Urgent Action Required To Keep Age 60!

[asacap]

"I hate to tell you this, I guess you haven't been around very long, but people have been fighting the age 60 rule since the first week in went into effect. I guess YOU didn't know that."


Hey fd109,

I know the rule has been challenged for some years now, I'm not sure what I said that means I didn't know that. And yes, I have been around for a while, hopefully not past 60 though.


"Age 60 is not a safety issue and you know it. You present one, just one, valid reason to conclude that people suddenly become unable to fly an airliner safely because they have just passed their 60th birthday and I'll shut up about it. "

fd109,

Again, it's not a sudden thing, but as people get older, their health deteriorates. Statistically, people between the ages of 60-65 are less healthy than people between the ages of 55-60. There you go, I bet you won't shut up though.

"If you want to protect your seniority by continuing the discrimination against others, fine. Be honest though, just say it like it is."

fd109,

You shouldn't be so arrogant. I was only pointing out my side of the argument. I'm not trying to protect my number and this is a safety issue. Funny how only YOU know how it is. You don't need to make this personal with your condescending remarks.

 

[csmith]

Another question for those taking the age discrimination "moral highroad."

What about the age 23 for the ATP? That is clearly age discrimination. Is a 21 or 22 year old any less safe or competent to act as an ATP? No. Has it ever been proven that 23 is the ideal and safe age for an ATP? No.

So why is nobody fighting this issue? Because, for the majority, it doesn't really affect them. They don't care. It isn't affecting them job-wise or financially. Which brings me to my next point......

For BOTH sides of this controversy, for the most part, this is all about personnal gain (or loss as the case may be).

For those who already have their position, they want to keep it longer so they can make more money, make more on their 401k, stay in the left seat longer, etc. etc. etc. (it is ironic, however, that they have all, at one point, benefitted from the age 60 rule).

Then there are those who are furloughed and waiting for their spot back, or in a pool, or just waiting for an airline job period. Their reasons are the same. Personnal gain. They want to get back, or in as the case may be, as quick as possible.

You can package your arguement with a pretty "morality" arguement as much as you want, but people need to see this issue for what it really is: one of personnal gain, personnal growth, personnal opinion.

Whoever "wins" this arguement does so at the expense of another.....there is no real winner here.

I will say, however, that the age issue does need to be addressed at some point. I do agree that health is a factor. As far as the "as long as you can pass a medical" arguement goes, give me a break.......we all know about the "quality" of some of the medical exams out there.

Good luck to everybody, as I've said before, we all need it.

This post pretty much sums it up nicely. The same can be said of other controversial topics which have appeared on these and other boards. A larger can of worms will be opened with a change in it, IMO, but why let logic get in the way. Good post.

 

[Andy Neill]

What do you suppose the statistics would say about the health of a 60-63 year old in 1959 when the standard was established versus the health of a 60-63 year old in 2002?

I propose that there has been a measurable improvement in health over the last 43 years.

 

[FD109]

Responding in kind

Hey asacap,

Talking about arrogant and condescending, let me remind you what you said:

Originally posted by asacap
"The age 60 rule has been around for a long time. Don't tell me you had no idea about it when you started flying. Now that you are close to 60, you wan't to change the rules to benefit yourself and screw others. "

asacap, people usually respond in kind. My comments to you may have sounded condescending, and perhaps arrogant. If so I sincerely appologize, especially to the reasonable people on both sides of this issue. I was simply responding in kind to asacap's comments that sounded extremely arrogant and condescending to me.

I retired early at age 55, so for me personally the issue means nothing. However, what's fair and logical is another thing altogether. asacap, you are very happy to accuse anyone who wants to change a rule that they view as unfair as wanting only to "benefit yourself and screw others." Yet you get quite offended when someone points out that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

Your supposed justification for calling "age 60" a safety issue is pretty weak as well.

You stated that "Statistically, people between the ages of 60-65 are less healthy than people between the ages of 55-60."

Well that may or may not be true. I suppose that people might be healthier between 45 and 50 than they are from 50 to 55. Therefore, based on your argument, I guess we should drop the mandatory retirement age to 50. "There you go," asacap. but I bet you won't shut up either.

And I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to provide one single valid, documentable, reason for claiming that "age 60" is a safety issue. And I do promise to shut up about it (as I said in the previous post) when you do.

Your reaction to my post sounds like I really offended you asacap. Well, remember, if you're going to sling mud and accuse people of trying to "benefit yourself and screw others" you are going to get some of it slung back at you. Especially when it looks like you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

 

[asacap]

fd109,

huh?

I think it's time for your nap. You're getting cranky.

 

[FD109]

Reading comprehension

fd109,

huh?

I think it's time for your nap. You're getting cranky.

asacap,

If you have reading comprehension problems, there are specialists who can help you with that. Or maybe you just need to have your diaper changed.

And, for your information sonny, I only nap in the cockpit. So there!

(This is getting to be fun!)

Regards,
FD109

P.S. Your mother wears Army shoes

 

[asacap]

fd109,

I'm not as young as you may think. I stopped wearing diapers months ago!

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As the saying goes, "it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks", gramps.

 

[FD109]

Gramps and proud of it!

fd109,

I'm not as young as you may think. I stopped wearing diapers months ago!

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. As the saying goes, "it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks", gramps.

asacap,

You're right: I guess we will have to disagree about agreeing, or something like that. And, yes, I have been "Gramps" a couple of times. Another asacap made that possible.

By the way, I don't know how he feels about "age 60." You're not him, are you?

On a serious note: When I came into this industry in 1966, I had the privilege of flying with some of the early pioneers in both this industry and in ALPA. Some of those old guys had flown Ford Tri-motors and Fokkers (the wooden ones). Most were just average airline captains (which is pretty darn good). There were a few clinkers, and a few were some of the sharpest people I have ever encountered. It was about the same distribution of talent you find in airline cockpits today. However, there is no way that you will ever convince me that it was fair to make the average ones and the great ones retire just because of a birthday.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that over the next few years in the airline industry, "age 60" may be the least of your worries. Lets hope that I'm wrong and that "age 60" is the biggest problem you'll have to face! I'm particularly concerned about that because I have two regional-captain sons who I desperately want to have as great a career as I did.

Regards,
FD109

P.S. I take back the comment about your mother's Army shoes.

 

[A Squared]

>>>>>And by definition and your logic, we should abolish the seniority system in the airline industry as well, as it has nothing to do with individual merit, hence it is discrimination.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the senority system myself, but that's a seperate issue.

The senority system is a private arrangement between pilots and airlines. The FAA does not mandate the senority system, nor should they mandate it, nore should thay have regulations which forbid it. That is a labor issue which is not the concern of the FAA.

By the same token, the labor aspects of the age 60 rule should be given absolutely no consideration in the issue of whether to do away with or keep the age 60 rule. It sould be decided solely on the merits of safety arguments. The FAA should not be enacting, or maintaining operational regulations on the basis of whether it is to the economic edvantage of one group of persons or another.

As suggested by Jeff G, If you and your union want to make age 60 retirement a part of your contract for your company, be my guest. I suspect that it will be easy enough to get the airline to agree to that also. That's fine, that's between you and your union and your company. Do not, however, expect the FAA to accomodate your avarice in the Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of the CFR is to protect the public's interests and safety, not to advance your economic interests over someone elses.

No, I never suggested that we should eliminat all discriminaton.... what I do beleive it that we should not maintain a discriminatory practice merely because if benefits one particular group (at the expense of another) Nor should a discriminatory practice be maintained because "it's always been like that"(it hasn't) That has to be one of the most inane justifications for keeping it.

If the discriminatory practice is necessary to protect the public, well, so be it. Otherwise, let's get rid of it.

 

[asacap]

fd109,

Thanks for taking back the comment about my mothers shoes. You have my respect for your years of flying however, I disagree with you on this issue. I hope your kids have wonderful careers also. What do they think about this? I'm just curious.

asacap

p.s. I take back the gramps comment.

 

[VFR on Top]

chuck yeager still flys fighters at Edwards. he must be in his 80's.

Chuck's hangin' up his g-suit for good next month at the Edwards AFB airshow.

 

[DaveGriffin]

>>>>>And by definition and your logic, we should abolish the seniority system in the airline industry as well, as it has nothing to do with individual merit, hence it is discrimination.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the senority system myself, but that's a seperate issue.

The senority system is a private arrangement between pilots and airlines. The FAA does not mandate the senority system, nor should they mandate it, nore should thay have regulations which forbid it. That is a labor issue which is not the concern of the FAA.

It's easy to fix the broken seniority system and deal with the age 60 mandatory retirement issue both at the same time.

Implement a USN, LSO-style grading system, from the Inner Marker to touchdown.

Points would be deducted if you blow a tire or cause brake failure turning onto the high-speed taxiway.

A double penalty will occur, depending on poundage and pax injury reports, resulting from projectiles out of the O/H bin.

Seniority should be determined by objective and graded measurement of skill, knowledge, safety practices and general airmanship. It should not be determined by the calendar’s daily turning, every day getting closer and closer to senility and degraded motor-function. Those who can’t make the cut, at age 35 or 65 are released to non-flying.

 

[captjim]

The deadline has been extended I believe to Oct 14th. It took me 5 minutes to help make an impact on my career expactations.