Retirement at age 70
09-05-2010, 07:34 AM
#41
No one's home
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
I support the idea of the old dogs giving up their seats so the younger guys who are struggling can have some time at the trough. but then, carrying this argument to its logical conclusion means the FOs at majors need to quit so the guys at the regionals can have a shot at the bigs. And that will allow the poor sloobs who are still CFIing can have a shot at the regionals.
I think we need to dump the seniority system, the contracts and just all become altruistic and philanthropic. Others have needs! (or wants as the case may be)
I think we need to dump the seniority system, the contracts and just all become altruistic and philanthropic. Others have needs! (or wants as the case may be)
09-05-2010, 07:50 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Sabre 60
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by Tuck
Who cares? The military discriminates against age always has. There are tons of outfits out there that discriminate for rational reasons.
Car Insurance companies can discriminate against young drivers even though they may have a perfect driving record.
I could have rented and flown a $200,000 airplane at age 20, but I couldn't have rented a $20,000 car.
Yet Health Insurance companies can't discriminate against 300lb fat and lazy people who smoke, do drugs, and destroy their bodies.
Just because some outfit discriminates for a rational reason, it doesn't seem to matter that others can too.
09-05-2010, 07:55 AM
#43
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
You guys can make all the noise you want, but in reality it's probably too late to give direction to your rep via resolution.
Line pilots don't elect national officers, council reps do at the BOD which is coming up in October. The only way to officially guide council officers is to make it to your September LEC meeting. Talk to your Chairman and see if he/she needs a resolution or off the record discussion in order to carry the will of the council with respect to national officer issues. Depending on the council, a resolution in September for action in October may not be ruled timely - check with your council.
At the very least, send and email or make a phone call to your reps so that there is no questions as to your views on this issue.
Line pilots don't elect national officers, council reps do at the BOD which is coming up in October. The only way to officially guide council officers is to make it to your September LEC meeting. Talk to your Chairman and see if he/she needs a resolution or off the record discussion in order to carry the will of the council with respect to national officer issues. Depending on the council, a resolution in September for action in October may not be ruled timely - check with your council.
At the very least, send and email or make a phone call to your reps so that there is no questions as to your views on this issue.
09-05-2010, 08:50 AM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Q FO
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by johnso29
The secret is not a secret at all. It's common knowledge. Live well with in your means, so you have plenty of savings. It's called financial responsibility, and if more people in this country would have it then we wouldn't have gotten in our last recession to begin with. Don't buy a house you really can't afford.
Since you're doing all of this at your current level of pay, then you can presumably wait another couple of years while those who had their careers repeatedly derailed make up some of their retirement.
Last edited by johnso29; 09-05-2010 at 09:48 AM.
09-05-2010, 09:07 AM
#45
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Originally Posted by nerd2009
Consider this, a 70 year old captain taking off at LGA in a blizzard with gusting winds, after a 1:30 taxi, and return to deice again, looses and engine at V1. Who will wind up going in the river ? The 70 year old captain or the 28 year old captain ? Experience is one thing to consider, but more importantly, who has the better reflex to abort the takeoff the quickest and avoiding a swim in the east river ? 
Originally Posted by johnso29
If he found her with the poolboy, and she was the one commuting adultery then I think she's gonna get squat.
You can fly left seat of NetJets forever. It's not about holding a medical.
Originally Posted by IfitsTuesday
Since you're doing all of this at your current level of pay, then you can presumably wait another couple of years while those who had their careers repeatedly derailed make up some of their retirement.
Let's remember what drove the rule. It wasn't just a bunch of SWA guys who established a website. It was ICAO. They changed their rules and the U.S. had to change to conform. That's why it passed through the Congress so quickly. Google up the Supremecy Clause of the Constitution. If we wanted to remain in ICAO, we had to conform to ICAO standards. Now if ICAO goes Age 70, then it will happen again. However, I seriously doubt ICAO will change. Neither will the U.S. Until it happens, this whole conversation is moot and hopelessly hypothetical.
09-05-2010, 09:12 AM
#46
Freightmama!
