Age 60 Hearing For Ex-Air Canada Pilot
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nupot,
It has not changed yet, that I will agree with you.
Come Nov 2006, the retirement age will increase to 65 in most countries.
But more importantly no country that is an icao member can deny a pilot under the age of 65 the right to operate into it.
However my understanding is that the FAA will not increase the present retirement age of its licenced transport rated pilots, but since it too is a member of icao it must abide by the new icao age limits for foreign licenced pilots above 60 .
You would be fooling yourself if you think that companies with a retirement age of 60 will not increase it.
Its all to do with economics and the mighty dollar will always rule!(that and the shareholders)
Why would I look for another line of work? this one is fine by me and when they whack up my retirement age to abv 60 I will decide if and when thats what I want to do
It has not changed yet, that I will agree with you.
Come Nov 2006, the retirement age will increase to 65 in most countries.
But more importantly no country that is an icao member can deny a pilot under the age of 65 the right to operate into it.
However my understanding is that the FAA will not increase the present retirement age of its licenced transport rated pilots, but since it too is a member of icao it must abide by the new icao age limits for foreign licenced pilots above 60 .
You would be fooling yourself if you think that companies with a retirement age of 60 will not increase it.
Its all to do with economics and the mighty dollar will always rule!(that and the shareholders)
Why would I look for another line of work? this one is fine by me and when they whack up my retirement age to abv 60 I will decide if and when thats what I want to do
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US and France are expected to file a'differences' with ICAO,however the day a foreign pilot above age 60 lands on US soil,many us pilots are expected to sue the us goverment for age discrimination, and apparently they will win easily.So i can see the FAA increasing the upper age limit to 65 very quickly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impact of ICAO Changes
I would be most interested in getting feedback on two areas related to the impact of the changing law and policy regarding the age standard.
First, how are legacy carriers and/or their unions reacting to the moving of the compulsory retirement age, particulary in Europe? Do any of the flag carriers plan to revisit their own current restrictions?
Second, the EU Employment Law Directive prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. How broad is the implementation of the Directive, and can countries opt-out so as to maintain the existing protections to their current work forces? When, if ever, does the Directive become mandatory, and how will that affect the existing carriers?
First, how are legacy carriers and/or their unions reacting to the moving of the compulsory retirement age, particulary in Europe? Do any of the flag carriers plan to revisit their own current restrictions?
Second, the EU Employment Law Directive prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. How broad is the implementation of the Directive, and can countries opt-out so as to maintain the existing protections to their current work forces? When, if ever, does the Directive become mandatory, and how will that affect the existing carriers?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by faheel
You would be fooling yourself if you think that companies with a retirement age of 60 will not increase it.
Its all to do with economics and the mighty dollar will always rule!(that and the shareholders)
Its all to do with economics and the mighty dollar will always rule!(that and the shareholders)
I do see a problem with your statement above. It certainly does not make sense to keep a pilot at top-scale, if you can replace him with a lower paid captain. And there are so many to choose from. In our company, a junior captain (who does everything a senior captain does), is paid between 35 - 50% less than his senior counterpart (depending on years service). I know that the beancounters have made this discovery, because we took this issue up with our company and they pointed out that they had substantial economic incentive to keep the retirement age where it was.
So we have a company that does not want the age limit up, an FO pool that certainly does not want it up, and young captains who don't care.
I am afraid that in at least some companies, the older captains will be outnumbered and will be forced out at 60 - no matter what ICAO says.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tropical wave
What about if the Co brings back the retired Capts on contract [for one year at a time] with less pay,no health,travel and pension benifits etc etc. Worth a thought.
Our scope clause refers to pilots on our seniority list. Contract pilots are not on this list, which will cause bypass pay to be paid to the SFO's that cannot upgrade due to the contract captains. This makes the financial burden on the company higher. I can see that the retirees will be offered contracts as FO's. If they are so desperate to continue flying, and if they really feel that they can contribute their experience to the company, then the right seat should not present a problem.
