You are right that 60 is just a number, as is 16, 18, 21, and 23 (the youngest a person may hold an ATP). As for 60, it is like Mason said to Dixon, "we have to draw the line somewhere"

It is great that at an age over 60 yor friiends 20 years younger to you can't keep up. You are obviously not the norm. Should our rules reflect the exception, or the condition of the average pilot? Yes it means that some good ones get shut out early, but it creates a reasonable career and an acceptable risk level

We should never have any rules, anywhere, that discriminate solely on the basis of age, sex, race or religion. That is just clearly wrong in any situtation. Age is an especially big deal as the population grows older. In case you haven't been told, 60 is the new 30.

When I was born, life expectancy for a woman was only 60. My current life expenctancy is 95. Hunki's life expectancy at the time of his birth was 53. He is now 63, has an average life expectancy of 84, harder abs and biceps than most folks I know in their 20s, and will probably be going strong at 104.

I have several extremely valuable assistants in their 20s (probably young enough to be my grandchildren had I been foolish enough to have had children at 18, like most of my friends) and, while these assistants are all extremely bright and competent, and can sometimes even read my mind (pretty scarey), none of them have an ability to multitask equal to mine, nor do they have memories as good as mine. I am often on two telephones, working on the interenet and, simultaneously, dealing with a line of people standing at my office door. I almost always operate out of my head, while my staff are frequently checking their notes.

The ability to function is only about the ability to function, whether mentally or physically. It is most certainly not at all about age. It may well be that I am (and most assuredly plan to continue to be) at the high end of functional for my age, but I have lots of 60+ friends who are every bit as astute as Hunki and I and know lots and lots of youngsters who will never be able to play in our league.

It is all about abilities, and not at all about age.

Sorry, I wouldn't trust any union further than I could throw it, and with my bad back, i shouldn't be throwing anyone. :(

This is something which, in the beginning, totally benefited the union and hurt the company, so I'm highly suspect of that story.

Of course, now, having accelerated the pay scales in advance of an early retirement-age, the unions probably do want to remove the requirement so that the senior pilots can continue to climb the higher pay scales.

So, I can buy that unions may find a way to make this in their interest, but the very fact that you most often see these arrangements in unionized industries tells me exactly whose interest it served the first time around.

It wouldn't. The age criterion would have to be replaced with something else, such as individual testing of actual abilities, which you say isn't really possible at this point.

Well, I think the whole point is that some OTHER tests have to be developed that ARE able to "test for such conditions!" That may be difficult, but it would be preferable to an arbitary age cut-off. Also, if an individual pilot aged 60 IS still fully capable of flying safely, it's certainly a serious waste of resources, training, and experience to force that individual to retire from flying.

Given that there are a battery of tests and frankly, degradation of mental ability can happen at all kinds of ages, I think more than ever thanks to everybody's comments that the age limit was put in place because of union strongholding. It's about money and seniority....

I have a feeling this is a no-win with the folks who have a firmly entrenched belief that unions are bad and whatever position they advocate is bad. Traditionally, unions have catered to the most senior, most highly paid employees because union dues are based on a percentage of income. Get rid of your highest paid workers and replace them with lower-paid guys with less seniority and union dues fall. ALPA's probably in a no-win with some folks on this one. If they changed their position today, some will say it's to keep union dues up by keeping the higher-paid employees longer. (Think of the popularity of early buyouts to reduce costs associated with high-seniority workers - many businesses are eager to get people at the top of the scale out so they can cut their costs.) With the two-tiered pay scales in airlines, moving out higher-paid folks makes even less sense for unions than ever before. I also don't think we're experience any pilot shortages right now.

While attitudes such as Punki's are great to hold, the studies over time do show that mental acuity peaks in the 30s. We simply haven't found a way to slow down that aging process. Older folks may be wiser and have better judgment, but their reactions and process for getting to that will take longer. Einstein knew this. We see this with chess champions and physicsts who decline as they age. They may still achieve the same outcome, but it won't come nearly as quickly, and the jobs were discussing are those where quick thinking and reactions are key. This can and has been tested quite often, but on an individual basis they're tests that must be done over long periods of time, as it's true that not everyone starts from the same place.

FWIW, I've never met a pilot who was eager to give up his job. Those I know truly love it and dread their last flight knowing they will never be in the cockpit piloting an a/c again.

Who? moi? :)

Seriously, though, I do look askance at any union-supported position as a gut reaction, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be persuaded.

What I really mean to add to this discussion, is that surprise, surprise "your safety" is not really motivating the players, so there's really not much point in debating the mental acuity of pilots, as it simply isn't going to make the decision.

If the union wants this, it will be because they see an angle of some sort. And they latch on to anything that supports their pre-determined position, and discard/refute anything which does not.

At least the company has the built-in interest of avoiding lawsuits, which aligns with passenger safety, the unions have only inherently financial interests to protect.

Possiblement :)

If you go back and read the third link LarryJ posted though, you'll see it wasn't the union that originally pushed to get this into law.

From the story:

Glad that you are healthy in your advanced years, and If 60 is the new 30, then where are the 21 year old girls I should be getting? Seriously, who says that the rule is based SOLEY on age? There are certain bona fides you must meet to be a part 121 pilot. The government has affirmed that it is quite OK to have an age limit when this is the case.

Your twenty year old assistants must really enjoy working in the office with you. Does your ego have it's own office?

[QUOTE=robb]Sorry, I wouldn't trust any union further than I could throw it, and with my bad back, i shouldn't be throwing anyone. :(
QUOTE]

trust, but verify. You didn't go to the web site for those trying to overturn the rule, did you? Take a look. They are not a union and their facts are 180 degrees from yours

NOBODY is saying that he must retire from flying. There are certain jobs however which he will not be able to do.

My new brother-in-law is a pilot; next time I see him (which is rare), I'll get his opinion.

Analise, read my lips...THE UNIONS FOUGHT THE RULE. IT WAS NOT THEIR IDEA!!!! It was the COMPANIES that requested it.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think that their are groups of pilots trying to change the rule, but NO COMPANIES WANT THE RULE TO CHANGE? Do you think that it is some conspiracy and all of the sudden the companies are trying to get on our good sides?

Hmmmm, food for thought.

Unions have traditionally catered to the more senior highly paid employees because the theory is that we all will have that seniority at some point, it is just a matter of waiting your turn. If there is a good deal and a bad deal out there, who should get the bad deal, the senior guy? Face it, this is not socialism. Let' say it is February, and there is one trip to Winnepeg, and one trip to Miami. Guess where the junior guy is going to end up. It's our way of life

What you said about longevity misses another point. All airline pay scales end at 12 years. (ok, I am familiar with one that ends at 15) After 12 years longevity, there are no more step raises. You can replace a 30 year employee with a 12 year employee (at my airline it takes about ten to make captain) and your pay difference is ZERO, plus your trainiing costs just went up.

Finally, there really are no B scales out there anymore, and while there is no shortgae of qualified pilots out there today, hold onto your hats in the years to come. they will always find pilots, but the qualifications will go WAY low. there are just not that many people starting to fly now, and there are even fewer willing to make the sacrafices for what is becoming a mediocre career.