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: 757/767 FO
Posts: 2,880
Originally Posted by CommutR4Life
Ahhh if only marriage were so simple! Not the case in many states, best solution: PRE-NUMP! If she wont sign, show her the door. I don't want the government involved in my personal relationship, so why get 'married' and sing the papers; just asking for trouble.....
09-05-2010, 09:38 AM
#47
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Too many posts to quote:
RTO only work if you are quick enough to engage them by making the decision to pull the throttles back.
Second, if you want to keep the age where it is, lose the argument about money, or seniority.... Keep it about safety. Nobody in the outside world cares a bit about your finances.
I notice several junior Regional FOs who speak out against mandatory retirement ages in general. Stick around for awhile....you might change your tune. When I was an FO I flew with a bunch of guys who were nearing retirement. Some of them were totally competent and probably could fly to 90. Some, however, really needed to go out at 50. The problem is that the methods for determining who falls into which group are a PC and a First Class medical. Both are a joke at determining who's fit to fly.
Someone posted the Brain Surgeon analogy. Things don't happen at 500 mph and 7 miles of altitude in brain surgery. There are occupations that have mandatory retirement for safety reasons...... Namely ATC.
When a cognitive test comes up that can determine who things quickly enough to do the job safely in high stress situations, then we can talk. Until that test comes along, it is a fact that at SOME age SOME pilots will lose cognitive ability adequate to safely operate a jet transport. That's enough for me and my family who is flying around to want a mandatory retirement age in place. There is no way that you can convince me that there is no percentage of the pilot population that doesn't see that falloff occur until after 70. One is too many if that pilot happens to be at 50' with a gusting crosswind and a blizzard if my family is on board.
Fly with enough guys who have passed the point when they should be retired but the system doesn't weed them out and you won't want the age to go any higher.
Oh, and by the way, developing a stringent enough medical to weed out the geriatrics from the John Glenn's will dramatically increase the chance that YOU will be medically grounded for something that you are flying with right now. Watch your worm can boys ane girls, it's getting creepy crawly.
RTO only work if you are quick enough to engage them by making the decision to pull the throttles back.
Second, if you want to keep the age where it is, lose the argument about money, or seniority.... Keep it about safety. Nobody in the outside world cares a bit about your finances.
I notice several junior Regional FOs who speak out against mandatory retirement ages in general. Stick around for awhile....you might change your tune. When I was an FO I flew with a bunch of guys who were nearing retirement. Some of them were totally competent and probably could fly to 90. Some, however, really needed to go out at 50. The problem is that the methods for determining who falls into which group are a PC and a First Class medical. Both are a joke at determining who's fit to fly.
Someone posted the Brain Surgeon analogy. Things don't happen at 500 mph and 7 miles of altitude in brain surgery. There are occupations that have mandatory retirement for safety reasons...... Namely ATC.
When a cognitive test comes up that can determine who things quickly enough to do the job safely in high stress situations, then we can talk. Until that test comes along, it is a fact that at SOME age SOME pilots will lose cognitive ability adequate to safely operate a jet transport. That's enough for me and my family who is flying around to want a mandatory retirement age in place. There is no way that you can convince me that there is no percentage of the pilot population that doesn't see that falloff occur until after 70. One is too many if that pilot happens to be at 50' with a gusting crosswind and a blizzard if my family is on board.
Fly with enough guys who have passed the point when they should be retired but the system doesn't weed them out and you won't want the age to go any higher.
Oh, and by the way, developing a stringent enough medical to weed out the geriatrics from the John Glenn's will dramatically increase the chance that YOU will be medically grounded for something that you are flying with right now. Watch your worm can boys ane girls, it's getting creepy crawly.
09-05-2010, 09:49 AM
#48
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by IfitsTuesday
Since you're doing all of this at your current level of pay, then you can presumably wait another couple of years while those who had their careers repeatedly derailed make up some of their retirement.
09-05-2010, 10:06 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 188
Originally Posted by IfitsTuesday
Since you're doing all of this at your current level of pay, then you can presumably wait another couple of years while those who had their careers repeatedly derailed make up some of their retirement.
Its not a couple years, Its half a decade.
If 70 comes to pass its a whole decade. That is at least 25% percent of the longest airline careers.
Seems to me those now under 60 have suffered far more career derailment than most over 60.
