Age 60 Battle vs ALPA

[FoxHunter]

www.apaad.org

August 17, 2005

RE: Revocation of ALPA Dues Check Off.

To say that we pilots are disgruntled with ALPA’s support of the Age 60 Rule would be somewhat of an understatement.

A good number ALPA pilots have approached me recently suggesting that resignation from ALPA would be a wise response to ALPA's position on the Age 60 rule. Many of these are very experienced individuals who have fought on behalf of their profession either as strikers at CAL, EAL, etc., or they are those who honored picket lines rather than take jobs, such as the Braniff pilots did.

To resign would, in effect, mean to go on strike against ALPA over its decadent and unethical position. I also know that it is difficult for many pilots to resign ALPA and "agency shop" contractual provisions would mean they would have to pay “germane expenses” anyway.

Therefore, the idea came up that, we should terminate our Dues Check Off (DCO) agreements with ALPA, thereby, delivering to the Association a meaningful message of discontent. Several FedEx pilots have informed me that they have already initiated the process. Current ranking MEC members at other airlines have told me that terminating DCO is a meaningful endeavor that causes increased administrative workload for ALPA.

Revoking DCO means that ALPA will have to send you a paper statement every month and you will need to write a check to them. Indications are that you may delay payment for several or many months before they threaten you with "Bad Standing," at which point you may catch up by sending in a check.

This is, in my opinion, an important inter-airline act of civil disobedience that is intended to get ALPA's attention.
It is up to each individual to make the decision for his-self based on ALPA's position on Age 60. If ALPA fails to respond, I expect to see resignations.

A number of pilots have informed me that they have also terminated their ALPA PAC contributions in protest over Age 60.

To revoke authorization of Dues Check Off: Send an email to:

[email protected]

Provide your name, airline, and ALPA number. State that you wish to revoke your authorization for Dues Check Off because of ALPA’s Age 60 Rule position! Let’s have some fun!



Gary L. Cottingham
Communications Director
Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination
Indianapolis, Indiana
317.513.0099 Sprint
317.498.6383 Verizon
[email protected]
www.apaad.org

[pitotman]

I always find this amusing..........change the age 60 rule..........isn't that what we complaing about the most to managment groups..........how they keep changing the goalposts mid game.............I don't care what age you are when you joined this career or how healthy you are............ya new the rule was 60 so take your fit ass on and find a new job..............


pitotman

[Devils Advocate]

Pretty funny when you think that many of the large(r) American carriers a bankrupt (especially with fuel at the price it is )..... I wonder what stance ALPA will take when its members can't pay their dues as a result of the total bankruptcy of their employers ?! :rolleyes:

[ZQA297/30]

Not so funny when you look at it objectively.

What isthe common factor in all these financial woes?
On average, the industry has never produced a fair return on capital invested.

The suicidal and predatory price competition that has been going on for a while now.
Air fares have decreased dramatically and constantly, in real terms, ever since the inception of commercial aviation. The cost of living has not.
The fuel spike has caught most with not enough money to hedge, and not enough cash to wait it out.
To continue the the self-destructive behaviour, the airlines have only one avenue left, squeeze the employees.
Employees are subsidising unrealistic fares. In effect they are being encouraged to cut their fellow employees throats. One airline's employees being pitted against anothers to see who will work for less.

Perhaps I am wrong. I would be only too happy to be proven so.

[LHR Rain]

Fox Hunter,

Stop thinking of just yourself. There are over 12,000 pilots in the U.S. out of work at the present time and you want to raise the retirement age! For what reason besides your own selfish gain would you want to raise the age?
Yes it is a discrimatory ruling but don't forget discrimantion is a good thing. After all we do have to get two medicals a year as well as do two check rides for our jobs. Is that discrimatory as well? You bet ya and it is a good thing. It keeps all the riff raft out of the cockpits.
You had your fun now make way for some other pilots and don't try to change the rules midstream, you knew the rules when you joined.

[FoxHunter]

Fox Hunter,

Stop thinking of just yourself. There are over 12,000 pilots in the U.S. out of work at the present time and you want to raise the retirement age! For what reason besides your own selfish gain would you want to raise the age?

There are also 30,000+ pilots in the USA that have lost all or part of their pension. I was on furlough eight plus years of my first twelve as an airline pilot. Not sure that any of those 12,000 you claim are even close. Most of the world has changed and it looks like the 109th Congress will include the USA at last.

[BusyB]

LHR Rain,

I've resisted replying to your previous rants but have risen to this one. My contract has been broken 3 times in the last 13 years by my employer, all to my detriment. Why should I not be entitled to work to 60, If I wish, to try and recoup what I had expected to earn.
Don't bother to reply unless you have an answer!

[GlueBall]

It's just a matter of time before one of the big ALPA carriers goes bust in a big way and puts 8000 pilots on the street instantly. Many of these folks will suffer from broken pension plans, they will not be financially ready at age 60 to retire; especially not because in the USA social security pension payments don't kick in until age 62 at the earliest.

Most ICAO countries have already adopted the age 65 rule as a matter of practical reality.

As to age 60 policy: ALPA is a self centered, narrow minded flying club that remains out of step with a fast changing world.

[water check]

An individual should be allowed to work until he is no longer fit to do so. I don't see Doctors, Dentists, Attorneys or other professional employees having to stop at a fixed age, nor would they be very impressed if someone suggested it. Regardless of the 'whining' of others (particularly a certain eloquent Canadian on this thread), discrimination is not justifiable. It is worth mentioning that the same 'young' pilots who insultingly comment in the negative will be the same 'old' pilots arguing for this very issue when they get a bit older.... It is a transparant arguement from both groups,and neither has a 'moral' claim on the answer. The ONLY answer is that you should not force someone out of their career based solely on age. BTW, i'm a long way from retirement, but think that my Dad at age 59 should be able to continue on for a few more years yet....as he still competes in marathons every month..!!

[LHR Rain]

Did those groups that "lost" their pensions give them up on their own accord? What I am saying is just because a pilot group or two gave up their pensions to "save" their airline does not mean we should raise the retirement age. Did you hear PAA, EAL or anyone other airline cry as much as the pilots do today?
Don't go comparing the U.S with the rest of the world. You and I both know that the Americans are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world and if you start comparing the U.S to the rest of the world the U.S. is in a world of hurt and not just financially. The reason some of the world has raised their retirement age is because those countries don't pay their pilots anything. I.E Air NZ top pay for a B-747-400 captain is $100,000 a year! SAA is a little above that. Most if not all of the U.S widebody FOs make more than that even after all of the paycuts.
FBI has a retirement age of 55 as do the ATC controllers. The retirment age works. Again just because you were on furlough for a portion of your career don't ruin the whole industry. I am sure that you are doing fine now.

[FoxHunter]

Did those groups that "lost" their pensions give them up on their own accord? What I am saying is just because a pilot group or two gave up their pensions to "save" their airline does not mean we should raise the retirement age

No, not one of these pilots gave up their pension to save their airline. A Judge did it, guess you're really out of touch.



Don't go comparing the U.S with the rest of the world. You and I both know that the Americans are leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the world and if you start comparing the U.S to the rest of the world the U.S. is in a world of hurt and not just financially.

I've had the good fortune to work in much of the rest of the world. Your ignorance makes the rest of us look bad.



The reason some of the world has raised their retirement age is because those countries don't pay their pilots anything. I.E Air NZ top pay for a B-747-400 captain is $100,000 a year! SAA is a little above that. Most if not all of the U.S widebody FOs make more than that even after all of the paycuts.

Again your ignorance makes us all look bad. Are you sure your not just a school boy with a little extra time at the end of your summer holiday:(

Again just because you were on furlough for a portion of your career don't ruin the whole industry. I am sure that you are doing fine now.

I am doing quite well now, and if I am lucky enough to be in good health a little over two years from now I would like the option to continue.:)

[330 Man]

Boys,Boys,

Please do not raise to the bait of lhr rain. He is a little twit who likes to make waves. He and I have had this discussion about pensions on another thread and he still is clueless. Just as much as he is entitled to his "little boy and his toy opinion," we are entitled to ignore his rantings. He has no clue about aviation in the states yet he continiously tells us how it is. He has no clue about how it feels to loose your pension after 20 years at a company, yet he presumes to tell us how it happened and how we should feel. Let him rant, and then ignore him. He is TOTALLY CLUELESS on this subject, ( most subjects for that matter) throws numbers out that meaningless, and has the advantage of having balls that are bigger than his brain. Just to proove my point look at his first post on this thread: If discrimination keeps rif raf out of the cockpit, than he would never be allowed on the airport property, let alone in the cockpit.

As I have told you before ler rain, you are the village idiot, and you proove me right time and time again.

Kiss off lhr man,

330 man

[LHR Rain]

Fox Hunter

If you are working outside of the US why do you care what the US does with its reitrement age?
If I am wrong on my slaraies quations from the worlds airlines please inlighten me. We both know that I am right. Try not to belittle someone just because you dont agree with him. Most if not all US widebody FOs make more than the worlds widebody captains and that is a fact!
Again you knew the retirement age when you joined, why do you want to change the rules now?

330 Man

You keep defending US Air while trying to deinagrate me. Keep trying. If you are correct in saying a judge "took" your pension why did not this same judge take Delta's, NW, CAL et al? United voted, yes they voted to give up their pension. You say US Air did not and I guess I have to beleive you at this time. But why did you not go on stirke like the NW Engineers and stand up for something. Put another way what did you as an individual or as a pilot group do to stop this atrocity from happening. I believe you did nothing! As you alluded to some people have balls and US Air has proved time and again they did not. Don't take your frustrations out on someone else and don't ruin the industry by raising the retirment age.

[BlueEagle]

LHRRain, you are, (once again) choosing to ignore a salient point. When most of us on this thread signed up the retirement age WAS 65! It was arbitrarily changed, without good reason, to 60. All that we now ask is that it be returned to the terms and conditions that we originally signed up to. You have been told this many times before here on PPRuNe, why do you choose to ignore it?

[FoxHunter]

Testimony of Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH
Regarding S. 65
Senate Subcommittee on Aviation
July 19, 2005

Senator Burns, Senator Rockefeller, and Distinguished Senators of the Aviation Subcommittee,

My name is Dr. Robin Wilkening. I am a Board certified Occupational Medicine physician with a Masters degree in Public Health. Occupational Medicine is the medical specialty that deals with all aspects of worker health and safety. Workplace safety, worker health, fitness for duty, health-related productivity, and workplace access are key elements of my training, expertise, and professional interest. My research paper on the Age 60 Rule was published in the journal Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine in March 2002. My conclusion, after an extensive review of the literature, was that requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 had no basis in medical fact, could not be supported by scientific literature, and was not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.

