|
Originally Posted by Analise
My new brother-in-law is a pilot; next time I see him (which is rare), I'll get his opinion.
|
Originally Posted by Punki
It is all about abilities, and not at all about age.
The FAA's position on this is very simple. Any change in the rule must improve, or at least not decrease, safety. Developing such tests would improve safety as they would be able to catch those who deteriorate faster than average even before they turn 60. |
Originally Posted by robb
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.
Originally Posted by http://www.ppf.org/chrono.htm
Early 1950’s Several airlines unilaterally established mandatory pilot retirements at age 60. ALPA objected, but enhanced retirement programs were then taking precedence in its contract negotiations, so did not actively resist the issue.
Feb.5, 1959 C.R. Smith, Chairman of American (and a personal friend of Gen. Quesada) addressed a personal plea (that, by its typographical errors [FOIA] he seems to have prepared himself), to Gen. Quesada, acknowledging his loss on the age 60 retirement issue, and seeking an FAA regulation to solve his labor problem. June 1959 FAA initiates the regulatory process in response to the request by C.R. Smith for a mandatory age 60 pilot retirement. |
Originally Posted by 747pilot
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. |
Originally Posted by KathyWdrf
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.
Ultimately, the goal would be to eliminate mandatory retirement entirely when it can be replaced by a system which works better. Changing the age to 63 or 65 does nothing to eliminate the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the current system, it only changes who benefits and who's career is set back. |
Originally Posted by Analise
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.
I am not aware of any such tests which can quantify the mental degradation we all experience with age nor any data on where the fly/no-fly line should be drawn if, and when, such tests are available. What we DO know is that most airline pilots can fly safely to age 60. There are some who can not and, unfortunetly, the current system does a poor job of weeding them out. If we raise the retirement age without first doing as I described above then we will be increasing the number of such pilots who are allowed to continue flying. |
Originally Posted by letiole
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.
|
Originally Posted by robb
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.
|
Originally Posted by 747pilot
Let' say it is February, and there is one trip to Winnepeg, and one trip to Miami.
|
Originally Posted by LarryJ
And that would differ from the actions of the companies, politicians and government officials in what way?
As for politicians and government officials, their self-interest is aligned with whoever is writing the bigger check, don't lump me in with them! |
Originally Posted by robb
It's just that the self-interest of the company aligns with the interests of consumers and the general public, unlike those of the unions.
|
Originally Posted by KathyWdrf
And on the other topic of mandatory retirement ages for FAs, as many of you already know, there is at least one FA in her eighties still working for UA; she's been with them since the 1940's, I believe.^
Since FA's get all their assignments almost solely on seniority, being #1 is a REALLY big deal. Cheers, Leo |
Originally Posted by letiole
I think you missed the point of my post, much as you missed my post on the first page. And yes, there are essentially B scales out there.
Just where are there B scales anymore? Remember what the definition of a B scale is. Two people doing the same job at the same company on different wage scales based on the date that they were hired |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:53 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.