Go be a Walmart greeter.

Nobody says you can’t work, they are saying you can’t fly a multi million dollar jet anymore because you probably can’t see at night.

Speculating that those over a certain age might have this, or that condition is not germaine to this discussion. A person 28 years old may have trouble hearing. A person 26 years old may have trouble seeing.

While the physical diabilities may preclude someone from flying, the age is not the determinant...the condition is. A person may be black, blue, or yellow. The color of his skin and his age are incidental to his disabilities....and abilities.

I have no problem putting my certificates on the line each time I take a check ride, or a physical, I expect to be held to the same standards as everyone else...age notwithstanding .

So many of the anti-age comments on this thread remind me forceably of the justifications for racial discrimination I heard in the 50's and 60's. Deja vu. Bottom line, some people feel justified in marginalizing groups without knowing (or caring) a thing about the abilities of the indivduals in that group.

It's just plain wrong.

You’re right. Some 20 year olds my not hear well. Again this is all moot. At the end of the day, there is enough statistical data to show health generally declines with age, there is also enough data show that heathcare costs rise with age. Your risk of being a safety issue, or a financial liability to the company is higher than somebody half your age.

There is legal precedent in agist lawsuits and they are NOT in your favor. Controllers are shoved out at 60 whether they like it or not. I just love love love how you think this stuff is pulled out of thin air.

Have you thought about what the extension to 65 from 60 did to the airline industry? Don’t you think if safety wasn’t an issue, there would be a massive push to 70 because of the impending shortage? There is literally zero legitimate talk from the alphabet groups about raising the part 121 retirement age. Don’t think for one second that the airlines wouldn’t do it if they could justify it. They can’t right now so they won’t. Maybe we will see 67 in another 10 years. Looks like you’ll have to find another “part time” job.

The age 60 rule had absolutely nothing to do with safety. The FAA administrator at the time advanced it as a favor to his good friend who was the CEO of AA at the time. He wanted a way to chop off the highest paid in the Company. While obviously there is a decline as we age, 60 was absolutely ridiculously young. Personally I think 70 should be the cut off for those who wish to work that long. The word from a Fed where I am now is that 67 is a done deal. We'll see if that's true soon enough. As crappy as the pay and retirement at NJA is now, it was a lot worse for years. A lot of people there will need to work past 65. Especially those with families who have been on the FO scale for many years.

Sure must have felt right for you all those years while working your way up at the airline.

It is of no import to the rightness, or wrongness of age discrimination, but as a new-hire flight engineer, I was quite vocal in my opposition to the age 60 rule. No one listened then, no one cares now.

For those who try to justify today's age discrimination by referring to yesterday's discrimination, I suggest you study the origin of the age 60 rule.

(Age 60 Rule, effective March 15, 1960 - airlinefiles)

Exactly as CR Smith did, NetJets' management is using age-discrimination to attain a goal unrelated to age knowing that there are at least some pilots who will endorse it in exchange for advancement/money.

Now, fast forward 60 years and you have people justifying that obviously flawed rule as justification for expanding age discrimination!

In the beginning, there was no "scientific evidence" to support age 60, or any other particular age. It was a convenient construct by American's management, nothing else. Today, with years of data, no one can agree on a specific age, because pilot proficiency is not determined by age; it is determined by ability. How basic is that?


Age 40/60/65/70/75 is NOT about safety. It is about money and who gets it. If you want seniority just say so and let's go forward from there. Stop disguising your motives with "safety".

Be well.

Brings back bad memories of people yelling out their car windows, "Go Home, Nigga!"

No one says you can't drink water, you just can't drink from the white's-only water fountain.

I was hoping those days were far behind us.

Thank you for coming to Walmart. How may I help you?

I must not have seen all the treads on APC over the years where mooney has been banging the drum about no ATP for those under 23. Can someone post the links?


at some point, NetJets is just going to impose their own retirement age if the FAA doesn't

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...13-10164.0.pdf