Duane Woerth and age 60

[Goose17]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a1WIUiLsOMTk

"Neutral Leaders

Some panelists didn't endorse either view in the report, including the co-chairs, Jim May, president of the Air Transport Association airline industry trade group and Duane Woerth, president of the Airline Pilots Association. Both men declined to comment through their spokesmen."


I am not one to trash talk union officials, but I found it interesting that even though the Alpa pilots voted to keep the retirement age at 60, DW remained "neutral" on the topic. Me thinks he personally wants to raise the age, but when his union voted it down, he now has no comment.

Goose17

 

[HA25]

Well, I for one am all for raising the age to 60!

After I get my recall at AA!

 

[pipe]

First thing I thought when I saw the report. Here's the question:

Is he on his way out because he hasn't done what his constituents want,

or

is he doing whatever the he!! he wants because he is on the way out?

PIPE

 

[Jim]

It's a dead issue for this Congress anyway. I got a call today from one of my Congressman's staffer. We had a long talk about the whole thing. Her boss was supporting age 65 just because his fellow Congressman from Nevada was a sponsor and asked him to co-sponsor the legislation. The staffer admitted they never really researched the issue in their office before signing on as a co-sponsor/supporter.

She did confirm Andy's view that age 65 is a dead issue for this Congress. She said there will be Continuing Resolutions passed to fund the government until the next Congress instead of the appropriation bill that age 65 is attached to. When Congress adjourns all outstanding bills die - age 65 included. Someone will have to reintroduce the bill in the next Congress.

Duane Worthless is supposed to represent the views of the majority of ALPA whether he is a lame duck or not. His neutral stance is not what the majority of ALPA told him they wanted. It's a good thing he's history.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I wasn't aware that the membership informed DW or ALPA on thier age 60 views? ALPA did a full educational campaign and then provided a survey for every active member to particpate in. Only 30% did. If only 30% particpate in the survey, I'd think the leadership can do whatever they want...

What am I missing?

 

[Falconjet]

Just the facts evidently.

FJ

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Just the facts evidently.

FJ

School me....

 

[FNG_that's me]

School me....

OK:


STATEMENT OF
CAPTAIN DUANE E. WOERTH
PRESIDENT
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL
BEFORE
THE AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON
THE FAA AGE 60 RULE
JULY 19, 2005


Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Duane Woerth, President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Our union—the largest pilot union in the world—represents more than 64,000 airline pilots at 41 carriers. On behalf of ALPA, I appreciate the invitation to appear before the Committee today to present ALPA’s views on the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots as specified under the FAA regulation commonly known as the “Age 60 Rule.”
The federal regulation that restricts airline pilots from flying as captains and first officers in Part 121 operations is one of the most historically contentious issues among the pilot community. For every strongly held opinion that this rule must be changed, an equally strong opinion holds that it remain the same. As many of you already know, our Association recently completed the most comprehensive information campaign and member survey that our union has ever conducted on a single issue. The results of that survey were presented for discussion to our Executive Board, which is made up of the leaders of our 41 pilot groups.
Their discussion led to a unanimous vote to accept the reported results, leaving our policy on the rule intact. No matter their personal views on the issue, or the views within their own pilot communities, the ALPA Executive Board agreed that the information campaign had been exhaustive and balanced, that our members understood the issues at stake, and that the survey results were clear and accurate. Their unanimity makes it possible for me to state for the record today that the Air Line Pilots Association opposes changing the Age 60 Rule, as we have since 1980.
Results of the ALPA Age 60 Survey
Since September 2004, when we began this initiative, our members have considered the issue from many angles, weighed the evidence, and expressed their views on the Age 60 Rule candidly and forthrightly. The assessment of ALPA members’ views is based on two studies with identical questionnaires. The first was a telephone poll conducted from March 30 through April 4. The second was a web-based survey conducted from April 4 through April 29, 2005. Taken together, the telephone poll data and the two sets of demographically stratified web survey data provide extremely accurate results, with a raw sample margin of error of less than 1% and less than 0.5% with sample stratification. We specifically excluded polling our roughly 5,000 furloughed pilots, who would presumably be the strongest supporters of keeping the rule in place.
The results of the survey show that a majority of ALPA pilots favor maintaining the Age 60 Rule. Consider the following statistics from the survey:
· When asked in a straight-forward yes or no format, “Do you favor changing the FAA Age 60 Rule?” 56% of ALPA pilots support maintaining the current rule; 42% want it to change.

