Age 65 rule to be looked at again. A Press
06-19-2009, 02:11 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: crj-200 FO
Posts: 479
Even if they reversed it, I'd imagine all the 61+ guys would get "grandfathered" over to retire at 65 still. Be stupid for congress to throw a bunch of older pilots into retirement when pensions are all gone. That would cause a mess in the lives of these pilots.
06-19-2009, 02:16 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,275
It wont get reversed. Once the ICAO standard went to 65 the US had to come into compliance. The only way you could have had even a small chance of winning a court challange to 65 was if the US dropped out of ICAO and banned foreign pilots over 60 from flying into the US. The FAA approved them to fly into the US so once that was done the FAA had stated its not a safety issue. From that point on the issue was over and thats why the change came so fast. There were hundreds of lawsuits lining up that the FAA could never have won. Its also why ALPA dropped its opposition to 65 and worked instead to craft the best rules possible. The key one they were able to add being no ability to come back if over 60 and already retired.
06-19-2009, 02:34 PM
#14
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by deltabound
Correct me if I'm wrong (really!), but wasn't the change in the age 65 rule a result of international pressure to come into compliance with European standards? If so, I suspect it won't be as easy to reverse as you might think. Plus, it would be awfully unfair to any pilot 55+ who has to once again revise his retirement planning.
On a broader note, you have to hand it to Europeans. They took the lead on RVSM years before the US, and the EU (and the UK, especially) has already moved to rework flight/duty/rest requirements. We can only hope the US follows that last . . .
On a broader note, you have to hand it to Europeans. They took the lead on RVSM years before the US, and the EU (and the UK, especially) has already moved to rework flight/duty/rest requirements. We can only hope the US follows that last . . .
I should have been more clear in my post. I wasn't suggesting that we get Age 65 reversed. I want to counter sue anyone who wants to further increase the mandatory retirement ABOVE 65. I don't want to try to get AGE 65 reversed.
06-19-2009, 02:34 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: 320B
Posts: 511
Age seems like an arbitrary way to judge health and fitness to fly. How about tightening medical standards and encouraging some one the 280 pounders to get in shape or find another occupation. Nothing like doing a control check and wiping the captains charts off on his belly!
06-19-2009, 02:38 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by sailingfun
It wont get reversed. Once the ICAO standard went to 65 the US had to come into compliance. The only way you could have had even a small chance of winning a court challange to 65 was if the US dropped out of ICAO and banned foreign pilots over 60 from flying into the US. The FAA approved them to fly into the US so once that was done the FAA had stated its not a safety issue. From that point on the issue was over and thats why the change came so fast. There were hundreds of lawsuits lining up that the FAA could never have won. Its also why ALPA dropped its opposition to 65 and worked instead to craft the best rules possible. The key one they were able to add being no ability to come back if over 60 and already retired.
06-19-2009, 02:40 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: Military Flight Instructor
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by Tomcat
Age seems like an arbitrary way to judge health and fitness to fly. How about tightening medical standards and encouraging some one the 280 pounders to get in shape or find another occupation. Nothing like doing a control check and wiping the captains charts off on his belly!
06-19-2009, 02:40 PM
#19
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by buzzpat
So if a 40 year old pilot dies of natural causes should we then pass a law that only pilots older than 41 can fly? This CO 61 thing is a canard.
So where do we draw the line then? If it's raised to 68, then what stops it from going to 70 or 72 or so on. We all know that just because someone can pass his medical that does NOT mean that ones reaction time or thought process has NOT deteriorated. We have arguments about cutting elderly people off from driving, driving! And we want to let people continue flying because they can get a medical? The line has to be drawn somewhere.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
