Who is retiring soon?/ Age 60/65 rule...

[Velocipede]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

The reason the law was changed from 60 to 65 was to keep up with ICAO and the rest of the world. The FAA really had no choice but to get on par with world standards or get booted out of ICAO..

You are correct, Sir. When ICAO changed the retirement rule only 4 (FOUR!) countries were opposed to it, the U.S. being one of them. Once the ICAO rule was changed, the U.S. was forced to either conform or lose our membership in ICAO. That would have meant ZERO international flying for U.S. carriers. That, and only that, is the reason the rule changed. I guess none of you anti-65ers paid ANY attention to that.

because it added 5 more years of top ramen for a lot of people.. thats why its a big deal to us.

Or to break it down, your position is solely based personal greed.

Typical ALPA mentality...

I don't see where you guys get off with "typical ALPA" whatever.

Just looking for someone to blame and exhibiting typical ignorance of the mechanics of the ICAO treaty.

Tell me what you know about some of the main driving forces behind changing the rule?

Their answer, as illustrated by their posts, is NOTHING.

That's because you're a new guy who thinks everything is owed to them

You forgot the sarcasm tag. However, there are plenty of those out there.

From my perspective, I have seen few CAs at my base who would like to retire because of this rule. :banghead:

What is your point?

Like Seggy and Mr. Doug said, it is the way it is. I will be "enjoying" 5 more years of flying.

Actually, I WILL be enjoying another 5 years of flying...at my maximum earning potential. And the more you "poor" bastiges who had Mommy and Daddy buy your licenses whine, the more I'll be enjoying it.

man! Anyone who disagrees with Velo on age 65 is a nub!

Oh, there it is! But, you're basicly correct about one thing...the anti-65 rhetoric usually comes from the "entitlement" generation. Looks like the only thing they're going to be entitled to do is yank gear for an extra 5 years!

:yup:

And to think. . .

Huge ALPA cheerleader before getting hired.

Maintained such cheerleader status for a period of time

End up leaving the profession for personal reasons (bravo I might add - good job putting your feet where your mouth are). . .

And now. . .not much of a good thing to say about the organization.

Amazing isn't it? :banghead:

Seems you have an issue with age discrimination. . .

Take it up with the ICAO.

Again, their position indicates a complete lack of knowledge about how we got here. The Congress had NO CHOICE but to change the law and ALPA had NOTHING to say about it anyway.

That doesn't stop them from whining, though.

Wah! Someone call the Wahmbulance.

 

[skydog]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

I don't care what ICAO says. I think age 65 is bad law. I think age 60 is bad law. Any law that forces a person to give up their vocation based on an arbitrary date on the calendar is bad law, and we shouldn't support it, regardless of the impact it might have on our own lives.

As long as a person is physically and mentally qualified to do the job, they should be allowed to do so. That said, I would support more frequent medical exams for pilots over a given age. But I think that is also a decision left to doctors and pilots. Does a medical examiner have any leeway to require more frequent examinations?

The other thing to consider is the physical part of the job. Flying skills are one part of the job, but there is also the physical part. For example, throwing open the escape hatch and climbing down the escape ladder; how may 60+ people can do that?

If age 60 is safer that 65. then doesn't it follow that 55 is safer than 60? Yet I don't hear people clamoring for that on the basis of safety.

 

[Velocipede]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

I don't care what ICAO says. I think age 65 is bad law. I think age 60 is bad law. Any law that forces a person to give up their vocation based on an arbitrary date on the calendar is bad law, and we shouldn't support it, regardless of the impact it might have on our own lives.

Agreed.

As long as a person is physically and mentally qualified to do the job, they should be allowed to do so. That said, I would support more frequent medical exams for pilots over a given age. But I think that is also a decision left to doctors and pilots. Does a medical examiner have any leeway to require more frequent examinations?

Increased medical requirements would also be a form of discrimination. If you increase the requirements for pilots over 60, you must increase them for pilots under 60 as well. That would cost a whole lot of young guys their careers as well.

