Panel Splits on Raising Airline Pilot Retirement Age
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...3GXOo&refer=us


Could someone please explain to me how and why it is discriminatory to force a pilot to retire at age 60 but it is not discriminatory to force that same pilot to retire at age 65?

I find it perplexing that a group calling themselves Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination would support replacing one number with a different number.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but isn't this still age discrimination? Wouldn't retirement based on ones ability to pass a Class I physical be the only true non-discriminatory policy?

Perhaps this group should call themselves Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination for Age 60 Pilots but in favor of Discrimating Against Those Older Than Age 65?"

Tipsy

True its still discrimination, but I don't really want a healthy 75 year old with inch thick glassed driving me or my family around. I also don't want to be that 75 year old.

It's not really that perplexing. It's called Politics. It's called tit-for-tat. It's called give-and-take. I'm sure they would like to get any age reference to forced airline retirement eliminated. But, they also know that for now, that's quite impossible. So they are backing an age that might perhaps be a stepping stone for what you suggest, the passage of a real FAA Class I physical, and possibly other cognitive tests to make sure that they will not just taxi an airplane out on the tarmac and forget why, or worse. But they have to start somewhere. At least that's my impression. Might be right, might be wrong.

Would you rather have a healthy 75 year old with normal vision, excellent health and a lifetime of experience flying you around or the 45 year old that is overweight and barely able to pass the medical exam flying you around..? Whatever happened to common sense? We have testing and screening for a reason. Let it function. Away with arbitrary and unreasonably discriminatory rules.

Wow, you just resurected an 11-year old thread... :eek:

A bad case of thread-necrophilia.. How appropriate... :D

Nice first post APAAD Deux !

Not yet quite 60. While carding some of the lowest rounds of my life, albeit from white tees, have to admit the obvious; in no way the same motor vehicle operator I was at 30. Where and how does the system draw the line?
There may be no perfectly fair answer.

Simple. You draw the line where the pilot no longer meets the required performace criteria. Medical, or recurrent training. I for one, am very healthy, and can run a lot of pilots 10-15 years younger than me, into the ground. After 17 years of no pay in this industry, I am finally this year, making what I consider good money. If I have to retire at 65 then so be it. If there is an option to continue I might just stay. If you want to kick 65 year old pilots out for a loss of cog skills under the guise of safety, then you should hold the same standard for 55 and 60 year olds. Just my opinion.

At age 65 one must hang up the goggles for part 121 operations. However, that same pilot who turned age 65 today can fly the same jet the next day under parts 125, 91 and 135, baring the payload restrictions under 135, and contracts under 125. Go figure.

Better yet some countries in the South Pacific did not adopt the ICAO age 65 age retirement either.

Good point.

My god I saw this thread at the top and I thought 67 was on the way

Me too. lol.

If they were to ever increase the age again there needs to be some type of phase in process. That last deal of adding five years with immediate effect harmed one generation of pilots while aiding another.

A personal example being that our family spent the five additional career years at the Regional FO wage, while another family spent the five additional years at top-end Mainline pay. That's why I could not previously support the push for age 65. Without a slow transition to any new rule (age, based on medical, etc.) keeping some movement alive in the industry, too many suffer all at once while others gain.

The true winners the last time were the airlines, and they wasted those years seeking concessions and kicking the can on making the industry desireable.

I don't want the 75 year old, period.

The problem is not sudden incapacitation, which is what the Medical Certificate system is designed to protected against, it is cognitive decline.

We can not even reliably diagnose early Alzheimer's, let alone determine that someone is getting through a PC based on 40 years of practice but will be clueless on a real world crappy non-precision approach.

Some careers lend themselves to old age, lawyers for example. Others do not, such as professional racing, law enforcement and ATC. We fall in the later group. And until there is a way to evaluate cognitive decline at what are for the general population low levels, we have little choice but to draw a hard line.

And yes, Parts 91 and 125 have older pilots. They also have stories about pilots who should have retired but didn't.

Interesting... I hear about under 60 pilots who should find a different career...

Absolutely!

