Good news for pilots - retirement age

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

Greg Farris writes:

The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.

Is that really good news for pilots who were looking forward to
retiring at 60?

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Greg Farris writes:

The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.

Is that really good news for pilots who were looking forward to
retiring at 60?

Which pilots would those be...?

I imagine piloting a simulator might become boring; real aircraft with
air under your very own ass, rarely, if ever.

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

Pass... a-dena
-----

- gpsman

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:39:48 +0100, Greg Farris
wrote in :

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

If I recall correctly, that has repeatedly occurred over the last few
decades.

Greg Farris wrote:
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

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"????

-Robert

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.

So yes, pilots can work longer. And that's good for older pilots (even if
a little temporarily painful for younger pilots {8^). But there is also
that economic downside of the increased supply of pilots to consider.

- Andrew

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
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


Robert is right. Some of the greatest "Saves" in aviation history have
been accomplished by a 59 year old captain, Al Haynes/Sioux City comes to
mind
as does a B737 convertible for Hawaiian airlines. Both of these crews had an
"ancient" captain, legally on his last legs age wise, and both exhibited
incredible skill and knowlege of the systems in the process of saving
hundreds of lives. This is no accident, literally.

Al G

Al G

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.

It'll never change, because (after verifying that 60 is the new 50) the
bureaucrats would have to admit that most government pension programs
are absurdly generous and financially unsustainable over time.

Face it: If they admit that age 60 is "too young" to retire (and we
*all* know it is), they will be forced to reassess their own ridiculous
"30 years and out with full-benefits" policy that allows 52 year-old
gummint employees to retire with full pensions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:


It'll never change, because (after verifying that 60 is the new 50) the
bureaucrats would have to admit that most government pension programs
are absurdly generous and financially unsustainable over time.

Keeping people working longer helps because they are still contributing.



Face it: If they admit that age 60 is "too young" to retire (and we
*all* know it is), they will be forced to reassess their own ridiculous
"30 years and out with full-benefits" policy that allows 52 year-old
gummint employees to retire with full pensions.

My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years.

Case closed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"