Age 67
06-14-2023 | 10:03 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 258
Likes: 6
From: 75/76 CA
06-16-2023 | 07:43 AM
#5
On Reserve
Joined: Dec 2021
Posts: 122
Likes: 2
I think the major objection is career progression i.e. upgrade and dollars. I do see a benefit, I think that if they do raise the age to 67 you could relegate those pilots to the right seat. This would fall right in line with the FAA mandated PPD Program (Professional Pilot Development). The experienced over 65 pilot in the right seat could act as mentor to the newly upgraded Captain, this allows the FOs to get to the money and the upgrade and it also keeps experience in the cockpit. Now if an over 65 pilot doesn't want to take the right with the pay and seniority associated with it, they can retire.
06-16-2023 | 09:09 AM
#6
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
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.
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.
06-16-2023 | 09:15 AM
#7
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 87
Likes: 3
From: 1%
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.
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.
06-16-2023 | 09:34 AM
#9
Disinterested Third Party
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,758
Likes: 74
Postage stamp increases aren't arbitrary; they're driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
06-16-2023 | 12:23 PM
#10
Line Holder
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,607
Likes: 4
From: No Hats No Jackets No PAX
A few countries have pilots beyond 65 and some with stipulations so it’s not like we are the first outlier to make this approach. Just a matter of time and what age and seniority you will be at when this solidifies. Next step is scaling down the crew size on long haul and then the most debated topic - autonomous. Not taking sides just always know that if you can’t jump across the pond to solid ground then you will lilly pad it step by step. Just a process of elimination.
*Humans always try and try just to see if they could and rarely stop and think if they should. Nature of the beast.
*Humans always try and try just to see if they could and rarely stop and think if they should. Nature of the beast.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