I don't hear them clamoring for that.

And no, medical examiners can't arbitrarily change the standards.

If age 60 is safer that 65. then doesn't it follow that 55 is safer than 60? Yet I don't hear people clamoring for that on the basis of safety.

Nor will you ever.

 

[DavCo]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Actually, our contract is terrible.

I'm not saying your contract isn't bad but I should hand you a copy of Great Lakes' contract... Maybe I can post it in the Aviation Humor section. No really, its a joke.

 

[surreal1221]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

I don't care what ICAO says. I think age 65 is bad law. I think age 60 is bad law. Any law that forces a person to give up their vocation based on an arbitrary date on the calendar is bad law, and we shouldn't support it, regardless of the impact it might have on our own lives.

As long as a person is physically and mentally qualified to do the job, they should be allowed to do so. That said, I would support more frequent medical exams for pilots over a given age. But I think that is also a decision left to doctors and pilots. Does a medical examiner have any leeway to require more frequent examinations?

The other thing to consider is the physical part of the job. Flying skills are one part of the job, but there is also the physical part. For example, throwing open the escape hatch and climbing down the escape ladder; how may 60+ people can do that?

If age 60 is safer that 65. then doesn't it follow that 55 is safer than 60? Yet I don't hear people clamoring for that on the basis of safety.

While I also might agree with you on a personal level. . .

Such an agreement does not make the ICAO change their mind. As I discussed earlier, it's a much larger issue than what we personally want for the good (hah) of the profession. We can rant and rave about how it angers us personally, but it's not going to drive a change in policy unless we each seek out positions within the ICAO or other bodies that produce such regulations. As of today, I know of none of us who are actively doing such.

I view it more as a protection for our own health and an appropriate measure to force people to be a bit more responsible when it comes to financial planning.

For good or bad other professions are not necessarily hamstrung by federal regulations or international law.

We, as professional pilots (of which you are not one of anymore), are subject to a multitude of occurrences during our lifetimes that put a great deal of stress on our bodies. We also largely make decent financial decisions. Since we know that at one day in our life we'll have to hang the hat and headset up for the last time it forces us to make prudent decisions about our retirement plans.

Many careers are not saddled with the same situation and thus people largely do not make appropriate "retirement" plans, especially in the days of 401k's and the lack of appropriate pension plans. People are then working themselves to death or bankruptcy due to medical costs due to a life of work.

As I said, I don't agree with any amount of age discrimination but I do not necessarily view our industry's (as it's not just pilots, but also controllers who's retirement policy is much more strict than ours) policies of forced retirements based on age to be a matter of discrimination. I view them as a policy of safety for not our cargo, but for ourselves as professional pilots.

 

[RPM]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Agreed.


Increased medical requirements would also be a form of discrimination. If you increase the requirements for pilots over 60, you must increase them for pilots under 60 as well. That would cost a whole lot of young guys their careers as well.


.

What.. Who cares if it's discrimination, Increased medical requirements are for safety, I'd say safety comes before hurting your feelings and all this equality BS anyday.. Sounds like you are the geriatric grandpa that needs to call the wambulance!! Old geriatric grandpa's have FAR FAR greater chance of health problems than younger guys.. and they SHOULD be scrutinized much more when they have hundreds of lives in their hands (they really need to up the standards across the board for everyone because they are a joke currently).. Discrimination or not, It's a fact.. old people have more health problems and are much more likely to drop dead in a stressful environment.

I don't wan't some geriatric having a heart attack and locking up on the controls at 50' killing me and everyone else in the back..

btw- I have yet to fly with a 60yr old that can stay awake for a whole 4day, usually by day 3 during cruise they're out cold.. Last year I went from FL370 near KMEM all the way down to the 500' callout in Miami before one of these old guys finally would come too, we thought there was something wrong with him.. and I still had to taxi in from the right seat because he was so out of it.. Turns out he had some kind of sleep apnea, good thing he was making more than twice as much as me, I love how people say the FO's have no responsibility and it's all the Captain:buck: I'd hate to see what happens when some of these guys get to 65, its just going to be worse than it is currently.. Maybe I should start filling out ASAP's for ALL the old overweight people that can't stay awake during flight (that would be a LOT of ASAPs).. It would wipe out nearly half of our captains.

