The same could be said for a furloughed airline pilot. What's your point? Your opposition seems to stem from a fear that your upgrade will be delayed by a rule change.

 

Beware of unintended consequences....like HAVING to work to 65 or be penalized. Do you think the IRS and other agencies are not drooling to change the rules?? (Yeah, Black Helicopters are coming for us... )I personally wish the old geezers would go away but DO understand some are stuck financially thru no fault of their own. (No sympathy for the ones who lived beyond their means and bought a few hookers houses.) Why not ease this change in gradually and not cause the severe disruption? Pleeezzz let me out at 60!

 

Then don't bother reading these links and live in blissful ignorance.

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/1953_asma_aging_comm.pdf

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/1954_asma_ageing_comm.pdf

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/1959_navy_recco.pdf

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/quesada_hesburg.pdf

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/1959_qs_med_panel.pdf

Here are your 'smoking gun' letters. Hardly what it's made out to be:
http://www.age60rule.com/docs/smith_quesada.pdf


As one can see, this wasn't the backroom deal that many make it out to be. The funny thing is that all of these links are from a pro-change website.

 

Why, Because the “left seat”, that I now occupy, the one that I earned, belongs to me and no one else. The government has no right to take away from me what is rightfully mine.

If the United States Federal Government denies any pilot who is otherwise qualified to practice in their profession, then that government must first prove that there are enough reasons to deny them the full enjoyment of their profession. If a person is denied their livelyhood for no reason other than because of their being 60 years old, then it is the Federal Government’s burden to first prove that all Part 121 pilots suffer an unacceptable decline their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. Proof that age alone determines when a FAR Part 121 pilot must not operate aircraft in FAR Part 121 operations is something that Congress has directed the FAA to come up with but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply does not exist.

The age restriction in FAR Part 121.383(c) is clearly unconstitutional until or unless it can be proven that all Far Part 121 pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public,

 

OV1D -
Would you support an age 65 rule or is it age discrimination as well (I know people who have flown well into their 80's)?

Would you support removing the age 16 (solo) and age 17 (since it is already under 18) and allowing anyone who can safely operate an aircraft and meet the FAR's of flight time, to obtain a PPL?

Likewise would you support an 18 year old to be allowed to be a capt on a 121 operator, assuming that he/she can operate to standards. There are no safety statistics that an 18 yr old pilot is any more dangerous than a 61 yr old.

 

For now, let's just stick with the glaring injustice that we have in the current the 60 rule. The Federal government is the nation's most blatant age discriminator. Some other age restrictions may have merit, however the age 60 restriction imposed upon Part 121 pilots causes grievous harm and must be corrected now.

 

I'm not talking about actually walking a bill up to Capitol Hill asking for changes in all age discrimination cases, I more wanted a good insight on if the real position of the changing the rule was actually age discrimination based or based on "other" factors.

Your position is that there are no statistics that anyone over age 60 is more susceptible to accidents, and it's unfair. Where are the statistics that a younger pilot is more dangerous? Why is the age 60 cause more grievous harm to the 61 year old who still wants to be a 121 capt, than the 22 yr old who also wants to be a 121 capt?

Rosa Parks and MLK didn't fight/march for only the 100% African-American, but non-100% blacks as well. My point, if you claim age discrimination, make sure you actually believe in non-discrimination across the board, not for just the age 60-65 crowd.

 

How convenient, completely dodge the original question so that YOU can work for a few more years.

Tell us what recently demolished, retirement-less major airline do you work for?

 

Not really...it just allows our 4 time divorced Captains to travel to the EU and UK and grab some of those 'gravy' over 60 pilot jobs....

 

[QUOTE=OV1D;77613]Why, Because the “left seat”, that I now occupy, the one that I earned, belongs to me and no one else. The government has no right to take away from me what is rightfully mine.

Your so full of sh!t. That seat belongs to the airline that employs you. All those guys in front of you on the seniority list also "own" that seat. I can see how dangerous you are just by the stupidity of your post. Please let me know what airline you fly for so I can avoid riding with you 60 or whatever age you are. "IT'S MINE,ALL MINE" You are a crazy MOFO. Now just go away.