· When we asked pilots specifically about changing the rule to age 65, support for maintaining the current rule rose to 58% and support for change dropped to 39%.

· The more specific we got, the fewer pilots supported change. When given a series of options and asked which they would most support, 54% support the current rule, while only 10% support increasing the age limit to 62, and only 22% support increasing it to 65. Further, fewer than 10% support the option of changing the rule to one that measures physical ability and health on an individual basis, regardless of age. And, fewer than 5% support increasing the age limit to higher than age 65 (2%) or lifting the age limit completely (3%).

Several collateral findings indicate that the majority who oppose a change in the Age 60 Rule could grow even larger—into the low-to-mid-60% range or higher—depending on the specifics of any requirements and/or restrictions that might be proposed. We asked pilots whether they support additional operational and/or medical requirements if the rule is changed. Only 29% support additional medical exams, a mere 23% support more line/simulator checks, and only 22% support additional operational restrictions if the age 60 regulation is changed.
These results reflect the pilot profession’s perspective on the Age 60 Rule. Additionally, numerous court decisions, extensive medical studies, and previous Congressional actions have led to the same conclusion: This rule should be changed only if we can guarantee—beyond all reasonable doubt—that any change will have a positive effect on air safety.

 

[FNG_that's me]

second half of Duane's message

Rationale for Maintaining the FAA Age 60 Rule
The Age 60 Rule is based on two fundamental principles of medical science that are indisputable. First, the risks of incapacitation and unacceptable decrements in performance increase with age. Second, medical science has not developed a regimen of reliable tests that can be administered effectively to determine which aging pilots will become incapacitated, or whose performance will decline to an unacceptable level. The issues surrounding the regulation have been studied as thoroughly as any aeromedical matter affecting pilots, and after decades of comprehensive studies and exhaustive review, these two principles are still valid as the underlying basis for the rule.
The FAA, when it reviewed the most advanced cognitive testing technology, known as CogScreen-AE, concluded that that test “cannot sufficiently identify age-related cognitive function deficits that would impact pilot performance and aircraft safety.” On appeal of this decision in Yetman v. Garvey 261 F.3d at 675 (7th Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals affirmed the FAA’s decision, concluding: “Ultimately, we find that substantial evidence supports the FAA’s finding that CogScreen-AE is not, at this point, an adequate cognitive tool for determining whether an exemption to the Age Sixty Rule is warranted.”
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling declining to hear a group of pilots’ applications for exemption from the FAA Age 60 Rule in Butler v. FAA, cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 1986 (May 2, 2005).
The Age 60 Rule has also withstood the legal challenge that it constitutes age discrimination. Although the rule does mandate a chronological age for retirement, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that it does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In Professional Pilots Federation (PPF) v. FAA, 118 F.3d at 763 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the court held that, “nothing in the ADEA can plausibly be read to restrict the FAA from making age a criterion for employment when it acts in its capacity as the guarantor of public safety in the air…therefore, we conclude that the ADEA does not limit the authority of the FAA to prescribe a mandatory retirement age for pilots.”
In late 1979, the House of Representatives rejected a proposal to relax the rule, and directed the National Institutes of Health to conduct a study to determine if sufficient medical evidence supported the rule. In August 1981, the National Institute of Aging Review Panel on the Experienced Pilots Study, which was responsible for reviewing the study and submitting a report to Congress, concluded:
“The Panel attaches no special medical significance to age 60 as a mandatory age for retirement of airline pilots. It finds, however, that age-related changes in health and performance influence adversely the ability of increasing numbers of individuals to perform as pilots with the highest level of safety and, consequently, endanger the safety of the aviation system as a whole. Moreover, the Panel could not identify the existence of a medical or performance appraisal system that can single out those pilots who would pose the greatest hazard because of early or impending deterioration in health or performance.”