But then again, we are in the initial stages of research and discussions - things might change. With the senior captains in our company occupying the most sought after seats, a vote for increasing retirement age would probably be defeated. A lot of our captains are quite young and all the FO's will probably vote against it.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nugpot,
I understand what you are saying about keeping older people on at a much higher payscale than someone further down the list.However airlines that do not adapt will fall by the wayside.
Look at what has happened to your majors, have not they all gone into chapter 11 except for American?
When they come out (if they do) they all without exception pay vastly lower salaries then before they went in.
How can American compete with that? By reducing costs or increasing revenue or both thats the only way.
Something has got to give and with the price of fuel soaring the easy way is to reduce salaries and pensions.
Airlines will restructure, pay less and like it or not it will happen to everyone.
So your utopian view that the status quo will remain the same is just not valid.
My own Airliine (in SE Asia) has restructured and pay is now very much productivity driven. Pesonaly I do not have a problem with that, but the only pension I get is what I make for myself, compare that to the huge pension debt that the US airlines have to service.
As I said it is unsustainable.
So what will happen is that the split between new captains and older ones will shrink and pilots will have to retire later to fund their retirement.
You and I got into this game 20 years too late .
I understand what you are saying about keeping older people on at a much higher payscale than someone further down the list.However airlines that do not adapt will fall by the wayside.
Look at what has happened to your majors, have not they all gone into chapter 11 except for American?
When they come out (if they do) they all without exception pay vastly lower salaries then before they went in.
How can American compete with that? By reducing costs or increasing revenue or both thats the only way.
Something has got to give and with the price of fuel soaring the easy way is to reduce salaries and pensions.
Airlines will restructure, pay less and like it or not it will happen to everyone.
So your utopian view that the status quo will remain the same is just not valid.
My own Airliine (in SE Asia) has restructured and pay is now very much productivity driven. Pesonaly I do not have a problem with that, but the only pension I get is what I make for myself, compare that to the huge pension debt that the US airlines have to service.
As I said it is unsustainable.
So what will happen is that the split between new captains and older ones will shrink and pilots will have to retire later to fund their retirement.
You and I got into this game 20 years too late .
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
faheel,
I completely understand the sentiment and reasoning. I am currently in the position where age 60/65 cannot hurt me, but as union rep, we have to look at everybody in the pilot pool, and that means a referendum. Unfortunately, the guys pushing for higher retirement age in my company are really hurting their cause by talking down to the FO's who they need to educate/convince.
SA has the further problem that government would probably not get involved. All the senior captains are white, and need to go for the empowerment program to reach its goals. I cannot and will not comment about this part of the equation.
Even if all captains earned exactly the same, I still cannot see the direct economic advantage of keeping captains over 60. There might be indirect advantages from their depth of experience, which can most definitely save the company money operationally, but that is difficult to sell. We have also recently had a few senior guys go medically unfit. I realise that you cannot measure the group by some individuals, but these guys cost the company a lot of moolah until they finally retire medically, and the beancounters remember those things.
I hope that my comments are not construed as too negative. I am really just trying to give you the problems that we face selling this to our company.
I completely understand the sentiment and reasoning. I am currently in the position where age 60/65 cannot hurt me, but as union rep, we have to look at everybody in the pilot pool, and that means a referendum. Unfortunately, the guys pushing for higher retirement age in my company are really hurting their cause by talking down to the FO's who they need to educate/convince.
SA has the further problem that government would probably not get involved. All the senior captains are white, and need to go for the empowerment program to reach its goals. I cannot and will not comment about this part of the equation.
Even if all captains earned exactly the same, I still cannot see the direct economic advantage of keeping captains over 60. There might be indirect advantages from their depth of experience, which can most definitely save the company money operationally, but that is difficult to sell. We have also recently had a few senior guys go medically unfit. I realise that you cannot measure the group by some individuals, but these guys cost the company a lot of moolah until they finally retire medically, and the beancounters remember those things.
