News reporting FAA raises age to 65

[Rebel]

Both CBS and NBC news are reporting the FAA plans on raising the retirement age to 65. Details to follow tomorrow (Tuesday 01/30) at the FAA press briefing.
For better or worse, I guess it's begun...

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

From WSJ:

FAA to Propose Raising
Pilot Retirement Age
By ANDY PASZTOR
January 29, 2007 5:34 p.m.

LOS ANGELES -- U.S. aviation regulators are expected to announce as early as Tuesday that they will formally propose raising the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots to 65 years from the current limit of 60 years, according to industry officials familiar with the matter.

Federal Aviation Administration chief Marion Blakey's anticipated proposal allowing older pilots to stay behind the controls reverses decades of strong agency support for the 60-year retirement limit. The shift comes as international aviation rules increasingly permit such changes. Meanwhile, the leadership of largest U.S. pilot union is moving to abandon previous hard-line opposition to raising the retirement age. And recent research on brain functioning could provide ammunition to counter arguments that older pilots would mean increased safety risks.

By opting to begin formal rulemaking -- a process that will solicit a wide range of views and potentially could be controversial enough to delay a decision for 18 months or longer -- the FAA is relying partly on the notion that there isn't any solid scientific evidence to justify maintaining the current limit. Indeed, recent discoveries of brain functions suggest that for many older people, experience and ingrained patterns of thinking actually can help keep them at the top of their game as pilots, air-traffic controllers and in other professions. Some tests, for example, have revealed that older controllers in their 60s were able to handle simulated emergencies as well or better than younger ones.

A hotly contested rulemaking could last for 18 months or longer. But if pilot unions and other groups adopt a conciliatory stance and don't lob in a barrage of objections, a so-called fast track rulemaking could be completed more quickly, according to industry officials familiar with the issue.

The Air Line Pilots Association, the largest U.S. pilot union, had been a staunch opponent of raising the retirement age, with surveys showing that a majority of its members supported the 60-year limit that makes it easier for younger pilots to move up in seniority. But John Prater, the recently elected president of ALPA, campaigned on pledge to rethink and perhaps abandon that position. Tough economic conditions for the industry have eroded pilot pensions and wages, prompting more veteran pilots to look to extend their careers and add to their earnings.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency that sets nonbinding global safety standards, last November determined that airline pilots could safely stay behind the controls until they turn 65, as long as the other pilot in the cockpit is younger than 60. FAA officials have told industry officials that their proposal adopting the same principle will be laid out tomorrow, when the FAA chief delivers a speech to the National Press Club in Washington.

And FAA spokeswoman said that the agency has been "looking very closely at whether we should adopt the ICAO standard." Last-minute discussions with White House officials threatened to delay the announcement, but industry officials said the FAA is now ready to announce its new position. The decision follows weeks of FAA signals and news reports, starting with a story in the Wall Street Journal last December, that the agency was leaning toward a change.

The 60-year rule was established nearly 40 years ago, based on political and economic considerations, rather than scientific research. But reflecting the divisive nature of the issue, an FAA-created study group of airline and pilot representatives in November failed to reach consensus on changing the retirement age. The only thing the group agreed on was that any change, if it comes, shouldn't be retroactive because it would be too hard to reinstate retired pilots into the crew rotation and seniority systems.

 

[AA717driver]

Protest loud and long! (Till we get enough of those geezers out of the cockpit for me to get recalled! ) TC

 

[NuGuy]

From WSJ:
Indeed, recent discoveries of brain functions suggest that for many older people, experience and ingrained patterns of thinking actually can help keep them at the top of their game as pilots, air-traffic controllers and in other professions. Some tests, for example, have revealed that older controllers in their 60s were able to handle simulated emergencies as well or better than younger ones.

Funny, despite a huge upcomming shortage of qualified controllers, I don't see a big push to raise their retirement age, and it's the FAA's own people. Hmmmm....

Nu

 

[Lear70]

Funny, despite a huge upcomming shortage of qualified controllers, I don't see a big push to raise their retirement age, and it's the FAA's own people. Hmmmm....

Nu

This is true... which is kind of funny, as those older controllers could most certainly take over ground ops or even clearance if they were having issues at TRACON or even Tower frequencies.

I've always wondered why they don't push for that with the big shortage in controllers. Seems like a no-brainer; giving clearances isn't exactly rocket science.

But then again, neither is flying a plane.

(at least until something goes wrong)... *fingers crossed, knockonwood, etc*

 

[SRJ]

FAA PDF file of AGE 60 study:

http://www.faa.gov/media/Final_Age_60_ARC_Report_11_29_2006.pdf

 

[firstthird]

well, controllers get a government pension at 55. Would you push to work till 65? Many pilots have lost or don't have defined benefit retirements, so, working longer means more 401K money, etc.

