Originally Posted by
Cujo665
How's that safety argument doing when they continue to pass the same FAA medical you do, and continue to pass checking events like you do, and continue to do the job like you do, and the only difference is the calendar went past a date? Many would argue that keeping such high level experience in the seat is improving safety. They could also correctly add that it serves the nation by reducing the number of cancellations nationally. If they can leave and continue flying 135 jets then why not just stay where they are and alleviate some of the stress on the system.
In reality it harms nobody. The ones screaming "get out of my seat" get to work the extra two years at the end if they choose also. It's not like anybody is saying we're going to work two extra years, but you can't. So even the monetary argument is false. It boils down to the "I want it now" vs the "I want to stay." I'd say the "I want to stay" crowd have the age discrimination law on their side.
The question then becomes, will they make that same argument to push for age 70? There does have to be some cut off, but does it need to be performance driven, or just arbitrarily age driven? Should we require 3 medicals and 2 check rides per year from over 65 pilots? Should the over 65 pilot medical be more involved, to include hearing, and some stamina testing off a tread mill or bicycle? How about cognitive testing for over 65? Then the question becomes why make their medical harder? isn't the basic one good enough? if it's good enough to let you fly, why not him?
Yep, it's a complicated issue for sure. I tend to come down on the let them fly side, primarily because they can still go fly 135 carrying passengers for hire. If they can't carry passengers for 121 after age 65 then they shouldn't do it under 135 either... likewise, if they can fly after age 65 carrying passengers for hire under 135, then they should be able to do so under 121 too. I think that point, combined with the age discrimination aspect is going to give the age 67 folks the win. That and a whole lot of money from managements into re-election PAC's.
I don't think your points are necessarily wrong, but I look at it this way - you're arguing "why
shouldn't we?"when the real argument is "why
should we?" Who benefits? Senior pilots (financially) and the company's who would go to the ends of the earth to avoid sweetening labor contracts. If there was currently a debate about establishing a mandatory retirement age, your points would resonate better. But the argument is about why we should keep moving the established age up, and the crux of that argument is to help alleviate the pilot shortage driven by retirements. It's this looming phenomena that has granted a great deal of leverage to pilots all over, not just 121. The salary and QOL improvements that have grown out of this situation over the last 10 years is remarkable. I view pilots at the top of the payscale, arguing in favor of Age 67, as willingly and selfishly sacrificing that leverage at the expense of those below them. You're talking about throwing water on coals that haven't been this hot in 60 years. I think if the industry was stagnant right now, there wouldn't be as much passion. But it's the opposite, it's roaring. Companies are hoping for a recession or anything to cool it off and take the wind out of labor's sails. Age 67 helps them and hurts everyone else. Stop giving them ways around improving this job. They're using the greed of the individual to stave it off as long as possible. Stop helping.