charlie hebdo And some got kicked upstairs into a lower stress job or got a golden parachute. Mandatory retirement at 65 was abolished long ago in many sectors. As OM said, it should not be arbitrary and should require an evaluation of relevant aspects of the person, cognitive, physical or emotional.
How would you know? As far as I can tell, you have never been close to the boardroom of a major corporation. What you know appears to be what you read and filter through your biases.
Outsiders that believe they know what transpires in a board of directors meeting or executive committe meeting are fooling themselves.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
I was directly or indirectly involved in corporate governance for three Fortune 500 companies.
The requirement that the executives of those companies retire when they reach 65 was driven by the board of directors, which in turned based their decisions on probabilities. There are exceptions, of course, but most executives have seen their better days by the time they reach 65.
Most of the savvy executives that I knew had stopped listening to the echo chamber in the back of their mind. They knew it was time to get out. They had worked 70 to 80-hour weeks for years. The sacrifices to them and their families were heavy.
I can think of at least two examples where executives stayed beyond 65 only to be burned badly. One was the CEO of one of my employers. He got a board exemption to the 65 mandatory retirement requirements. He lived to regret it. Two years later, while he was convincing himself that the company could not live without him, it went in the toilet. The other example is Joe Paterno. He stayed on because he apparent believed he was invincible. Penn State could not live without him. And we know how that turned out.
There is another reason for mandatory retirement. To make way for fresh blood and new ideas! Some people can perform well beyond 65 or whatever. But most dynamic organizations need a new visionary; someone that can inspire younger workers.
Leadership is about creating a vision and building a team of talented exeutives to make it happen. Most people on the downside of 60 don't have it. And most of the savvy ones know it.
Oh, by the way, these are not my ideas. They have been crafted by boards staffed with some of the brightest business minds in the country.
As long as someone can pass all the mental/cognative/physical tests, then who the hell are we to tell them they must take retirement?
Now why I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to retire, but then again, maybe they don't want to.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann As long as someone can pass all the mental/cognative/physical tests, then who the hell are we to tell them they must take retirement? Now why I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to retire, but then again, maybe they don't want to.
The boards of most large corporations have set mandatory retirement ages based on probabilities. Some executives function well after 65, but the probability is that most are stale by that age.
See my comments above about two executives that stayed too long and paid a steep price. Actually, the steepest price was paid by the institutions that allowed them to stay too long.
The question is whether Amtrak is likely to be best served by a 66 year old executive or by a younger person who is likely to have more staying power.
Executives have big egos. They believe their own press. And they tend to hear the praises of the sycophants that surround them. If they stay too long, they can do a lot of damage to the institution. They need a push to get out when their time is up. Age is as good a benchmark as any other.
PJS1Age is as good a benchmark as any other.
Seems to be a cop-out as a benchmark in this day and age.
Since this thread was an airplane thread for a while, I thought I would mention this.
I was the photographer hired by Lufthansa Techkik to document this project:
https://www.flyingmag.com/super-star-lockheed-constellation-project-moving-to-germany/
I worked on it over several years, and they were my last-ever client; although I was otherwise retired, I did continue working for Lufthansa Technik in hopes of seeing the project come to fruition, and see the plane fly out of there. I really, really wanted to see that.
But alas, after spending $200mil on the plane, they cut the wing (the individual "wings" were actually just halves of a single structure), and shipped it to Germany. Engineers in Auburn told me that cutting the wing meant the plane would never fly again. And rumors persist that before the pieces of the plane left Maine, the workers were instructed to destroy records, thus ensuring that the plane could never, ever fly again, as the FAA and its German equivalent require mega-detailed records for a restoration such as this.
To me, and to a lot of really great people who worked on this project, this ending is very sad. It was fascinating to shoot there.
I can't say I was totally shocked. Originally the job was supposed to take three years. IIRC, I was working there during around years 5 thru 9, and when I finally told them I was moving on, it was clear the completion was still years away.
Apparently there was no way to get the wing to Portland harbor (for shipping to Hamburg) in one piece.
Now, IF they even go as far as to put the various pieces back together, Lufthansa will own the world's most expensive static display aircraft.
Such a boondoggle. They had even tracked down the few surviving pilots who had flown Constellations, and had them train Lufthansa pilots.
I've read that when the plug was finally pulled, the plane was only about a year from completion as a safe, functioning, internally modernized aircraft. I believe there are no flyable Constellations anywhere in the world.
Such a bummer. It really got to me to see it end as it did. The historic aircraft world took it hard.
I thought some of you might find this interesting.