 

[JediNein]

Age 65 will give more private pilots the opportunity of a lifetime.

But with all of the airline types that have lost pensions at age 55+, I'm hoping for all that the retirement ages goes up to 65. Maybe some of these guys & gals will have a chance at earning enough for a decent retirement with another 5 years of working, if they keep their current wives, that is. . .

 

[airfogey]

Its about time-I've been advocating change for over 20 years-the only argument in favor is slower promotions,but that won't overide the preponderance of evidence that it is the right thing to do.

Airfogey

 

[Tim47SIP]

Funny, despite a huge upcomming shortage of qualified controllers, I don't see a big push to raise their retirement age, and it's the FAA's own people. Hmmmm....

As stated above, they get a Gov pension (unlike most of the pilots who need to stay the extra 5 years) at age 55. Many of these guys retire and then go to work as contractors at NFCT towers and suppliment ATC facilities U.S. wide. I know of a few approach controls that are contractor operated with nothing but retired controllers. Contractors do not have the age requirements their gov employee counterpart does.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Whats that I hear? It must be the fat lady singing!

 

[Cobraair75drvr]

Jim,

In all seriousness, how is 65 not age discrimination also? When you guys reach 64 are you going to start this again? Also why does someone have to be under 60?

 

[SKLJ]

So true...

...it is the right thing to do.

Airfogey

Exactly right.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

well, controllers get a government pension at 55. Would you push to work till 65? Many pilots have lost or don't have defined benefit retirements, so, working longer means more 401K money, etc.

Hit the nail on the head! Of course, most Ray Ban wearing, back pack toting Embry-Riddle and Comair Academy grads aren't concerned about saving for their non-existent retirement-- because pensions as we know it are history and it will take you to age 67 to get full Social Security benefits (if it even exists when we retire).

 

[BoilerUP]

Hit the nail on the head! Of course, most Ray Ban wearing, back pack toting Embry-Riddle and Comair Academy grads aren't concerned about saving for their non-existent retirement-- because pensions as we know it are history and it will take you to age 67 to get full Social Security benefits (if it even exists when we retire).

This 23 year old regional FO is saving well over 20% of my combined income for retirement. Social Security will not exist when I turn 67 or 67 or 70; even if it did, it would be a pittance. Now I'll have to work an additional 5 years to get to retirement and I'll still never make back the money I could have made with a career progression based upon the Age 60 rule as it stands today.

My financial security for retirement is my responsibility...and its painfully obvious none of my industry colleagues will look out for me. Perhaps somebody should have told that to the older pilots fighting hardest for this change, most of whom have been in the top 3% of wage earners in this country for the last twenty years of their lives.

Oh yeah, thats right...they've been too busy living the high life then crying broke post 9/11, asking to change the rules that they've benefited from their entire career.

 

[svcta]

This only means NPRM......nothing has been done yet. Let's all take a deep breath. (and realize that changing 60 is no bueno....did I say that out loud)

 

[Flybynite]

This 23 year old regional FO

dam son, you got forty two more years. Thats a long time to be miserable.

 

[BoilerUP]

dam son, you got forty two more years. Thats a long time to be miserable.

I'm not miserable pops, but thanks for the pep talk.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Boiler,
You make an interesting point; these guys want to change one of the very laws they benefited from. Hypocritical? I don't see how anyone could think this is a good idea, unless of course you either:

A) Are nearing retirement and didn't plan properly, so you wish to avoid being the newest greeter down at the local Wally World.

B)Are nearing retirement and have no life outside of work.

-OR-

C) Both of the above.


Just because someone didn't plan accordingly and/or hate their miserable life shouldn't make the rest of us suffer with longer upgrades, fewer good job opportunities and the restructuring of pay/bennies to practically force the rest of us to drudge on past 60.


(And yes, I have a few gray hairs, no I did not attend Comair Academy or ERAU, I do own a backpack, but it is for hiking, and the only gel I use is when my herpes flare up.)

 

[Lear70]

(And yes, I have a few gray hairs, no I did not attend Comair Academy or ERAU, I do own a backpack, but it is for hiking, and the only gel I use is when my herpes flare up.)

That's WAY too much information there, buddy...

Incidentally, you forgot option D. "My dad is over 60 and lost his retirement to a bad investment just prior to the crap hitting the fan".

His own fault for not playing more reserved with his retirement so close to the end game, but I'm willing to take an extra 5 years if it gives him an extra 5 as well, but that's 'cause he's my dad and for everything he's done for me, I'd say I owe him one (or two or three or five).

Plus, I have longer to do more not only with saving my aviation income, investing properly, but also to have 2 other companies, invest in real estate, and slowly build my wealth one deal at a time.

If luck holds, I'll be out before 55 anyway. If not, I'll enjoy flying 'til 65. Maybe they'll let me do it part-time after age 55.