Originally Posted by mooneymite (Post 2577779)

They are all injustices.

Injustices upheld by many people who deemed themselves enlightened.

History does not treat them well.

Depriving a person of employment solely because of his age is wrong.

Originally Posted by Jetlife (Post 2577814)

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.

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2577959)

1) They will not be “deprived of employment.”

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2577959)

2) Some, many even, DESERVE to be deprived of employment as a pilot because they no longer have any business being in a cockpit.

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2577959)

Adopting a holier-than-thou attitude about an issue already deemed a “bona fide job requirement” elsewhere in the industry is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by mooneymite (Post 2577996)

Age has been used to disqualify pilots in the past just as race was used to disqualify people in the past. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver (Post 2577962)

Actually, it used to be 56 and was only recently raised to 58.

But you make several good points.

Originally Posted by mooneymite (Post 2577864)

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.

Originally Posted by AirBear (Post 2576875)

Yes, I think your full Social Security Retirement Age would be a good cutoff. Around 67 for most.

Originally Posted by mooneymite (Post 2577219)

I've been retired before. I didn't find it as fulfilling/fun as my part time (7/7) job flying a new jet around to neat places all expenses paid.

I have plenty to do on my days off. I own and maintain 2 airplanes (I like to fly), have kids/(27) grandkids all over the southeast to visit, and airline passes to go anywhere in the world, but a life without productive employment is just kind of boring self-absorption.

Originally Posted by mooneymite (Post 2577996)

A pilot working at a company discharged for having a birthday, has certainly been deprived of employment.



No one is advocating substandard performance by anyone regardless of age. The issue is that age, per se is not disqualifying.



Age has been used to disqualify pilots in the past just as race was used to disqualify people in the past. It was wrong then, it is wrong now.

Originally Posted by pugpilot (Post 2578004)

read the court decision, you sound unhinged.

next in your string on unfathomable and indefensible arguments: "Mary was only 12 years old when she married Joseph, why shouldn't I be able to marry a 12 year old. AGE IS JUST A NUMBER, STOP ARBITRARILY DISCRIMINATING. This is like slavery and the holocaust all over again!"