..........

The CAMI report has long been discredited. From Age60Rule.com (14 April 2005):

Aerospace Medical Association finds no medical support for the Age 60 Rule

After 2-plus years of study, the Aerospace Medical Association's Civil Aviation Safety Subcommittee found last year (2004) that there is insufficient medical evidence and/or accident record to support airline pilot restrictions based on age alone. The Subcommittee thus suggests that the Association abandon its 20-plus year prior policy of support, and recommends that the FAA abandon the Age 60 Rule altogether, change the cutoff criteria, or raise the age limit. Note: This was one of the sources cited by ICAO in justifying it increase of the age limit for airline pilots.

The Subcommittee's recommendation to the Association's governing body, dated January 15, 2004, can be viewed at: Aerospace Medical Association Position Paper, Age 60 Rule, (.pdf, 48 Kb).

The paper was published in the Association's scientific journal Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 75, No.8, August 2004.

Note: At the bottom of p.6, last sentence of the Staff paper, the AsMA Subcommittee recognizes the methodological flaws underlying Reports 3 and 4 of the FAA/CAMI 4-part study that is the subject of my DQAct complaint. Visit the "Woolsey DQAct Complaint & Docket" at left to view these Data Quality Act complaint documents.

We're still waiting
 

Bob:

We are still waiting to hear about the age 60 train wreck here at FDX. Rumor is a very large number of pilots are putting in their retirment notices now that we have a new, much improved contract. Especially in the reitrement health care arena.

Oh wait, we shouldn't have this contract now. I seem to recall some drivel you put out a couple of months ago urging us to dump all the work we (FDX ALPA) had put into negotiating this and starting all over. "Is two years really too long..." or some such crap. You've been here longer than I have and I've been a Capt for over eight years. How come you are still hiding in the right seat? It must kill you as a non-member slime ball that you are only getting a $17,700 bonus instead of the $30,000 I'm getting.

In four years you can go fly FAR 135. Oh, wait. You don't have any PIC logged for the last twenty years? Well, maybe you CAN'T go fly anywhere else. Hope the real estate business holds up. Or, you could go to the back seat of the 727. Hey eng- "How about a little more coffee?":D

EXCELLENT!!!!

Consequences
 

DALPA did the same thing. Both groups knew or should have known that a renewed push for increasing the retirement age was a foreseeable consequence of pension termination. By the same token, those who allowed "B-scales" years ago should have foreseen that there might be a payback from the junior pilots some day.

Our excuse is always "we had no choice." Maybe so, maybe not.

Tom,

You are so correct. In 1985 the UAL pilots went on strike when the only thing left on the table was the B-scale issue. This was done because we knew that accepting a permanent B-scale, as the Allied Pilots Association had done, would seriously weaken ALPA-UAL and ALPA National by the strife it would cause. :( This of course, was right up management's alley.

To this day I have the highest respect for those senior guys who honored the picket line when they were so close to retirement. :) A few actually retired on strike.

So even though it's of no benefit to me, I support modifying the age 60 rule to no less than 65. For whatever that's worth.

I am.

Your turn.

ALPA should be ashamed of what is happening. I am willing to bet, that if the DAL pilots had gone directly to management and said “take whatever you need from our contract to help us compete”, they would have given up a lot less.

Thanks line pilot, I needed a good laugh. I haven't herd a good joke in a while.:rolleyes:

must be colorado public schools...