The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[Flopgut]

Flop-
My post wasn't directed at your career. It was a reflection of some pilot's view that the setbacks others face are all their own fault.

With 19 (or hopefully 24) years to go, I'm not reaping any imminent windfall. In fact extending the age will keep me on reserve 5 more years. I'm ok with that since it is starting to correct a rule that should have never been imposed to begin with.

I can't figure out why I would want your sympathy nor how I've earned your contempt for enjoying my career. Any number of world events or personal health issues could force me from my seat or even my airline altogether, yet my support for changing an ill-conceived law remains steadfast.

If we just bump up the age, it is a windfall. If we make age 60+ pilots fly only FO for instance, then it becomes a "choice".

There is nothing more contemptable than trying to advantage oneself in a seniority based, union environment outside the collective bargaining agreement. And that is what the age change folks want to do; they want more for themselves than anyone in front of them, or to come after them, will get. This does not benefit everyone. It doesn't matter if the law was ill-concieved or not, it is the law. Especially since all you want to do is make it another number. If you get five more years you'll be right back at it trying to make it 66, 67, or 70. There is no doubt in my mind.

The point I find more troublesome is that the age change group can actually see no other way to make a living. The other thread with the poll doesn't even have it right, no one is saying you can't fly past 60. All the rule says is that you can't fly 121 past 60. You can have a flying job. You just have to give up the top 1-5% flying position that puts you in the 1-5% of wage earners in the country. Can you actually say with straight face conviction that you see no other way to get by than to hoard for yourself the most esteemed/higest paid job in aviation? It really makes me sick because I have seen a job change happen in the late stages of a career and I have seen people persevere (I was one of them).

 

[Clyde]

Let's just lower it to 55. Then, we can have a debate about raising the retirement age to 57.

 

[Phaedrus]

Flop: Again, well said. I'd like to see just one person in favor of changing this rule come out and say, "Yep, it's about the money, no doubt." The funny thing is that everyone knows this, yet they still hang on to the charade of a.d. It's like the guy in the cubicle with Snickers bars all over his head thinking he's fooling everyone into believing he's not bald.

 

[71KILO]

.

The point I find more troublesome is that the age change group can actually see no other way to make a living. The other thread with the poll doesn't even have it right, no one is saying you can't fly past 60. All the rule says is that you can't fly 121 past 60. You can have a flying job. You just have to give up the top 1-5% flying position that puts you in the 1-5% of wage earners in the country. Can you actually say with straight face conviction that you see no other way to get by than to hoard for yourself the most esteemed/higest paid job in aviation? It really makes me sick because I have seen a job change happen in the late stages of a career and I have seen people persevere (I was one of them).

Good luck getting a 135 job at 60.

IT'S AGE DISCRIMINATION!!! All because government felt 60+ old pilots would drop dead at FL330 and kill passengers. WHAT!? Are you kidding me? It's 2006 for Pete sake. Wake up the GPWS is screaming: terrain, terrain.

 

[71KILO]

Flop: Again, well said. I'd like to see just one person in favor of changing this rule come out and say, "Yep, it's about the money, no doubt." The funny thing is that everyone knows this, yet they still hang on to the charade of a.d. It's like the guy in the cubicle with Snickers bars all over his head thinking he's fooling everyone into believing he's not bald.

I'll say it: It's about the money.

Now you prove it isn't age discrimination...

 

[Phaedrus]

DISCRIMINATE: to choose by a standard.
To oppose discrimination is to oppose choice, or standards, or both. You who say that the folks who oppose the age-60 rule are establishment chattel are wrong. In fact, the liberal establishment is assailing the very right to discriminate at any level.



71K: I don't have to prove it isn't age discrimination because I never said it wasn't age discrimination. I simply ask that those in favor of wearing Snickers on their heads simply fess up and admit they're bald.

 

[Flopgut]

Flop: Again, well said. I'd like to see just one person in favor of changing this rule come out and say, "Yep, it's about the money, no doubt." The funny thing is that everyone knows this, yet they still hang on to the charade of a.d. It's like the guy in the cubicle with Snickers bars all over his head thinking he's fooling everyone into believing he's not bald.

Thanks. I love that comercial. I would like to see them acknowledge the selfishness and the state it leaves the business in after they get what they want and are gone. I'll overdo the sports analolgy but instead of treating our craft like a league, we descend into fuedalistic bands of tribes. The age change crowd is just another tribe asserting itself in opposition to the whole. Managements love it.

Good to call them out on the dough.

 

[71KILO]

phaedrus: you typical politician. The second part of that deffinition is: 2. To act on biasis of prejudice <accused of discrimination against the elderly> You picked the part that fit your arguement, but didn't give the whole story. Do you work at CNN? In the words of Neal Boortz: You suffer from wealth envy. I as a true libertarian say: Government stay out! Now if your union signs a contract that has age rules in it then so be it. I hope I don't work there. I don't expect Grandpa Moses and Father Time to occupy the left seat of a 777 until they take the 'ol dirt nap. Their time will come based on non-age rules. For those that say they should retire at 60 it is about jealousy and wealth envy not attrition. Discriminate on health, skills, or knowledge not age. So again I say prove to me it isn't gov't mandated age discrimination.

 

[Phaedrus]

71K: It is not a little bit humorous that you think you know my politics based on this thread and my meager and ill-conceived attempts to contribute. That said, and since you know me so well, how wealthy/poor am I? For to be stricken with 'wealth-envy' I must be poor, yes? Tell me, what is my net worth?
Have you read (and understood) anything that Flopgut has posted? I honestly don't care if there are no age limits whatsoever. The reality is that there are.
Very good job pointing out that there are different kinds of discrimination. I purposely left out any mention of "bad" discrimination to prove a point. Most people think of discrimination as bad. It isn't. To see the reflexive use of the word as some sort of ultimate weapon in any argument gets tiresome. Talk about establishment lemmings...
Neil Boortz can be a pompous ass...but he is entertaining.
Let me know my net worth soon...I have to file my taxes.

 

[Flopgut]

Good luck getting a 135 job at 60.

IT'S AGE DISCRIMINATION!!! All because government felt 60+ old pilots would drop dead at FL330 and kill passengers. WHAT!? Are you kidding me? It's 2006 for Pete sake. Wake up the GPWS is screaming: terrain, terrain.

Yeah, well not long ago I did something kinda like you have just done. I was debating age 60 stuff so I went over to the fractional forum and started a thread asking for feedback on age 60. There are a ton of 60+ pilots at these companies. They like to hire them. Matter of fact, you want to do a 50-55 year old who just lost thier airline job a favor? Tell them to go to a fractional. They can work at one of those till they are 70+ with free health care and disability. This concept that there is nothing else you can do in aviation is way off.

Now that assumes your an age 60+ pilot who is energetic, enthusiastic and willing to contribute. And this is part of my thesis on why the rule should not change--we need renewal! We have a plethora of stupid acting, selfish, paranoid, and disgruntled senior pilots who are probably unemployable at these companies. So why should we have to keep them? If the rule changes, we not only have to keep them, they stay as captains, check airman, instructors, chief pilots, VPs or whatever. One of the hardest things to do in business is see something that is missing. Fulfill a need in operation that differentiates it and makes it better. Legacies have a desperate need for this and it is not going to come from our "sages" we are stuck with now. God love them, they have had a rough ride, I wish them well but they have to go. If we have to keep them around, we'll probably all have to be out of work. They are dragging us down.