I hope that my comments are not construed as too negative. I am really just trying to give you the problems that we face selling this to our company.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: woop woop
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nugpot,
I see where you are coming from.
The way I see it is for a given pilot all things being equal (and they never are are they)if the company extends his retirement age by 5 years then they get 5 years more productivity out of him(5 extra years to amortise the training cost) so therefore he saves them money.
A Very simplistic view, but it has to be considered.
Over here the training cost for a direct entry non endorsed captain is abt $130,000. I should say the bond is that amount.
However I would think that the real figure is not far from that when you consider accomodation, salary, sim time, a/c time ground school tickets etc.
It also runs for 5 years, so if an airline can push that out by that amount of time then the bottom line cost must be less.
I see where you are coming from.
The way I see it is for a given pilot all things being equal (and they never are are they)if the company extends his retirement age by 5 years then they get 5 years more productivity out of him(5 extra years to amortise the training cost) so therefore he saves them money.
A Very simplistic view, but it has to be considered.
Over here the training cost for a direct entry non endorsed captain is abt $130,000. I should say the bond is that amount.
However I would think that the real figure is not far from that when you consider accomodation, salary, sim time, a/c time ground school tickets etc.
It also runs for 5 years, so if an airline can push that out by that amount of time then the bottom line cost must be less.
Fixing a retirement age is about the biggest cause of angst in our profession. It is entirely dependent on your age and your position on the seniority list at the time that a decision has to be made.
I have recently retired at the age of 65 so perhaps my experiences are of some validity to the discussion.
My first compelling interest in the subject came when my airline was into laying off pilots (a furlough) because it was in financial trouble. Until that point I had not paid much attention to the age factor. I was about 40 years old and had only been in the left seat with this particular airline for about 2 years.
Because of my low seniority number I was obviously destined for a trip back into the right seat. This seemed manifestly unfair to me at the time and it seemed to me that the company would be better advised to get rid of the expensive old farts and keep us cheaper chappies in the left seat. That seemed to me to be terribly logical at the time but it was a belief that was based purely upon pure selfishness and not upon logic. After all, why should the guys who had been there right at the beginning and without whom the airline would not have become an airline in the first place be chucked out just because I was cheaper?
Then I got towards 60 which was the normal retirement age of the company that I was flying for at the time. They did however have a policy that pilots could carry on beyond 60 with the agreement of BOTH parties.
I was very much into training and was very happy to carry on if required. The company decided that they wanted to retain my services and I was happy to do so.
I suppose that I might have delayed someone's command upgrade by a few months but nobody ever complained. On the credit side a lot of my young F/O conversions from 275 hours on a Piper became Captains within a few years and a hell of a lot of young pilots were (and still are) very grateful for what I taught them.
So I have been on both sides of the spectrum and I really do not have the total answer for all of this. It simply depends on your age and seniority at the time.
Personally speaking, I don't think I really got beyond 40 years old in my way of thinking although I was 65 when I retired. Retirement age is very subjective. I know some pilots who are ready to retire at 50. In fact, I know a few pilots who should have quit at 35 and taken up something safer such as growing mushrooms!
I have recently retired at the age of 65 so perhaps my experiences are of some validity to the discussion.
My first compelling interest in the subject came when my airline was into laying off pilots (a furlough) because it was in financial trouble. Until that point I had not paid much attention to the age factor. I was about 40 years old and had only been in the left seat with this particular airline for about 2 years.
Because of my low seniority number I was obviously destined for a trip back into the right seat. This seemed manifestly unfair to me at the time and it seemed to me that the company would be better advised to get rid of the expensive old farts and keep us cheaper chappies in the left seat. That seemed to me to be terribly logical at the time but it was a belief that was based purely upon pure selfishness and not upon logic. After all, why should the guys who had been there right at the beginning and without whom the airline would not have become an airline in the first place be chucked out just because I was cheaper?
Then I got towards 60 which was the normal retirement age of the company that I was flying for at the time. They did however have a policy that pilots could carry on beyond 60 with the agreement of BOTH parties.