PJS1 charlie hebdo And some got kicked upstairs into a lower stress job or got a golden parachute. Mandatory retirement at 65 was abolished long ago in many sectors. As OM said, it should not be arbitrary and should require an evaluation of relevant aspects of the person, cognitive, physical or emotional. How would you know? As far as I can tell, you have never been close to the boardroom of a major corporation. What you know appears to be what you read and filter through your biases. Outsiders that believe they know what transpires in a board of directors meeting or executive committe meeting are fooling themselves.
How would you know? Were you on a board of directors? Or what my experience has been? Only about one third of S&P 500 companies have a mandatory retirement age. Sheldon Adelson and Warren Buffet might dispute your opinion. So might the new CEO of AIG. Fewer companies are forcing top execs outstanding 65,according to WAPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/27/fewer-companies-are-forcing-ceos-retire-when-they-hit-their-golden-years/
Here's an interesting article on this topic discussing a research study. It's not long so you could read it. https://www.qlksearch.com/blog/ceo-mandatory-retirement-age
Fascinating!! I saw one painted for TWA fly into DuPage airport back in the mid-90s as I recall. Elegant. There might be two operational super connies, one in Switzerland and one in Australia, according to wiki.
Sad to read in an article that the LH Ju 52 is not flying anymore. I saw it fly over Munich around 2012.
Backshop charlie hebdo Flintlock76 Well, there are B-52's out there being flown by the grandsons of the original pilots. And it's not because the Air Force is parsimonious, it's because the planes are that good. How old an aircraft is isn't as important as how well it's maintained. Theoretically B-52's will still be flying when they hit the 75 year old mark, there's no reason a 747 can't do the same. And I'll bet you there will be DC-3's flying when they hit the 100 year old mark, which isn't that far off, for some of them. Getting back to railroadin', remember what Don Colangelo, the "Alco Doctor" says... "Anthing's a piece of junk if you don't take care of it." My sentiments exactly. There are lots of old restored military aircraft that fly very well, a few from WWI. Restored historic aircraft and commercially viable ones are two entirely different subjects. Come back to me and let me know how many 747s are still flying in regular service. Also, the military flies their planes much less than an airline. Most commercial airline aircraft are in the air a minimum of 10-12 hours a day. Pilots get 800-1000 hours a year vs military ones who are lucky to get a couple hundred. PS Aircraft are aged by pressurization cycles, not years.
charlie hebdo Flintlock76 Well, there are B-52's out there being flown by the grandsons of the original pilots. And it's not because the Air Force is parsimonious, it's because the planes are that good. How old an aircraft is isn't as important as how well it's maintained. Theoretically B-52's will still be flying when they hit the 75 year old mark, there's no reason a 747 can't do the same. And I'll bet you there will be DC-3's flying when they hit the 100 year old mark, which isn't that far off, for some of them. Getting back to railroadin', remember what Don Colangelo, the "Alco Doctor" says... "Anthing's a piece of junk if you don't take care of it." My sentiments exactly. There are lots of old restored military aircraft that fly very well, a few from WWI.
Flintlock76 Well, there are B-52's out there being flown by the grandsons of the original pilots. And it's not because the Air Force is parsimonious, it's because the planes are that good. How old an aircraft is isn't as important as how well it's maintained. Theoretically B-52's will still be flying when they hit the 75 year old mark, there's no reason a 747 can't do the same. And I'll bet you there will be DC-3's flying when they hit the 100 year old mark, which isn't that far off, for some of them. Getting back to railroadin', remember what Don Colangelo, the "Alco Doctor" says... "Anthing's a piece of junk if you don't take care of it."
Well, there are B-52's out there being flown by the grandsons of the original pilots. And it's not because the Air Force is parsimonious, it's because the planes are that good.
How old an aircraft is isn't as important as how well it's maintained. Theoretically B-52's will still be flying when they hit the 75 year old mark, there's no reason a 747 can't do the same.
And I'll bet you there will be DC-3's flying when they hit the 100 year old mark, which isn't that far off, for some of them.
Getting back to railroadin', remember what Don Colangelo, the "Alco Doctor" says...
"Anthing's a piece of junk if you don't take care of it."
My sentiments exactly. There are lots of old restored military aircraft that fly very well, a few from WWI.
Restored historic aircraft and commercially viable ones are two entirely different subjects. Come back to me and let me know how many 747s are still flying in regular service. Also, the military flies their planes much less than an airline. Most commercial airline aircraft are in the air a minimum of 10-12 hours a day. Pilots get 800-1000 hours a year vs military ones who are lucky to get a couple hundred.