I am not alone in my opinion that the Age 60 Rule cannot be justified. One year ago the Civil Aviation Subcommittee of the Aviation Safety Committee of the Aerospace Medical Association (ASMA) - recognized as the international leader for excellence in aerospace medicine - published its findings regarding the Age 60 Rule. Following an extensive and scholarly examination of the literature, this panel of aviation medicine and safety experts concluded, "there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone," and noted that "the decision to use 60 years of age as an upper limit for commercial air transport operations was arbitrary." In addition, the Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA), the pre-eminent professional body representing Aviation Medical Examiners, "...supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely upon attaining age 60." In February 2005, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) cited the results of its survey of member nations wherein 83% of the 112 respondents indicated that "an age limit above 60 years would be appropriate for airline pilots" (with 72 states favoring an upper age limit of 65 and six desiring no upper age limit at all). ICAO highlighted the opinion of their Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel that, as the Aerospace Medical Association stated, "...there is insufficient medical evidence to support a restriction based on age alone." In proposing the current rule change to allow pilots up to age 65 to fly in multi-crew operations, ICAO specifically mentioned research performed in the United States by Baker and Li showing the safety of over-60 pilots, and cited a recent ICAO survey documenting more than 15,000 "older pilot years" of accident-free flying worldwide. The ICAO "Age 65 Rule" is expected to take effect on November 23, 2006.

Acknowledgment of the safety of over-60 pilots is not limited to the medical community. In the Letter of Understanding between ALPA and Air Canada Regional, Inc., ALPA President Duane Woerth endorsed Canadian ALPA member pilots flying up to the age of 65. And although the Letter stated "there are current Federal Aviation Administration restrictions for Captains over the age of 60 to fly into the United States of America," strikingly absent was any mention of the FAA's Age 60 Rule being a safety regulation. Likewise notably absent was any language suggesting even the slightest concern that these airline pilots up to age 65 – now represented by ALPA – constituted an undue safety risk.

It is by now well known and widely accepted that the Age 60 Rule was never meant to be a safety regulation. Far from being related in any way to safety, it was instead a bit of backroom economic favoritism designed to benefit the management of one particular airline and, by extension, the management of all airlines. In FAA Administrator Quesada's own words, written in April 1959 to the President of the University of Notre Dame, "there exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting or any other aeronautical activity becomes critically unsafe at any given age." When in August 1959 then-ALPA President Clarence Sayen, an ardent opponent of the Age 60 Rule, demanded that the FAA produce scientific evidence, Administrator Quesada did not - because he could not - offer any evidence that airline pilots over age 60 were less safe than their younger counterparts. Instead, the FAA offered up a bibliography of 41 publications dealing with aging, none of which addressed airline-piloting capabilities. Since that time there have been numerous studies dealing with the subject of aging both in general populations and in groups of pilots. In their recent exhaustive review, ASMA aviation research experts thoroughly analyzed a huge body of literature and reported three findings: 1) Performance on measures of most – but not all – cognitive functions decline with advancing age; 2) Performance of a group may not predict the performance of any specific individual; and 3) Observed “declines” in laboratory test performance are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Based on their thorough study of the literature of aging as related to piloting, ASMA experts concluded: “On review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based on age alone.”

Laboratory studies on effects of aging are worthy academic exercises that increase our general fund of knowledge. However, the results of these tests, as ASMA noted, are not necessarily predictive of cockpit performance. Flight safety is the true outcome of interest, and we are indeed fortunate to have a body of flight safety data detailing the performance of pilots in various age groups. When performed according to rigorous scientific standards and analyzed using proper statistical technique, flight safety studies show that pilots over age 60 are as safe as their younger colleagues. It is important to review these results.

1. 1994: Kay EJ, et al. Age 60 Study, Part III, Consolidated Database Experiments Final Report, DOT/FAA/AM-94/22, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington DC 20591, October 1994.
The analysis provided no support for the hypothesis that the pilots of scheduled air carriers had increased accident rates as they neared the age of 60.

For pilots with Class II medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of the age group 55-59. For pilots with Class III medical certificates, the accident rate for the age group 60-64 did not differ from that of age group 55-59. Additionally, for Class III pilots with more than 500 total flight hours and more than 50 recent flight hours the accident rate for the age groups 60-64 and 65-69 did not differ from that of age group 55-59.

In a further arm of the study, accident rates were examined year-by-year, rather than in 5-year groups, for pilots aged 50-69. Between age 63 and age 69, there was an apparent, though not statistically significant, linear trend that was described by the author as "a hint, and a hint only, of an increase in accident rate for Class III pilots older than 63 years of age."

2. 1999: Rebok GW, Grabowski JG, and Baker SP, et al. Pilot age and performance as factors in aviation crashes. Presented before the American Psychological Association meeting, Boston, MA 1999.
Dr. George Rebok demonstrated that in general aviation crashes involving pilots aged 40-63, the percentage of accidents caused by pilot error was smallest in the age group 56-63.

4. 1999: The Chicago Tribune July 11.
Statistics compiled by the FAA for air carrier accidents/incidents involving air transport (airline) pilots from January 1, 1990 to June 11, 1999 were evaluated by Northwestern University professor Ian Savage. This cohort, including pilots age 20 to over 60, was notable for its inclusion of airline pilots working for commuter airlines who were over 60 years of age during this period. These pilots were exempt from the Age 60 Rule between 1995 and December 1999. The data showed no statistically significant difference in incident rate between any age group. The safety of this over-60 pilot group is all the more notable because these pilots - confined to commuter operations - were exposed to much greater flight risk than were their younger counterparts flying in safer, large jet operations.

5. 2000: Broach D, et al. OAM AAM-00-A-HRR-520. Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), Human Resources Research Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. A series of four reports.

Continued

Report One was a bibliography.

Report Two reanalyzed the Chicago Tribune data but specifically excluded those pilots aged 60 and older from analysis. CAMI reported no statistically significant differences in the accident/incident rates by age group. It is particularly notable that the proportion of 50-59 year old air transport pilots involved in accidents or incidents was significantly lower than the proportion for the 40-49 year old group.

Report Three evaluated pilots age 23-63 with an Air Transport rating and a Class I medical certificate (that is, pilots who were rated and medically certified to be airline captains) who flew between 1988 and 1997. This study was conducted at the request of the United States Senate to compare the flight safety of pilots age 60-63 with the flight safety of younger pilots. Study author Dana Broach: "No significant difference was found between accident rates for pilots in the 55-59 and 60-63 year old age groups." This finding is all the more noteworthy because, as in the Chicago Tribune cohort above, the over-60 pilots in this study group were flying in less-safe commuter operations only.

Report Four expanded the Report Three study cohort to include pilots with a Commercial rating and a Class II medical certificate, creating an impure study population composed of pilots who had an Air Transport rating and Class I medical certificates and pilots who did not. In this mixed group, there was a statistically significant increase in the accident rate for pilots age 60-63. The inappropriate combination of these two pilot groups into a single cohort was criticized in the aviation medical literature and casts serious doubt on the veracity of the findings.

6. 2001: Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski G, Rebok G, Li G. Characteristics of general aviation crashes involving mature male and female pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2001;72:447-52.
This research group at the Center for Injury Research and Policy, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported their analysis of the causes of general aviation crashes. Older pilots made fewer errors: among males age 55-63, 26% of crashes were without obvious pilot error whereas among males age 40-49 only 7% were without obvious pilot error.

7. 2002: Miura Y, Shoji M, Fukumoto M, Yasue K, Tsukui I, Hosoya T. A 10-year retrospective review of airline transport pilots aged 60-63 in Japan. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 May;73(5):485-7.
Investigators from the Japan Aeromedical Research Center in Tokyo reported the results of their experience with pilots over age 60. During the study period these pilots underwent standard medical examinations and were engaged first in non-scheduled flying (1991-1996) and then scheduled flying (1996-2000). These pilots were not involved in any of the 323 accidents reported by the Japan Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission. The investigators\' conclusions: "aged pilots who are deemed medically qualified by the official notice criteria are flying safety without mishap incidence." Japan has since raised its upper age limit to 65.

8. 2002: Li G, Baker SP, Lamb MW, Grabowski JG, Rebok GW. Human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2002 Feb;73(2):134-8.
In a study of human factors in aviation crashes involving older pilots, these researchers studied a cohort of 3306 pilots who were 45-54 years old in 1987 and flew commuter aircraft or air taxis. This group was followed longitudinally until 1997. Comparisons of crash circumstances and human factors were made between pilots age 40-49 and 50-63. Neither crash circumstances nor the prevalence and patterns of pilot errors changed significantly as age increased from the 40s to the early 60s.

9. 2003: Li G, Baker SP, Grabowski JG, Qiang Y, McCarthy ML, Rebok GW. Age, flight experience, and risk of crash involvement in a cohort of professional pilots. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003 May 15;157(10):874-80.
In a further study of the above cohort, the researchers determined that those pilots with 5,000-9,999 hours of total flight time at the beginning of the study period had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts. There was no association between pilot age and crash risk, which the researchers noted "may reflect a strong \'healthy worker effect\' stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots."

The Age 60 Rule was never designed to be a safety regulation, and was not promulgated in response to any demonstrated safety need for the restriction of pilots over age 60. An exhaustive review of the medical literature regarding aging has failed to show any evidence that would prudently bar airline pilots over age 60 from the cockpit. All published flight performance studies, when conducted according to the highest scientific standards and evaluated using appropriate analytical technique, and show that pilots flying until age 63 are as safe as their younger colleagues. The international experience with older pilots amply demonstrates the safety of pilots flying until age 65.

Requiring airline pilots to retire based solely on the age of 60 has no basis in medical fact, cannot be supported by scientific literature, and is not consistent with flight safety data. The Age 60 Rule prohibits an entire class of workers from continuing gainful employment based on age alone, and as such constitutes age discrimination in the workplace.


Robin Wilkening MD MPH

[email protected]

[chuks]

I think LHR Rain must just enjoy winding people up with his obstinate defence of the indefensible; it gets him noticed, poor thing!

Meanwhile, back here on Planet Earth, I find myself faced with 'end of contract' at age 58, which is fair enough. I am not asking some court to suddenly overturn what I signed up to many moons ago.