I was very much into training and was very happy to carry on if required. The company decided that they wanted to retain my services and I was happy to do so.
I suppose that I might have delayed someone's command upgrade by a few months but nobody ever complained. On the credit side a lot of my young F/O conversions from 275 hours on a Piper became Captains within a few years and a hell of a lot of young pilots were (and still are) very grateful for what I taught them.
So I have been on both sides of the spectrum and I really do not have the total answer for all of this. It simply depends on your age and seniority at the time.
Personally speaking, I don't think I really got beyond 40 years old in my way of thinking although I was 65 when I retired. Retirement age is very subjective. I know some pilots who are ready to retire at 50. In fact, I know a few pilots who should have quit at 35 and taken up something safer such as growing mushrooms!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting
I find it extremely interesting that 4 to 1 pilots in Air Canada who were polled supported the continued FORCED retirement at 60. One has to consider of course that the VAST majority of these will be young F/O's who simply see 'old Captains' as blocking their path to the left seat and some junior Captains who want to move onto a bigger and better paid aircraft command.
It would be very interesting to know how they would vote in the future when they themselves are approaching 60, perfectly fit and wish to continue doing what they love to do - FLY.
Even more sad is the attitude of the pilot's union - not only will they NOT support the pilots in their challenge of the 60 years old rule BUT are actively supporting the company - that is SAD.
Tail wagging the dog comes to mind; not unknown though!
Furthermore, you will all know my opinion of old, each and everyone of us is different. Some want to retire to grow roses at 50 - good luck to them; some want to retire at 55 and sail around the world - good luck to them; some are happy to retire at 60 and go live in Marbella on their big fat pension - good luck to them too; BUT for those who are fit, pass a Class 1 medical and can pass their simulator check rides - THEY MUST BE PERMITTED TO WORK UNTIL THEY WANT TO RETIRE. It is not only ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basis of age it it IMMORAL.
It would be very interesting to know how they would vote in the future when they themselves are approaching 60, perfectly fit and wish to continue doing what they love to do - FLY.
Even more sad is the attitude of the pilot's union - not only will they NOT support the pilots in their challenge of the 60 years old rule BUT are actively supporting the company - that is SAD.
Tail wagging the dog comes to mind; not unknown though!
Furthermore, you will all know my opinion of old, each and everyone of us is different. Some want to retire to grow roses at 50 - good luck to them; some want to retire at 55 and sail around the world - good luck to them; some are happy to retire at 60 and go live in Marbella on their big fat pension - good luck to them too; BUT for those who are fit, pass a Class 1 medical and can pass their simulator check rides - THEY MUST BE PERMITTED TO WORK UNTIL THEY WANT TO RETIRE. It is not only ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basis of age it it IMMORAL.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MercenaryAli
BUT for those who are fit, pass a Class 1 medical and can pass their simulator check rides - THEY MUST BE PERMITTED TO WORK UNTIL THEY WANT TO RETIRE. It is not only ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basis of age it it IMMORAL.
It is not illegal everywhere, and in any case their are lots of cases where that particular law is overuled by other considerations. You can only play on the Senior Golf tour if you are over 50, you can only get a driver's licence if you are over 18, etc.
Whether it is immoral depends on your point of view.
Sorry Ali, I am not winding you up. I am convinced that the mandatory retirement age will change, but I think that it won't happen everywhere overnight. In fact I would say it might take another 5 years or more to percolate through the majority of the industry.
You will know that a bill of rights is not absolute. All rights are subject to certain provisors. If anyone makes a convincing argument that a 65 year old captain is potentially, incrementally more dangerous than say a 60 year old, you will find that the bill of rights will be overruled.
I have no answers for this situation, but I have been involved in research and negotiations on this matter and it is a lot easier to state your particular point of view, than it is to get through the miriad of union agreements, laws and regulations in an ordered fashion and with a counter argument for any attack the FO's or for that matter, the company, can launch.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In total agreement with you.
