thing to do. Preserves safety, and preserves the fair advancement that all the old farts enjoyed but now want to do away with.

A nice compromise.

At 60, the old guys used to go back to the FE seat. It worked out well. Now let us let them go to the F/O seat as a fair solution. But keep the traditional command pilot age at 60.
Click to expand...

You guys are funny!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Since they can't even fly in the left seat unless there is an under 60 guy also in the cockpit, they obviously aren't qualified to be the PIC. Thus they should absolutely go to the right seat list if this thing changes.

Under 60 guys will have to form a sickout if this thing does change. There is no way we should have to babysit over 60 guys while they clog up the system of up and out. Under 60 guys have a sickout, nobody flys, the feds figure out we won't screw ourselves and they change the rule back.

FJ
 
Jim Smyth said:
Yes I do think they should come back and have voiced this many times already in previous threads! I think they should be brought back immediately at there old senority after they go get there first class back up to date and get some simm training and a check ride out of the way. Its the only fair thing to do!
Click to expand...


That is crazy. Fair? How about hiring back retired cops and firemen too? They go out at 55. It's only fair! Let's have a fair playing field for everyone, on everything. You must be getting up there because you are losing it.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
You know, sometimes I think you're pretty smart and then you go and post something like this mindless a*s-backwards thought:

General Lee said:
Only the old pilots and people nearing that age want the change. Everyone else doesn't think it is safe, or wants an upgrade or to move on from their regional.
Click to expand...
Umm... NO, that is a completely untrue statement backed in nothing but fantasy.

There have been literally DOZENS of guys (and gals) in their 30's and 40's (and even a few in their 20's), INCLUDING ME, come out on this board and speak in SUPPORT of it.

Just because you WISH it were true, doesn't MAKE it true. Think about something before you post next time.
 
General Lee. I'm having a little trouble with your "Safety" issue. Since 121 pilots have retired at 60, it would stand to reason that every 121 "pilot error" accident that has occured in the past was attributed to a pilot UNDER the age of 60. I have been retired for 6 years. During that time, I have passed 12 first class physicals, 12 part 135 check rides and have logged something over 2000 hrs of flight time. Oppose the age 60 rule, support it, I don't care. Your idea that I am less safe now than I was at age 59.999 is a just plain wrong!
 
A4Forever said:
General Lee. I'm having a little trouble with your "Safety" issue. Since 121 pilots have retired at 60, it would stand to reason that every 121 "pilot error" accident that has occured in the past was attributed to a pilot UNDER the age of 60. I have been retired for 6 years. During that time, I have passed 12 first class physicals, 12 part 135 check rides and have logged something over 2000 hrs of flight time. Oppose the age 60 rule, support it, I don't care. Your idea that I am less safe now than I was at age 59.999 is a just plain wrong!
Click to expand...

And he knows it. He has no other argument so he and all others opposed to change can only use "safety" and "they knew the rules coming in". Not very compelling arguments, but at least by continually repeating it they can convince each other.
 
A4Forever said:
General Lee. I'm having a little trouble with your "Safety" issue. Since 121 pilots have retired at 60, it would stand to reason that every 121 "pilot error" accident that has occured in the past was attributed to a pilot UNDER the age of 60. I have been retired for 6 years. During that time, I have passed 12 first class physicals, 12 part 135 check rides and have logged something over 2000 hrs of flight time. Oppose the age 60 rule, support it, I don't care. Your idea that I am less safe now than I was at age 59.999 is a just plain wrong!
Click to expand...

Hey, there could be a few supermen like yourself out there. The majority are NOT. You and I know it. We know that time zones have taken a toll on them, most can't hear, most take day legs so they don't have to land at night, and most have the seniority to avoid allnighters.

But hey, you are a superman. Good for you. Gravity will catch up to you and I eventually, but you sooner. Would you just quit when it was "time" if there was no age limit? No, you wouldn't. That is why there is an age limit. Most guys , unlike yourself, should go by 60. You know that.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
Hey, there could be a few supermen like yourself out there. The majority are NOT. You and I know it. We know that time zones have taken a toll on them, most can't hear, most take day legs so they don't have to land at night, and most have the seniority to avoid allnighters.

But hey, you are a superman. Good for you. Gravity will catch up to you and I eventually, but you sooner. Would you just quit when it was "time" if there was no age limit? No, you wouldn't. That is why there is an age limit. Most guys , unlike yourself, should go by 60. You know that.


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

Hey Doctor General, the Civil Aviation Medical Association does not appear to support your expert opinion.:beer:
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf
 
Flybynite said:
And he knows it. He has no other argument so he and all others opposed to change can only use "safety" and "they knew the rules coming in". Not very compelling arguments, but at least by continually repeating it they can convince each other.
Click to expand...

And I know it? You bet I do. The majority of us out there do. And to top it off, we ALL knew ther rules coming into this. You want change because it suits you, but you never asked for it when you were an FO. No, that would have delayed your upgrade. You only try to change it now because you didn't secure your financial future, you had an affair and lost your wife and 1/2 of your money, or you gambled it all away. Too bad. You knew the rules. Did you know that it is WRONG to marry your sister too? You didn't? You are a sick man. Why don't you change that rule too? Dork. Old pilots are dangerous. You know it too, but you are in the clouds, and hopefully you don't fall asleep at the wheel. Keep convincing ALL OF US that you won't. We don't believe you.

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
FoxHunter said:
Hey Doctor General, the Civil Aviation Medical Association does not appear to support your expert opinion.:beer:
[URL="http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf"]http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf[/URL]
Click to expand...

