|
September 15th, 2004, 09:58
| #1 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul
Posts: 1,895
|  Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] Senate Aging Committee Chairman Craig (R-Idaho) says Congress should consider allowing airline pilots to fly past the age of 60 . . . [/ QUOTE ] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] |
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:07
| #2 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW
Posts: 7,080
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:19
| #3 |
| Administrator  Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark
Posts: 6,897
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] Same here. It's interesting, though, when this topic is discussed amongst airline pilots. The dog-eat-dog nature of the business really comes out in true form and you wonder where the solidarity went....... |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:21
| #4 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 301
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom Hmmm, If they raise the age for mandatory pilot retirement, then they ought to raise the maximum age for federal employment. For those young bucks & does out there, many nice gov't jobs start becoming unavailable to you in your mid to late 30's. Something to consider if you ever want to get into some nice federal jobs! Hope this helps someone, JR |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:22
| #5 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 301
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom How about a federal minimum wage for Commerical Pilots? Yee-haa! JR |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:23
| #6 |
| Banned  Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA
Posts: 489
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] Hope you like being a CFI for an extra 5 years or so... |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:29
| #7 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul
Posts: 1,895
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] In theory, I would agree with you. But the problem (one of the problems) is that the current FAA medical exams are not designed to identify loss of cognitive function or many of the types of vision degradation which occur as we age. My grandfather could probably pass a "read the bottom line" vision test, but his eyesight is quite bad (he's 95). MikeD: you're right about the dog-eat-dog thing. For the record, I think the age limit should be abolished (if the FAA can come up with a medical exam that would be likely to catch some of the cognitive and vision problems that would be likely to pop up in older pilots). I am worried, however, about what a change like that would do to the pipeline. MF |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:32
| #8 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW
Posts: 7,080
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] Hope you like being a CFI for an extra 5 years or so... [/ QUOTE ] If that's the way the cookie crumbels, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. Not much I can do to stop it, is there? I've always thought the the age 60 rule was rediculous considering that the average life span has increased considerably over the last couple of decades. Additionally, seeing as how (1) I don't plan on going the airline route; (2) I'm making substantial contacts at my FBO that may lead to other flying gigs; and (3) there is no age 60 rule in corporate flying.... ... I'm not overly concerned either way. But, thanks for your concern, Mark. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:34
| #9 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul
Posts: 1,895
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom What's even more ridiculous (IMHO) is that the mandatory retirment age for ATC is 56. |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:38
| #10 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: was Ophir, CO, now in SLC!
Posts: 1,477
 | Re: Not good news for us at the bottom How old is this rule and what was the rationale behind passing such a rule? |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:40
| #11 |
| Senior Member  Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hockey Town, MI,USA
Posts: 839
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom 3 words Air National Guard |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:52
| #12 |
| Agent Smith  | Re: Not good news for us at the bottom No thanks, man! It's no fun trying to keep gramps awake and drag him along on a six-leg day, like heck I'm going to embrace dragging along an even OLDER captain. |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:53
| #13 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul
Posts: 1,895
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] How old is this rule and what was the rationale behind passing such a rule? [/ QUOTE ] Which rule? For pilots or ATC? The pilot rule has been around forever. In fact, one of the early, prominent court cases setting out the standard for review of agency rulemaking dealt with a challenge to the age 60 rule. I studied it in law school. The rationale was, in a nutshell, old people are decrepit, and it would be too hard to tailor a medical exam to weed out the decrepit-ness. The rule has never been revised to take into account medical and health advances over the last 50+ years. MF |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 10:58
| #14 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia
Posts: 3,389
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] Same here. It's interesting, though, when this topic is discussed amongst airline pilots. The dog-eat-dog nature of the business really comes out in true form and you wonder where the solidarity went....... [/ QUOTE ] One of the pilots speaking out for abolishing it was the head of SWA's pilot union. At one time ALPA was in favor of abolishing it. After all, it was arbitrarily set by the head of the CAB, no science behind it at all. And it was clearly a violation of basic rights to work if you are able. But the majority (read junior people) got ALPA turned around. Strictly a money, opportunity game. "Principled" stands like that eventually will come back to haunt you. |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 11:21
| #15 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Georgia
Posts: 3,389
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] No thanks, man! It's no fun trying to keep gramps awake and drag him along on a six-leg day, like heck I'm going to embrace dragging along an even OLDER captain. [/ QUOTE ] I had the same problem with my FO after we started hiring the retired military guys!! |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 11:34