09-05-2010, 10:07 AM
#50
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
Too many posts to quote:
RTO only work if you are quick enough to engage them by making the decision to pull the throttles back.
Second, if you want to keep the age where it is, lose the argument about money, or seniority.... Keep it about safety. Nobody in the outside world cares a bit about your finances.
I notice several junior Regional FOs who speak out against mandatory retirement ages in general. Stick around for awhile....you might change your tune. When I was an FO I flew with a bunch of guys who were nearing retirement. Some of them were totally competent and probably could fly to 90. Some, however, really needed to go out at 50. The problem is that the methods for determining who falls into which group are a PC and a First Class medical. Both are a joke at determining who's fit to fly.
Someone posted the Brain Surgeon analogy. Things don't happen at 500 mph and 7 miles of altitude in brain surgery. There are occupations that have mandatory retirement for safety reasons...... Namely ATC.
When a cognitive test comes up that can determine who things quickly enough to do the job safely in high stress situations, then we can talk. Until that test comes along, it is a fact that at SOME age SOME pilots will lose cognitive ability adequate to safely operate a jet transport. That's enough for me and my family who is flying around to want a mandatory retirement age in place. There is no way that you can convince me that there is no percentage of the pilot population that doesn't see that falloff occur until after 70. One is too many if that pilot happens to be at 50' with a gusting crosswind and a blizzard if my family is on board.
Fly with enough guys who have passed the point when they should be retired but the system doesn't weed them out and you won't want the age to go any higher.
RTO only work if you are quick enough to engage them by making the decision to pull the throttles back.
Second, if you want to keep the age where it is, lose the argument about money, or seniority.... Keep it about safety. Nobody in the outside world cares a bit about your finances.
I notice several junior Regional FOs who speak out against mandatory retirement ages in general. Stick around for awhile....you might change your tune. When I was an FO I flew with a bunch of guys who were nearing retirement. Some of them were totally competent and probably could fly to 90. Some, however, really needed to go out at 50. The problem is that the methods for determining who falls into which group are a PC and a First Class medical. Both are a joke at determining who's fit to fly.
Someone posted the Brain Surgeon analogy. Things don't happen at 500 mph and 7 miles of altitude in brain surgery. There are occupations that have mandatory retirement for safety reasons...... Namely ATC.
When a cognitive test comes up that can determine who things quickly enough to do the job safely in high stress situations, then we can talk. Until that test comes along, it is a fact that at SOME age SOME pilots will lose cognitive ability adequate to safely operate a jet transport. That's enough for me and my family who is flying around to want a mandatory retirement age in place. There is no way that you can convince me that there is no percentage of the pilot population that doesn't see that falloff occur until after 70. One is too many if that pilot happens to be at 50' with a gusting crosswind and a blizzard if my family is on board.
Fly with enough guys who have passed the point when they should be retired but the system doesn't weed them out and you won't want the age to go any higher.
You beat me to it, if you don't get the throttles back RTO ain't kicking in. And you're very right about the cognitive testing because I have seen numerous times where poor night vision kicks in inside the cockpit and reading an FMS, QRH, EICAS, annunciator, gauge, etc becomes way too time consuming and difficult and makes it hard for someone to have an accurate big picture of whats going on. And mind you this is with guys who had 20/15 in their 20s and literally were the top of the class fighter pilots. Now, for some it doesn't kick in, hence the need for testing and options.
---
And this is driving me nuts, you can't make laws to benefit people because they got divorced and need money. Laws have to meet the principle of equality before the law where no individual or group (such as pilots who got divorced because they were riiiiidin' dirty with a FA or a "girlfriend" in Brasil or Columbia) having special legal privileges and no one being exempt or included more than another.
For those who want to do some heavy reading, the final rule on the age 65 change:
FR Doc E9-16777
To me, age 60 to 65 probably happened as fast as it did for ICAO reasons, but it should've been 60 to 62, wait 10 years, 62 to 65, wait 10 years, etc. Give time for data to come in. The difference between 60 and 65 with some people is as big as a 1 year old who is 12 months old and a 1 year old who is 23 months old. Its a big difference in my experience with most people I know.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
