Panel Splits on Raising Airline Pilot Retirement Age (Update2)
12-05-2006, 06:46 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Airbus F/O
Posts: 297
Originally Posted by Velocipede
There are only 2 A plans left in the airline business: American and Alaska. Making national policy based on the retirement programs of two carriers is a bad idea.
12-05-2006, 07:06 AM
#22
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by Velocipede
There are only 2 A plans left in the airline business: American and Alaska. Making national policy based on the retirement programs of two carriers is a bad idea.
12-05-2006, 09:24 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 737NG CA
Posts: 766
Originally Posted by Nashmd11
What, the FDX and UPS A-plans are fakes? This makes 4. And more A-plans may come back in the next 10-20 years. You never know.
12-05-2006, 09:46 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 173
My biggest problem with age 65, besides the additional 5 years, is what is next from airline management. The B fund was set up as a stop gap from age 60 to social security. So what's next, will airlines attack the B funds. I for one hope age 60 stays forever, but I am not 55 either!!
12-05-2006, 09:54 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,707
Originally Posted by koz2000
I agree completely. We shouldn't change national policy since only two carriers (JB & SWA) support changing the rule.
No, ICAO changed it to 65. What the FAA and the goverment are setting up is an age discrimination suit. That will cost money if the culprit was the goverment and it knowingly discriminated due to age, by allowing foriegn carriers to fly in U.S. airspace above the age of 60. Any flight over airspace controlled by the U.S., including Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Alaskan airspace being that they at far end of the Continental U.S..
12-05-2006, 10:25 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: A320 capt
Posts: 161
and so on, and so forth, lol
well there are at least 20 more american pilots over 60 flying in India, i believe that a valid consideration is that the FAA is just simply being left behind by the rest of the world, now that over 60-- non ATP holders can fly non "N" registered planes into and out of american airspace and american pilots over 60 can use thier ATP`s to fly outside of america,---- well the rest of the world simply does`nt care any longer so it has truly become an "american" problem.
12-05-2006, 03:57 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
Originally Posted by buddies8
No, ICAO changed it to 65. What the FAA and the goverment are setting up is an age discrimination suit. That will cost money if the culprit was the goverment and it knowingly discriminated due to age, by allowing foriegn carriers to fly in U.S. airspace above the age of 60. Any flight over airspace controlled by the U.S., including Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Alaskan airspace being that they at far end of the Continental U.S..
12-06-2006, 10:31 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737/FO
Posts: 222
Respectfully...
Originally Posted by Andy
Apples and oranges. You're talking single sortie vs multiple flights (with requisite terminal delays).
It's been a few years since I flew with the AF, but in order for us to fly 24 hrs, it required two pilot augmentees and a pretty big waiver; no lower than WG/CC, IIRC. And that's in the RC-135 on JCS tasked missions.
Your example does NOT apply to the average AF sortie, nor does it apply to the majority of AF pilots.
Having flown several 15+ hour sorties in the Rivet Joint, I can personally attest to how tough it is on the body. What's your longest sortie and how much of a basket case were you after you landed?
I can remember one KOFF-OERY sortie which was mx delayed for ~6 hrs. After we landed, our crew went to our hooch in Eskan. I woke up 26 hours after falling asleep & thought that the rest of the crew had woken up and gone back to sleep. Wrong! I was the first one who woke up. Yeah, that's real good for the body.
It's been a few years since I flew with the AF, but in order for us to fly 24 hrs, it required two pilot augmentees and a pretty big waiver; no lower than WG/CC, IIRC. And that's in the RC-135 on JCS tasked missions.
Your example does NOT apply to the average AF sortie, nor does it apply to the majority of AF pilots.
Having flown several 15+ hour sorties in the Rivet Joint, I can personally attest to how tough it is on the body. What's your longest sortie and how much of a basket case were you after you landed?
I can remember one KOFF-OERY sortie which was mx delayed for ~6 hrs. After we landed, our crew went to our hooch in Eskan. I woke up 26 hours after falling asleep & thought that the rest of the crew had woken up and gone back to sleep. Wrong! I was the first one who woke up. Yeah, that's real good for the body.
Reality is (See AFI ..any heavy reg...) 2 pilots is 16 hour duty day and 3 pilots is 24 hours. No waiver required. Add 2 hours to each in a wartime situation, hello, Iraq now, Iraq a few years ago.
To answer your question about my longest sortie with 3 pilots, it was Dover to Somalia w/ 2 air-refuelings, 14.1 hours. OH, I also did GM to Pakistan, without a waiver, and without getting out of the seat (12.1). Longest day was Frankfurt to Saudi(8 hr), 6 hours on the ground awaiting fuel and then flying back to GM(another 8 hr). Also-(only 2 piots now). South Africa to Stuttgart,GM in one day, 3 legs, 18 hour day, 2 pilots, no waiver or WG/CC intervention or concern. Long day? Yes, it sucked but that was the job. You do it and move on.
Flying in a holding pattern is not Rocket Science. Just plug it in and sit back.
The guys today are doing alot more than I experienced so my suppot is totally with them. They are doing a great job.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