| #16 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul
Posts: 1,895
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] and (3) there is no age 60 rule in corporate flying.... [/ QUOTE ] I know that there are at least some corporate flight depts. that have their own age 60 rule, which several courts (in their infinite ignorance) have actually OK'd in keeping with the FAA regs. MF |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 13:31
| #17 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: who haa
Posts: 3,750
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] Hope you like being a CFI for an extra 5 years or so... [/ QUOTE ] Short sighted .... |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 14:04
| #18 |
| Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA
Posts: 489
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] Hope you like being a CFI for an extra 5 years or so... [/ QUOTE ] Short sighted .... [/ QUOTE ] How so? I personally am not bound by the age 60 rule... BUT having guys stay in the seat 5 extra years will slow movement in ALL sectors of our field... Put your financial ducks in a row while you are young and you won't have to work past 60, regardless if you can or not... |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 15:11
| #19 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: El Forko Grande
Posts: 2,547
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] How so? I personally am not bound by the age 60 rule... BUT having guys stay in the seat 5 extra years will slow movement in ALL sectors of our field... Put your financial ducks in a row while you are young and you won't have to work past 60, regardless if you can or not... [/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you would want to work past age 55, let alone 60. There is too much to do in this life and work is not my #1 priority. I am 22 right and if I had the money, I would retire right now. And for those who say I'll get bored, it won't happen, I don't get bored. A more realistic time frame for retirement for me is around ages 45-50. I am not going to work a day more that I have to in this life so the earlier the better. Go on laugh, but it will happen..... |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 15:16
| #20 |
| Agent Smith | Re: Not good news for us at the bottom I'm with Lruppert on this one. If I was in a financial position where I wouldn't have to work, I certainly wouldn't and would spend my life traveling around the world and doing fun stuff! Plus, my dad 'checked out' really early and left me with something very important -- a speech about working 'too long' and waiting to do everything once you retire because sadly, there's no guarantee that once you retire at 60, or 65 or even 70 that you're going to be even able to do half of the things you worked your life to be able to do. There's so much more in this world than being a workerbee for "The Man". |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 15:47
| #21 |
| Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW
Posts: 7,080
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How so? I personally am not bound by the age 60 rule... BUT having guys stay in the seat 5 extra years will slow movement in ALL sectors of our field... Put your financial ducks in a row while you are young and you won't have to work past 60, regardless if you can or not... [/ QUOTE ] I don't know why you would want to work past age 55, let alone 60. There is too much to do in this life and work is not my #1 priority. I am 22 right and if I had the money, I would retire right now. And for those who say I'll get bored, it won't happen, I don't get bored. A more realistic time frame for retirement for me is around ages 45-50. I am not going to work a day more that I have to in this life so the earlier the better. Go on laugh, but it will happen..... [/ QUOTE ] Well... seeing as how I'm 39 now and JUST beginning to instruct......and with our first child on the way..... 45 or even 55 is not feasible for me to think about retiring. I'm not complaining, just stating the way it is for me. I don't have the luxury of turning back time to start my pursuit of aviation in my 20's. I'm cool with it... and it's one of the many reasons why I'm no longer aiming for the airlines. And another reason why I'm all for the expanding of the age 60 rule. For those who want to retire early - they will. For those who want to stay on.. they should be given that option, IMHO. |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 15:56
| #22 |
| Junior Member  Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: haytown,california
Posts: 267
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom Well said Doug and Iruppert-I want a job that pays me good and retire early and live life! I love Aviation but that is not my priority in life- and it is not a guarantee that you will live past 60 as healthy as you were 30! Enjoy life while you can! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 16:17
| #23 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 301
| Re: Not good news for us at the bottom Ohh-Rah! BTW, they cancelled my old position yesterday. Good timing, eh! Unfortunately, MS is out a job, but thankfully he picked up a 2nd job (night shift) a month or so back. Dude, we were planning a Thailand trip later this year, but now it looks like maybe February. Are you game? Take care, JR |
|
|
|
September 15th, 2004, 17:09
| #24 |
| Old Skool  Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone
Posts: 5,807
 | Re: Not good news for us at the bottom [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm all for it. If they are healthy enough to pass a medical, then so be it. [/ QUOTE ] Hope you like being a CFI for an extra 5 years or so... [/ QUOTE ] Short sighted .... [/ QUOTE ] How so? I personally am not bound by the age 60 rule... BUT having guys stay in the seat 5 extra years will slow movement in ALL sectors of our field... Put your financial ducks in a row while you are young and you won't have to work past 60, regardless if you can or not... [/ QUOTE ] I agree with my young Padawan Stan this time. Saying that we should retire pilots just to make room for you is one of the most selfish things I've heard on this website, and I've heard some doozies. No one says you can't retire earlier. It's an age limit, not a retirement limit. If a pilot has accumulated enough bollocks to retire earlier so be it. I retired at age 44. Restricting someone from working based on their age is blatant DISCRIMINATION. |
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