After the NIA completed its review, the rule was contested in Federal Court and reconsidered by the FAA. In 1989, in response to a directive by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the FAA reviewed the evidence and reaffirmed its support of the rule. In the decision, the FAA’s Director of Flight Standards stated:
“Based upon all of the studies discussed, we conclude that an older pilot’s edge in experience does not offset the undetected physical infirmities associated with the aging process. Notwithstanding that most pilots who are approaching or have passed age 60 report that their health is excellent and they do not experience any physical or cognitive limitations which would prevent them from continuing their flying career, the research of aging indicates that there is often a sharp decline in physical and cognitive performance after age 60. There is substantial scientific evidence which indicates that the greater experience of the pilots who have reached or passed age 60 does not outweigh the increased risk of incapacitation or skill deterioration which accompanies seniority.”
Between 1990 and 1994, the FAA sponsored a four-part study, known as the “Hilton Reports,” to review the Age 60 Rule. The part that received the most attention was a study of accident rates as a function of age, and that part concluded that the FAA could cautiously raise the age limit to 63. However, the FAA found some substantial flaws in the accident study and never adopted its conclusions. The D.C. Circuit upheld the FAA’s decision in PPF v. FAA, 118 F.3d at 769.
Between 2000 and 2003, the FAA, at the request of Congress, sponsored an updated four-part study conducted by the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI). The CAMI study claimed that no necessary relationship existed between the accident rate and pilot age, but in 2004 an update to the original CAMI study analyzed the general methodology used in accident studies and concluded that the data are prone to errors and misinterpretations, thus calling into question the results.
Advocates for changing the rule point out that many countries have an upper age limit beyond 60 and a few have no upper age limit at all. Some countries have modified their regulations for licensure purposes as one way to address their pilot staffing needs. However, this is not a need in the United States, where more than 6,000 ALPA pilots are currently furloughed because of the financial state of the airline industry.
Pilots for many of the major airlines in Europe actually retire before the age of 60, some as young as 55. This corresponds with a large percentage of pilots for the major U.S. carriers who actually retire before age 60 for medical or other reasons. Also, regardless of the local regulatory requirement, at most European national carriers, their collective bargaining agreements govern the retirement age, which in most cases is less than 60, and pilots older than 60 are generally limited to the second-in-command position.
These examples substantiate the FAA’s determination that the Age 60 Rule is reasonable and within an acceptable range of risk for commercial air transportation operations and has proven to be an effective safety regulation. The results of the ALPA Age 60 survey reaffirm the Association’s policy in support of the FAA’s position.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude my statement by saying that commercial aviation is the safest form of transport in human history. I am proud of the role that ALPA pilots have played in achieving that reality. We cannot take that reality for granted, however. We must do all we can to defend and preserve our safety record—and resist all attempts to change safety regulations simply to boost profit margins. The Age 60 Rule is a safety regulation and should not be changed or repealed unless and until the FAA—not ALPA or any other pilot organization—is convinced, based on sufficient and conclusive evidence, that such action would not have a negative effect on safety. Thank you for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

 

[FNG_that's me]

So, last year he passed on the message of the body...this year, not so much.

 

[ESS PWR]

I wasn't aware that the membership informed DW or ALPA on thier age 60 views? ALPA did a full educational campaign and then provided a survey for every active member to particpate in. Only 30% did. If only 30% particpate in the survey, I'd think the leadership can do whatever they want...

What am I missing?

I think from the leadership standpoint if only 30% of your members participate in a survey, then you must assume it may not be an important enough issue for the non-participant members to amend current policy and are comfortable with status quo.