On the other hand, I really would prefer some sort of level playing field so that I could get out there and peddle my wrinkly, grey-haired, semi-hateful, old self in the market place, hoping to sell my 15,000 hours of experience and proven work record to someone else who might otherwise go for one of these junior geniuses with a Bachelor of Arts in Underwater Basket-weaving, a frozen ATPL and 932 hours, including 143 in a Cessna Citation II.

I mean, if you had some airplane that you absolutely, positively wanted to see get to its destination, what would you rather count on, old age and cunning, or youth and quick reflexes? That argument was settled long ago!

Times have changed in terms of the market for pilots, so that I wish the authorities would just knock off this nonsense of age discrimination and take passing a Class I medical as evidence that some old crock of 58-65 is not going to slump over the controls 'just like that!' It made sense back when we had a lot more pilots than seats, but not in today's market.

I wonder if people like LHR Rain have some sneaking fear that grandfathers could get their jobs absent this artificial restriction in the marketplace?

Or perhaps this fellow lost his girlfriend to some old guy once when she jumped out of his clapped-out Ford Sierra at a set of traffic lights, into a BMW M3 never to be seen again. 'Shazza, come back! All is forgiven!' Get over it, fellah! Order in a take-away pizza and go back to playing 'Grand Theft Auto.'

[LHR Rain]

The retirement age was changed in 1959 so I don't think that there are too many pilots that are still flying today that the rule change affected.
Since you disparaged young pilots I think it is time to do the same to the oldies. You have had your fun and now it is time to make way for some young blood. The retirement home is calling and your name is on it.
sorry I never had a girlfriend go after an old geezer like yourself. If you were a rich pilot (which by judging by your posts to keep working you obviously are not) maybe a pretty young thing would go after your rinkled body but I serioulsy doubt it.

[BlueEagle]

And where would that be LHRain,? That the age changed in 1959?
Certainly not the UK, happened about twenty five years ago in the UK.

[Abbeville]

Rainman

Have you ever thought about seeking counselling? I think you ought to before your next flight.

[chuks]

Hey, if I were a 'rich pilot' do you think I would be sat here engaging in badinage with the spelling-impaired? When it comes to 'rinkles' my aged bod might have a few but then so does my brain! LHR Rain's would seem to be as smooth as a baby's arse.

Look, it used to be that people were often barred from work for being too old, too gay, too fat, too female or whatever. One of the last vestiges of that mindset is this age bar for pilots. When it was brought in the major airlines had a limited number of seats and a lot of potential pilots, so that it made a kind of sense, whether it was fair or not. Nowadays it makes very little sense, plus it completely fails contemporary tests of fairness.

Many unfair practices from the same period as this age legislation have been revoked so that it stands out as an exception. It is not that we are seeking an exception but that we are seeking to have an exceptional case of discrimination corrected.

Why I might want to continue working is my own business. It can be amusing to speculate about that but so what? I might enjoy coming up with some imaginary construct for the mindset of this joker, such as that he's just some little loser who lost his Shazza to a rich, old guy, but that's just a side-joke, just as it is very much beside the point to jeer at people who wish to continue working in their chosen profession wíthout bothering to think about the point under discussion.

[bugg smasher]

I have four ex-wives, three of which I am still paying for, and between them, seven children to support, only two have finished college. My social responsibilities to my families are enormous, to take away my income at age sixty would be tantamount to seriously compromising the lives of many people. I would have to sell my ranch, my sports cars, and my Piper Cub on floats, not to mention giving up the golf and yacht club memberships. Liposuction and cosmetic surgery? No chance!

LHR Rain, I’m supporting a lot of people, I think I should be allowed to fly past 60.

[Bystander1]

Rainman

Have you ever thought about seeking counselling? I think you ought to before your next flight. - quote

Why? Because his opinion is different than yours? His posts may not be very articulate I admit but he obviously feels very strongly about this, as do you.

It made sense back when we had a lot more pilots than seats, but not in today's market. -quote

??? What are you talking about? There are still more pilots than seats.

People, lets not resort to calling someone names just because he doesn't agree with you. We're all adults.

[chuks]

That there are more pilots than seats, well, yes. but not a LOT more pilots than seats, as was the case when the legislation we are squabbling over came into force. Back then you had a rather small airline industry fed with a steady supply of very high-grade pilots coming out of the US military. Now we have an expanded industry scrambling to find high-grade pilots. Just look at some of the accidents nowadays, which show a real lack of experience.

[facelac]

So whats easier ?

The young guy with big debt, young children and little or no jetPIC etc. , looses his job and only option (if he wants to fly) is to beg for fo-contract life somewhere in Asia...

or

The 60 year old captain normally with little or no debt, grown children and loads of experience such as widebody PIC (but forever reason wants to continue flying), takes a well paied contract with 3 weeks off every 2 month somewhere in Asia ..


dont know what solidarity really is anymore, but it seems that it is taken for granted from the young end to the senior, but if senior end has to sacrifice the otherway its a big problem

[chuks]

When I was starting out in the USA in the mid-70's I kept coming up against retired Air Force officers who were happy to work for peanuts in General Aviation since they already had a generous pension. There was a layer of these guys who really felt that if you were not ex-Air Force then you really had no business trying to break into aviation as a young guy just starting out. You felt like a small frog trying to get through a thick layer of weed on the top of the pond.

I only got some traction by going off to fly in West Africa. There they didn't care about anything but, 'Can you get the job done?' In that case they threw you a fairly generous wage while also making it very clear that paying you marked the beginning and the end of the relationship. That suited me fine, actually.

The only problem now is age-limiting legislation, exactly the subject under discussion here. It makes it very difficult to decide whether to go for an ICAO ATPL, since I have no idea how marketable I might be, just due to my age. Passing the medical is no problem, especially since I don't drink or smoke, but yes, I am almost 58. Finesse that one, if you can!

There is a very basic human notion of giving respect to age. It might be some sort of vestigial tribal survival tactic. Certainly it's much stronger in Africa than elsewhere I have been, but it's present to some degree in almost every human society. It only goes overboard in the case of a society that has sustained serious damage. I suppose the idea is that the aged have managed to survive while accumulating experience. That said, there sure are a lot of rather stupid, silly old folks around. But compared to adolescents, not such a high proportion, perhaps.

The jeering, adolescent tone of LHR Rain is provocative precisely because it violates this notion. Given that it's not a really sound attitude to hold to I can only assume he's wishing to wind people up by taking such a cavalier view of a problem most of us will have to confront at some time or other. What was he doing in English class the day they got around to 'No man is an iland'? He seems to have missed this very basic point, that we all share the same fate to some extent. Or does he have some plan that will see him remain a perpetual teenager?

I do not expect this legislation to change any time soon, or at least not soon enough to do me much good. That is life. There should still be some corner of the scene that needs someone like me. It will just be a matter of finding it. Or perhaps I end up driving a tractor for the local pig farmer. I plan to put the four-bar epaulettes on the blue overalls, in that case. That should get automatic respect from the pigs, right?

[330 Man]

LHR rain,
If you look at my post you will note that I do not say anything about Usair. I will be the last person who will defend Usair. I am on record in these forums as being unhappy with the usair management, MEC, and alpa itself. It has not had good management since 1989, and only now has a slim chance with the America west merger. To say that I am defending Usair is once again one of your little lies.

Your ignorance is showing through because you know nothing about the law in the states regarding airlines in bankruptcy. Because I think that there is hope for you yet, I will once again attempt to help you understand.

quote:
If you are correct in saying a judge "took" your pension why did not this same judge take Delta's, NW, CAL et al?

First of all, there is more than one judge in the federal bankruptcy system in the states. The judge assigned to the case is determined by where you file bankruptcy. Secondly, none of these airlines are in bankruptcy yet and their management can do nothing unless they are. They must convince the court and the PBGC that the pension funds are indeed insolvent. Only then will the judge make a ruling. You can bet that Delta will file soon to get pension relief.

quote:
United voted, yes they voted to give up their pension.

No they did not vote to give up their pension. In fact the united pilots and flight attendants are suing to try and get their pensions restored. I do not know the status of the mechanics.
As a side note ALL employees of Usair had their pension funds terminated, and I believe that it is the same with United.

Maybe a united pilot could shed some light on this.

quote:
You say US Air did not and I guess I have to beleive you at this time.

Do not take my word for it, you can get all of the information from alpa, as it is all public record.

Quote:
But why did you not go on stirke like the NW Engineers and stand up for something. Put another way what did you as an individual or as a pilot group do to stop this atrocity from happening. I believe you did nothing!

In the states you can not just go on strike. You must negotiate until the mediator declares an impasse. Then a 30 day cooling off period has to take place, when intense last minute negotiations happen. At the end of the 30 days the employees can strike and the company can impose a contract. The northwest engineers went on strike because the 30 day cooling off period had expired. There was never an impasse called or a 30 day period started at Usair. If we would have gone on strike we would had been ordered by a judge to return to work and fined millions of dollars in damages. The American Airline pilots tried this in the 90's and lost big time. The judge ordered them back to work and the union had to pay the company over 40 million dollars in damages. (it may have been more than this, I can not remember the exact amount) You can not just go on strike. Airlines, trucking companies and railroads are the only industries in the states who have to follow these rules. It is part of the railway labor act, which also covers airlines.

quote:
As you alluded to some people have balls and US Air has proved time and again they did not.

Time and time again huh! Tell me about all of these times I would love to hear. We would have loved to go on strike to stop the pension termination. We could not. It was against the law.

I have enough balls to tell you that you are full of crap and you have no idea what you are talking about. I back up what I say with facts. You do not. All you have is your emotions and a sence of how you want things to be. Just because you want things to be a certian way, it does not make it so. Facts are facts, and history is documented. You can not change either for the sake of argument. Unfortunately how you want history to be is not how it happend. I lived it, you only imagine it!

quote:
Don't take your frustrations out on someone else and don't ruin the industry by raising the retirment age.

How exectly will raising the retirement age ruin the industry. Did it ruin the industry when the age 60 rule was put into place? Of course not. And how am I taking my frustrations out on someone else? Could I not turn around and say the same to you just because we disagree? And that is not a problem for me. The problem is that when I state the facts to back up my opinion, you tell me that my facts and arguments are wrong, even though I was there and you were not. In this case you presume to know more about it than I do. As I said I lived it, you only imagine it! That is where I have a problem with you. I would never presume to take your right to tell us all your opinion. But, please do a little research.

No one gives up their pension. We did vote to take the pay cuts, and I think it was a mistake because our management just pissed away all of the savings we gave them. As I have told you before, we never had the chance to vote on the pension termination. It was a court order, and you do not ratify a court order, you obey. You will not find one pilot in the states who voted to give up their pension. It did not happen. Please educate yourself and learn the truth, it will make you wiser, and cut down on the frustration level for the rest of us!

330 Man

[BlueEagle]

Really don't think there is much chance of you getting a sensible answer there A330 Man. LHRain is , I believe, a very young person with no experience at all within commercial avaiation, doubt he even has a licence.

[aviator]

330 Man,

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Thank you for taking the time to summarize the facts, despite the barrage of misinformation coming from "other" posters.

[SIDSTAR]

Dr Wilkening's evidence says it all. There is NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE to support loss of licence at any age. As long as I can continue to pass my medicals, even if I have to do them more frequently or do extra checks, then I should be allowed to hold my licence.

The issue of pension plans/entitlements is an entirely separate one and has nothing to do with the age 60/61/62/65 rule as applies currently in numerous countries worldwide. An individual's personal financial circumstances are just that - individual to him. Sure he/she can have had bad luck during a career and may need to keep flying till 70! But that has nothing to do with ana arbitrary compulsory 'retirement' due to not being allowed to hold the licence purely on age grounds. US ALPA has been the real problem here. They have no interest in anything except their own members and I don't blame them for that as that's what they exist for and are paid by.

However many of those members who might have fully supported the 60 rule now have different priorities due to the majors being at last having to face commercial realities. That may mean the ALPA changes it's attitude to the rule but it really has no bearing on the basic issue.

An old friend used to say (at union meetings) that pilot always tood the 'broad view" How does this affect me!!

Its obvious that this still applies to many pilots.

[westhawk]

Wow, this is a tough room! Here goes anyway. Quite an emotional subject for a great many pilots fighting in the war that is a flying career. With such a history of economic turmoil and political maneuvering by the various interest groups involved, it's no suprise to me that the presentation of misinformation and disinformation are used by interest groups as a convenient tactic to support an argument they want to win for their own economic reasons. The history of the age 60 rule in the US is just one such example. No credible scientific body of evidence has ever suggested that arbitrary retirement ages for airline pilots yield any measurable safety benefit to the public. Not in 1959 and not now. If an objective test of cognitive function and piloting skills existed and was used to establish individual qualification for duty, the results would likely create a state of chaos in the industry. (as if that were not allready the case!) Age 65 is just as arbitrary as age 60 or 55. Some pilots want to work longer for their own economic or personal reasons. Industry generally wants these guys out for their own economic and other business reasons. Younger pilots want these guys out of their chairs so they can have a turn. Difficult to imagine which position would most benefit the unions. The starter of this thread recognizes that the members may be able to affect the union position. Good luck. So with these competing interests all having their say, hoping to benefit themselves, who do you believe? Whichever position you feel provides the greatest benefit to yourself, of course! What else? Since I have always been a believer in the merit system, I would favor an objective qualification system and eliminate the age reference entirely. If others view it differently, that's understandable for the aforementioned reasons. The important part of this from a public safety standpoint is "can we feel confident in your ability to do the job?" So public relations will probably have as much or more to do with the outcome of the age 60 rule as scientific or competitive business interests. Who will win the PR battle?

Best wishes to all,

Westhawk

[Huck]

You folks act like the Age 60 Rule only affects you when you turn sixty!

Because of this rule you:

- got hired sooner,

- got bigger aircraft sooner,

- made captain sooner.

Now that all the possible benefits have been extracted from this rule, you want to remove it!

I'll tell you what - I'll support getting rid of the rule when I'm 58. Deal?

[UAL Furlough]

Having just flown with my first over 60 the other day, I gotta tell you, I do not support the over 60 rule. He was slow, lethargic, and couldn't even remember the responses to the checklists. A nice enough bloke, but not someone I want carting my family around. When I am that age, put me out to pasture!!!

[Fr8t M8te]

He was slow, lethargic, and couldn't even remember the responses to the checklists. A nice enough bloke, but not someone I want carting my family around.

But surely you could also be describing a 'new hire' young co-pilot UAL? Or do you mean to tell me you operated at 110% from day 1?

[Kaptin M]

Rain Man wrote, "The reason some of the world has raised their retirement age is because those countries don't pay their pilots anything."
I wouldn't call USD20k/month "not being paid anything", because that is roughly what Japanese airlines pay their Captains, and Japan raised the age 60 retirement to 62 a couple of years ago, and has now upped it to 65.

Having just flown with my first blue-eyed F.O. the other day, I gotta tell you, I do not support the 2-pilot rule. He was slow, lethargic, and couldn't even remember the responses to the checklists. A nice enough bloke, but not someone I want carting my family around!!!
Ban ALL F/O's I say, based on this one bloke's performance!!!

[westhawk]

Having just read the first post by an Aussie.....

But seriously, I do hope you don't demonstrate this kind of lazy, ill-considered thinking at your job. You could find yourself being put out to pasture much sooner than you think. Next time, you might try to find out what his strengths are and use them to your benefit if you think he has any. If not, then you must be so good as to not require any assistance from some oldster anyway. Good luck with that. Or maybe you just didn't feel comfortable in that situation and impulsively posted your words without considering the implications or even the validity of your conclusions. I'm certain that you would not like to be judged harshly on the basis that since Peter the Aussie is a con-man, then so are you. Do try and give the next oldster the benefit of the doubt until he proves himself unworthy of your respect, won't you? I promise to do the same for all the other Aussies!

Westhawk

[faheel]

well I am 56 and if they up the retirement age to 65 I will fly to that if I feel like it , stay healthy and pass my checks.

I have got absolutely no intention of vacating my seat just because the guy sitting next to me wants it.

End of discussion.:=

[BusyB]

Huck,

Some of us were in airlines that had 3 pilot a/c, when they changed to 2 pilot we waited our turn (twice as long as you).

Waiting your turn without whinging is good manners!!

[Huck]

Some of us were in airlines that had 3 pilot a/c(....)

Fair point. Actually I fly an aircraft that had 3 pilots, had its nose lopped off and was modified with a two man cockpit. I was sitting sideways on the pre-mod model until I became second from the bottom of the list and made the jump.

This whole argument revolves around whose oxe is being gored. And there will always be more junior pilots. Even when it's my turn in ~15 years and I take up the banner....

[chuks]

Dear Huck and others,

When I was under 30 my basic approach to most people over 30 was, 'You ain't dead yet?' So, live and learn.

I have no problem with someone changing their whole approach to something once it becomes an issue that directly affects them. Should I expect everyone else to suddenly develop a massive case of compassion because I am finally hitting an age barrier? I could not have cared less about this until it finally affected first some of my colleagues and then me.

The only thing is, try to keep things reasonably civil rather than being needlessly provocative, especially about something that is already a sensitive topic. Some of the adolescent postings here give me a strong suspicion there are people with too much time on their hands busy impersonating professional aviators for their own shallow amusement. That would be one of the problems with an anonymous forum, I suppose.

[LHR Rain]

So you most of you want to change the rules the closer you get to retirement? Whow does that suit you or what? Like someone said on this post all of you would have longer times to command, longer redundancies, and slower movement if it was not for this Age 60 rule.

No, $220,000 is not a lot of money especially in Japan for a widebody command with the very high cost of living and taxes they have in the land of the rising sun.

330 Man,

Just got an email from my United friend. He said that the union leadership in their infinite wisdom voted to give up the pension when they did. The pilots as a group did not get to vote on the proposal which seems hard for me to believe. The leadership takes years of your savings and you don\'t get to vote on that.
Also it seems to me if a judge "takes" your retirement and changes your terms and conditions you when then have the right to strike. What are you suppose to do, sit there and take it with no recourse or very little recourse?

[chuks]

If you look into it I think you will find that the major airlines in the States are taken to be a critical transportation resource whose disruption would seriously impact the national economy. This is why its labour contracts are covered by this (rather obscure to most people) railway act.

It used to be, when times were good, that no one paid much attention to the anti-strike provisions of the act; there was plenty of money to spread around in the happy days of regulation. Now that austerity is the order of the day it has become plain what a 'devil's bargain' has been struck for labour. What was once protection is now oppression.

For an example of what can happen when the rank and file ignore the law in the quest for what 'feels right', just look at the PATCO strike in the States. The air traffic controllers got rid of a union head who advised a 'softly-softly' approach to put a real fire-breather in. He proceeded to take a very popular, confrontational approach to negotiations with the government. Then they finally went on strike, basically daring the government to fire them, which would cripple the US ATC system. Of course Ronald Reagan sacked them all, which crippled the US ATC system but that was okay, because he was able to blame all of that on the stiking controllers whom the White House spin machine made out to be a mob of bomb-throwing anarchists rather than US citizens trying to exercise their right to sell their services for a fair price. That got the attention of some of the other unions, I think.

Of course one could argue that in the world of today there are no more critical airlines. Who would miss one of the majors if they were to go to the wall? And a wildcat strike could be quickly neutralised by other carriers mobilising to fill any gaps in the network. For instance, look at how little missed Eastern was, once it was gone, and yet it was once so large that it was unimaginable that it could be allowed to fail or that it could be so easily replaced. Well, that was then and this is now.

It must be hellishly complicated to work some of these merger deals. I am sure that the beancounters are sat there at a very long table thinking, 'Now remember that the interests of the line pilots come first!' Not.

I remember chatting with a regional airline pilot once when he was trying to explain how he had ended up towards the bottom of the seniority pile after a merger. It all sounded rather depressing to me and was probably one reason why I returned to working in Africa rather than remaining in the States.

I can well imagine someone needing to work as long as possible after getting the short end of the stick, when all that careful planning suddenly goes out the window thanks to the magic of the marketplace. That could well focus the mind on this age restriction.

[330 Man]

LHR Rain,

Thanks for the clarification on the United pension. It sounds as though their MEC did the same as the Usair MEC. Is it wrong for the pilots to not be able to vote on their own pension? You Bet it is. Unfortunately that is the ALPA way. Do not ever think that ALPA representation is some form of utopia, or that the MEC has your best interest at heart. They did very little for me over the years. Now if I would have had a medical problem or a violation from the FAA, ALPA is the best thing going for solving those problems. Think of the dues as insurance payments and nothing more.

As to your second question, yes you must sit and take it. You can not ignore a court order, period. I know it does not seem right to you, nor to the rest of us for that matter. I did not believe it was possible to take my retirement until it happened, and I am sure that most of those who have gone through this will say the same. We all remember the Maxwell case in the UK and assumed that it could no longer happen. But it can and does.

