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
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
FNG320 said:
No, everyone does not get the same amount of time in the left seat, thoes about to retire will get an extra 5 years and thoes on furlough will get 5 more years of that.
It really is about safty though. It seems there is an admitted risk involved because two over 60 guys cannot fly together.
FNG320 said:
The conditions in the airline industry have not changed.
A career in the airline industry has been unstable since its birth. That has not changed in a post-911 world.
Anyone banking on a pension from their carrier after watching Eastern, Pan Am, Braniff, etc close their doors more than a decade ago is a fool. No airline is bulletproof. Not even today's golden children, Southwest and JetBlue.
Andy said:
Andy, all insults aside, are you really still furloughed? Seems like a pilot with your quals could find something pretty good (by todays standards), out there somewhere. Since what ever airline you might go back to is a far cry from the one you left it seem that you could equal if not better yourself in another company. None of my business really, just curious.
Spooky 1 said:
Still furloughed; expect to be recalled by UAL within the next 6 months.
I saw the handwriting on the wall and walked away from aviation; I haven't flown since late 2003. I chose to work in other areas. I am now days away from getting my own business off the ground; all of the time consuming details have been addressed. I'm dumping $160K of my savings into it as startup capital; I currently have $90K tied up in inventory. If successful, it will easily eclipse any future airline salary. If unsuccessful, I'll just nickname the failed business ex-wife #2.
I'm 45 years old and I can honestly say that I have seen the ravages of time on my body and mind. I eat healthy and spend 5 days a week in the gym. If I can see and feel it, I can only imagine what time does to couch potatoes. I've noticed a steady downhill progression since my mid-30s.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine working 12 hour duty days flying across multiple time zones and landing in marginal conditions when I'm in my 60s. I don't want to do this past my mid-50s.
typhoonpilot
Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 1,381
Lots of assumptions are being made on this thread, and this issue. IF the rule is changed the percentage of pilots reaching 60 and then continuing to fly will probably be fairly small. Many can't even make it to 60 to begin with due to medical issues, etc. Those who have done well financially will elect to stop flying, I would stop flying for a living now if I could afford to.
The idea that older pilots are less skilled is pretty ridiculous. Every older pilot I've ever flown with has taught me something new and generally impressed me with their level of skill. As has already been said, the reaction time, might be a little slower, but the experience more than makes up for that. Besides, how quick do your reactions need to be to fly a transport category jet. It's not like a jet fighter.
About 14 years ago I flew with the former chief pilot of PSA, he was 70 at the time. We did a flight across the States in a Twin Otter. At the time he was a check airman on the Twin Otter for Scenic as well as a designee for their Ford Trimotor. He flew Cessna Caravans to Africa and a load of warbirds for Cinema Air in Carlsbad. Heck of a funny guy and a darn good pilot. Later in the later 90s I worked with Boeing/Flight Safety Boeing in Long Beach. Most of the instructors there were retired airline pilots. The two check airman on the MD-90 were retired AA. They both could fly circles around most pilots. Also there was the 65 year old former Chief pilot of Air Cal, who could also fly circles around most people I know. That's just to name a few of the many talented individuals in Long Beach. While there may be some pilots whose skills deteriote with age to the point that they are unsafe, I haven't seen it. As said previously, they were probably dangerous at a younger age to begin with and just got lucky to survive as long as they did.
The last thing, I'm also furlughed from a major so a change to the retirement age could adversely affect me. Yet I'm still in favor of it, because I tend to think long term, not just short term. As I keep saying, I'll go before 60 or at 60 if I can, but I want the option to continue.
Typhoonpilot
The idea that older pilots are less skilled is pretty ridiculous. Every older pilot I've ever flown with has taught me something new and generally impressed me with their level of skill. As has already been said, the reaction time, might be a little slower, but the experience more than makes up for that. Besides, how quick do your reactions need to be to fly a transport category jet. It's not like a jet fighter.
About 14 years ago I flew with the former chief pilot of PSA, he was 70 at the time. We did a flight across the States in a Twin Otter. At the time he was a check airman on the Twin Otter for Scenic as well as a designee for their Ford Trimotor. He flew Cessna Caravans to Africa and a load of warbirds for Cinema Air in Carlsbad. Heck of a funny guy and a darn good pilot. Later in the later 90s I worked with Boeing/Flight Safety Boeing in Long Beach. Most of the instructors there were retired airline pilots. The two check airman on the MD-90 were retired AA. They both could fly circles around most pilots. Also there was the 65 year old former Chief pilot of Air Cal, who could also fly circles around most people I know. That's just to name a few of the many talented individuals in Long Beach. While there may be some pilots whose skills deteriote with age to the point that they are unsafe, I haven't seen it. As said previously, they were probably dangerous at a younger age to begin with and just got lucky to survive as long as they did.
