If you don't let him keep flying how are we going to bring back 3 flights a day to Ogdensburg, NY? I mean that's what brought this age thing to the forefront, yet I never hear them mention it.

 

Pretty even keeled, but still a human being.

Opportunists been caught!

 

Dr LaPook is 70 years old and completely unbiased about aging. The video wasn’t as flattering for your argument as you think. They talked about how it’s common to forget names (among other things) and misplace things because you have a harder time paying attention and your brain forgets things to help remember important things.
Pilots should probably have solid attention spans and remember things.

 

I saw your post quoted without context for who you were talking about, but I was able to immediately figure it out. That admin finds their way into every topic and somehow always seems to have first-hand knowledge of the subject. Sometimes he spouts opinions on a topic I am very familiar with and his analysis always seems to be superficial at best yet presented with a "been there, done that" attitude. In my experience, you can only be an expert worth stating your opinion on a few subjects.

 

This is what amazes me. All this talk of "don't tread on me," and there seems to absolutely no consideration for any of the above factors (or a number of others) that could cause one to push on a few more years.

And how off would I be to say statiscally, there will be some here outraged now about a 2 year increase in retirement age, who will be in the same boat as those 64 yr olds now who say give us a couple more years?

Whatever happened to, "always have an out"?

 

135, netjets, cfi work. There’s your out.

 

Thank you, I appreciate that. And I most certainly appreciate the fact that this is most of everyone’s here primary way of providing for themselves and family. Flying was no less of a priority for me then than it is now; I walked off the ramp to support my family (which was the highest priority) in the way I felt best at the time. We all do what we gotta do.

I have to wonder though, if two years were quietly added and a wand was waved so everyone was “meh,” about it, would the effect have any noticeable or appreciable impact on upgrades - given retirements, loss of medicals, economic conditions etc.?

So that’s the one thing I can legitimately be accused and guilty of, is that I am completely ignorant of what impact 60 to 65 had on upgrades. So when I make an effort to treat others how I wish to be treated, maybe I would hold the opposite opinion if I was in (most of) your guys/gals shoes. I have no clue how seriously impacted a reg like this may have on others. Would it likely delay an upgrade by a year? Two? Maybe I would be saying, “get lost, loser.” But I kind of doubt it.

Reason being (and to address PineappleXpres) who would I be, to force another person out into retirement, who was here before me, who wants to work? Wouldn’t that make me the greedy one? Who am I to question their motivation(s) for continuing to work. Maybe it will be a hardship for them to leave, for whatever reason. And we know 121’s move into 135. I know of e.g. 121’s going to Mountain Air to fly Caravans. How freakin’ sad. It’s a good job (I’d jump at the chance), but how sad to treat someone who’s flown 30+ years, who wants to continue their current job, to force them out, retrain, and accept a lower salary. That just isn’t fair in my book.

One saying we had in the Marine Corps was, “we only go as fast as the slowest man (or woman).” We looked out for each other. No one got left behind. (All you prior service guys know what I am talking about.) So this is why I suspect I would be against maintaining an age limit, despite how it might impact me… and really, afaict, that in the very short term.

If there was a “wrong” created by a law, say the Age 60 rule back in ’59 (and that’s one of the ways we repaid the men and women of our greatest generation… “get lost old timer”) and it took such and such years to remove said law from the books and right that wrong… I don't see the problem.

 

Has it ever dawned on you that increasing the retirement age is a setback for almost all of those below you? It's a shame that someone has to explain this to you, but your suggested fix is at the expense of the rest of the Pilot group.

 

If ICAO doesn't change to 67, they will be getting a pay cut, retrain, etc as they are forced out of the WB's.

And they got where they are due to retirements. Status quo isn't greedy. Changing the rules when it benefits them and harms others is the definition of greed.

If timing of their retirement causes hardship outside of irresponsible financial planning( multiple houses, cars, boats, etc to where I will have little sympathy for cause personal responsibility) that's life and you do what you got to do. You tell that to your kids and yet whine and cry when life isn't fair for you. If you haven't saved up enough by 65 cause divorce or economic times, yeah that sucks. There is avenues outside of 121 to continue to work.

 

Explained that in the (my) above post.

And my stepping aside years ago most assuredly gave opportunity for someone else then to take my place, if you will. Now that I’d like to get back into the (back) of the line, albeit with an increase in retirement age, what do I hear? “You had your chance. Get lost boomer.”

Yeah alright...