Carl Spackler

Just to be clear, the rule change didn't happen because a select few pilots wanted to stop playing by the rules. No amount of lobbying from any group would have changed the regulators from making that decision.

Carl

Andy

That's because you're spewing the same garbage that geezers spewed to get the age raised to 65. I called BS on it then and I'm calling BS on it now. Raising the retirement lowers the career earnings of every pilot younger than the select few years that benefit from an age increase. Forever.

That's only slightly different than all of the pilots saying that they'd retire at 62. Look at the numbers - at least 95% of pilots (who don't die before 65) retire at 65.
Do you really think that they aren't going to limp along for another 3 years? I'll take the other side of that bet.


Unfortunately, this is likely to be a 'done deal' in the US shortly after ICAO drafts an age increase.

SayAlt

Your need to be right is as boring as your inability to communicate without insult.

Andy

LOL! I find your pandering to be extremely insulting. Your message is aimed at financially ignorant pilots who can be easily conned into believing that working more years for less money is a good thing. That's a very tough sell after the last age increase.

No matter, the age increase will pass in the US once the change is drafted by ICAO.

gzsg

ALPA will fight any increase in our retirement age to the death.

Because if they f### it up again, they are done. We will get out so fast it will make their heads spin.

At Delta we had over 5000 cards for an independent union like SWA.

I don't see an increase without ALPA being on board, our lobby is too strong.

Skykruzer

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

teddyballgame

Carl, you are absolutely correct; and if I may be allowed to expand on your point a bit:

First of all, by "regulators", I assume you mean elected representatives, and not the FAA.

The last two times the retirement age for airline pilots was adjusted, it was strictly political.

Age 60 was the result of a wink and a nod between the first FAA Administrator, Gen. Elwood Quesada, and AA CEO C. R. Smith; the latter wanting the age cap to spare the expense of training the oldest, most senior pilots on the newly-arriving jet aircraft. Prior to that, there was no set-in-stone mandatory age limit for airline pilots that I remember.

(And Quesada wanted to go further: a career USAF man, he did not believe that civilian pilots were capable of flying jets. He wanted pilots to come right out of the military and into the left seat of those shiny new 707's, usurping the seniority system. Thankfully, in those days there was something called a "pilots' union", that used to stand up for the profession, and it put the kibosh on that nonsense...)

The Age 65 rule was fast-tracked through the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office almost within a matter of days. The FAA just stood by the wayside and watched that freight train zoom right by them. (Had it been up to the FAA to change the rule, it would still be in the exploratory committee phase. That agency moves at the speed of a glacier on anything. It took, what, five years after the Colgan crash to produce that full-of-loopholes new ATP-minimum rule?)

So if enough voters start screaming about losing air service or (horrors!) higher fares, and enough legislators start losing their non-stops home to their districts on Thursday afternoon, then we may see some movement to alleviate the situation.

Andy

That doesn't match the historical record that I've read. There was extensive debate and studies before enacting the age 60 rule.

As far as Quesada wanting only ex-military to fly jets, that's also incorrect. There was a faction of the committee that wanted to limit the age of pilots allowed to enter jet training. They believed that past a certain age, pilots weren't able to transition to jet aircraft successfully.

There was also a recommendation to make retirement age 55 (not positive on the age, but it was lower than 60). I'm pretty sure that Quesada opposed this and wanted the retirement age to be higher.

The exact details are a bit hazy; it's been almost a decade since I read all of the committee reports, documents, etc. From what I've read, the 'Quesada/Smith conspiracy' has been way overblown and the historical record doesn't bear that out. Unfortunately, all of that was done prior to the internet so you've got to dig quite a bit for the reports.

jsled

That is correct. Congress passed and Bush signed the Age 65 Law. After United and Delta terminated their pensions, it was inevitable. Of course it is interesting to note that United and Delta were able to terminate their pensions with ease while AMR was not. AMR later attempted to terminate their pensions, but Joshua Gotbaum, the Obama appointed PBGC chief, put the KIBOSH on that. And THAT'S why politics matters.

Also see KCM and FAR 117 if you don't think politics matter.

Sled

jsled

Go read it again. Congress passed and Bush signed the age 65 bill into law. The FAA was still "studying" it. The FAA had the power to change the rule as a regulatory agency, but Congress jumped in to answer pleas from older pilots who had lost their pensions.

Congress votes to extend pilots' retirement age to 65 - ABC News