 

[surreal1221]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Protecting us from ourselves.

 

[ERfly]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Somewhat related question. During the Age 60 rule time, guys that hit 60 could roll back into the FE seat until age 64, IIRC, which is why I remember 4-stripers sitting that position back in the day. Of course, that may only apply to cargo ops today....since they're some of the only ones remaining with FEs. But two q's:

1. Was that rule for all 121 ops?

2. And if so, for cargo guys or anyone still carrying an FE, now that the mandatory retirement is 65, can a guy roll back into the FE seat until 69?

I don't think there's an age limit for the back seat. I remember CAL had some guys almost pushing 80 in the back of the DC-10. I rode on one of the last 747-200s with UPS and the engineer was 71.

 

[Velocipede]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

What.. Who cares if it's discrimination, Increased medical requirements are for safety, I'd say safety comes before hurting your feelings and all this equality BS anyday.. Sounds like you are the geriatric grandpa that needs to call the wambulance!!

Yeah, name calling really makes your point. These are crew served airplanes, you know. Sometimes a little experience goes a long way. You youngsters are welcome to ride along and keep me awake.

I don't wan't some geriatric having a heart attack and locking up on the controls at 50' killing me and everyone else in the back..

I guess you have no confidence in your ability to fly the airplane in a crisis. I DON'T WANT YOU at the controls in ANY situation if that's the case. Remember, the last guy to keel over at the controls was a CAL Capt. in his '50s. The F/O saved the day. I guess you wouldn't, by your own admission, have been able to.

btw- I have yet to fly with a 60yr old that can stay awake for a whole 4day, usually by day 3 during cruise they're out cold.. Last year I went from FL370 near KMEM all the way down to the 500' callout in Miami before one of these old guys finally would come too, we thought there was something wrong with him.. and I still had to taxi in from the right seat because he was so out of it..

If this really happened then YOU need to have your license revoked for careless and reckless operation. Period. The FAA will be calling after this post is forwarded to them.

Maybe I should start filling out ASAP's for ALL the old overweight people that can't stay awake during flight (that would be a LOT of ASAPs).. It would wipe out nearly half of our captains.

Won't matter because you have forfeited any credibility due to your self-admitted careless and reckless operation of a passenger aircraft. Unless, of course, the preceding is all Bullshirt.

So, which is it, Ace? Are you a totally incompetent and unsafe pilot or just a liar. Because there is no third choice.

 

[LoadMasterC141]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Yeah, name calling really makes your point. These are crew served airplanes, you know. Sometimes a little experience goes a long way. You youngsters are welcome to ride along and keep me awake.



I guess you have no confidence in your ability to fly the airplane in a crisis. I DON'T WANT YOU at the controls in ANY situation if that's the case. Remember, the last guy to keel over at the controls was a CAL Capt. in his '50s. The F/O saved the day. I guess you wouldn't, by your own admission, have been able to.



If this really happened then YOU need to have your license revoked for careless and reckless operation. Period. The FAA will be calling after this post is forwarded to them.



Won't matter because you have forfeited any credibility due to your self-admitted careless and reckless operation of a passenger aircraft. Unless, of course, the preceding is all Bullshirt.

So, which is it, Ace? Are you a totally incompetent and unsafe pilot or just a liar. Because there is no third choice.

Well he called you a "geriatric grandpa". You called someone "Son". Both are obviously derogatory. It honestly scares me to know that professional pilots have a hard time controlling their emotions on an internet discussion board. I cannot help but wonder if they can do so in the cockpit because it would seem to me that this should be easier.

Sorry if I am beating up on this one, but honestly, so many people I know won't come to these boards at all because they see adults acting like kids. This could be a civil discussion. Really, it could. Throw out all that crap and this easily could be a very good discussion, much like alot of threads on this board.

 

[Velocipede]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Well he called you a "geriatric grandpa". You called someone "Son". Both are obviously derogatory.

Not really. I call my kid "Son" every day. He doesn't seem to be offended.

This could be a civil discussion. Really, it could. Throw out all that crap and this easily could be a very good discussion, much like alot of threads on this board.

Could we please see your badge, Mr. Internet Policeman?

 

[LoadMasterC141]

Alright man....I tried ya know. If you want to continue, and the JC folks want to let you, and a few others that consistently think it is OK to make personal attacks and derogatory statements about others, then so be it. You are right, I am not an internet policeman; just some guy that enjoys JC alot, save this kind of stuff.

 

[RPM]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Alright, sorry for any grandpa name calling.. I'm not even responding to this arrogant crap anymore after this..

But, I do love the reckless accusations.. you have NO idea exactly what happened in the above situation or exactly how it was handled.. the simple facts are the flight landed safely without incident and the captain can no longer hold a medical.. most rational people consider the outcome a good thing.

 

[meritflyer]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

Could we please see your badge, Mr. Internet Policeman?

Two words...

Flight Info.

 

[adreamer]

What is your point?

Velo

There are some CAs I have flown with who would like to retire. The reason - They are tired of "some BS". They are not tired of flying. I feel bad for them when their retirement package got take away from them.

Actually, I WILL be enjoying another 5 years of flying...at my maximum earning potential.

To be honest, I have to thanks for this rule. I can fly 5 more years.

 

[MikeD]

Gents, knock off the personal stuff and lets keep it civil. I merged/reopened this thread because it had some great info and discussion going, it just needed a short timeout to let some emotions cool. Now lets keep the good info and discussion going, alright?

And answer my damn question!

 

[derg]

Generally, the call to "knock it off" comes out in a heated thread, which is a good sign that it's being watched. Then someone doesn't heed the warning and then we've got to bring some smack down in the thread. Some reds and yellows get thrown out and then the "Wha?! Where'd that come from?" is exclaimed.

Man, perhaps this is a big "The Matrix"!

...We have been here before...

 

[surreal1221]

So long as you're not the Oracle I'll be happy. . .

Or maybe I need to watch the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films again.

The huge orgy scene in #3 was pretty cool.

 

[meritflyer]

Re: Age 60 (65) Rule

And to think. . .

Huge ALPA cheerleader before getting hired.

Maintained such cheerleader status for a period of time

End up leaving the profession for personal reasons (bravo I might add - good job putting your feet where your mouth are). . .

And now. . .not much of a good thing to say about the organization.

Quite the change in opinion over a relatively short period of time.

To think that you might have been a perfect fit to help us fight the challenges that lay ahead and yet you no longer have a vested interest in what occurs so you're now willing to minimize the great work being done at every opportunity.

Hmm. . .

You're obviously not reading into my comment nor position correctly.

I think ALPA is a stellar organization with an appropriate goal (generally speaking) but with the wrong approach, mentality, and leadership (generally speaking). I was actually somewhat anti-union prior to my hire (still am somewhat anti-union, not anti-ALPA), became a heavy supporter in my 121 experience, and still am pro-ALPA. However, the organization has more issues and shortcomings to deal with than the American financial institutions.

My opinion hasn't changed one bit and I am still a huge proponent of the profession, union pilots, and what they all hope for. I do however firmly believe that if ALPA wants to get anywhere, they need a serious change in leadership, tactics, and agenda. When I say "typical ALPA mentality", that's exactly what I mean. The union needs to stop acting like a union per se and must behave and negotiate like the business unit that they are. At that juncture, they will move in the appropriate direction but not until that paradigm shift happens through tough leadership and policies.

In essence, your web based opinion of my position couldn't be more wrong.

 

[derg]

Wasn't really a big fan of the rumba/jungle/"Stomp" music, but it was a'ight.