 

[Falconjet]

Rez: What membership are you referring to? Members of Congress or members of the union.

The union membership was loud and clear about their opinion on age 60. The MAJORITY of the membership was in favor of keeping the Age 60 rule in place. The "survey" specifically excluded 6000 furloughed members but included Canadian pilots in an effort to rig the results in favor of change.

Still the MAJORITY of the pilots were in favor of no change. News agencies and pollsters sample 1/100 of the population and extrapolate results from those tiny sample sizes. If 30% of ALPA pilots responded (and I have never heard that figure, and I'm sure the pro change guys would have tried to capitalize on that) that is way more than the sample size of most polls.

I am very confident that the MAJORITY of ALPA members are in favor of keeping age 60 in place and the President of our union ought to beat the bushes every day pleading our case to whoever will listen, even if he is a lame duck.

FJ

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

page 3. only 38% bothered to particpate.

https://crewroom.alpa.org/DesktopMo...View.aspx?itemid=1567&ModuleId=1255&Tabid=251

If DW is going to represent this to industry or congress I don't think he will say only 38% of pilots even cared to particapte. Would you?

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Rez, do you know what a representative sample is?

As president of the union, I am shocked you do not understand what a scientifically representative sample is?

Your 38% claim must prove that you tried to rig the results and have been discourage by your lack of ability to FIX the results against what the majority clearly wants.

 

[Falconjet]

Ok, 38% it is. I still feel that it is way more of a sample size than most pollsters use when they conduct a survey. Most pollsters would kill for that kind of a response rate.

Also, I for one almost didn't reply because they excluded furloughed and probationary pilots at American carriers yet included pilots from Canadian carriers. I sent the union NUMEROUS emails complaining about this blatant effort to skew the results in favor of change. Perhaps a lot of other active pilots similarly refused to participate in what they considered a blatant attempt to rubber stamp the results.

In any case, I am a proud ALPA member and back my MEC. I have my issues with the union, and this is one of them, but I back my brothers and sisters. I was on the picket line today in support of Pinnacle (and other) carriers so don't take my concerns for a lack of support for the union and our efforts.

FJ

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

FJ-

This is an issue orientated discussion. No one is calling into to question your involvment. (BTW you FX guys looked good out there today! )

The whole age 60 issue is polarized. ALPA spent alot of time with the in Focus campaign to get members up to speed. However, if it was really a big issue why only 38%?

 

[FNG_that's me]

FJ-

This is an issue orientated discussion. No one is calling into to question your involvment. (BTW you FX guys looked good out there today! )

The whole age 60 issue is polarized. ALPA spent alot of time with the in Focus campaign to get members up to speed. However, if it was really a big issue why only 38%?

Rez,

You can do your PHD on the answer to that question. The bottom line is, the results were significant, especially when taken in the context that the method was so slanted towards favoring change. Even the polls taken here on FI and other places all say the same thing.

If you want to fix things with ALPA, be my guest. But to do that you've got to get involved at their level, not here. And you've got to be dedicated to correcting a 'wrong' not just getting them to endorse what you want them to.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Rez,

You can do your PHD on the answer to that question. The bottom line is, the results were significant, especially when taken in the context that the method was so slanted towards favoring change. Even the polls taken here on FI and other places all say the same thing.

If you want to fix things with ALPA, be my guest. But to do that you've got to get involved at their level, not here. And you've got to be dedicated to correcting a 'wrong' not just getting them to endorse what you want them to.

Agreed!

 

[Occam's Razor]

When they were appointed, both co-chairs agreed they would not issue an endorsement.

Looks like they did what they said they were going to do...

Where's the fire?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

When they were appointed, both co-chairs agreed they would not issue an endorsement.

Looks like they did what they said they were going to do...

Where's the fire?

Look's like you put it out.... instead of halon you used information, pragmatism and non emotional objectivity.... pretty effective...