What does your United friend say about recourse? Are they trying to get the pension reinstated? I wish them well as it be very diffacult.

One last thought. After many years in this business, I have come to the conclusion that "infinate wisdom, ALPA, and MEC" should never be in the same paragraph! Oil and water at it's best!

Take care, and thanks for the clarifacation.

330 man

[BusyB]

LHR Rain,

I'll come to a deal with you. I won't work past 55 if you refuse your command until you've done as many hours and as many years as I did to get mine!!

In the meantime you're entitled to an opinion, as is everyone else.

[LHR Rain]

330 Man,

What a nice tone and change from you. Since you set the parameters I will do the same. I wish you well. We often disagree but I of course do not wish you ill will at all. I also hope that the merger with your two airlines goes well and you can return at your choosing.
I don't know what the MEC is but I assume that is what runs your union. It sounds like they better keep a real low profile around the ramp office, especially with all the pilots that are allowed guns now in the states. I know I would be very bitter if some scumbag took my money and I had no say over it.


Busy B

Why should I have to wait any longer than the seniority list allows me? So we should all be miserable just because you think you had a crappy career? We all knew the rules when we signed up.

[BusyB]

Thats OK LHR Rain,
As i said you're entitled to your opinion.
Mine is that if you'd joined a better airline you wouldn't be so worked up. Maybe, you couldn't get into a better one?

[GlueBall]

Yes, but even "big" boys can go down.... Sabena. Swissair, UTA, Eastern, Braniff, PanAm, AeroPeru.... :{

[LHR Rain]

Busy B

It sounds to me that you are the one who is either with a low paying airline or pissed away all the money you made from working for a real airline. Whatever the case it is time for you to go. You had your fun now it is time to make way for a new generation of pilots. As the saying goes the torch has been passed to a new generation.
A member of the British elite airlines is not good enough for you? What is your story that you feel that you must keep flying?

[MPH]

Oh really LHR Rain!! Ever heard of the word ‘DISCRIMINATION”? I imagine that you come from a very well organized and efficient airline were promotion is at the expense of experience and the right to work! Maybe, I am wrong and you don't work anymore?:*

[chuks]

'The torch has been passed to a new generation...' Puh-leeze! Do you know where you can put that torch, sonny boy? And then you can call yourself a sconce!

What is a word that rhymes with sconce? I am thinking of one riiight now. Answers on a postcard, please, to the old folk's home.

I rather wish I had squandered all my money because then, at least, I wouldn't have to worry about it. As it is, it seems to be like trying to gather up spilt drops of mercury. Hence my cruel and thoughtless attempt to mess up the whole delicately-balanced structure of the aviation bizness by continuing to infest a left seat somewhere, anywhere.

In the world of the future they should just take me out and shoot me and then harvest whatever organs are still viable but we are not there just yet. It's coming, I know but just bear with me for another seven years, please. It is this addiction to cold, hard cash that I have, plus the need for speed... Mach .6, ah!

[LHR Rain]

Yes I have heard of the word Discrimination and discrimination is a good thing especially in the world of aviation. As I metioned before discrimination is what allows you to take two medicals a year as well as two check rides a year. Discriminating used to be a good thing, not racial discrimination but I am sure that you have heard the phrase "you have discriminating taste." What do you do when you go to a grocery store; you pick through the best produce and leave the rest for someone else. The bad produce never gets picked, that is disrimination!
Before you start with how bad I must be I take the same two medicals and check rides a year and I am still working. Again you knew the rules when you signed up, don't change them now because you want to pad your retirment!

[Nullaman]

LHR Rain

I fear you suffer from 'fuzzy logic'.

It is not a case of individuals 'padding retirements' for goodness sake. Many of those trying to extend their working lives are out of money - period...... through no fault of their own! but due to mismanaged company finances and related world events that have conspired to trash their retirement plans.

I have been reading your postings. You seem to be a hard unforgiving individual? I truly hope you don't have to go through what some close friends have had to endure after a lifetime of faithful support to their employer.

[BusyB]

Rainy,

No point explaining to you, you've deliberately ignored posts with points you can't answer.

Perhaps you're stuck in your position because you can't spell!!

[chuks]

It's rather easy to be 'hard' when it comes to the troubles of others. Most of the folks who aspire to hardness end up screaming like wounded faggots (and here I am merely quoting that great, unacknowledged American author, William S. Burroughs, himself of that persuasion) when themselves meeting a little trouble in life.

I would bet that General Queseda, Rtd, probably spoke of that original decision to impose an age limit as 'hard'. You know, in the way that sacking some poor soul with a wife and three kids is 'hard'.

I would assume that one such as this LHR Rain has in mind as fallback Plan A simply to move into management, for which he would seem to be amply qualified. All those hard decisions come easy when it just makes things hard for others, I imagine. There is an even more popular saying than that one about the torch, namely, 'Look out for Number One!' that may rule such a mind.

Just curious of course, but just how old are you, LHR Rain? I am almost 58, of course but you are out of your teens, I assume? I just want to get a fuller picture of you than your postings so far have offered, since you seem to be a rather unique personality. I hope you don't take my question as impertinent, unless you prize impertinence. It is a rather youthful thing, impertinance, like a squirt of fresh-squeezed lemon juice in the eye, hmmm?

[MPH]

LHR Rain:
Now that I know you understand the meaning of the word ‘discrimination’! Might I also inform you that in most European countries and in the USA it is illegal to discriminate on the bases of gender, race, religion and age. So this ‘cocked’ up idea that you have in saying, that when I signed up, I knew the age limit, is a bit obscure. Why, because the limitations stipulated are only valid in a labor agreement and do not overrule the law of the land. So, how is it that we are to think that an agreement with an employer overrules the law of a land? Lets be honest the age limitation is set, in most of the labor agreements that I know of, only to facilitate and accelerate the promotion on the seniority list. And, of course, to be able to formulate the contributions for the pension plan to which, the employer and employee contribute and which have been meticulously calculated to the last month and hour. Does this make it legal or otherwise? The JAR says that we are allowed to fly RH or left up to the age of 65yrs. In my opinion it should be up to the individual to able to choose if fit medically and technically, that is. And not be told what to do with his life, which in most cases does not bear on choice but on circumstances! Some like to knit, sail, garden or cook. Good for them! Others like to fly and because they have to work!
:eek:

[EAL747]

My dad (NAL) and godfather (EAL) may have been the first to fight the age 60 retirement. They started in 1967 to try to overturn the good-ole-boys deal that FAA Administrator Quesada made with President C.R. Smith of American.
The origins of age 60 came about because C.R. Smith wanted to get rid of senior Captains that annoyed him. So the age 60 was cooked up and the rest is history.
After Dad and my Godfather (we'll call him M) failed with any chance of making a difference with this bureaucratic government rule, they adopted a different tack.
M cooked up the idea of changing his birth records to beat the age 60 retirement. Since many born back in the early part of the 20th Century did not have birth certificates, the only birth record was in the family Bible. M presented his "Family Bible" to the FAA requesting that they correct their records to show his "correct" birth date. Once the government records were corrected, EAL was presented with the "correct" birth date. which got M a few extra years flying after age 60. We all had a good laugh about this at the time.
Dad unhappily took his medicine and left at age 60. I rode the J/S on his retirement flight and he had tears in his eyes landing in Miami (LHR-MIA).
I was in on the last of the "good" flying the airlines enjoyed. Propellers went to Prop-Jets and then jets (EAL). In addition to age 60, government encroachment and inept airline management wiped out the fun I recall of the early years. Today I see it as increasingly work under a microscope, which cannot be fun. My copilots are now senior Captains. I have watched the changes today in the airline industry and have to wonder if Dad and M, were they alive today, would want to fight age 60? I took early retirement to pursue a different avenue, commercial real estate investment. Today I own and have the choice, in my hangar 50 feet behind my home, of a Staggerwing, Stearman, or Twin Comanche to go flying. God's mercy and real estate investment enabled this for me, not EAL.
My airline pilot sons have followed my advice and now as their airline (DAL) goes under, the have each invested in outside businesses for which they can exist without DAL.
Dad well told me and I counsel each of you reading this post. Don't live like a rich airline pilot, go invest your money outside the airlines. Don't wait for someone else to decide your destiny for you. ALPA nor PBGC nor your airline is going to do best for you personally.
Steve McDonald
Eastern Airlines (ret)

[er340790]

A mandatory retirement age of 60 for Supreme Court Justices would see changes pronto......

As any fair-minded observer would agree, the only reasons for mandatory retirement would be failure to meet medical fitness and technical competence - in any profession.

[Agent Mulder]

This Age 60 rule, if repealed, will have enormous consequences for any pilot who is not a senior captain. The ramifications will be worldwide, not solely felt in the U.S.. Many non U.S. carriers base their retirement rules on what other countries determine, because if the pilot cannot fly into the airspace, he is not able to perform his job for the company.

Much of the Pacific is U.S. airspace. Singapore, India, France, Indonesia and many other nations do not allow pilots over the age of 60 to command airliners in their airspace.

Whilst understanding the financial woes of the U.S. industry, I would say to those supporting any change that it is purely for selfish reasons, just as those fighting against it are similarly inclined.

All U.S. industry has been artificially supported by ridiculous Chapter 11 legislation that undermines the basic principles of business. If the business is a dead dog, it dies. Only Chapter 11 allows you to keep the dog on life support almost endlessly. Unless Airlines are allowed to fail, and Australia has seen a few, real market economics never play a hand.

Linking financially crippled retirement plans to the over 60 debate shows what this is truly about. MONEY!

Pilots, with their seniority provisions, become the most selfish of all people when they enter in to the airline arena. Seniority causes this. If the supporters of age 60 removal wish to seek a change on the basis of fairness, are they also willing to seek a change to 1960's type work practices like seniority? NO WAY!

Why? Because they've done their time is the most common answer. Well guess what, those junior to you have also done their time in allowing you to have your benefits up until your retirement, and not challenging the system. But now you want to change the rules up the top, and the bottom can go screw yourselves.

Can't you understand that those people are obviously going to feel aggrieved?

When the older pilot fraternity, who are invariably senior, learn that the next generation are not like their parents and prone to waiting patiently for their “Time in the Sun”, there may be progress. Generational change will drive major changes in workplace agreements. What seems important to older pilots is seen as just a rort by younger pilots. Why? Because the younger generation can see the pace of change in the world. They understand the requirement to change with it and adapt new practices. The older generation want to hang on to the old ideals that they were bought up with. That’s normal.

