You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
I'm sorry, but from my non-121 viewpoint, this whole arguement is ridiculous. You're taking some of the most experienced pilots, and safe pilots out of the cockpit. I flew with a few guys over 80 in my flight instructing days, and tell you what, every one of us can learn lessons from those folks.
Wait till you are flying across the pond on a eight hour leg and the old guy doesn't want to land at night or shoot an approach that isn't above basic VFR. Then you tell me if he needs to be sitting in the left seat.
But this whole issue was never about safety or age discrimination, that is just their false battle cry. It is about money pure and simple. Once again the junior guys are having to pay the price for the senior ones by not getting hired or upgrading as projected. The current crop of 60ish guys beneifted from age 60 by getting hired or upgrading and they want another turn instead of getting off the ride like their ticket stub says.
Medical standards may not change today or tommorrow but they will change thanks to age 60.
I'm sorry, but from my non-121 viewpoint, this whole arguement is ridiculous. You're taking some of the most experienced pilots, and safe pilots out of the cockpit. I flew with a few guys over 80 in my flight instructing days, and tell you what, every one of us can learn lessons from those folks. As far as turbojet ops, I'd think that most of their actions are slightly slower, but more accurate in the case of an emergency.
Ok, so let's yank everyone under 30 from flying jets, if anyone under 30yrs old has a wreck. Come on', be a little more thoughtful in what you say, the same thing can be said for any age group if you want to play that game.
Honestly, with the Regionals upping the min's back to 1000+hrs would be great. Actually get people that have seen more in real-life situations, than just in their training environment.
Flame me if you will, but remember there are always two sides to any story. With the current rush of new-hires in the regionals anyways, I really don't see the problem of halting all progress with new folks getting jet-jobs. There are hardly any "qualified" people left to be hired, so maybe a slow-down would help out to replenish the supply of able and willing bodies for the next hiring rush.
There are plenty of experienced pilots out there to replace the retiring ones. They're the ones that are junior to them on the seniority lists.
Don't be fooled, there are plenty of qualified people out there for the jobs. It's just that they won't work for what they are paying in regards to salary's and contracts.
I know of 1 airline that is saying there's a pilot shortage because they only got a fraction of applicants this time compared to the last time they opened the application window. the pool of pilots that they pulled from is at least twice as large as it was in the past. they just aren't applying.
It's not so much about reaction times...those are measured every six months in the sim anyway.
It's about overall health, which is significant for two reasons:
1) Sudden Incapacitation. The older you get, the more likely that this will happen...many of the causes (ie aneuryism) can't be predicted without extremely expensive and invasive medical procedures. This is just a fact and no amount of arguing can get around it. The older you get, the higher the risk...what's the cutoff point? Hard to say, but I wouldn't want to go much older than 65.
2) Exhuastion: Older folks don't handle the stress of the road as well (redeyes, commutes, time zones, altitude, noise, chemicals, etc). A guy who could pass his medical and sim (with plenty of rest) might not perform so well after flying the rougher schedules for a few days. Most old (and usually senior) guys have the better schedules, but not all.
My dad is 67, and I know there's no way he could handle some of the schedules I fly...and he's in good health, eats right and exercises. He just get tired too easily.
Your opinions or factual data to back it up? I find it a little hard to believe. We have several guys well into their 70's and they handle the 121 Cargo/17 days/International flying just fine. I think if you take care of yourself and stay healthy, age doesn't matter. The argument will always be about guys worrying about their own personal career.
Wait till you are flying across the pond on a eight hour leg and the old guy doesn't want to land at night or shoot an approach that isn't above basic VFR. Then you tell me if he needs to be sitting in the left seat.
Actually I have only seen the oposite. Just landed the other day in EWR in some a** kicking winds, 400 OVC, wet runway and the old guy (59 3/4) did a dam fine job of setting it down. I have no problems flying with the old guys. They are a lot smarter/wiser, they stay calm when it hits the fan, and they don't take any crap from the company and usually the company doesn't try with them. They (company) will with the new batch of Captains.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
