So that's not age discrimination. They are to immature to drink or drive but not to immature to be given an M16 and sent off to fight for their country. Once again, people for changing the rule argue that they aren't doing it for themselves, but to fight an injustice, but truely fighting an injustice means including all groups, not just the group that effects you. Age limits are set to provide a safety measure for the group as a whole.

"The govt takes your job at age 60.

Age discrimination at its finest."

So sayeth the captswife. Wonder what the f/owife, s/owife or furloughwife's think about that? A classic case of "I've got mine". Her husband got to the left seat by "Age discrimination at it's finest" but now that he is there it's time to change the rule. No matter what happens I hope it is grandfathered so all those left seaters who are 5 years ahead of upgrade schedule to to Age 60 don't get an extra 5 years there. That would only be fair..

OK, you win. It's age discrimination to not allow those under 18 to drink or drive. So let's get rid of those rules. Outright. Then it'll be ok for an 8 year old to get in his moms car and take it for a ride, stop at the bar for a quick one or two and then go and join the military. That would level the playing field, wouldn't it. Would that make you feel better.:rolleyes:

As for sending them "off to fight for their country", the last time I looked, there was no draft as it's an all volunteer military. But when there was a draft, the minimum age was 18. Someone could enlist prior to that (I think), but it would take a parents signature. And that's because they are still (by society) considered children, not adults.

As for those "fighting to change the rule", regardless of their motivation, they are including all groups, as all US pilots would then be able to work past 60. Now, whether they want to or not, is not the issue. The issue is that they would then have the opportunity. How is that not fair? And by the way, this Age 60 thing had nothing at all to do with safety, as has been mentioned numerous times before. It was put in place to get rid of some pilots that the president of AA didn't like.

That's not true. Age limitations for pilots for safety reasons have been suggested since AT LEAST the Doolittle Commission under Truman in the early 50s.

As long as that 16 year old pilot had an ipod and a backpack I'd say they were good to go!

I'm sorry, I must have missed these laws. Which ones are they then? Besides, back in Truman's day, if you were 60, and an airline pilot, you were OLD. It's just not so anymore. Aircraft have changed, FAA and company contractual duty limits have both helped to eliminate the effects of long-haul flying, and at the same time, improvements in health care, nutrition, and less smoking have all done their share to allow us to lead longer, more productive lives.

Not a law, a report. Back in Truman's day, there were no commercial pilots over the age of 60 - there was concern about the future safety risks, as was pointed out in the Doolittle Commission report.
Yes, 60 is the new 40. Or is it the new 20? Sorry, cognitive abilities start deteriorating in the mid-30s. There are no inexpensive, easy ways to test cognitive abilities for the masses, hence the reason why you can't simply screen pilots to see who's 'lost it.'
While smoking rates have decreased over the last 50 years, have you bothered to take a look at what has happened with US obesity rates over the same time period? Frightening, really. There are MANY health problems associated with obesity.
Longer lifespans do not necessarily equate to quality life. The technological advances made in the medical field over the last 50 years have definitely led to longer lifespans. But many are reduced to low quality lifestyles.

And no one forced you to take a job where the mandatory retirement age is 60. What you don't seem to get is that you come across as saying age discrimination is OK as long as it doesn't effect you. When you were in High school, the drinking age was probably 18. It was in my state. There are states that let you drive alone at 15. But now that you are 60+, it is OK to change the rules on the younger generations because it doesn't hurt you. You claim that experience comes with age, well so does alhiemers (sp?). Retire already, or can't you figure out how to fill out the forms. As far as your 8 year old comment goes, it is so idiotic that it doesn't deserve a response.

You're the one who doesn't get it. I took a job in an industry where I knew that I'd be forced to leave the pilots seat when I turned 60. I've turned 60 and am now in the flight engineers seat, with no complaints. If the rule is changed, I'll gladly go back to a window seat, if not, I'll gladly stay where I am until I get bored doing the job. Then I'll retire. But it's not up to an Ahole like you to tell me when I should retire or not. Frankly I'm sick of you guys always saying that the older guys want it all, because you guys are exactly the same. You don't want to sit in a seat for more than a few months, because you think that the airline owes you a left seat, and you want it now.

For the record, the rule was stupid when it was first pushed through and it's stupid now. What I don't understand is why you think that eliminating this rule, while at the same time, not allowing children to drink, drive, vote, enter into a legal contract, get married (legally), join the military, and any other number of things has anything whatsoever to do with each other. Sort of like comparing apples and oranges.

so why r u still flying..?