Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
I'm in favor of it. There is no valid reason why, if a pilot is fit and medically qualified, he or she cannot operate as captain above age 65.
This is very much a matter of get-out-of-my-seat, old man, I-want-your-job.
Those who think their career progress is stymied by those above them failing to retire seem to be quite willing to ignore the premise of seniority, when it suits them. Seniority is everything, they say, until they want what someone more senior has: a job. Get out of my way, old man, I want your job. You were here longer, you served longer, you have more experience, and you've earned your position more than I, yet you must go so that I may get what I'm entitled to: your job. Make room for me, old man, because I'm entitled.
No, if the captain is able to do his job, then he is able to do his job.
Will it do much, if anything, to alter the state of the imaginary "pilot shortage?" No. No more than dumbing down or reducing the qualifications for entry level pilots with their ATP. It may alter timing slightly, but not the numbers.
I was in cockpits with flight engineers when the age was raised from 60 to 65, and I flew with pilots who retired from a pilot seat to the FE seat at age 60, then moved back to the left seat when the age was raised to 65. The same loud objections and whining echoed off the heavens when the age was raised to 65, and we saw no elevated safety issues connected to the change. Just entitled sniveling curtain climbers who felt that they were owed something by those above them getting out of their way. The same get-out-of-my-way, old man, I-want-your-job entitlement then. I saw those same captains reach 65 and move back to the FE seat. The tired argument that they'd be sick of flying and sick of earning a living and worn out at age 60 didn't hold true at age 65. They would have been quite capable of continuing as captains, should the retirement age have been 67.
I got a union communique recently urging me to protest the drive to age 67. I disagree. I'm for it. Wholeheartedly. I was for raising the age to 65, and I'm for raising it to 67.
It's a valid point that he's making. Here's another take or perspective for you guys out there. Some may have a bit more difficulty understanding some people's positions and/or reasoning. Or, maybe not. Remember that everyone's different and has a unique situation. NO condescending tone is intended here. So, in my career I was "late to the game" at age 38. Where I ultimately had wanted to be. While sometimes it's unfortunate with the timing of these factors. So, many of you may understand that in the 1980's and 1990's there were airline bankruptcies, furloughs and job losses. That's just life, and I've accepted it. I would have continued onto age 67, because I was enjoying myself. And, I had felt I was contributing in a positive way to my younger colleagues along the way within our company. Hopefully, I could aid or truly help in shaping the more junior crew members. What I mean here, is into what I had perceived for them to become the best functioning crew member that they could be based of my experiences (good or bad). Our company's safety culture has been ever evolving like most have. Our flight operations had to turn around. It has. I was with the largest express air transportation company in the world. That being said, I did feel as if I was slowing down in areas like cognitive abilities and some physicality's. But never getting to the point of being unsafe OR dangerous. I am NOT a "couch potato", at all. Although, being forced out at age 65, I've had a most wonderful airline piloting career as a Captain on a widebody aircraft. Will I miss it? You bet I will/am! However, NOT everything is missed about it. Isn't that normal though? The most satisfying things were flying with some great other talents, mine and their contributions in a way that resulted in NO bent metal and NO incidents while flying safely (knock on wood here!). Many thoughts crossing my mind on continuation of flying. It's NOT necessarily because it's for the big money either. In fact, I am in pretty good shape through a lot of hard work and discipline over the decades. It's more about the "like or love" of flying, or the ongoing challenges or inquisitiveness of other sectors of aviation. The lifestyle. The "use it or lose it" of your hard earned skills (cognitive, developed judgment and flying). Sometimes shifting gears is a good thing, however there is a big adjustment upon retiring. There are other interests and things I like doing. Make no mistake. Striking a good balance for an individual is key here though. Hopefully, this may shed another light on this age 67 issue. However, why just 67? I am only seeing these benefits for the pilot shortages at the Part 121 regional airlines right now. For much needed Captains. i.e. Look at SWC (Sky West Airlines - Charter, Contour Airlines) Part 135 needs for this. Maybe for the pilots still flying who haven't hit the age 65 mark yet, but are about to?