Good news for pilots - retirement age

Robert M. Gary writes:

But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs. It will simply mean
that younger pilots won't have the access to the left seat they had
been lead to believe. If a guy can retire at 60, let him retire, let
someone else have a chance on the yoke. I'll be waiting for the first
youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
ramp.

Sixty years old is not ancient by any measure. A person can fly for
decades beyond that as long as he remains in good health. And many
people remain in good health through to a much greater age.

Flying should be open to anyone who doesn't have a serious health
problem that interferes with it. Commercial airliners are not fighter
planes, and experience is more important than quick reflexes in these
types of aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article . com,
says...

Why is this a good thing. So now the old *******s are going to keep
their butts in the left seat and no one else gets a chance? "Good
news"????

Good news for them!
Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing more
than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so with
every passing year.




-Robert

In article ,
says...


So yes, pilots can work longer. And that's good for older pilots (even if
a little temporarily painful for younger pilots {8^).

An underlying theme that comes out of it though is that pilots want to keep
working. They are generally not tempted by early retirement, but would
rather stay on the job.

There are countries where flight attendants have managed to squeeze in on
the disability insurance policies created for pilots. What do you know -
in such places there are lots of flight attendants out on disabilty, and
very few pilots!

When pilots do suffer a health problem, they are often tempted to try to
hide it - because they don't want it to prezvent them from working, even
if they have a golden insurance policy. Many professions would sieze the
opportunity to be out on disability!

Sounds like pilots are pretty satisfied with their work, overall.

In article .com,
says...


But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs.


Really quite the socialist view, yours.
You would be right in step in Europe - you should propose a new law that
would not allow airline pilots to log more than 20h a month - double the
airline's operating costs and see how many new jobs you create. With thinking
like that you could have a political career in France!

I was referring to enhancement of the lives and careers of pilots - I think
if you ask practicing pilots, even young ones, most would feel that the 60 rule
is unwelcome.

GF

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:46:38 -0800, Greg Farris wrote:

Good
new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Maybe.

I heard a news report about this on the local news station. According to
that, this is all about keeping a sufficiently large pool of pilots
available.

My immediate thought goes to economics 101: supply vs. demand. By raising
the retirement age, the FAA is actually helping to keep pilot salaries
(and pension payments!) down.

Not quite; notice how age discrimination took over the high tech fields in
the late 90's and forward.

Younger people command lower salaries. MOF, it's rumored that the original
rule was implemented to keep the salaries costs in check back when pilots
were treated like gods (at least by the public if not the airlines) and
their pay was steadily rising.

I wonder if the by 60's some pilots were right under top management in pay
scales.

How's about they lay off some of those overpaid CEO bozos?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news

Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...

....or less real (i.e., productive) work to do.

Matt Barrow writes:

I wonder if the by 60's some pilots were right under top management in pay
scales.

At some airlines, top pilots were paid more than the CEO. I know this
was true at Air France.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Greg Farris wrote:
In article .com,
says...
I was referring to enhancement of the lives and careers of pilots - I think
if you ask practicing pilots, even young ones, most would feel that the 60 rule
is unwelcome.

If that were true, the union wouldn't have fought over this internally
for decades. Remember, only 1/2 the members are old.
-Robert

--
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/...transcol14.php
http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=494085

In my opinion the U.S. needs to allow medically qualified pilots to fly
beyond age 60. With so many airlines reneging on their retirement plans at
the same time the minimum age to get Social Security payments is going up,
we will have more and more "retired" pilots having to get jobs as "greeters"
in large stores.

In article .com,
says...


I'll be waiting for the first
youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
ramp.



Maybe I can slow your free-fall off the deep end here by reminding you the
current proposal is only about extending the age to 65!!

GF