One set of lottery winners at the expense of everyone else.

Agreed, tough to argue past this. Relying solely on a control where colleagues deliver snapshot downs to those either not recognizing, or accepting, the time has come to throw in the towel is not likely to have consistent results.

Every single pilot who has died in flight has been under 60.

Wow, do you really want to set the bar that low?

Really poor choice of words on this topic.

Hahahaha Point well taken. I guess in my older senile years I did not quite think through the implications of the term "in the ground" :-)

If you have empirical evidence that this is a real danger, (maybe it is maybe it isn't), then I think it would be appropriate for all pilots to have to take a cog test as a baseline when 50 and every 5 years after until 65. Then test every two years to continue to fly. I wonder how many 55 year old pilots would find themselves with a problem......

That's what government does best. :mad:

I don't think it's unreasonable to think we will see the 67 age in the next 5-10 years. The pilot shortage will brighten up the decision room in time. I'm not saying I'm for or against it, but supply and demand will play in again.
My 2 cents.

And how many 40 year old weak pilots were sharp at age 30? A weak 40 year old was always weak. A weak 55 year old was always weak. A weak 64 year old is too often a sad reminder of the sharp guy that we used to fly with.

We decline as we age, it is a simple ugly truth. Some more than others, but anyone in their 50s who is planning their retirement needs to consider that at some point they are likely to have to stop driving, likely to become more vulnerable to scams (buy gold coins!), likely to need help keeping their life in order. And that is just normal aging -- Dementia is an altogether different ball game.

I have a family member who is a physician. He recently commented that medicine's understanding of the brain is 100 years behind that of the rest of the body. It was a casual comment, but the underlying point is that we really do not have a good grasp of how the brain works, and anyone putting faith in current medicine to reliably identify early deterioration is being wildly optimistic.

The only people that are supporting the fly till you die concepts are the guys with no pension! It's rare to see a guy age 65 that is financially able to retire actually want to keep doin this.

Pilots submit to a cog check no less than 3 times a year, (baring those who have an approved AVQ Program) two sim checks a year, and the annual line check, and of course the no notice line check.

I have to say, nightrider, your statement, IMO, is one of emotion and frustration, rather than having any validity. If my observation is incorrect, then do share you data collection tools used whilst conducting your study that lends credibility to your statement.

You should know there are countries that have not subscribed to the ICAO retirement age 65.

Really????? I have prepared my finances so that if I lost my medical I could retire today. I work for K4 because I love what I do. If you don't love your job in aviation then, for your health, get out and do something else. The argument of "you are in my seat" no longer applies at K4. The same can be said for many other airlines today. We are starving for qualified pilots and I expect to see our upgrade time go to under 2 years soon. When I reach 65, if the limit is higher and I still love going to work I will probably stay.

If the age is raised again, it should not result in furloughs or delayed career expectations. Sure, before either happens, there will be some room to play with due to demand. However, ultimately, the only way this can be guaranteed is to decide now and delay age 67's implementation by 44 years. (or if the age is 70, by 47 years, et al.). The math is based on those getting their 117/121 careers started at 23 and those after them will be the only ones that will benefit.

Sure, hiring phases and the economy will have cycled a few times and in that time, or hell, we might even go to single or no pilot ops, but so what. Of course this will not be popular with those nearing retirement (most of us know we what we got into and we already got a 5 year extension) or with the airlines (raise the damn pay and bennies).

What's K4? I am 64 and 3/4 and I would stay. The job is easy and I enjoy it. I am happy to go to work and happy to go home. ��

Anyone with ANY experience in the airline business knows there is no such thing as "career expectations". Ask any Pan Am, Wien, Eastern, TWA, Capitol, Braniff, Midwest Express, Midway, etc. ad infinitium pilot what happened to their "career expectations".

Nothing is promised in piloting and wise pilots are prepared for the ups and downs of the career.

Sounds like a Dog Pound to me. Freight Dog Pound, that is. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed (Post 2372083)

If the age is raised again, it should not result in furloughs or delayed career expectations.