Thank gawd we all go to the same doctors, which have stringent rules. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't rule for the Southwest pilots. Looks like they don't support your expert opinion. They said they would have to bring back old cops and firemen too, and that isn't safe, according to the Supreme Court. I guess you think they are wrong too.....


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
Thank gawd we all go to the same doctors, which have stringent rules. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't rule for the Southwest pilots. Looks like they don't support your expert opinion. They said they would have to bring back old cops and firemen too, and that isn't safe, according to the Supreme Court. I guess you think they are wrong too.....


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

Small point General, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, they never ruled.
 
General Lee said:
Thank gawd we all go to the same doctors, which have stringent rules. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't rule for the Southwest pilots. Looks like they don't support your expert opinion. They said they would have to bring back old cops and firemen too, and that isn't safe, according to the Supreme Court. I guess you think they are wrong too.....


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

You should have no problem with this change since it would not affect the fire and police depts. Your "we all know' statement don't hold water. If you are flying with guys approaching 60 that are a menace and you fail to speak up (to the pilot and if not successful to management), then you are at fault. The "you knew the rules' argument is lame. The rules in aviation have and will continue to evolve. This change will cause some pain for some and be of great benefit to others - that's life. The choices made by our respective management teams and world eventswill have a much greater impact on our financial futures than this rule.

If the rule did not exsist, could you make a good argument to get it passed? I believe not. So I have supported the change.
 
General Lee. You're right. There are lots of age 60 guys who have lost it. However, I can say the same for some 45,50,55 year olds. Point is that 60 is an arbitrary age and 60 is not as old as it was when the rule was established. I flew with another 121 retired gentleman a while back. Combined we were 127 years old, had 85 years of flying and something like 47000 flight hours. Not ONE of the passangers we flew said "Boy we wish we had some younger pilot flying us today". At the 121 carrier, if a pilot couldn't pass the PC or couldn't pass the physical exam, he/she was put out to pasture regardless of age. The day I fail either the check or physical or scare the copilot or MYSELF (more likely), I will gladly turn in my retirement letter. Till then, I'll fly the cat II approaches and enjoy the night landings. Some day in the distant future you will be faced with retirement. Even if you are financially secure, you will be upset that someone or something says you're too old and shows you the door. Probably is my ego but I'd like to retire when I'M ready not when "they" say.
 
Chest Rockwell said:
You should have no problem with this change since it would not affect the fire and police depts. Your "we all know' statement don't hold water. If you are flying with guys approaching 60 that are a menace and you fail to speak up (to the pilot and if not successful to management), then you are at fault. The "you knew the rules' argument is lame. The rules in aviation have and will continue to evolve. This change will cause some pain for some and be of great benefit to others - that's life. The choices made by our respective management teams and world eventswill have a much greater impact on our financial futures than this rule.

If the rule did not exsist, could you make a good argument to get it passed? I believe not. So I have supported the change.
Click to expand...

Should we change the driving age for teenagers too? It is the same thing? I think age 14 should be the new limit, since kids in Nebraska and Kansas are allowed to because their farms are too far from schools. How about the kids in Europe who drink legally? Should we change that here too, since Europe does it---then we should too... You lose. Rebutt that.


Bye Bye--General Lee
 
A4Forever said:
General Lee. You're right. There are lots of age 60 guys who have lost it. However, I can say the same for some 45,50,55 year olds. Point is that 60 is an arbitrary age and 60 is not as old as it was when the rule was established. I flew with another 121 retired gentleman a while back. Combined we were 127 years old, had 85 years of flying and something like 47000 flight hours. Not ONE of the passangers we flew said "Boy we wish we had some younger pilot flying us today". At the 121 carrier, if a pilot couldn't pass the PC or couldn't pass the physical exam, he/she was put out to pasture regardless of age. The day I fail either the check or physical or scare the copilot or MYSELF (more likely), I will gladly turn in my retirement letter. Till then, I'll fly the cat II approaches and enjoy the night landings. Some day in the distant future you will be faced with retirement. Even if you are financially secure, you will be upset that someone or something says you're too old and shows you the door. Probably is my ego but I'd like to retire when I'M ready not when "they" say.
Click to expand...

Then we should change the driving age for every kid in the United States, since some states allow kids at age 14 to drive to school from their far off farms. If they can do, then everyone can. How about drinking in Europe? Or what about age discrimination in the Constitution? There is an age limit to become President of the United States. Care to rebutt that? Would you change the Constitution?

Bye Bye--General Lee
 
General Lee said:
Should we change the driving age for teenagers too? It is the same thing? I think age 14 should be the new limit, since kids in Nebraska and Kansas are allowed to because their farms are too far from schools. How about the kids in Europe who drink legally? Should we change that here too, since Europe does it---then we should too... You lose. Rebutt that.


Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...

You seem to be grasping at straws. Argue the facts relative to the proposed legislation rather than making "we all know" statements that are full of holes. Allowing a 14 year old to drive on a road with next to no traffic and allowing someone totally competent to fly past age 60 have nothing to do with each other. This rule should stand on its own merit, regardless of what Europe does. Again, could you justify an age 60 rule if it did not already exist?
 
Last edited:
General Lee said:
Only the old pilots and people nearing that age want the change. Everyone else doesn't think it is safe, or wants an upgrade or to move on from their regional.

Bye Bye--General Lee
Click to expand...


Not true. Netjets hires retired airline guys, and there are plenty of pilots over 60 flying for corporations who are pretty selective sbout who they allow to fly their executives. Even the FAA has pilots over 60. Bad argument.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom