Urgent Action Required To Keep Age 60!

[A Squared]

Rudedog,

Thanks for making that link available. I will be submitting a written commentary advocating regulation based on reality, medical fact, and safety.

Jeff G captured the essence of the question quite aptly. (I’ve been reading Jeff’s posts for 5-6 years now, and he truly has a talent for that)

It’s a medical question. That should be the only consideration in deciding what to do about mandatory retirement. It there is real scientific evidence that pilots over 60 truly pose a hazard to the traveling public, well OK. I have yet to see that evidence though. If not, then we should rethink the age 60 rule. If that includes increased screening for degradation of cognitive skills for pilots past a certain age, that’s reasonable. The thing is, the real or perceived safety of the traveling public is usually only mentioned as an aside when this question comes up. The most prevalent argument is always "It will be better for *me* if we keep it. Most of the "keep the age 60 rule" proponents are fundamentally equivalent to a small child, lying on the floor, kicking his tiny feet in full tantrum, screaming: "It’s my seat now!!! Get out of my seat you stinky old man!!!! I want to sit there now!!!!! It’s mine, it’s mine!!! Go away!!! I’m *entitled* to that seat!!!. ........ "

Pretty sad, but that’s the essence of the vast majority of the "keep the age 60 rule" folks. They want that seat, and they think that the federal regulations should be written to get them there sooner. No, the aviation regulations are to promote safety, period. They are not there to favor the economic interests of one group over another.

For each one of you who think that the Age 60 rule should be kept so you can advance more quickly, let me ask you this: How many of you are disgusted by the fact that EEOC guidelines frequently result in recruitment and hiring practices which favor less experienced women and minorities over more experienced white males ...... hmmmm a whole bunch of you don’t like that. So, where’s your outrage and indignation at arbitrary and discriminatory regulation which just happens to favor *you* over another group? Can you say hypocrisy?

OK, just for fun, let’s turn that age thing around. About a year ago, I came across the results of a study of aircraft accidents grouped by pilot age. It was very interesting in that it showed a much higher rate of accidents in younger pilots as compared to older pilots. In fact the statistics seemed to suggest that pilots younger than 35 were a lot more dangerous that pilots over 60. So, in the interests of public safety, let’s amend Part 121 so that you must have reached your 35’th birthday before you may serve as a Part 121 aircrew member. (Sorry Jeff, you’re just not mature enough to handle it, come back in a year <g>) Yeah, I kinda like that . I can think of 3 captains at my company who are younger than 35. Yep. Time to get those dangerous young punks out the cockpit and fill those seats with more mature folks, like *ME*. Yep, I *deserve* Jeff G’s job because I was born 5 years before he was.

For all you "keep the age 60 rule" proponents who want to tell about your favorite doddering old fool who is just sitting there in the left seat, drooling on himself; Let’s see some real data, based on medical science, accident statistics, something real, not just "A friend of mine flew with this old captain........." stories. As long as we’re tossing out anecdotal evidence, let me toss out some of my own. A C46 captain at my company turned 60 this August and had to stop flying Part 121. This wasn’t some geriatric old fool, napping in the left seat. This is a guy who is still sharp as a tack, flying an airplane that you can’t turn your back on for a moment, an airplane that many of you probably couldn’t handle on your best day, flying it in to gravel runways under conditions that most of you can’t even imagine. When the airplane stopped rolling, he was unloading 15,000 lbs. of cargo, by hand, right alongside his 20 or 30 something first officers. He takes off part of each summer to go commercial fishing in Bristol Bay, as he has every summer since he was a child. For those of you who don’t know, fishing a set-net site on Alaska’s Bristol bay is not a picnic, it’s hard, tough, miserable work; work that would have most people running for civilization in a couple of days. He’s been flying in Alaska for over 30,000 hours, in C-46’s, Electras, Hercs and 13,000 hours of flying a Twin Otter in the bush of Western Alaska. Yet, despite all these challenging conditions, he’s never dinged an airplane, not once. If he was really the senile 60 year old fool that you "keep the age 60 rule" proponents talk about, the C-46 would have eaten his lunch a long time ago.

RJflyer:

>>>>Everyone flying today is playing under the same rules, and has been since they were hired. Therefore, nobody is being discriminated against.

So by your logic the blacks who were required to sit in the back of the bus were'nt being discriminated against because the laws were enacted before many of them were born?

No, discrimination doesn't cease to be discrimination just because it's been around for a while.


regards

 

[Ty Webb]

Holy crap- it's A Squared!!!!!

Sounds like the same A Squared that use d to post here three or four years ago, then suddenly disappeared. I see your posts are still as cogent as ever.

Welcome back. Where are you at these days, where ya been, and why were you gone for so long?

WFWT

 

[RJFlyer]

Jeff G:

None of that precludes me from trying to change what I perceive as an injustice. I'm willing to do this even if it hurts me in the short term. In the long term it will have no effect; things will adjust.

Why is it an injustice? Is it an injustice for other companies to force retirement at 65? Where should we draw the line? Nowhere? You cannot honestly tell me that the medical examination system we have is adequate to discern whether a pilot is truly a health risk (at any age). For example, I know a guy who just went in for his medical. He spent more time filling out the paperwork than he did in the exam. When it came to the eye exam, the nurse asked him if he had his contacts in. When he replied in the affirmative, she said "Well, just tell me which line you could read if you didn't have them in." And LOTS of AA senior pilots go to this particular AME, for some reason...

I'll tell you what - when the FAA comes up with a real medical examination process that includes measuring cognitive skills, reaction times, etc, then I'll support increasing the mandatory retirement age. That might happen by the time I'm 60...

A Squared:

So by your logic the blacks who were required to sit in the back of the bus were'nt being discriminated against because the laws were enacted before many of them were born?

No, discrimination doesn't cease to be discrimination just because it's been around for a while.

Here's a definition from Merriam Webster: "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit." Okay, I'll concede that it is by definition discrimination. 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.

Nice try, but it doesn't fly. There is legal discrimination everywhere in society, and particularly when it comes to age. Why can't 14-year-olds get a driver's license? Why can't someone who is 20 years and 364 days old drink? Why couldn't I rent a car til I was 25? Why were my insurance rates higher until I was 25? Why do those older than 55 (or whatever) get discounts on movies, at restaurants, etc.? Why do I have to wait til I'm 65 to start getting my Social Security money back, or unpenalized access to my IRA funds? It's all discriminatory, and it would be impossible to remove all discrimination from society, nor should we try to remove all "discrimination." Sometimes, it's necessary for the good of society. Sometimes it provides a measure of safety, as in this case. (See my reply to Jeff G above, about determining whether a pilot is safe to fly after 60).

Pretty sad, but that’s the essence of the vast majority of the "keep the age 60 rule" folks. They want that seat, and they think that the federal regulations should be written to get them there sooner. No, the aviation regulations are to promote safety, period. They are not there to favor the economic interests of one group over another.

And it's the essence of the majority of the "get rid of the age 60 rule" folks, as well. They want that seat that someone else had to give up at 60, so they could get it in the first place. They want the regulations re-written to keep them there longer, to favor their own economic interests over others.

 

[46Driver]

RJFlyer,
I'll take a stab at your arguments. Driving at age 14? That's a judgement on maturity level, not medical. (interesting that you can drive much larger farm machinery on the same roads at an earlier age...) Drinking at age 20 years, 364 days? Yes, it is discriminatory - if one can serve in the military and die for the country, yes, you should be able to drink at 18. (interesting to note the age has swung back and forth several times - so much for a law being written in stone...) can't rent a car under 25 - yes, that's screwed up too (we landed one day and I as the F.O. had to rent a car because the 24 year old jet captain was unable to?????) Senior citizen discounts - those come from the private sector and they can do that - the age 60 is a rule from the FAA. Drawing Social Security and IRA at age 65? - well, if that is the age it starts, it is only reasonable that I be able to work until that age.
2 points:
1) This "law" was put into place in 1959 to allow AA management to get rid of some troublesome senior pilots - in return the head of the FAA (now retired) got a seat on AA's board of directors a few years later. ALPA fought this but years later when the major's received pension plans and tax deferments at age 60, reversed their position.
2) Look where the industry is headed. Lower pay, more discounters, bigger regionals. The common factor is less money for retirement. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Southwest, JetBlue, AirTran have more than 401K's - most of the regionals are the same. The days of the big pensions are over - and we are all going to have work longer and harder. In this aspect, I HOPE I am wrong. Coupled to the fact that we are living substantially longer now then we were in 1959, the fixed retirement age is going to have to be adjusted.
And no, I am nowhere near 60 - I have another 25 years to go, but realistically the financial outlook for our profession is substantially less rosy than it was a few years ago.

 

[JohnDoe]

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.

 

[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.