Originally posted by nugpot If anyone makes a convincing argument that a 65 year old captain is potentially, incrementally more dangerous than say a 60 year old, you will find that the bill of rights will be overruled.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
However by the same token, there is NO firm MEDICAL or OPERATIONAL evidence that a 65 year old pilot is more or less dangerous than a 60 year old pilot.
I simply state the obvious again - if a pilot is fit enough to satisfy a duly qulaified and experienced Aircrew Medical Examiner that he/she is fit to hold a Class 1 Medical AND is able to pass all his/her simulator and other mandatory required checks THEN IT IS IMMORAL to force that person to stop working just because of some archaic rule/regulation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
However by the same token, there is NO firm MEDICAL or OPERATIONAL evidence that a 65 year old pilot is more or less dangerous than a 60 year old pilot.
I simply state the obvious again - if a pilot is fit enough to satisfy a duly qulaified and experienced Aircrew Medical Examiner that he/she is fit to hold a Class 1 Medical AND is able to pass all his/her simulator and other mandatory required checks THEN IT IS IMMORAL to force that person to stop working just because of some archaic rule/regulation.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Africa
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MercenaryAli
However by the same token, there is NO firm MEDICAL or OPERATIONAL evidence that a 65 year old pilot is more or less dangerous than a 60 year old pilot.
Originally Posted by MercenaryAli
I simply state the obvious again
Originally Posted by MercenaryAli
THEN IT IS IMMORAL to force that person to stop working
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to the question of age discrimination (or compulsory retirement based on age) at various carriers, I would be very interested in finding out if there are still other forms of discrimination that your carriers maintain.
For example, do any carriers still not hire female pilots? Do some carriers still have maximum age limits for their flight attendants? If so, are these the same carriers that have lower maximum age limits on pilots?
Do any carriers engage in forms of discriminition such as ethnic background (positive or negative), height, or visual correction limitations etc? Nationality restrictions?
Do carriers engage in forms of reverse-discrimination, such as affirmative-action programs?
Any of this factual background c ould be very helpful to us at our hearing before the Tribunal
For example, do any carriers still not hire female pilots? Do some carriers still have maximum age limits for their flight attendants? If so, are these the same carriers that have lower maximum age limits on pilots?
Do any carriers engage in forms of discriminition such as ethnic background (positive or negative), height, or visual correction limitations etc? Nationality restrictions?
Do carriers engage in forms of reverse-discrimination, such as affirmative-action programs?
Any of this factual background c ould be very helpful to us at our hearing before the Tribunal
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: canada
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raymond, why don't you just look at Air Canada Jazz, they have a few guys going beyond age 60, infact two retired last year at 65, even the ones suing your sorry ass probably wouldn't mind talking to you.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where to draw the line
I am an FO just shy of command. Although here in Asia a command is by no means guarranteed. So I am not in favour of retirement being extended to 65. I for one hope to be able to retire earlier than that !!
Mercenary Ali:
I used to fly corporate with a captain who was 70. So I ask you :if we are all fit and able to pass a medical then should we be flying at 65,66,67,68 etc. It is all a line in the sand and not legal or immoral.
Any advance of retirement age has a negative affect on commands in the following scenarios : if you join an airline at an older age, if the airline downsizes or stagnates, if the captains in your base/domicile etc. are younger than the average, Long Haul (as it has a Captain to FO ratio of almost 3 to 1.), and if a merger occurs.
All of the above scenarios mean that you will spend less time at the command pay. Yes you get the extra years but the best case scenario is that you will the same number of years as a Captain, but you will be older when you get there and the extra you make is the 5 years on FO salary. The worst case scenario is that during those extra five years the movement slows or stops. In this case you will get less time in the left seat when you eventually get there.
The only thing off setting this, is the industry's current large expansion. As we all know expansion will be followed by stagnation or lack of growth. So if you are more than a few years away from command age 65 is bad news. Even if you are a young commander and do not get up the seniority list far enough you could be at risk of being back in the right seat and then stuck there for longer.