The last thing, I'm also furlughed from a major so a change to the retirement age could adversely affect me. Yet I'm still in favor of it, because I tend to think long term, not just short term. As I keep saying, I'll go before 60 or at 60 if I can, but I want the option to continue.
Typhoonpilot
Last edited:
ivauir
SNIKT!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2002
- Posts
- 1,476
typhoonpilot said:
I doubt it. Guys will think about it for about 5 minutes and realise how many new toys they can afford if they stay. Very few retire early now, we have no reason to think it would be different with a different age. As far as the medical issues, you are now reopening the safety issue.
typhoonpilot
Daddy
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
- Posts
- 1,381
ivauir said:
Medical issues and safety issues are not necessarily co-joined. The only issue you have with medical is in regards to inflight incapacitation. How many accidents have been caused by that ?
Life isn't about how many toys you can buy after age 60. It's about how much quality time you can spend with your loved ones. Once I know I can support them suffficiently in retirement I'm outta here.
TP
Chest Rockwell
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2004
- Posts
- 432
Try to put the argument in this context. If there were no mandatory retirement age, would there be a good argument to enact a new law requiring mandatory retirement at age 60? I believe that there would not be. Is 65 valid? It probably is not, however it will be "less unfair" or less discriminatory.
The argument that "you knew the rules" or "you have made enough money" does not hold water. "Benefitting" from the current rules is a difficult standard. A 59 year-old that has been at a well-paying carrier for 30+ years is in a much different situation than a 59 year-old at their seventh airline making a second or third tier level of pay.
It is unfair:
to be furloughed
to have to take a pay cut because of irresponsible management
to not be hired when some idiot did
to not be hired because you don't have 20/20 uncorrected vision
to be fired because of your birthday
The argument that "you knew the rules" or "you have made enough money" does not hold water. "Benefitting" from the current rules is a difficult standard. A 59 year-old that has been at a well-paying carrier for 30+ years is in a much different situation than a 59 year-old at their seventh airline making a second or third tier level of pay.
It is unfair:
to be furloughed
to have to take a pay cut because of irresponsible management
to not be hired when some idiot did
to not be hired because you don't have 20/20 uncorrected vision
to be fired because of your birthday
I think what people talking about retiring at 60 are failing to appreciate is how much inflation eats into your savings and how long life is AFTER 60. Most of us will live another 25-30 or more years. In that time period what you think is enough will be half as much when your in your 80's.
By way of an example. My Dad retired from UAL in 1978 after 32 years. His salary than was 80,000 a year, which was a lot than. His retirement was 4000 a month, again, plenty in 1978. It's not a lot now, had he not had other investments he would be stuggling now.
Typhoons example is a good one, the myth about pilots squandering their money on toys or bad choices is just that a myth. They represent a minority and Typhoon's situation is, in my mind, the more realistic one. Most airline pilots in the US have had the the largest cornerstone of their retirement savings jerked out from under them with little warning (NOBODY could forcast this 10 years ago). Those of us that still have a DB are at risk of losing it.
To say a pilot with years of experience is unsafe at 61 or 62 is ludicrous, as is the Govt. forcing him to retire but saying "we allowed your pensions to be robbed but you can't have ANY social security benefits yet".
By way of an example. My Dad retired from UAL in 1978 after 32 years. His salary than was 80,000 a year, which was a lot than. His retirement was 4000 a month, again, plenty in 1978. It's not a lot now, had he not had other investments he would be stuggling now.
Typhoons example is a good one, the myth about pilots squandering their money on toys or bad choices is just that a myth. They represent a minority and Typhoon's situation is, in my mind, the more realistic one. Most airline pilots in the US have had the the largest cornerstone of their retirement savings jerked out from under them with little warning (NOBODY could forcast this 10 years ago). Those of us that still have a DB are at risk of losing it.
To say a pilot with years of experience is unsafe at 61 or 62 is ludicrous, as is the Govt. forcing him to retire but saying "we allowed your pensions to be robbed but you can't have ANY social security benefits yet".
C
CaptainMark
chest rockwell...it does hold water..welcome to aviation! we all make choices..all my college buds busted my stones for going to fedex in 95 while they went to wear hats at delta and united. now we have to change the rules for them..believe me i fell lucky to be at fedex but i knew this whole aviation thing was a gamble..no guarantees..and we all knew we had to retire at 60
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
