Timeline for Are airline pilots worn out at an age of 55?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | Michael Hall | @joshua, I have around 2800 hours in airplanes that needed a huffer to start. Everyone of them was airworthy. Well, most of the time... | |
| Aug 24, 2018 at 5:13 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Federico: I think you're addressing something else. Of course people are seldom if ever happy with salary cuts, but I'm talking about pilots who were competent and satisfied to be flying for $X at age 59. Why should that change just because they're a year or two older? Or even if the option is to keep on flying for 1/2 X, rather than be forced into retirement. Works that way for me, anyway (in a different line of work): I've several times taken lower-paying jobs because the work was more interesting. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 20:28 | comment | added | Federico | @jamesqf because the people that now have 59 years and gain X, were very happy when years ago were getting 2X or 3X, and when the money got cut, they were too old to be employable elsewhere. I see this first hand and money is very much part of the question. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 18:29 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Federico: I'd think the money would be absolutely irrelevant to questions of proficiency, and fairly irrelevant to the retirement question. I mean, if you were satisfied with making $X at age 59, why wouldn't you be satisfied making it at 61? And if you weren't satisfied, wouldn't you have quit and gone into some more lucrative field long before you reached the age where retirement was an option? | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 6:47 | comment | added | Federico | I think the core of the answer is here "The money was also very good!". Would you have felt the same if you would have been paid half or less? (that is the ~ situation today w.r.t. 1999) | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 19:48 | comment | added | Terry | @Joshua Dispatching large aircraft with inoperative APUs is common. When the APU is not needed for flight (indeed in many cases cannot even be used in flight), airworthiness is not compromised. There are, in fact, many aircraft that have to have a ground-assist to start. Think of it this way, if performance once is the air is the overriding factor, why would you want to haul into the air all of the weight of the equipment that would allow you to self-start. The problem at Harare wasn't airworthiness, but rather "ground worthiness" if you will of the ground support equipment. | |
| Feb 15, 2016 at 17:19 | comment | added | Joshua | I'm disturbed that you think a plane that can't start its own engines is airworthy. | |
| Dec 31, 2015 at 20:17 | vote | accept | Peter Kämpf | ||
| Sep 30, 2014 at 15:56 | comment | added | Peter Kämpf | Hi Terry, I was looking forward to your answer, and you didn't disappoint me! I asked to get the view of an expert like you, and fully agree with your view. | |
| Sep 30, 2014 at 7:59 | history | answered | Terry | CC BY-SA 3.0 |