L'il J.Seinfeld

Age 65 will not be that big of a deal, especially at UPS/FDX. You'd have to assume that every single 60 year old will stay until 65. That won't happen. It'll probably be 50%. Besides our seat progression is driven by growth and expansion, not retirements. We are creating additional capt seats and age 65 has nothing to do with it. AGe 60 is the age for full retirement under our current contract. So anyone flying past 60 will be doing it at a discount because he could be making 60k a year in retirement anyway. Health problems become exponential as guys turn 60 so many will lose their medical. Those that can pass the physicals deserve to fly IMO.

ClutchCargo

According to the FAA Admin it will be two years or longer before this rule takes effect. So we can all bid a fond farewell to Foxhunter in less than nine months.

Even the foulest wind blows some good...

Unfortunately Non-Member Bob will still be around for 3+ years.

MaydayMark

Bye, Bye Foxhunter George, we'll really miss you

Hope we'll still get your valuable input/opinions on important issues on this board (From the nursing home, make sure the nurses change your DEPENDS regularly or you might get bed sores! And make sure they wipe the druel from your chin so it doesn't get chapped).

Regards,

Mark

sandman2122

We have a lot of over 60 FE's basically flying for free at FedEx. If they have > 25 yrs at the company they could be sitting at home enjoying their +/- $130K a year retirement but nope, they're out doing night hubturns in the back of the 72 or -10 because they want to...........for free.

Velocipede

Pretty soon, they'll be doing them from the left seat instead of sidesaddle.

sandman2122

Not likely...........

FoxHunter

Very few over 60 guys have 25 years with FDX. Most are ex EAL, BNF, CAL, FTL, or they are retired military. A few did not even start at FedEx until they were past age 50.

FoxHunter

Don't count on it!! BTW I guess you'll be providing my "C". Thanks

KnightFlyer

Associated Press
FAA Offers to Raise Pilot Retirement Age
By LESLIE MILLER 01.30.07, 3:30 PM ET

Airline pilots would be allowed to fly until they turn 65 instead of the current mandatory retirement age of 60 under new rules proposed by the Federal Aviation Administration.

At least one member of a flight crew would still have to be under 60 under the proposal announced Tuesday by agency administrator Marion Blakey.

The FAA's proposal mirrors a rule adopted in November by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations group.

Blakey said it's important to adhere to international aviation standards and that pilots are living longer, healthier lives.

"Is there a group of employees in better shape than pilots?" Blakey said at a luncheon speech.

She said it would take 18 months to two years for the rule to be put into place. It won't affect pilots who reach retirement age before it takes effect, she said.

Blakey last year ordered a forum of airline, labor and medical experts to recommend whether the United States should raise the age limit. By November, the group hadn't reached a consensus, but outlined the pros and cons of the issue.

Those who favored raising the retirement age said there was no medical evidence that older pilots were unsafe.

Those who oppose raising the retirement age, including leaders of the Air Line Pilots Association, said the safety impact of changing the retirement age hasn't been analyzed.

A lot of pilots want to work longer because their pensions were slashed after their airlines sought bankruptcy protection.

"Many pilots have taken huge penalties to their pensions, and this is a way to recoup some of that," said Carl Kuwitzky, president of the Southwest Airlines (nyse: LUV - news - people ) Pilots' Association, which has lobbied for the change.

Kuwitzky said many 60-year-old pilots enjoy their careers and are in excellent health.

"They want to continue to fly for a number of years," Kuwitzky said.

Flight Safety Foundation President William Voss said raising the retirement age could help alleviate a pilot shortage.

"With a desperate shortage of pilots in much of the world, it makes no sense to force experienced, qualified and healthy pilots to retire while airlines are scrambling to fill those seats," Voss said.

AARP issued a statement applauding the change. "Today's FAA announcement is an important signal that workers should be judged on the basis of their individual ability, not on unfounded assumptions and stereotypes about age," said David Certner, AARP's legislative policy director.

Since the international standard changed, foreign pilots have been able to fly in the United States up to age 65, as long as they're accompanied by a co-pilot under 60 and undergo medical testing every six months.

The FAA doesn't have to comply with the international standard for pilots' retirement age, as long as it can show a reason not to.

Whistlin' Dan

I hear ya! In the county where I live, we have a similar problem every few years, only it's with deer, not pilots. The problems you mentioned, however, are the same...basically, that there are too many of them around for the amount of resources available, which leads to hardship for all concerned.

Some communities allow nature to correct the imbalance. You know, "too many deer means less food for each, causing higher death rates and lower reproductive rates in that species." That's kind of how the over-abundance of pilots has corrected itself in the past. After WW II, for instance, there were a lot of pilots. Most went into carreer fields that had nothing to do with aviation. Those that did stay in aviation accepted lower pay and some deterioration in working conditions until the pendulum swung back the other way in the 50's. Even now, I know young men and women who have decided not to continue in aviation, and have begun pursuing other career fields.

Of course, the other way to "thin the heard" is to allow increased cultivation of the species. With deer, that's often done by allowing for a longer hunting season, or increasing the limit on how many animals can be taken by each hunter. Some argue that it's really the more humane solution as well, as it reduces the suffering felt by the game being hunted. In their opinion, "one quick shot to the head" is better than starving to death.

The answer to "what are we going to do about all these pilots?" is obvious. We should allow for some selective "thinning of the herd" through hunting. The "age 60 rule" is working, but clearly, not fast enough for some. By allowing "nuisance-pilots" to be hunted, we would improve the quality of life for those not taken. We would be helping nature do her job in a humane way.

Presumably, such "thinning of the herd" would be carried out by members of the species being thinned...a first, to my knowledge. And of course, anyone hunting such "nuisance prey" would be reminded that true sportsmen use only weapons of a certain minimum caliber to do so. No .22's or shotguns should be employed, as kills tend to be less certain at best and quite messy at worst. As with deer, the season for hunting "nuisance-pilots" with bow-and-arrow would open 2 weeks before gun season.

Hunting "nuisance-pilots" would be discouraged near airline terminals and layover hotels due to the danger of stray rounds striking paying passengers, which of course, are an endangered species. Long-term parking lots and General Aviation airports would be preferred areas to hunt pilots, as the risk of collateral damage is quite low.

Waiting for early retirements, airline bankruptcies, disqualifying medical problems and the "Age 60 rule" to thin our ranks isn't working. It's time to lend mother nature a hand!