The next vote, December 20th

[gutshotdraw]

I just flew with a retired 121 pilot who was forced out 10 years ago (do the math) and is STILL here despite, by his own admission, having more money than he will be able to spend in his lifetime.

There will be PLENTY of 65 year-olds wanting to "see how the other half lives" before hanging it up and our management will be happy to oblige. It isn't about money. It's about being told they have to quit and they don't want to.

They won't be the only source of switch monkeys but a significant one. I just wish the FAA would figure out that either you're safe to fly for compensation after a certain age or you're not. They blew the chance to harmonize the rule when the age was raised to 65.

Although I agree with you on the training pipeline issue, I wouldn't worry too much about growth. If we're LUCKY, the fleet will grow by a handful of airplanes a year and the new Section 19 will provide plenty of 72 and 76 day pilots to cover the schedule. We won't need as many newbies as you think.

 

[NachoMamma]

unless the FAA pulls their head out of their rectum and realizes that, if it is unsafe to pilot a 737 for United the day after you turn 65 (or 67, or whatever), then it is unsafe to pilot ANY aircraft for compensation after that age.

Either apply mandatory retirement to ALL compensated flying or have NO mandatory retirement at all.

PICK ONE.

Couldn't agree with you more here...however, the average geezer pilot here gets pretty upset when they hear this line of reasoning. Then they shake their bony fist at you and tell you that they're being discriminated against because of their age. Then they fall asleep.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Couldn't agree with you more here...however, the average geezer pilot here gets pretty upset when they hear this line of reasoning. Then they shake their bony fist at you and tell you that they're being discriminated against because of their age. Then they fall asleep.

Yep.

They never read the second part either. The part about how there should either be the same mandatory retirement age OR NO MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE AT ALL.

The strangest thing to me is that the people who pound the table hardest about ONE LEVEL OF SAFETY when it comes to harmonizing our rest rules to 121 are usually the same people most vehemently against mandatory retirement for 91K/135. That includes the leader of our PAC and is the main reason I will not donate to it.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

 

[imacdog]

Couldn't agree with you more here...however, the average geezer pilot here gets pretty upset when they hear this line of reasoning. Then they shake their bony fist at you and tell you that they're being discriminated against because of their age. Then they fall asleep.

Then get upset about being turned into fitness for duty.

 

[Waldom]

I just took the Fitness for Duty CBT and have to say that I support it wholeheartedly.... and this from a barnacle that just turned sixty. I have had the experience of taking Grandpa for an airplane ride for a week and have to attest that flying single pilot is not the safest operation an operator can provide.

I have always hoped that I would recognize the time when the highest performance airplane I operate should be my Cub and gracefully bow out. In case I don't, this program provides a way to eliminate the problem. I won't hesitate to use it myself and hope that the people that fly with me feel the same way if I start missing too much.