PS Aircraft are aged by pressurization cycles, not years.
According to CAPA, as of April, 2018, there were 505 747s in service over half as freighters. Probably there are somewhat fewer now.
charlie hebdoAccording to CAPA, as of April, 2018 there were 505 747s in service, over half as freighters. Probably there are somewhat fewer now.
Aren't there something like 20 747-8s still on backorder?
Overmod charlie hebdo According to CAPA, as of April, 2018 there were 505 747s in service, over half as freighters. Probably there are somewhat fewer now. Aren't there something like 20 747-8s still on backorder?
charlie hebdo According to CAPA, as of April, 2018 there were 505 747s in service, over half as freighters. Probably there are somewhat fewer now.
charlie hebdo Fascinating!! I saw one painted for TWA fly into DuPage airport back in the mid-90s as I recall. Elegant. There might be two operational super connies, one in Switzerland and one in Australia, according to wiki. Sad to read in an article that the LH Ju 52 is not flying anymore. I saw it fly over Munich around 2012.
The TWA one is based at MKC - in downtown Kansas City.
http://www.conniesurvivors.com/1-twa_75th_anniversary.htm
What an elegant aiplane that Connie is! I'm reminded of the old aeronautical engineer's saying, "If it looks good it'll fly good!"
I can't think of any instances where that wasn't true. And the Connie is certainly a looker!
Flintlock76What an elegant aiplane that Connie is! I'm reminded of the old aeronautical engineer's saying, "If it looks good it'll fly good!" I can't think of any instances where that wasn't true. And the Connie is certainly a looker!
In comparison to today's planes - the 'long legged' landing gear of the Constellation gives it a unique look on the ground as well.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Sorry; I missed the earlier posts about the dash-8s.
I agree that the lack of a program to fit more fuel-efficient power is a 'bad sign' for continued high utilization. Most of the airplane's future otherwise would be solely in freight or 'mixed' service, not the market that aircraft like the 787 would serve 'new'.
I still find it almost amazing that the B-52 power replacement program has taken as long as it has.
The problem with the 748 is that it has 4 engines. The 777 is almost the same passenger capacity with two, larger engines. With the advent of ETOPS 330, twins can fly long, overwater legs without having to fly a longer path to stay within reach of a diversion airport. The original 747 was popular for its endurance. Now that smaller twins have the endurance, it's not needed. Customers want multiple flights a day, not one in a large aircraft. With the coronavirus epidemic, Emirates, which depends greatly on the A380, is going to have problems filling their seats.
Does flying various 747Fs, some a few years old, mean Atlas is a crappy airline and Flynn is a bad CEO?
No, but their hiring practices do. Not only don't they not do thorough checks, but because of their pay scale, they don't get the best pilots applying. UPS pays a second year FO $186/flight hour. Atlas pays $100.
https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/atlas_air
https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/airlines/cargo/united_parcel_service
There are two types of pilots---they are called QOL and BSA. Atlas attracts BSA (Big Shiny Airplane). IOW--they can fly a plane that that they wouldn't have the experience or time to fly at a major airline. They are also on-call, spend long layovers away from home waiting for another load, etc. The others are Quality of Life. That doesn't have to be explained.
Much of their growth has been through Amazon. Amazon squeezes their suppliers to cut costs as bad as Walmart does.
BackshopMuch of their growth has been through Amazon. Amazon squeezes their suppliers to cut costs as bad as Walmart does.
And we CHEER on Amazon and Walmart to keep lowering their prices.
And you expect those that depend upon either organization for their income to run a QoL operation????????????? The height of hypocrisy.
CMStPnP He-he-he, Southern Air Transport. I'll bet few here know the fuzzy background of that company.
He-he-he, Southern Air Transport. I'll bet few here know the fuzzy background of that company.
divebardave CMStPnP He-he-he, Southern Air Transport. I'll bet few here know the fuzzy background of that company. I do and they owe back rent to the City of Columbus for there hanger. Southern Air Transport is aka "Air America"
I do and they owe back rent to the City of Columbus for there hanger. Southern Air Transport is aka "Air America"
CIA?
Lithonia OperatorCIA?
It was when I was in uniform (Central America Conflicts) and also during Vietnam but I am not sure it still is.
He's right. The agency does have a need for cover firms.
That is correct. Southern Air Transport is a well known CIA front company from the Vietnam War and it was resurrected again for the Central American Wars of the 1980's, I think by ret USAF General Secord and company. I was surprised to see it in his bio, it was probably a legit company when he was there as it has moved from legit to CIA Front back to legit, back to CIA Front. More than once.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.