Which is why it will never happen unless it happens on a global scale. And the reality of that happening is pretty much zero. 67 MAYBE... but unlikely.betster wrote: ↑Thu May 06, 2021 9:57 am This is Canada. We are supposed to be leaders in human rights. Mandatory retirement is ageism pure and simple. The disrespect shown here based on age is unprofessional as well. If someone can hold a medical let them fly. If more frequent medicals are required (based on evidenced based medicine) thats fine. The tricky part is flying into other Countries and balancing the cherry picking of schedules to meet this requirement. That is for someone to figure out above my pay grade.
Age 67 or 69
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
-
simply_no_one
- Rank 3
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 8:04 pm
Re: Age 67 or 69
Re: Age 67 or 69
Your arguments are fucked up pal. Telling people that disagree with you to kill themselves, going straight to weird shit about parasites in brains and calling them racists.
You really need to look at yourself. You have issues. It's okay to talk about things and disagree.
Your token examples are bullshit anyway.
It's hardly a human rights violation to retire with benefits and a six figure pension for the rest of your life, that's what the majority of the cases are.
Fact is that we're all adults whether you joined at 25 or 55 and we knew the score, you got a problem now then you're a hypocrite. Get some integrity and stand by what you signed on for.
Further, the wokest of agencies... the fricking UN... don't have a problem with the rule as it stands. 65 year old white male discriminated against? There's no such thing... LOL...
And I'll restate my position. I would prefer status quo, I'll never be on top, but I want my years as close to it as I expected within the time I expected to be here when I joined and the pay and schedule and choice that affords. But if someone is going to push me down further... take another 5 years progression away... fück that. I say blended pay for all Captains whether you're on a 777 or a 220 same pay, socialized bidding for all seats, socialized vacation, no more seniority except for layoffs.
We put a lot of benefits into our profession based on seniority, and I support that, but if you don't want to make the most of your time at the trough and leave when your time is up then fück you... get back to work.
-
Cavalier44
- Rank 4
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 6:32 am
Re: Age 67 or 69
This thread has been badly derailed, but I'll try to get back on topic.
On a basis of pure physical fitness to do the job (career progression of junior pilots notwithstanding), I would have no issue with the mandatory retirement age being extended to 67, however, with that being said, TC's Civil Aviation Medical Examiners would have to step up and start doing their jobs more consistently. Maybe this isn't such an issue at Air Canada where the medicals are done in-house, but at other carriers, I've flown with many +60 pilots who had no business being in the left seat of the aircraft - either being half-blind, deaf, cognitively impaired (forgetting critical checklist items repeatedly), etc.
The issue is that over the decades, many of these older guys have developed a buddy-buddy relationship with their CAME, and they continue passing Cat 1 medicals that, were the standards being properly applied, they would not be passing. If you ask most pilots, they probably know of a "good" doctor that you can go see and be finished in 5 minutes flat - put the cash in their hand and they stamp the pilot's license, adios, see you in another year. Compared with other jurisdictions such as the USA and EU, the process to get a Canadian Cat 1 medical is almost trivially easy by comparison.
With that being said, I'm not saying that every pilot over the age of 60 or 65 suffers from these kinds of ailments - I've also flown with many skilled, competent, experienced pilots in the same age group who could've easily continued flying past 65. The issue, unfortunately, is that the older one gets, the higher the chances that these types of complications start to present themselves. We would need much more stringent screening to ensure that pilots in this age group are safe to be flying, and we would need those standards to be enforced on a much more consistent basis than they are now.
On a basis of pure physical fitness to do the job (career progression of junior pilots notwithstanding), I would have no issue with the mandatory retirement age being extended to 67, however, with that being said, TC's Civil Aviation Medical Examiners would have to step up and start doing their jobs more consistently. Maybe this isn't such an issue at Air Canada where the medicals are done in-house, but at other carriers, I've flown with many +60 pilots who had no business being in the left seat of the aircraft - either being half-blind, deaf, cognitively impaired (forgetting critical checklist items repeatedly), etc.
The issue is that over the decades, many of these older guys have developed a buddy-buddy relationship with their CAME, and they continue passing Cat 1 medicals that, were the standards being properly applied, they would not be passing. If you ask most pilots, they probably know of a "good" doctor that you can go see and be finished in 5 minutes flat - put the cash in their hand and they stamp the pilot's license, adios, see you in another year. Compared with other jurisdictions such as the USA and EU, the process to get a Canadian Cat 1 medical is almost trivially easy by comparison.
With that being said, I'm not saying that every pilot over the age of 60 or 65 suffers from these kinds of ailments - I've also flown with many skilled, competent, experienced pilots in the same age group who could've easily continued flying past 65. The issue, unfortunately, is that the older one gets, the higher the chances that these types of complications start to present themselves. We would need much more stringent screening to ensure that pilots in this age group are safe to be flying, and we would need those standards to be enforced on a much more consistent basis than they are now.
Re: Age 67 or 69
I’m sure they could be assigned to the Q400 at jazz since that spends most of its time in domestic airspace. That would be a good compromise
-
co-joe
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Re: Age 67 or 69
most guys above 60 struggle to get into that seat. I cant imagine a senior citizen trying it..
Re: Age 67 or 69
You can never trust a guy beside you that wears a long sleeve.NotDirty! wrote: ↑Wed May 05, 2021 5:32 pmBut can we judge someone based on the length of their sleeves?alkaseltzer wrote: ↑Tue May 04, 2021 9:59 pm Judging on age is discriminatory, similar to gender, race, or the colour of your socks.
Re: Age 67 or 69
Bring Back Age 60!
I love long sleeved shirts in the winter.
I love long sleeved shirts in the winter.
