Neither side advocating for safety, even though there's sanctimonious hand wringing and protestations about it. The young guys want the left seat sooner, and the older guys want to keep their jobs. It's never been about safety and the FAA even admits there's no safety basis. If there was, the foreign pilots wouldn't be flying into the US up to age 65, and the part 91 pilots over 60 would be grounded.

Quite simply, if there's no safety reason to force retirement on otherwise healthy, competent pilots, there's no REAL reason. What we have now is smoke and mirrors.

Quite simply, if there's no safety reason to force retirement on otherwise healthy, competent pilots, there's no REAL reason. What we have now is smoke and mirrors.[/QUOTE]



smoke & mirrors...............bingo.

I just wonder how much zeal good ole Harry Ballance felt about age 60 years ago when other airlines lost retirements? (TWA, Eastern, Pan Am,...)Pilot pensions going to PBGC is nothing new! I'm sure he was just as outspoken as a young FO about how unfair it was! When ALPA did ther polls, I'm sure he admittently wanted ALPA to change the rule 20-30 years agot .

So much for brotherhood! Those who did not support it years ago, are hypocrites (msp, to many drinks) now!!! Only important becuase now it is THEM.

How many people in the 30's feel the same way about issues in their 60's? People change, due to circumstances or just their outlook about life, whether the subject is pensions or the weather.

You mean they become bitter old men...

-LAFF

I disagree with the statement that age 60 isn't about safety. If there is absolutely no problem flying over 60, then why does one pilot have to be under 60? Is it possible that it isn't a good idea to have two old dudes at the controls?

Can you imagine the scheduling hassles involved with this if only one pilot can be over the age of 60?

And why limit the age to 65? Isn't that arbitrary as well?

I don't see this thing passing for at least a few years, and I hope it never does. The old guys couldn't take care of their retirement and are now crying. They had the opportunity to take advantage of age 60 up until now, and now they want more. Enjoy your retirement, I know it may not be as grand as you hoped, but unless you are an idiot, you should have a nice nest egg since you enjoyed the best contracts this industry will see in years...

Well, the same thing could be said about "bitter young men" .

Bitter because times are changing and they may not get that coveted left seat exactly when they wanted it. How about the "bitter young men and women" who lost their pensions at Enron, WorldCom (insert your favorite bankrupt company here)?
I know one thing though, at least in thier industry they can work up to 65 to try and make up for their lost pensions. Why can't a pilot do so if he is physically and mentally capable?

That, my friend, is a political compromise. It's as simple as that.

Food for thought:

Not if anyone over 60 cannot serve as PIC in 121 operations ...

In other words, to the right seat, just like the FE panel has been a 60+ place of refuge.

Seems like a reasonable comprimise that no one is interested in ...

"decided that they knew how it was to be done, and the F/O was just part of the MEL"

...and your point is?....