Originally Posted by org1

I realize you might not have seen this question answered the other 15 or so times, but here it is again: the reason for the FO under 60 is politics; it's what it took to appease the nay sayers. This requirement too will pass a few years down the road.

The one thing that really chaps me about this whole debate is the BS BOTH SIDES are using to try to place the emphasis on safety. Admit it: the whole argument is about MONEY. The young guys want it. The old guys want it. The only valid argument is, is it fair to force an individual to retire based solely on his age. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Is an old guy with 20,000 hours safer than a less old guy with 12,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, anyway. Is a less old guy with 12,000 hours safer than an old guy with 20,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, either.