But unless there is flexibility given on both sides this issue will continue to divide the pilot fraternity worldwide as it does today.

Has any U.S. congressman asked any major Australian Airline how many pilots over the age of 60 they have gracefully retired due to standards issues? Again, the pace of change and the ability to adapt flows through to every part of what we do, and the current flurry of activity in our arena is almost unprecedented.

So, don’t hide behind medical arguments etc. Come out and tell the truth. For the older guys it is about money. If it was a love of flying etc. they would bid back to the right hand seat. For the younger guys it is about being forced to wait longer for promotion and all the issues attached to that.

Find an answer to that addresses both issues and the problem goes away. That’s what should be focused on, but therein lays the eternal problem. No one wants to do the work.

[Ignition Override]

Good gosh now. :hmm:

The ignorance and assumptions being paraded here, by a few people outside the US (or some locals), concerning pay at almost all of the majors or some regionals is baffling ( Delta pilots are receiving about half of what they were, and Northwests pilots will soon end up with their pay at about 2/3 what it was a year ago-and they never received a previous big raise, as with United and Delta, except for a few percent cost of living). The "freight dogs" are doing pretty well at UPS and FEDEX, possibly Airborne and DHL. As far as I know, FEDEX and UPS have never laid pilots off. But again, these are not passenger carriers. Has anyone already reminded Pprune-Land about the best-paid 737 pilots, possibly in the world? Who might they be? Their management was apparently light-years in IQ above those with the rest of the US passenger industry. They even (years ago) allowed their union members to receive stock at good prices! The fact that Delta pilots must retire by age 60 (no FE seats to fly), as with any other US Part 121 carriers, still chops a huge lump sum from Delta's cash when all pilots are justifiably concerned and go 2-3 years early. This will help push the company into Chapter 11.

I rarely ever use such undiplomatic language on Pprune, but there is no other way to express my surprise at the gross mis-information regarding what is happening over here.

As for ALPA being a flying club, let's remind the thousands of pilots who lost their jobs in the last few years. Or those who are senior and following years of hard work and service, dedicated to passenger safety, comfort and attempting to operate in all types of weather, despite the conflicts of an unreasonable schedule, created by company nerds, and now lose most of their retirement. The conflict between them and the many thousands who are laid-off is very difficult. As for ironic situations, how about one of our FOs, who, along with a small fraction of furloughed pilots, was recalled in December, and his father ha$ done well, working for EXXon marketing...he might get laid-off again...record profits + huge congressional tax breaks. :E

Sure, the concept of working after age 60 is a complex problem for calculating any retirment benefits, even if a large fraction of retirement money is possible for some. Let's also remind the many ALPA "Flying Club" pilots flying regioanl Embraer and CRJs etc, especially the FOs, about how lucky they are to be paid little above US minimum wage, (possibly stuck in the right seat for several years, with a few more dollars per month, each year) other than some medical and dental benefits-do they not still pay the difference from their own pockets? Their companies, in general, refuse to fund any retirement for them, despite negotiating with ALPA to settle a contract. A "Flying Club" pilot who has a wife and about two children often qualifies for govt. food stamps. A First Officer told our newsparer about that and his company told him that he would be terminated with any more such remarks to the media.:(

I'm for any reasonable idea to get furloughed pilots off the streets (dumptrucks included).

How about safety? The FAA repeatedly chants its mantra about safety requiring no more flights after you become 60 years old (despite letting you fly 100 "hard hours the previous month, with only 8 hours total "rest" each night, between engine shutdown and push-back ... ).

What airliner accident has been caused by a pilot due to his age?;)
Well, its off to "UbiSoft" Land, where we can fly aerobatic fighters or attack planes and watch cannon shells destroy enemy aircraft engines and wings over the Pacific or Eastern Front (IL-2 etc).:D .....:ooh:

[chuks]

Never mind if one is rich or poor, still happily married after 30 years or three times divorced, fat or skinny, black or white, straight or gay... or in this case, young or old, my quarrel is with a discriminatory practice (forced retirement at 60 for pilots) that is out of step with today's 'best practice.'

I would like to see a level playing field where the retirement age is either raised to the more usual 65 years that applies to 'most people' or else replaced by 'on condition'. If you strip away all the overheated rhetoric about promotion to command, the state of the airlines' pension funds, etcera, etc., this is the core issue and the argument against it is that it is discrimination in the negative sense of the word (not some 'bus driver' squeezing avocados in Sainsbury's), something generally considered to be a 'bad thing'.

Here it is somehow acceptable for a variety of reasons which just do not stand up to examination. It is not such a central issue as, say, civil rights for 'negroes' was, but there too was a case where it simply suited various powerful interests to ignore a case of injustice. Every so often it comes up, such as when the hero of that DC-10 crash was forced to retire just months after proving himself a really exceptional airman, but then it fades from view again. Well, it's just greedy old pilots who should all be rich anyway. And some of you guys support such a childish approach to this issue?

[Agent Mulder]

Ah.

So now we know that it’s about discrimination.

If that is the case, why haven't discriminatory systems like datal seniority been attacked so vehemently by this group of pilots now so concerned about age 60?

Why should two people who joined within 18 months of each other not have exactly the same opportunities over a 30yr career?

Is it only discrimination when it doesn't work to your advantage?

Smacks of hypocrisy!

[Otterman]

This issue is like Chinese water torture. It just keeps coming up over and over again, you guys playing tag team out there??

To me there are two sides to this issue. To begin with it is clear to me that the age 60 rule is a purely arbitrary limit; it does not match up well with the social security system (for what that is worth), and has seen its longest days of that I am sure. In a number of countries in Europe 60 is no longer the limit. Usually the FAA and the USA are leading changes in our industry this time when the tide comes it will come from the other side of the ocean.

Now what is clear to me is that the hidden agenda here is not only 60 but it is 60 plus keeping your position at your current employer. And that is one of the major issues that ALPA is fighting against. To me continuing beyond the age that you signed your contract for is totally unacceptable.

I realize that the industry has gone through a hell of a ride in the last five years in the USA and a lot of my fellow colleagues in the States have seen their terms and conditions torn to shreds. Pensions don’t seem to be protected in any way shape or form. And each day is bringing more legacy carriers to the brink of chapter 11. But each pilot out there (with a few exceptions) has been operating with the knowledge that the gig was up when you turned 60. It is not fair that you allowed your colleagues ahead of you to clear out when their time came, and now when it is your turn to move on you are screaming age discrimination. You knew the deal when you signed up, this is not discrimination. I like to take my hypocrisy straight up, not hiding behind a lot of bollocks like discrimination.

From time to time this issue flares up in my airline. My experience has been that the people screaming for an increase in the pension age are exactly the people who you don’t want to be sitting beside. They are working on their third marriage and some still have young kids they have to put through school. The numbers of moody bastards in this group it out of proportion to the total (barring a few exceptions that have a true love of this lifestyle). It tends to always be about the money!

Just a little about Chapter 11: To a European chapter 11 is a truly marvelous management tool. It allows insolvent airlines to keep flying and damage other carriers that are operating under “normal” laws of competition. It has allowed airlines like United and US Airways to shove concessions down the throats of their employees under the guise of survival (true enough), but in the process other companies can only follow in bringing down their T&C’s. And they will be forced to use the same chapter 11 to do the same. It is truly sick that this is allowed to go on.

Keep up the fight I expect the next thread to open up on this topic soon, let the torture continue. Gr. O.

[faheel]

The age 60 rule will be dead and buried this time next year and 62 initially then 65 will be the new limit.

The population is ageing, living longer and goverments will no longer be able to support retirees.

The answer is work longer to support yourself so the state does not have to support you.

If everyone else in the workforce can retire at 65 then to force a pilot to retire at 60 is discrimatory its as simple as that.

The guys waiting for the left seat and whinging that raising the age limit will keep them from it conveniently "forget" that they too will be retiring at 65.

The industry is not what it was 20 years ago and large paypackets by and large are a thing of the past.

[nugpot]

Agent Mulder makes a few good points.

Now my few cents' worth. I'm South African and I can probably claim that we are the world's experts on discrimination.

So, if it is discriminatory to enforce retirement at 60, is it not also discriminatory to enforce retirement at 62, 63, 65 or some other arbitrary age? I know that you are comparing 60 to some other arbitrary standard of 65, but there are various other professions that have no retirement age and some (as pointed out previously ATC's) that retire at 55.

Further, if pilots should be allowed to fly "on condition" past the current 60, should upgrades in your company then not also happen "on condition"? Why not advertise LHS positions in your company and let the best suitably qualified person (written exams, sim performance, interview) get the job without any regard for seniority. Oh, but that would leave room for the company to manipulate command, would it not?

I think that there should be a mandatory retirement age for pilots. I have flown with useless 40 year old captains and perfect 59 year olds, but I have seen the effects of age in the best 59 year old captains (screens on "grill", cockpit speaker on "bullhorn"). I think 60 is a good age to leave the airline. If you can still operate safely, go and fly Part 91 where you can transfer your considerable experience to some newbie or share war stories with your compatriot.

SAA pilots voted recently to increase retirement age to 63. The vote was narrowly won by the pro's, but probably because SAA had been employing 40 year old RHS's for the past few years and they would be lucky if they saw the LHS in under 15 years and would probably need to work to 63 to make financial provision for their retirement.

I have heard a rumour that management might make the 63 rule happen. That has had some unfortunate effects down the line. SA regs forbid command over the border over 60 years. This means that the captains staying after 60 now have to fly domestically. Cape Town seems to be the retirement capital of SA and these guys now all want to move to Cape Town and any more junior captain who wants to live in Cape Town (and there are many who have lived there all their lives) is now buggered.

If this happens, it would also kill the movement from other airlines to SAA, thereby effectively removing opportunities from the bottom of the pile. The SA aviation industry is very small by international standards. Something like 3200 ATPL's and Comm's combined (about 1400 airline pilots) and hiring might come to a complete standstill for 3 years.

Retirement age is probably the second most emotive issue after seniority, and I think that if the industry wants to move into the future, seniority should go where flight engineers and navigators went. When that is done, the 60 year old first officers who could never get command, can vote age 63 in. (For first officers obviously) ;)


Edited to avoid the wrath of the spelling nazis.

[Phoebe Buffet]

Seems most of the pro 60 retirement age (or less) want to ensure their piece of the 'command pie'.......a sort of job share rotation thing.

