There are holes all over this Age 65 argument. It is nothing more than abrogation of seniority rights against the junior pilots. It’s a money and job grab.
If this POS passes, then it's to the back of the bus!! It’s the only fair way since we were all hired under AGE 60 RETIREMENT!!
AA767AV8TOR
New from our APA Prez:
In the air beyond age 60?
By RALPH HUNTER
Special to the Star-Telegram
In an Aug. 27 commentary opposing the current mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association President Joseph Eichelkraut argued that allowing pilots to fly past age 60 could save the federal government "billions" and cited a recent study as proof.
Eichelkraut could not be more mistaken.
Eichelkraut didn't mention that this "study" was paid for and produced at the behest of the SWPA, JetBlue Airways and a small coalition of other pilots seeking changes to the current retirement age. The "study" reflects a fundamental ignorance of, among other things, common business practices.
It assumes that the federal government loses Social Security and income tax revenue when a pilot retires at age 60, which is erroneous. When one pilot retires, another pilot replaces him -- just as in any other industry when workers retire. The job itself doesn't go away. After all, when was the last time you saw an airplane flying around with an empty seat in the cockpit?
The "study" also ignores the fact that it's irrelevant to the Social Security Administration whether you begin receiving Social Security benefits at age 62 1/2 or wait until age 65. If you elect to receive benefits as soon as you're eligible -- at age 62 1/2 -- the Social Security Administration reduces your monthly benefit accordingly. The total obligation to you does not increase.
Many pilots who retire at age 60 work in some other capacity after retirement, resulting in a net positive for the federal government vs. the deficit that the "study" purports. The retired pilot continues earning income and continues to pay Social Security tax and federal income tax.
Space constraints preclude additional examples, but suffice it to say that the "study" that Eichelkraut cited is so rife with errors that it borders on analytical malpractice.
More important, Eichel-kraut completely sidestepped the overriding reason behind age 60 retirement: the safety of the traveling public.
Since the Federal Aviation Administration introduced mandatory retirement at age 60 for airline pilots, we have seen accidents attributed to a variety of causes. However, not one single airline accident has been attributed to the sudden or subtle effects of aging. By any measure, mandatory retirement at age 60 for our nation's commercial pilots has proven highly successful.
We sympathize with those pilots who wish to extend their working careers, but public safety must take precedence over financial considerations. Other safety-sensitive occupations in the U.S. also have mandatory retirement ages, including air traffic controllers, who must retire at age 56.
The reality is that no one is immune from the natural effects of aging. Our cognitive skills degenerate and our reflexes slow, while the death rate climbs steeply after age 60 for all Americans. Heart attacks and strokes are among the leading causes of death in later life, and both occur with little or no warning -- not the sort of surprise you want in the cockpit of a jet airliner.
A recent Federal Aviation Administration study confirmed that the aging process adversely affects the cognitive abilities of even the healthiest individuals, starting around age 57. As a result, the FAA does not support changing the age-60 rule.
Even the recent proposals by the International Civil Aviation Organization to increase the mandatory retirement age for non-U.S. pilots requires that one pilot in the cockpit be under the age of 60. Apparently the ICAO has its own questions about how old is too old.
The point at which the gradual physical and cognitive decline becomes unsafe is impossible to determine using current technology. In fact, the central issue of the entire debate is that current medical and performance-based testing does not provide a safe, reliable and comprehensive method to screen for the effects of aging.
This salient fact is even tacitly acknowledged by the opponents of age-60 retirement. They do not point to any new and proven testing methods. They simply want to replace one mandatory retirement age with another and hope for the best.
Although we strongly support additional testing and research, we do not condone conducting safety experiments on the traveling public.
As firsthand observers of the very real impact of aging on pilot skills, the majority of our nation's commercial airline pilots support the existing policy. In the exacting environment of commercial aviation, the public's safety must always come first.
Ralph Hunter is president of the Allied Pilots Association, the union that represents more than 12,000 pilots at American Airlines. The APA and American are both based in Fort Worth.
