Another worthless age 65 question/musing
 

I must have been asleep when the debate about age 65 took place a few years ago, but it certainly snuck up on me. It seems as though it happened without a shot being fired. I admit, I wasn't paying much attention though.

Maybe this has been hashed over a hundred times, but did the FAA, ALPA, or any other group consider phasing in the age 65 rule? Had they first gone to 62 and then bumped it up to 65 over a period of time, might that have been a little easier on the various pilot groups?

This just my own view, but I think the new age limit came along at the worst possible time for the industry. Had the good economic times continued, maybe the this new rule would have been little more than a bump in the road, but it came at the start of the worst recession since the 1930's.

I think the age 65 rule is fine, but did it gum up the works and lead to furloughs that may not have happened otherwise? Of course, the pilots hitting 60 would have been out of the game, but maybe furloughs at the bottom wouldn't have been so large.

I don't know, I'm just tossing the idea out there.

As usual the senior "union" pilots threw the junior guys under the bus for their own financial gain. nothing new here same ole story:eek:

Whacker77,
Disclosure- The congressional ruling cost me the left seat.
Factually, Congress steamrolled this event. Unions could and did weigh in on opinion. (ALPA did, some chose to stay neutral).
To blame the senior ALPA union leadership is easy flamebait, certainly plays well to us more junior pilots. However, objectively, if you study the history of worldwide airline retirement age, it was clear the U.S. congress was going to change the age by congressional action.
You are right, this was all discussed more than is useful over the last 22 months. The congressional law cost me significantly, but cannot blame 'over 60' pilots any more than I blame them for the worldwide economic mess.

The FAA and ALPA had very little to do with the change to age 65. The Congress did it with a vote in the House 390-0, passed the Senate by without opposition, signed by President Bush.

Most of those able to continue had 4-10 years furlough at the beginning of their career.

Just so we're on the same page, I wasn't trying to blame senior pilots for anything. I was just wondering out loud how things might have been different had the rule been phased in or if it hadn't been done right at the start of a period of significant furloughs. Not trying to flame at all. I do my flaming the Louisville football message board!

www.firekragthorpenow.com

This all started in the Senate. The AVERAGE age of the Senate is over 60. On one side you had a bunch of people whose pensions were terminated a few years before they were going to retire, trying to survive, especially US Air and United. On the other side you had people arguing that a 61 year old was too old and decrepit to fly an airliner. You were making this argument to 70-75 year old men. Guess which side won. ALPA didn't sell anyone out. They were run over by the US Senate which has much more power than any one union or all unions combined.

This should have been processed through the FAA and the normal Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process. The FAA and the Bush administration made promises to these Senators and they didn't follow through. It is not good to ignore US Senators.

Didn't mean to infer that you were blaming the older folks. I stand corrected. It is a common theme wanted to blunt and this topic is so easy to get messy like a Cards game <g>, Agree that the timing was particularly challenging to the group in view of the economy.
Rather spirited website <g>

I'm not bothered by the age 65 rule, but I gotta say that nobody cares how many years they were furloughed. They chose their career with all the pitfalls that entails...Furloughs entitle none of them to a single thing.

B2P

What a miss informed statement. Do a little research on how it came about. I will give you a small hint. Once ICAO went to 65 and the FAA allowed pilots to age 65 to fly in the US the issue was over. The FAA could no longer claim safety. It became a age discrimination issue only and they would have lost in court without any question. The only aspect left was to define how 65 would come into being in the US. ALPA was able to get several protections into the bill the key being that pilots over 60 could not come back. That almost did not happen. You might also take a quick look at the congressional record on the age 65 vote. It just might give you a hint of enlightenment. Keep in mind who makes law in this country.

Well we will see if you can openly look at the facts here, and accept one mans opinion so here goes,
Ive done some research, and the common theme here is the older guys only backed this because it helped them, even though it was started by ICAO alignment, they were quietly dead set against it when it would have affected their career progression. Proven by the fact that this thing was kept under the rug for decades by this same pilot group until that group all of a sudden needed it. You cant deny the timing of it was coinciding with the largest long term group of guys ever locked in aviation were about to be forced out. Pilot shortage and all, I get that, but at least have the guts to admit you older guys didnt give a crap about the younger generation, despite your lipservice, your votes on key union issues over the years prove your no different than anyone else, at the end of the day its about numero uno. Sorry I call it as I see it..

Let me be clear I am patiently sitting on furlough not necesarily angry over the situation just waiting for my turn, I just get annoyed when the Older "die hard" Union guys talk about teamwork, and solidarity and your brother, but then constantly have proven over history they are only talking the talk not walking it. This is one case that proves that and Ive spelled out why. I will be patient cause I now have five extra years and it washes out. But like I said dont pretend that you didnt throw the junior pilot group under the bus, because the unions did just that if for no other reason than their inaction on the subject. If you can prove my points wrong I'm willing to debate it, but from what I've seen and heard and read this is how I see it