Age 62.5 Rule?
 

As I was pontificating on my throne this morning about the seamingly endless swim I have in front of me, I started to wonder if a change to the age 65 rule might stimulate some much needed movement in this industry. Call it a compromise or the age 62.5 rule.

I'm just a dumb pilot but wouldn't some movement in this industry be a good thing. I'm hoping this doesn't start a war but Im curious as to what folks who are much smarter than me think the effects of something like this might be.

That would be great if it wouldn't take years to push through congress

I think by the time 2012 hits it will be a mute point. The change to age 65 took years to finally become a change and I personally can't see them changing back with the retirement age by the time 2012 rolls around.

Besides are government is busy trying to figure out what to spend all of our wonderfully tax-donated stimulus package dollars, and we all know how demanding a job like that can be. :rolleyes:

It will go the other way. The age limit will be removed via court action. You might see more stringent medical examinations and requirements but don't look for the age limit to ever be lowered.

"Much needed movement" is a matter of perspective. There's plenty of pilots who had the rug yanked out of them when their pensions evaporated; I'm sure they'd like to have the option to work as long as they're medically capable. Let's face it . . . they got here first, and their career expectations have been unalterably changed for the worse already. I'm more on their side, even if it means a little more waiting for myself.

It's a bit of a con game now anyway. Aren't Part 135 operators able to fly with no age limit as long as they can hold a medical? So you can shuttle passengers part 135 on aircraft of all shapes and sizes, but if your employer is a 121 operator, now you're totally unsafe for some strange reason at age 65.

I'll split the difference and go for an age 63.75 rule.........or we could remove the rule entirely and change it to read, "all pilots shall be subject to retirement no later then 1 week (7 calander days) before they drop dead".

Some would have to retire much earlier then the current 65 and some much later.

Fly til you die.

Just like F/As in the US.

So what about those pilots who didn't have the "rug yanked out of them" and kept their pensions? Should they be required to still retire at 60?

Personally? I think the feds should devise realistic medical evaluations for pilots and as long as you can pass them, you should be able to work in your profession as long as you want. Clearly, the current medical exam is a throwback to the 1950's and needs to be addressed, but I suspect many pilots (particularly the grey-haired variety) would probably fail. To them, an arbitrary age 60/65 rule is in their best interest as it keeps them in the cockpit longer . . .perhaps too long.

Not a big fan of federals telling private citizens what they can and cannot do. Remember, unions are perfectly capable of negotiating work rules that are MORE stringent than federal laws. If pilots want to restrict their group from working past some arbitrary age, more power to them, I guess. What's so hard with pilots taking responsibility for their own?

Isn't that what being a "professional" is all about?

(note: this is my "ideal". There are federal laws about age discrimination that come into play, I suspect.)