Search

Notices
NetJets Fractional Operator

Netjets latest & greatest:

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 01-27-2018 | 12:07 PM
  #3111  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Bonanzer
I’ve heard several of my 135/91k friends say an age 65 rule is coming their way. Where is this coming from? Is it supposed to be change in legislation or company policy? It would definitely make netjets a lot more attractive if they had about 400 guys retire and then some consistent movement.
Watch the FAA reauthorization bill due to expire in March. That is the most likely pathway.
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 12:20 PM
  #3112  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
From: e145 fo
Default

Originally Posted by NJA04
Watch the FAA reauthorization bill due to expire in March. That is the most likely pathway.
Is there a group or someone pushing for this? The FAA never seems to be proactive about anything so I’m just curious what would drive this change.
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 02:01 PM
  #3113  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 448
Likes: 1
From: Furloughed
Default

Originally Posted by Bonanzer
Is there a group or someone pushing for this? The FAA never seems to be proactive about anything so I’m just curious what would drive this change.


Netjets hired lobbyists to slide it into the FAA bill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 03:02 PM
  #3114  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 9
From: PIC
Default

From multiple sources, a mandatory retirement age via FAA regulation for the 91K/135 world is on the back burner indefinitely.

Whether the company has the stones to try a unilateral policy change and fight the inevitable class action lawsuit is another question. The answer to which I believe is NO.

Unfortunately.
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 03:42 PM
  #3115  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver
From multiple sources, a mandatory retirement age via FAA regulation for the 91K/135 world is on the back burner indefinitely.

Whether the company has the stones to try a unilateral policy change and fight the inevitable class action lawsuit is another question. The answer to which I believe is NO.

Unfortunately.
With age limit already law in 121, what would the 135 elderly have in defense? Imho 135 ops would suggest an age limit before 121 button pushers. What rationale could possibly be used to argue against it?
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 04:33 PM
  #3116  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 9
From: PIC
Default

Originally Posted by Rkt241
With age limit already law in 121, what would the 135 elderly have in defense? Imho 135 ops would suggest an age limit before 121 button pushers. What rationale could possibly be used to argue against it?
I agree with you. But the gummers say an age limit is "arbitrary."

So what age ceases to be arbitrary? 70? 80? 103?

Their rationale is that there hasn't ever been an age limit for 91K/135 and (they claim) there is no verifiable safety risk from Geritol swilling pilots. Therefore no new regulation is needed
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 04:54 PM
  #3117  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by GeeWizDriver
I agree with you. But the gummers say an age limit is "arbitrary."

So what age ceases to be arbitrary? 70? 80? 103?

Their rationale is that there hasn't ever been an age limit for 91K/135 and (they claim) there is no verifiable safety risk from Geritol swilling pilots. Therefore no new regulation is needed
Right, I guess only multiple deaths are considered “verifiable safety risk”.
So basically not enough people have been killed yet to warrant serious consideration. Fkn joke. Makes you wonder what a cog test would reveal.
Reply
Old 01-27-2018 | 05:29 PM
  #3118  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 124
Likes: 2
Default

Originally Posted by Rkt241
Right, I guess only multiple deaths are considered “verifiable safety risk”.
So basically not enough people have been killed yet to warrant serious consideration. Fkn joke. Makes you wonder what a cog test would reveal.
Does Netjets have recurrent training/checking requirements that would ferret out cog capabilty? I'm 71 and just umpired a college baseball double-header last night. But we have had guys age 60 that we wouldn't let near a baseball field. The age limit should not be arbitrary. Maybe I should apply, not having turned a wheel in 10 years, and show you how it is done. No, nevermind, I'm not cleaning or restocking.
Reply
Old 01-28-2018 | 12:13 AM
  #3119  
Speed, Power, Accuracy
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,795
Likes: 9
From: PIC
Default

Originally Posted by 1wife2airlines
Does Netjets have recurrent training/checking requirements that would ferret out cog capabilty? I'm 71 and just umpired a college baseball double-header last night. But we have had guys age 60 that we wouldn't let near a baseball field. The age limit should not be arbitrary. Maybe I should apply, not having turned a wheel in 10 years, and show you how it is done. No, nevermind, I'm not cleaning or restocking.
Again, what age is no longer arbitrary?

We have two pilots who turn EIGHTY this year. Are you willing to put YOUR family in the back of their jet?

Didn't think so.

And the answer to your very first question is: NO, we don't.
Reply
Old 01-28-2018 | 12:20 AM
  #3120  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Default

Most folk I know that shouldn't fly in their 70's shouldn't have been flying in their 40's. Just sayin.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sata 4000 RP
NetJets
0
06-03-2013 10:44 AM
Bucking Bar
Major
14
08-31-2011 03:02 AM
Mason32
Regional
277
07-27-2010 06:01 PM
Scott34567
Regional
41
05-29-2008 07:08 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices