A4s to be allowed back in the cockpit?

[tk628]

How about keep it at 60!!! Trust me the last thing you want is your Grandpa flying over your house in the middle of the night.. Flying the backside of the clock really beats the sh1t out of you, especially those commuters! They are always tired and look about 10 years older!

This change to the rule 60 is BAD news...

Thats what I said to begin with.. but aparently people want gramps flying them around..

What does A4's have to say? After all the thread is titled after him...

 

[HAL Pilot]

How about keep it at 60!!! Trust me the last thing you want is your Grandpa flying over your house in the middle of the night.. Flying the backside of the clock really beats the sh1t out of you, especially those commuters! They are always tired and look about 10 years older!

This change to the rule 60 is BAD news...

This issue has a lot attached to it other than just age.

Age: This is one of those risk-management scenarios. Over 60 can fly corporate, fractionals, part 125, part 135. These aircraft usually have less than 20 people on board, normally only 4 or 5. An airline a lot more. If it is safe for an over 60 pilot to fly an airline, why are they going to require one pilot to be under 60?

Some of the other stuff:

There are a bunch of 60 to 65 year old retired pilot that will try and reclaim their seniority numbers. If successful, this will cause backward movement plus it will cost the airlines millions in training costs. There will be more furloughs and those about to be recalled will have years more on furlough.

As airlines have been getting their financial houses rebuilt the last few years, they planned on expected payroll and retirement cost. If the guys at the top of the pay scale all of a sudden get an extra 5 years, it is going to blow these cost estimates. Same with the retirement funding. The airlines are going to be back in financial hurt and will then demand more pay and retirement concessions from the pilots. In the long run, the pilots will end up with the same life-time earnings and retirement as if they would have had at 60, but it will have taken an extra 5 years to get their.

The FAA probably does not have the power to make an age change non-retroactive. If the FAA acts on its own without congress then it will have thousands of lawsuits against it for loss of income, etc. by those forced to retire right before the change. Airlines will be sued to force them to rehire already retired pilots. Before making a change, congress needs to a pass the law making it non-retroactive and protecting both the FAA and employers from lawsuits.

The big push for ending age 60 has come from older pilots at airlines that lost their retirement in the last few years due to bankruptcy (mostly US Airways and United). These are the vocal minority and they have done a better job at getting their message out than the mostly silent majority. The unions have polled their pilots and for the most part, the majority oppose ending age 60. It has turned into a contest between those who feel their career is being hurt by the greed of older pilots wanting more and older pilots who think they are owed more time to make up for losing retirement value due to airline bankruptcies. I personally can see both sides but feel mostly feel that the industry was built on age 60 with career expectations and progressions tied to it. If you are going to change the age, it needs to be phased in gradually so that the careers of the majority do not suffer to provide a quick economic (retirement) fix for a few. Here is a post from another board I frequent that I find expresses the feeling of the many of the younger airline pilots quite eloquently. The poster is an Air National Guard F-15 pilot, a FedEx FO and runs a airline interviewing prep consulting business.

Everyone has a plan.

Age 65 will completely change my airline outlook. If I am am going to be an FO for 10 years (yeah...I know...plenty of other folks have had it a LOT worse) then the kind of life I want to live won't be covered by salary. That's okay--that's life. My problems are tiny compared to most. I also have other things going on offset that loss...

UAL78 and host of others like him....I know losing retirements, Chpt 11, and a host of other tragedies have been awful for you and your generation of pilots. However--this is zero sum game. For you to "win", I will "lose". It it out of my hands, and I hold no personal bitterness. It will, however, cause ripples in our industry that will be interesting to see.

First--I think those guys who have successful careers outside their airlines will give them a lot more attention. Junior guys faced with stagnate growth that have ANG/Reserve ties will do what they can to get more points and perhaps even try to get some active duty type (AGR/TAR) jobs. Fact is I can make about as much as a LTC on active duty/orders/AGR slot as I can at my (now industry leading) airline job. I have stiff armed that option because dang it....I like being an airline guy and the associated flexibility and the fun of the different kinds of flying. I'm also senior enough NOW on my seat to hold some (reasonably) comfortable lines. If I was stuck on the bottom--reserve--and facing 3-5 more years of the same...buh bye and I'll see you in a few years when things are better. I can only imagine the frustration of those guys JUST recalled at majors like United and Delta and then being told "hang on...you are going to SIT RIGHT THERE for another 5 years... I think age 65 is going to push some young guys on the bubble out the side door or at least force them to look at other or outside options. I expect quite a few will leave for law school, corporate flying, or other business options.

Again--I was along for the ride in the Gulf War...and I came out okay. I'm along for the ride now too. But I am VERY glad that despite being in the "most stable" airline in the business, I didn't bail out of the ANG prior to 20 years and I kept my skills up in other areas. Just like 9/11, there will be a "pre 65" set of guys who upgrade to captain in 4-8 years and a "post 65" group that took 8-15. I can live with that.

But patronizing "you'll still have a longer career son..." BS just irritates me. If its principle, not money, then why don't you guys who fly as captains at FedEx after 60 (remember--our retirement is still there--you can't cry "hardship") give me the difference in money, then when I'm 60 I can pay you back?

You say "no" because you understand that money NOW is much more valuable than money LATER. So--don't patronize me. You won this round. Enjoy it. Thanks for building us a great industry to step up into. You just get the fruits of it a bit longer than we do. Just don't glare at your F/O who's buried in the real estate section of the paper or reading some investment stuff during cruise. He's just trying to do the best he can with what he's got...

 

[Flash]

There are a bunch of 60 to 65 year old retired pilot that will try and reclaim their seniority numbers..........The FAA probably does not have the power to make an age change non-retroactive. If the FAA acts on its own without congress then it will have thousands of lawsuits against it for loss of income.......

Here is a quote from an article about the probable rule change from the Washington Post:

"She said it would take 18 months to two years for the rule to be put into place. It won't affect pilots who reach retirement age before it takes effect, she [agency administrator Marion Blakey] said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013000660.html

 

[phrogdriver]

Hey, on a personal level, this means that I can retire at 20 from the military, or even later, and still have the chance to fly for the airlines for over 20 years. Making peanuts working in RJs for awhile won't be too bad if I'm already pulling 50% of my current pay. The worst part will be taking orders from a 25-year-old from Embry-Riddle. Be honest, it's not the most strenuous job in the world.

 

[KSUFLY]

What sucks is the age 60 rule was a favor from the FAA administrator to C.W. Smith (CEO of AA) at the time. Smith was trying to cut out his older pilots for financial reasons and got his long time friend at the FAA to do it. There was no "reason" behind the rule except that the FAA said the older pilots can't keep up with the new jet aircraft. So since there was no real reasoning behind the rule in the first place, how do they counter the claim to change the rule. And what's the big reason that they want to change it now anyways?

 

[HAL Pilot]

What sucks is the age 60 rule was a favor from the FAA administrator to C.W. Smith (CEO of AA) at the time. Smith was trying to cut out his older pilots for financial reasons and got his long time friend at the FAA to do it. There was no "reason" behind the rule except that the FAA said the older pilots can't keep up with the new jet aircraft. So since there was no real reasoning behind the rule in the first place, how do they counter the claim to change the rule. And what's the big reason that they want to change it now anyways?

There is a history of the origins of the age 60 rule in this Congressional Report.

"The age 60 rule was justified solely on the basis of medical concern over progressive deterioration and of important physiological and psychological functions and the risk of sudden incapacitation."

I will concede (as does the congressional report) that C.W. Smith was involved but the FAA justified the rule on medical concerns and not economic ones.

This report covers a lot of ground.

 

[JIMC5499]

I keep remembering the aftermath of that Aloha Airlines 737 that had the fuselage failure. The FAA and NTSB couldn't say enough about how the pilot's experience saved the aircraft and the lives on board. Then a few months later that same pilot was made to retire because of this law.

 

[A4sForever]

Bottom line: AGE 60 ???

Politics and $$$$$ aside ..... it ALL depends on who is in the cockpit ... the age doesn't matter. It's all about headwork, judgment, natural ability, and last ... and least ... your trained and ingrained motor skills come in a distant forth. You can "train" a chimp to fly, given enough time ....

Those of you who whine about the "old guys" occupying "YOUR SEAT" are comical ... you'll be GREAT union members at some point in the future.... in the meantime ... kiss my ass. And go get me a cup of coffee while you're at it ....

And since I'm a better Aviator TODAY than 99.99% of those on this board are or ever will be .... the BEST THING you could see when boarding a 747 as a passenger would be: me sitting in the cockpit.

But then again, I'd probably kick 99.99% of you off of MY airplane if I knew who you were ...

Believe it....

Me??? I'm enjoying retirement ... I highly recommend it.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

But then again, I'd probably kick 99.99% of you off of MY airplane if I knew who you were ...

Only if I get to ride down the emergency escape shute.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Only if I get to ride down the emergency escape shute.

I've never heard of an emergency shute. I've heard of a novelist named Nevil Shute but I never liked his work......

 

[plc67]

The march of the imaginary horribles are being played out on other boards regarding this proposed change. There is a group that portrays themselves as leading senile, semi comatose captains through their final years by these young eagles who are now relegated to five more years of being nursemaid in a flying nursing home. Getting me to see it your way by insulting the hell out of me and then citing scenarios I've never witnessed or heard of leaves a little to be desired as a form of argument.
Flying the backside of the clock is brutal for most of us who do it and I'm no exception, so age 60 isn't abhorrent to me but diminished skills, both mental and physical, aren't the reasons I'll readily accept retirement from a 121 carrier.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I personally see age 60 as more of a economic & political issue than an age issue.

Plenty of over 60 pilots can safely fly airliners. My "if it is safe then why does one pilot have to be under age 60" question in an early post was more of a rhetorical question. I personally feel if they allow over 60 it shouldn't matter if one pilot is under 60 or not.

I view the issue in the terms similar to the ALPA merger policy where one group is not supposed to get a windfall over another and the career expectations of both groups are supposed to be preserved as much as possible. Age 60 is going to go away. It's just a matter of how it goes away.

I believe age 65 should be phased in slowly so the economical & political impacts will be lessened. It also will need Congressionally enacted protections for both the companies and the FAA. If these protections are not put in place, my fear is that there will be no added value to pilots for the extra 5 years. Companies will adjust for the economic impact by lowering salaries and retirements. Lifetime earnings and lifetime retirement earnings will end up being the same for those that retired at 60 under the old rules and those that will retire at 65 under the new. A slow phase in also does the best to protect the career expectations of the junior pilots while taking care of the senior pilots. It's a compromise to give both sides the best deal possible.

It's an ugly issue that's for sure. It's splitting pilot groups in half.

 

[KSUFLY]

There is a history of the origins of the age 60 rule in this Congressional Report.

"The age 60 rule was justified solely on the basis of medical concern over progressive deterioration and of important physiological and psychological functions and the risk of sudden incapacitation."

I will concede (as does the congressional report) that C.W. Smith was involved but the FAA justified the rule on medical concerns and not economic ones.

This report covers a lot of ground.

It was "justified" on those basis. But you have to look farther back in history. There was a walk-out at AA over the airline letting pilots go because they were too old. When the ALPA won the arbitration between them and the airline, C.W. Smith refused to let the pilots back that had caused such an argument. That's when he wrote his friend at the FAA (the first administrator, Elwood Quesada) and got him to start the age 60 rule. There was no public hearing, they only allowed public comment through written letters.

To bolster the argument for age limits, American Airlines provided the FAA with data from 31 pilots trained on the Boeing 707 with the purpose of showing that younger pilots required fewer hours of flight training to transition from propeller to jet airliners than older pilots and were more likely to successfully complete the training.

That was AA's original argument; that the younger pilots required fewer hours. That sounds pretty financially based to me.

 

[A4sForever]

I personally see age 60 as more of a economic & political issue than an age issue.....It's splitting pilot groups in half.

Right on all counts, HAL ... and just so no one misunderstands, as many of you are prone to do: it's ALWAYS about $$$$ and politics ... that's what makes the airline business and the country go 'round.

Splitting pilot groups??? Doesn't anyone remember the "B" pay scales, the LPP's of the Deregulation Act and why they came about in large part ???? It was always for the same reasons and they produced the same results and split pilot groups along "have" and "have not" lines.

If politicians and airline management can still stir the pot and throw in a divisive issue like another "B" scale in the guise of "low cost carriers" or increasing the federally mandated retirement age to something other than 60 with the result that the pilot group(s) become divided again ... well, then, so much the better for them. This time around, however, after years of lost salaries, lost retirements, broken contracts and promises, and thousands of lost pilot jobs .... airline managements and the politicians had best be cautious of the ALPA resolve --- even up to and including the nuclear option: an SOS (nationwide suspension of service). It will probably not be necessary; but as I know some of the "new" ALPA leadership personally, let me suggest that they're not kidding nor are they bluffing.

Again, I don't really care what the retirement age goes to .. I planned on retiring when I did. Nothing else, save my own plans entered into the final decision. I've done my time, I've got "mine", I have my laurels hanging on the walls of my "I love me" room, I have a life and interests outside of flying ... I have neither the need nor the inclination to prove anything to anybody.

But what of all the glamor I'm leaving behind??? Well, for starters, I'm tired of beating myself up for 1/2 of every month, jumping through others' hoops, living at the whim of an alarm clock, staying awake all night, trying to sleep when your body wants to stay awake, dragging my ass and 400 others across the Pacific, dodging typhoons and lines of seemingly impenetrable CB's , shooting approaches to minimums at foreign airports while dog-tired, eating crumby food, smiling while enduring forced chit-chatting with strangers, sleeping in a different bed every night, putting up with morons who are trying to kill me, making correct decisions and being constantly held accountable (for decades), fighting bad dispatch/ATC/management decisions --- all to ensure that my aircraft and whatever or whomever I'm charged with gets safely and efficiently from "A" to "B" ....

Glamorous, indeed ....

Like I said ... retirement's great. If you have the means ... I highly recommend it.

 

[Carno]

And since I'm a better Aviator TODAY than 99.99% of those on this board are or ever will be ....

:sleep_125