Whilst I'm definitely in the camp with lambourne in thinking that at 65, it's time we should give it away, I have to say that if an FO was to carry on with me the way he says he does with the 'old gummers' he flys with, I couldn't (and wouldn't) give a tuppeny you-know-what about his wounded emotions until they - in my opinion - inflicted themselves on flight safety.
Then - on the ground - we'd have a serious talk where I'd offer him the chance to change his ways, and if that did not have the effect I felt it should, the aeroplane would remain at the stand until a replacement FO was found - and FO lambourne would be the one to explain to the Fleet Manager or the psychs at HR why the 'old gummer' turfed him off the flight deck. (In 40+ years in the business, 20+ of which spent in the left seat, I've had one such conversation with an FO.)
lambourne, if it bothers you as much as you say it does, for your own health, you really would be far better off working twenty days a month as 'the man' on a narrow body than six or eight days a month in the right (which for you -in your head at least - is the wrong) seat on a widebody.
Life ain't fair mate, and never has been, and if you can't get your head around that, put yourself somewhere where the unfairness doesn't cause the bile to overflow as your current situation seems to be doing to you. It's unhealthy - for you and for everyone forced to endure your company.
No, of course you don't Mr i Ford. It's all about me, me, me, and then me. The rest is Communism.
On those very few occasions where I'm paired with an over 60, he gets exactly what the book (and lambourne) prescribes. Nothing more, nothing less. If I get him in the right seat, he better stay within our SOP. Some find that hard to do, because, as was said earlier, over 60's try to float on experience, not company SOP.
"This is the way I have always done it" does not work with me if it is not our SOP.
ok....oK.....OK!!! I would TRULY like to know if this is REALLY the current state in today's cockpits vis a vis "older vs. younger" pilots??!!!!
Because....if it is.....then my future flights will be range limited to my Archer!
As I previously wrote, when I was flying part 135 and corporate.....ALL my captains were older by at LEAST 10 years, and virtually everytime I flew with them I LEARNED something. So....what the heck is going on "up there" today? When I began flying as a first officer, I was in my late 20's / early 30's.....my captains ranged from early to late 40's. One of the BEST captains I ever flew with was in his late 50's...had a fixed wing and rotary ATP and about 20,000 flight hours....this guy had forgotten more about flying than most EVER know. I realize that at least in SOME cases , cognitive abilities sometimes drop as we age....however, experience and PASSION for the job generally makes up for this. (For those that don't fully read this statement....I wrote SOMETIMES!).
Is todays cockpit REALLY the battle zone depicted by some posters here?? Inquiring minds would REALLY like to KNOW!!
Ha ha ha ha. I couldn't agree with you more. I also have had my share of stories from the 60+. Some of the stories are sooo downright ........, they even put me off the meal which had been brought over.
Bottom line moving up the retirement age again and again hurts everyone in aviation that wants to retire early and enjoy their golden years. Every pilot with good pay and schedules will stay on till forced out leaving only the shitty jobs to fight for at the bottom. It's already happening all over the world from the US raising 60 to 65. Stagnant job growth has made pilots do incredibly foolish things like paying for type ratings or working for substandard wages. Pilots staying on even when they have the financial means to retire are simply selfish!
Manaadasystem I can assume then that your fellow crewmembers are allowed to disrispect SOPs as long as they are below 60?
No, you can't. The younger guys know what SOP means. They also are well in line with the way aviation has progressed, so dive and drive is a no no, 320 knots below FL 100 is not standard procedure and stabilized at 1000/500 ft means exactly that. Oh, I forgot, they also mean what minimums mean.
I know plenty of captains over the age of 60 that have had only one wife, no kids, great retirement planning...but lets see the airlines are getting rid of pension plans... Oh am maybe these guys just like their job!
Well not to argue but......All the guys I came up with are now in their late 50's and not one of them want to go past 60. Most are jealous that I was able to go at 56. There was NO pension where I was as an expat, so mine was financed entirely by me. As far as reduction in pensions....well it didn't take a brain surgeon to see which way the wind was blowing so maybe some personal responsibility is in order. However, we're part of the boomer generation that seems to believe that it's our right to have THAT house, boat, car, etc. And we were planning our future based on the seniority above us leaving at 60.
The most frightening aspect of this difficult to read thread is the venom being spewed towards captains cannot be limited to posting anonymously on a forum. This obviously extends to cockpit operations, there can be no denying it. No one can be so passionate about a subject (lambourne, MAS, and the rest) then simply turn it off like a light once on duty. Unless this is a windup ..... these boys are highlighting a serious problem on the flight deck.
This overwhelming sense of entitlement, if not satiated, negatively affects job performance. This behavior should not be tolerated in a setting where hundreds of lives are at risk.
Whilst I'm definitely in the camp with lambourne in thinking that at 65, it's time we should give it away,
MT OW - I think most of us agree that 65 is enough but lambourne, MAS etc. are in a rage about anyone continuing past 60.
For some of us, (not USA), 65 was the deal when we first got our licence and we were robbed of five years for no good reason. In the UK at least, there is ample evidence that there is little, if any, serious deterioration between 60 and 65. One particular AME in London, also a Specialist in Aviation Medicine, invited all pilots on his books who were affected by the arbitrary reduction to age sixty to continue medicals, for free, with him until they reached 65. All the evidence was then submitted to the authorities and eventually, after many years too many, they responded, age back to 65.
Unless lambourne is simply a wind up I think he needs psychiatric help.
In the beginning there was one pilot, and he was called Captain. Accidents happened. And lo the authorities decided to add co-pilots, and they were called F/O. The accident rate was reduced because the F/O helped the Captain to stay safe, probably because the F/O liked to stay alive. So when ManAdaSystem says
70 years will not happen, of that I'm sure, and a few more over 60 pilots who don't need to listen to reason and then fly with their seniority into a mountain may cause a revised age limit to 60 again.
This debate has been very heated so far. Understandably so, because the finances involved are quite considerable.
If you look at the issue of retirement age from a professional point of view, one could argue very well that retirement should only be based on ability to perform your duties. Quite clear.
However, within the framework of a single company / seniority list situation things might be viewed differently. Then the discussion can be rightfully viewed both professionally and industrially. Then it becomes part of the whole scope of labour agreements for that particular pilot group. Almost like the balancing of a new contract: "who gets the most of the gains this time around?".
My view is that these discussions about mandatory retirement age can only be successfuly resolved within the framework of a single CLA, by balancing the consequences for the "angry young men" and the "old farts". Unfortunately, due to the way the European directive on age discrimination was introduced into national law in Britain, this is no longer possible it seams.
In other countries the debate is much more an industrial one and therefore resolvable within the scope of a CLA.