USA Today about age 60
 

Here is an article published in the USA Today. It seems only 4 countries now require pilots to retire at 60

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...ots-usat_x.htm

Andy and Calpilottootoo,

Where are you?

I am just here to stir things up, any takers?

Thanks Mike and Andy are you getting some sleep?

Ok, lets say the raise the age to 65. How badly would that effect hiring at Continental. Would it be as bad as some say?

They have conducted 5 reviews in the last 20 years and have not changed the rule. Why does everyone think they will do it now.


I don't understand it. Airline pilots spends hours upon hours upon hours on these boards *****ing about how bad their profession has gotten. Then they want to back the retirement age up to 65??!!!?? WHY!

Raising age 60 is a paycut and decrease in QOL for EVERYONE under the age of 55.
1. It will increase upgrade times for EVERYONE (more time spend at lower paying regional and FO pay).

2. It will increase the supply of pilots. Wages are governed by the laws of supply and demand. Fewer pilots, more demand for pilots, and that leads to better pay and QOL. Conversely, more pilots, they are less of a commodity. Changing age 60 will vastly increase the supply of pilots and hurt EVERYONE's QOL.

3. It will take EVERY pilot longer to progress up the seniority list. Looks like EVERY pilot will spend more time with crappier schedules. Spend more time commuting before they can hold their desired domicile...

Why would anyone want age 60 to be changed?!?

:mad: well it would be 5 more years for a scab to be breathing cockpit air..

Yeah, I'm getting sleep. Three hours last night.

Are you looking for my commentary on this article? It's in USA Today, fer chrissake. Are you trying to imply that the author of the article knows his posterior from a hole in the ground? He doesn't.

In my humble opinion, they would hire only about a third of what they intended to hire in the next five years.

Three hours is not enough. I promise I won't make any more comments about your sleeping habits.

Your reply would indicate that you really do have a vested interest in this other than safety. I have read all the info you have posted since joining APC and I could say the same things about your "experts." You know what they say about opinions. Your comment that he does'nt know what he is talking about is rather arrogant for just an opinion.

Because in just 9 days foreign pilots over the age of 60 will be able to exercise the privileges of their certificates in US airspace. US pilots will be denied the same privileges by US law. This is unfair and UnAmerican to boot.
Additionally, there is some question that the Supremecy clause of the US Constitution requires that all US laws and TREATIES are the supreme law of the land. That means the ICAO treaty age limit would supplant the FAA regulation, if you were to adhere to this particular opinion.


Not necessarily. Granted, some will exercise their option to fly until they are 65. Many more will not. I suspect there are plenty who will go until 62 to bridge the gap between mandatory retirement and Social Security/Medicare. Those of us fortunate enough to have contract language specifying Age 60 as the normal retirement age will have no incentive to fly past that age, unless there are personal reasons to do so. I, for one, will not.

Again, you're a victim of faulty reasoning. This is a generalization that does not take into consideration several factors...increased Medical retirements, increased downgrades to the right seat due to performance errors, more 'early' retirements due to the increasing stress of the job vs. declining pay rates. The bottom line for most of the young guys who are against the change is "This will delay MY upgrade!"

Sadly, that line of reasoning is even MORE self-centered than that of those arguing for the change. Your career will be extended for 5 years as well, remember that. Just my opinion, but most of those who do elect to go past Age 60 will pull the plug at 62. That give you 3 ADDITIONAL years in the left seat.

Ever consider that?

Yes, but I have no desire to be flying a plane past age 60. I don't have a desire to be flying much past 50 if I can help it!


All I know is that this will cause me to spend more time as a cfi (LOW PAY, LOW QOL), a regional fo (LOW PAY, LOW QOL), more time at a regional airline (LOW PAY, LOW QOL), more time in the right seat at a major (LOW PAY, LOW QOL), and more time on smaller aircraft at a major (LOW PAY, LOW QOL). This will also increase the supply of pilots, making them less of a commodity, and adding leverage to management in contract talks.
It's the old reasoning...If you won't fly for that low wage, someone else will (because there is an excess supply).

I have no desire to fly past age 60. I would much rather spend FEWER years making MORE MONEY and enjoying better QOL. I hope age 60 is not changed!!