I am not a doomsdayer but believe when you analyse the retirement age you have to be realistic. As with many things I do not want to see this go through only to regret it later.
Is love of flying really enough to justify longer lower paid career for those coming after ? Those retiring now have spent their careers in the best paying of aviation history and now we behind just want to protect what we have left.
Flack jacket on standing by...
Mercenary Ali:
I used to fly corporate with a captain who was 70. So I ask you :if we are all fit and able to pass a medical then should we be flying at 65,66,67,68 etc. It is all a line in the sand and not legal or immoral.
Any advance of retirement age has a negative affect on commands in the following scenarios : if you join an airline at an older age, if the airline downsizes or stagnates, if the captains in your base/domicile etc. are younger than the average, Long Haul (as it has a Captain to FO ratio of almost 3 to 1.), and if a merger occurs.
All of the above scenarios mean that you will spend less time at the command pay. Yes you get the extra years but the best case scenario is that you will the same number of years as a Captain, but you will be older when you get there and the extra you make is the 5 years on FO salary. The worst case scenario is that during those extra five years the movement slows or stops. In this case you will get less time in the left seat when you eventually get there.
The only thing off setting this, is the industry's current large expansion. As we all know expansion will be followed by stagnation or lack of growth. So if you are more than a few years away from command age 65 is bad news. Even if you are a young commander and do not get up the seniority list far enough you could be at risk of being back in the right seat and then stuck there for longer.
I am not a doomsdayer but believe when you analyse the retirement age you have to be realistic. As with many things I do not want to see this go through only to regret it later.
Is love of flying really enough to justify longer lower paid career for those coming after ? Those retiring now have spent their careers in the best paying of aviation history and now we behind just want to protect what we have left.
Flack jacket on standing by...
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not only ILLEGAL to discriminate on the basis of age it it IMMORAL.
You have benefited from the age 60 rule your entire career - earlier hire dates, earlier upgrades. Now that it no longer benefits you, you want it gone.
I totally understand your view from a monetary standpoint - but "morality" would dictate you step aside and let others get the same deal you got.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: NY
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK guys let us all calm this down
I have no problem with anyone who feels they want to retire to grow roses at 55 doing so. (Read my earlier posts)
OK maybe IMMORAL is the wrong word - just doggoned stupid would be more appropriate. In what other highly skilled profession would a company forceably retire their most experienced Human Resource JUST and ONLY JUST because they were born 60 years earlier? I mean come on, it is not rocket science - each must be given the CHOICE that is ALL we ask.
I have known guys of 50 who looked and acted like they were 70 - OK maybe there is a case for SOME being gently told it is time to hang up the headset BUT I have known guys who looked and acted 50 and were in fact almost 70 so - just give those of us who are able to pass their medical Class 1 and all those six monthly and annual checks the CHOICE.
And for those F/O's who just hate the thought of sitting in the right seat for another year or two, maybe it won't be so bad - you might just learn a thing or two EXTRA that might come in handy in the future!
I rest my case your Lordships!
OK maybe IMMORAL is the wrong word - just doggoned stupid would be more appropriate. In what other highly skilled profession would a company forceably retire their most experienced Human Resource JUST and ONLY JUST because they were born 60 years earlier? I mean come on, it is not rocket science - each must be given the CHOICE that is ALL we ask.
I have known guys of 50 who looked and acted like they were 70 - OK maybe there is a case for SOME being gently told it is time to hang up the headset BUT I have known guys who looked and acted 50 and were in fact almost 70 so - just give those of us who are able to pass their medical Class 1 and all those six monthly and annual checks the CHOICE.
And for those F/O's who just hate the thought of sitting in the right seat for another year or two, maybe it won't be so bad - you might just learn a thing or two EXTRA that might come in handy in the future!
I rest my case your Lordships!
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for those F/O's who just hate the thought of sitting in the right seat for another year or two[....]
And you recall the feeling, no doubt!