How big is this piece of pie? - about 20years?.......bummer if you're clever bugger and got an upgrade aged 24, game over at 44!...............or the guy for whom aviation is a second career; still able, still interested but is forced to retire.

[LHR Rain]

Faheel,

Who wants to work to 65? Maybe you do but most pilots do not, this board excepted. ALPA just voted to fight legislation to raise the retirment age and the US Supreme Court ruled that you can have a retirement age in regards to pilots.

Forcing a pilot to retire at 65 is just as discrimatory as forcing him to retire at 60, get over it. Also the FBI and ATC have to retire at 55 so not everybody retires at 65. You knew the rules!

I surely hope that the age will not be 62 by next year. That will be the worse thing Congress could do to the industry. The fight works both ways. The 10,000 pilots out of work do not want to see them raise the age either.

Even if "we" beat the bastards this year and the age 60 does not get raised they just keep on coming and coming. Where does it end? At some point after years of getting beat in the courts and board rooms you would think they would finally stop and give up but NOOOO!

[faheel]

rainman I dont need to "get over it "

as I said before when the retirement age goes up to 60 plus I will fly to it if I feel like it, I don't intend to vacate my seat for some who coverts it like you.

I don't owe you a living, as for the rules bit I am astounded that you seriously think that rules are set in stone. Look at your majors screwing the guys out of their pension, err the airlines knew the rules but broke them. and now there are new "rules"

You need to get a reality check because the rules are going to be bent, broken or tossed out during your career and you had better learn that right now.

[FoxHunter]

Who wants to work to 65? Maybe you do but most pilots do not, this board excepted. ALPA just voted to fight legislation to raise the retirment age and the US Supreme Court ruled that you can have a retirement age in regards to pilots.

You are misinformed on both counts. ALPA did not have a vote, they conducted a poll. The Supreme Court did not rule on the issue, they decided not to hear the case, allowing the lower Court ruling to stand.


An earlier ALPA President on the issue of polls. :)

ALPA president, J.J. O'Donnell, before the House Subcommittee on Aviation,
July 18, 1978, on Age 60 (note his comments on the use of "polls" in this
matter):

"...anyone could get any poll to say anything they wanted. I would not
encourage polls of our membership because there is no way to educate them,
and no matter who wrote it, you will get some bias written into the polls.
Therefore, I feel the democratic process we have at ALPA is to let the
governing bodies give me direction. These directions are that we oppose the
Age 60 regulation and we have for years."

[BusyB]

Rain,
You are a total pain in the neck. You have no empathy or perception. Your qualifications to fly professionally are in doubt every time you exercise your digits.

Consider, losing your licence and job, battling to regain it starting again at the bottom of the seniority list after 20 yrs and then having some halfwit telling you when you can retire.

I've decided to consider DEC at EK purely to sc**w U.

Enjoy your career?

[Ignition Override]

How about the US govt entity, which theoretically can back up pensions (you might bring in only US $30,000/ year under their rules, even as a career airline pilot).

The PBGC admitted on Yahoo Airline News, today, that their rules are based on people working until they are 65.

Therefore, the age 60 retirement rule is another contradiction, within the same federal government.

As little as a career pilot flying 737, 757, then 744-400 might get from the PBGC, if an airline pension plan totally disappeared, the PBGC would even reduce their own modest pay, and leave you not too far above the povery line, because it would have been based upon retirement at 65, not the FAA's age 60 rule.

The FAA uses age discrimination, even in the face of this. They could have required AMEs (approved doctors) decades ago, to give a more thorough exam. Read on Pprune about what is required in Japan and Europe/Britain etc. Who has always designated the US requirements? The FAA. Who else can they blame, if they feel that ( their) very basic medical examinations, which are the same whether you are 25 or 59 (except for an EKG each 12 months or so...), prevented AMEs from properly evaluating a specific pilot's ability to fly until age 62 or 63 etc?

Don't get me wrong. I'm for whatever can bring back pilots who are laid-off, or about to get laid-off a second time after one year or less back on the job. :ugh:

But this is a separate topic from an academic debate over medical qualifications. With several large US airlines in Chapter 11 and maybe one more to follow, plus the fact that US airline pensions were never fully funded, pilots in other countries would understand the situation better if their laws tolerated severe under-funding of pensions. What if Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian lands etc tolerated this? How would you guys/gals then feel?

[Otterman]

People with very few principles are hiding behind high-minded ones to try and shove this change down the throats of the large majority who do not want it. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear it is about the money, it always is!

You can read the arguments pro and con on this issue, and they both have merits, and they have been exhaustively made in many different threads. It is always the guys approaching 60 who are arguing they are too good to be lost to this industry (they are not) and the younger ones making the argument that it slows their progressing (a temporary situation at most). There are variations but they don’t stray too far from these two basic ones.

To me the issue will solve itself in the next decade, but I want to make the price higher for the old ones, when the change comes. They operated under the system as is; where everyone cleared out at 60. They were able use the advantages of this system, but are balking when it comes time to pay the price. They signed a contract with their current employer in which it is totally clear that they too clear out of the left seat at age 60. So when that day comes I would like to see these people honor their contract and (be forced) to retire from their current airline. Only new hires will have the date of their retirement age moved to 65. If the oldies want to continue to fly they can fly past the age of 60 but they will have to do so at another outfit.

As far as LHR rain not being able to show any empathy or an emotion like that. He is not the most diplomatic person I agree, but he just opposes any change in the retirement age, and wants people to stop whining (at least that is what I read between the lines). Empathy or sympathy should be reserved for the people who lost their homes in New Orleans, or the folks starving in Niger right now, not for an airline pilot approaching his retirement age. You can find sympathy right between **** and syphilis in the dictionary. I am a wide-body Captain and I will honor my contract, and if I want to fly past my retirement age here in Europe I will be able to, but not at my airline. And this is as it should be.
Gr. O.

[BusyB]

Yes, I did post after a few beers but the whining seems to be coming from the younger guys. I don't want sympathy, I don't need it but I'm certainly not giving it to others on this thread.

[LHR Rain]

I don't want to sound like I am whining or whinging but I just want to play by the rules. It is true that the closer pilots get to retirement age the more vocal they are about raising the age after they enjoyed all the benefits of the age 60 being in place. Don't you realize that PAA, EAL, BA, and Midway all lost not only their pensions but also their jobs and they did not do one quarter of the whinging that the current crop of pilots do.
This profession needs more pilots like Otterman. I man of pricinciples. No one is giving Busy B any smypathy don't worry. I did not know the half wits made the determination of age 60. Having made the rule in 1959 that was way before my time and having stood countless court challenges I guess all of them are wrong as well. Just because you had to start over don't take it out on the profession.
EK would welcome an old fart like you to the airline. Oh I forgot they are not hiring any DECs right now, what a pity. Enjoy your retirement!

[Phoebe Buffet]

LHR Rain: If you and others don't want to work past 50/60 because you have your pensions in order and/or are philanthropists then take voluntary retirement.

Otterman: Contracts/T's and C's are re-negotiated every year so what you signed in the year dot is null and void.

Nugpot: SAA is along with other one airline countries I think an example of devious manipulative management who have succeeded in monopolising the market rather than allow competition. More carriers would mean more jobs ie. more command positions for you.

[Otterman]

Hello Phoebe Buffet, it is very true that contracts are re-negotiated each time the old one comes up for renewal. In most law-abiding countries the old contract stays valid until the new one takes effect. BUT that is not what we are talking about here. The FAA rule 60 law is an upper limit for being allowed to pilot the different FAR categories (some exceptions apply). This is a LAW. A contract is a mutual negotiated result, in which an employer and the representatives of the employees come to an agreement, with the law being the upper limit that can be agreed too.

At my airline we retire at age 56. Our national legal limit for flying in an airliner is age 65. THIS gap is the root issue of any change to the age 60 rule. A few of the older pilots at my airline say that they are not able to exercise their full economic potential because they are “forced” out at 56. They knew about this age 56 since the day they joined my airline. They would like to continue to fly in their command positions until age 65 to make more money, damn the consequence to anyone else. And I am not just talking about the junior guys, but also guys like me who do want out when my time comes. If they were allowed to fly to 65 it would force irreversible changes upon my T&C’s, so I will resist them to the fullest extend possible. What I say to them is that; they are able to continue their careers, just not at my airline. And indeed some do by moving out to the Far East (etc), but most tend to call it a day, when they are faced with even the slightest obstacles (like transferring domicile and licenses).

What we are talking about here is that any change in the age 60 rule by the FAA will lead inevitably to changes at the legacy airlines to their retirement age. An age increase to age 65 will allow the sober pension schemes left at the legacy carriers a ten year reprieve (you would fly for five years longer, and you would draw your pension for five years less, because I would hope you would still pass away at the same age as before). This will bring their pension costs down considerably. So there are individual gains to be made for people in the sense that they have a longer career, but the big collective winners would be the airlines. And since they tend to pass their savings down to the passenger they would be the ultimate winners, I guess.

So Phoebe Buffet I hope you take the contracts you sign a little more seriously than your posts would indicate. Changing the 60 rule law is not an automatic change to your contract; all that happens is that the new law becomes the upper limit that your union and airline could use. Your contract does not become null and void each year, and certainly it won’t when and if the rule 60 changes. By the way Phoebe Buffet; what allows me to retire at age 56 is that my pension scheme is based on this age, if that were to change to another age I too would have to work to that age in order to make sure I am financially secure.

Any change in the 60 rule would have a ripple effect felt far and beyond the simple age change.
Gr. O.

[BlueEagle]

" posted 16th September 2005 16:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"People with very few principles are hiding behind high-minded ones to try and shove this change down the throats of the large majority who do not want it. Let’s make one thing perfectly clear it is about the money, it always is!"

Oh no it isn't Otterman, all we want back is what we originally signed up for and then had taken away. All too easy to jump in and say we are trying to change the rules to our advantage, we are not, we just want back what is rightfully ours and maybe you and the 'Majority' are just a little too young to appreciate that?