---

Putting aside long term company financial health, expansion, mergers, etc., the most important factor in one’s career is retirements. To actually state that raising the age won’t affect career expectations shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation. The main reason the majors have been hiring like crazy for the last few years is the 5 year extension the old guys got ran out in 2014 and regular retirements began again. Additionally, raising the age might not result in furloughs now but should they come, there will be pilots on the street who would not otherwise be there because the seniors stayed and less were hired prior to the furlough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed (Post 2372083)

Sure, before either happens, there will be some room to play with due to demand.

---

Sounds like you’ve got your finger on the pulse of the entire industry’s hiring/furlough plans. :rolleyes: Guess where the “demand” comes from that will supposedly allow some “room to play with”? Yup – the retirements you seem to think have no effect on anyone’s career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed (Post 2372083)

Sure, hiring phases and the economy will have cycled a few times and in that time, or hell, we might even go to single or no pilot ops, but so what.

---

So what? I’m not real worried about single pilot ops much less no pilot ops, but “so what”? Really? Do you bother to actually think before you start the stream of consciousness? What even is your point here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ludicrous Speed (Post 2372083)

Of course this will not be popular with those nearing retirement (most of us know we what we got into and we already got a 5 year extension) or with the airlines (raise the damn pay and bennies).

---

“Most of us”? Who is that? The pilots hired in the last decade who didn’t have to wait on seniority and upgrades because of the age change? Guess what junior, “Most of us” where already here by then and got in when the age was 60. Take a look at any major airline’s seniority list and you’ll see most pilots were hired before the age change. Looking at many who were hired after the age change, don’t you realize that a lot of them would have been there much sooner without the age change?

“Raise the damn pay and bennies”? Another WTF statement. One of the reasons major airlines have any incentive to raise the pay/benefits is to remain competitive during periods of hiring. You think this incentive remains when an age change gives them additional pilots they weren’t planning on having available? Does the pilot group have more or less leverage during negotiations if there are an abundance of pilots on the property? Do you think it’s a coincidence that every major airline has raised pay and been hiring since the end of the 5 years from the first age change?

“5-year extension” might be how you see it, since it appears you weren’t here to live it. A lot of us didn’t want an “extension”. More like a stagnation. We didn’t want to wait an extra 5 years to hold better lines, better paying equipment, earn our high-5 for retirement, etc. Many of us didn’t (or still don’t) want to work until we’re 65. Fortunately some of us still have that choice. 20-30 years from now you might feel a bit differently about getting an “extension” to your career.

But we did and it’s done. I’m over it. But I have to speak up when it’s clear you are either attempting to revise history by downplaying this event (and possibly future changes to the age) or more likely have absolutely no clue what you’re trying to talk about.

I can now see why you misinterpreted what I said in the beginning which set the tone for the rest of your fly off the handle post.

If the age is raised, it should be conditional in that it doesn't result in furloughs or delayed career expectations. Never mind the rest of the post that points to such. Better? Is context not your thing, Junior?:rolleyes:

Before you reply, take a breath, think and don't pop a blood vessel.

Point taken and I am well aware of airline history. The fact remains is that there is such a thing as career expectations. There is a reason that that the term is ubiquitous in contracts and other legal documents involving seniority list mergers. Anyone with ANY experience in the airline business knows that:rolleyes:

Why would anyone want to continue working past 65.
I've never heard anyone from their deathbed say "I wish I would've worked more".
Get a hobby. Enjoy your family & home life. We've all traveled enough during our working lives.

True. But with all the L/O time, at least I can head west with the satisfaction of knowing it physically impossible to have adjusted the antenna any more:)

Could you please explain this to my wife? :D

She has grand plans. I don't want to leave the zip code.

Your circle of contacts must be limited to the millennial crowd.

However, don't dispare, you'll get the left seat.... eventually;) hopefully that is, before the DARPA robot that can land an airplane doesn't replace the younger generation.:eek:

:confused:

When I encounter millennials here and there , do I like what I see? Yes, for the most part, very much. Boomers, having qualified everything with; "play the game, don't believe in it." Who's at fault if they listened?