Thread started: Dec 14 2007, 1:08 PM EST
Watch
A new federal law raises the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65 – but there is disagreement among pilots themselves about whether this is a good idea (see this week’s story). What do you think? Would you feel safer – or less safe -- knowing that the pilots in the cockpit of your flight were both in their mid-60s? Post your comments here.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
Do you?
Show Last Reply
|
|
Last Reply:
RE: Should pilots retire at 60 or 65?
By: ,
Dec 18 2007, 10:13 AM EST
The traveling public should be less concerned about over-60 mainline pilots than they should be about the barely-over-20 regional jet pilots that are now seemingly everywhere.
In their zeal to outsource mainline jobs -- including those of experienced pilots -- the airlines have replaced full-size jets with regional jets at a 3-to-1 ratio. (That is also the reason there are ground stops and delays at LGA, JFK, DCA, PHL, ORD, BOS, etc. even on sunny days. Too many RJ's taking up too much airspace and pavement.) Because of this explosive growth at the regional airlines, the low starting pay, and the diminished chances of moving up to the now smaller major airlines, the regionals are unable to attract or retain enough qualified pilots, and therefore are hiring kids right out of college with very little experience.
Is that who you want landing your airplane in a half-mile visibility, in blowing snow ,in a stiff crosswind on the short runway in Ithaca, NY? Well, more likely than not, that's what you're going to get. (And you may have noticed that in the last couple of weeks, RJ's have slid off runways in Des Moines and Providence during snowstorms.)
out of
found this valuable.
Do you find this valuable?
|