[MPH]

Otterman: So, we are now lead to believe that when your union (VNV), negotiated back in the 50's a reversal of the retirment age from 60 to 56yrs that was ok? Now it seems that bringing it up to 60-65yrs is not acceptable. Yes, it certainly is about the money, and it's up to the unions to decide ones fate? Even though it goes against the law of a country in reference to discriminating when it comes to age?
In my world, its a question of choice, opportunity and necessity. When I first started, my licence provided the prorogative of flying till I was 60yrs old. It, now allows me to fly till 65. And that's not law, it's just a rule and a regulation. It probably will become law in the near future and their again, I would say negotioate the 'possibility' of leaving at 56,60 or 65yrs. Not, 'you have to leave' at some arbitrary age? No, offence, just an opinion...cheeers and I wish you a very happy retirement!:ok:

[Otterman]

Hello Blueeagle, folks in your situation are in a very tiny minority, and you had the advantages that the 60 rule gave you early on in your career. You are trying to take advantage of both situations. What is rightfully yours right now is to retire at age 60. And it is always about the money!

Now I know my posts are long, and apparently people are not taking the time to read all that I write. I don’t have a problem with increasing the age to which we are allowed to fly. Like I have mentioned the situation has already changed in my country. What I don’t agree with is the changing of our contracts to immediately reflect this rule change. I want people to be honorable enough to clear out when the date that they signed up for comes around at my airline and others; your pension is based on this principle. Nothing stopping anyone here in Europe from continuing their career somewhere else, except a pay cut and inconvenience in having to learn new procedures. But these people are apparently so sharp that this should pose no problem. But this is not what they want. They want it all.

MPH, Martinair I presume. Was seconded to your airline for about seven months back in 1994, good people, and I really enjoyed myself. But as long as the VNV has any input into this situation you will see the age of 60 being reinforced at your airline. Only last year the Dutch courts once again upheld this principle, and acknowledged the hardships an age increase would have on the junior members of our respective companies. And in the most recent contract negotiations the pension age of 56 at KLM was upheld, even though the present government went a long way in making an “early” retirement as unattractive as possible. The age that you have to leave at is not arbitrary it is a contractual obligation between you and the company. You have known about this day for as long as you have been flying. So it can’t come as a great surprise, and for us here in Holland it can’t pose a particular hardship, since our pensions are well funded and assured. But good luck in your endeavors, just don’t count on the VNV helping you out in this situation. I think it is fair to my colleagues for me to bow out at the age that I knew was coming for a long time. But solidarity is no longer something that our western society appreciates, it is a dog eat dog world out there I guess.
Gr. O.

[JW411]

Well, I'm 64½ and still going strong, thank God. If it were possible to fly until 70 and the reward for doing so was to keep the Mini Monsoon from somewhere near Hounslow firmly in the right seat for another 5 years, then I would do it willingly!

[BusyB]

Otterman,

I have no problem with reasoned discussion.

Having had my contract broken by my employer to cut my salary by 28% I do feel that I need to work longer to achieve my retirement sum.

Your words
"what allows me to retire at age 56 is that my pension scheme is based on this age, if that were to change to another age I too would have to work to that age in order to make sure I am financially secure. "

seem to agree with me.

[chuks]

I am against the very idea of this arbitrary FAA age limit for flying. Always have been, actually. Of course, I never was an airline pilot. I just happen to be a pilot who now flies an airliner. That is the skill I want to market, you see.

I am due to 'retire' in just a few months at age 58, when I shall probably be offered an extension under roughly the same terms to work until 60. That is simply because it is difficult to find experienced people willing to work in my part of Africa.

I quite agree about sticking to the terms of a contract, as far as that goes. My quarrel is with a certain piece of legislation, the Age 60 Rule, that I hold to be discriminatory.

Anyone who wants to call me a whinger or a hypocrite, well, you must have a wonderful degree of perception to be able to read my innermost thoughts and feelings just from a few postings! And no, it's not that I drank all my dough away or went through three wives or anything you might like to find morally reprehensible, either. Wife Number One (and counting) is a German dentist, so that, in strict financial terms, you can KMRIA. I could go home and enjoy a comfortable life, except that I don't really enjoy a comfortable life. I actually like flying in Africa.

The mischief comes when one tries to find other work. This age limit just kills one's marketability, even though I am not in the target group, US airline pilots. Jeez! All I want to do is go fly in the bush somewhere. You can keep your precious airline jobs, since they are obviously not for the likes of me, squabbling over seniority and cheese boards and what-not; I just get ticked off over the idea of being grounded when I can still work.

I prefer to stick to the strongest argument against the Age 60 Rule, that it is discriminatory. Once discrimination was okay, and now it's not. So let's let this rule go the way of 'Whites Only' and various other ideas that have gone out of fashion. There is no young guy waiting to move into my seat, believe me!

[Phoebe Buffet]

Otterman: Sorry should have posted ' Laws are also changed regularly to keep up with a changing society' along with 'Contracts/T's and C's re-negotiated every year'.

It would seem nothing in life is guaranteed.

......best laid plans of mice and men and all that..................

It can't be nice for pilots like you who have probably been with an airline since leaving school and are now watching the 'goal posts' being shifted. Your argument is valid and understandable as opposed to LHR Rain who just wants his piece of 'command pie'.

Aviation is a second career for me and as such I have a different view.

[LHR Rain]

as opposed to LHR Rain who just wants his piece of 'command pie'.


And so do you Phoebe. The difference is I am playing by the rules and you want to move the goalposts to suit you. You knew the rules when you signed up. Life did not turn out like you planned, get over it. I don't hear any PAA pilots complaining and I know they were the cream of the profession unlike the pilots that surf this site.

[faheel]

The problem is rainman that you do not seem to comprehend that the goal posts always move.

And how would you know that the PAA pilots never complain??You probably met one maybe, what a sweeping generalisation!!

Well I knew 2 of them, one didn't complain, the other was surprise surprise just like you always moaning and he is still in the right seat.

Now let me get this right, just to be perfectly clear, you are saying that the company you work for hired you with a retirement age limit of 60? or whatever and that when they move the goalposts to 65 then you will take your ball and go home???

Anyway it does not matter, you will have absolutely no say in where those goal posts are moved to.

Nuff said.

[Phoebe Buffet]

LHR Rain: Sooooo wrong - the age I am now I doubt if I will ever get command and when I signed up I did so in the knowledge that the 'goal posts' would more than likely be moved; it's a fact of life and as such I have never trusted my future to any management (or government for that matter) preferring to spread my pension over a few companies and invest in property. It would be very naive of me to act otherwise as I've heard too many dreadful stories about mismanagement in aviation and believe me I feel bad for everyone of those guys out there who have lost their jobs and their pensions and had to start all over again.

Aviation is no longer the cushy career it once was where the expectation was to sign up after school and work until retirement with the same company under the same rules of engagement nowadays it's a job in a very competitive market where accountants rule the day......as you so rightly say life doesn't always work out the way you planned; get over it and get on with it .

LHR Rain I really hope you get your command soon and you and Otterman must continue to fight your corner for the status quo but I can't help feeling that's a bit unrealistic.

I apologise if I've been a bit harsh and/or flippant in past posts that wasn't my intention it just seems so obvious to me that people are healthier and living longer and companies expect more so of course there will be changes.

[LHR Rain]

Likewise for me too. I guess I am trying to protect my turf as well. Cheers!

[ZQA297/30]

Here's a depressing thought.
I think it might get worse, the writing is already on the wall. Most airline costs are fixed in a narrow range, fuel, lease costs, aircraft prices, interest costs, etc ,etc. The only cost area that is not fixed in a narrow band is employee cost/productivity which varies quite widely.
It will soon become a dog eat dog situation where employees of various airlines are pitted against each other to see who can produce the lowest unit cost. Some people are already paying for their own type qualification.
Free market competition is going to drive down flight crew benefits, and I suspect "automatic" promotions by seniority will be eroded as contract pilot work will eventually replace it.
Age 60 will become irrelevant as promotions will go to the lowest bidder.
G
Damned goalpost moved again.

[Flying Guy]

When I started flying, age 60 seemed so far away I didn't even consider it as a limit. As I hit my 40s I heard about "age discrimination" but it seemed like some else's problem.

At age 50 ten more years seems like a long time to go.

Now that I hit age 60, discrimination suddenly slammed me in the face. I am healthy (mostly because I have worked out and kept myself mentally challenged most of my life) and now somebody wants me to retire so they can take my job - not because of diminished skill, or health.

LHR is obviously an immature, insecure little individual and I feel for those FOs that will one day have to fly to his right.

When I started flying it took 10 years just to get out of the FEs seat. To be a Captain took 20 or so years. I'll bet LHR has only been in the business for less than 5 years. How about it LHR?

Nope, I am fit and capable and I could not give two cents for LHR's desire to advance because he wants capable people to retire. Rather, he should enjoy his time in the right seat and LEARN from us old guys.

But he already knows it all, doesn't he.

[Harry Faversham]

Flying Guy couldn't agree more

Unfortunately as the retirement age for those with experience and wisdom rightly increases the age at which young pretenders believe they know it all sadly reduces.

Makes me want to stay till 70 to protect the public from this little "shower"of self importance.

58

[newt]

Does anyone know who LHR Rain is? Maybe they could send me a PM. I really believe the guy needs some serious counselling! And I know a guy who would happily "read his bumps"

[flown-it]

30 west going east. Irrascible Italian- American 58 y/o Captain explains existance of a breakaway union trying to change age 60 and gives 50 y/o copilot an app. Great, says I, will fill it out now......and join when I'm 59!!!! Major blowup on the left..much glee on the right.
31 March 2003: 9 years later, resigned that 1 year and 2 days from today I'm off to retirement with a reasonable pension. Then the judge ruled and down came my world. 60% of my pension gone. Moved the golf posts were!! Changed my goals big time. I'd have moved to the right seat ... anything to keep a pay check so that my wife(#1 incidentally) and I could educate our 2 teenage daughters.
Times change, the age 60 WILL be changed. Too late for me so I'm in a new career passing on my 40+ years in aviation to other folk.
(incidentally the feds put the rule in safety FARS not licence; thus congress HAS to act for it to change)
So LHR et al you will see a change and you will be the beneficiaries. In the meantime let us oldsters bemoan the injustice and don't sabotage us when we try and change the rules.
Good on you GC for starting the thread. PM me!

[GlueBall]

The airline career has deteriorated into a "blue collar" job. We are little more than truck/bus/taxi drivers with wings, ...stuck in the night shift with relentless challenges to our hard earned benefits, pay and quality of life standards.

What are our expectations? What can we do? What can we hope for? The airline business has become a mass transit industry. "Now everyone can fly" is the logo of paperless low cost carrier Air Asia. Carriers with the cheapest fares rule the sky. It's practical reality.

...and most pilots soon to be working for common wages will have a hard time earning expected retirement portfolios at any age. :sad: