Originally Posted by Indy refugee
So you would also support a rule preventing anyone from getting hired above the age of 29, as controllers are. I just got hired at JB at 40. Maybe, you should have to have your ATP by 29. Sorry, I got mine at 36.
My whole problem with age 60 is the discriminatory aspect of it. If General Motors or Microsoft instituted a madatory retirement age, the EEOC would be all over them. But if you friendly we're-here-to-help Federal government does it, it's ok.
Your post and your employer explain a lot to me about your attitude towards this regulation. In fact, there seems to be a bias against other longstanding FAR's by your company and your pilot group as well. I find that...interesting.
Sorry you got to the hiring party late (not my fault), but many of these reg's have been paid for in blood, tears, and twisted metal and deserve more than a just cavalier "review" and the PC "age-discrimination" hankie-wave reason for change.
You didn't respond to the rest of my post. Time does march on, inexorably. And I don't know if having to pass a $1000 astronaut physical every 6 months (or less) is the preferred solution for the vast majority of those us who can live with the current existing alternative. But I d*mn well want a closer look at why Age 60 should be changed other than being concerned with improving your economic situation, solving your late hiring problem or tilting at some PC windmill like "age discrimination".
And yes, somehow I get the feeling that if GM or MSFT had a position in which they were licensed and regulated by the Federal Gov't, which required mandatory recurrent training and testing (including medical and drug), and in which they were responsible for hundreds of innocents, I would bet that the EEOC probably wouldn't have much to say about it.
A previous poster wisely said nothing will be solved on this thread in this forum. Spot on.
I hope you enjoy rolling your wheelchair down the jetbridge...
You'll get the last word, I'm done with ya'.