Age 60 informal poll

[airdog757]

Several times where...here, Capital hill, The press?...everytime I mention it to others, nobody has been aware of it!
Thank you sir may I have another.

 

[Phaedrus]

Not quite every time...most are aware of it here. After all, this is the "Night of the Living Thread". A veritable zombie thread that refuses to die.

everytime I mention it to others, nobody has been aware of it!

 

[luckytohaveajob]

arc report

Arc committee report unedited.

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

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Freedom to Fly Act

FREEDOM TO FLY ACT-TO END AGE DISCRIMINATION FOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOTS
Senator James Inhofe
January 4, 2007

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule—a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years.

Our bipartisan bill called the “Freedom to Fly Act” would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60.

Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age—a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace.

This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent.

Mr. President, we cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America’s most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags “Welcome to our airspace.”

Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not asking for a handout.

They are just saying to the FAA; “Give me the same right you granted our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us continue to fly, to work, to continue to contribute to the tax rolls for an additional 5 years.” We join them and echo their sentiments to Administrator Blakey. Mr. President, as far as we are concerned, that is the least we can do for America’s pilots, who are considered the best and the safest pilots in the world.

Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last year.

The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The Aerospace Medical Association says that “There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.” Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree.

When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much lower—at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at over 77 years. The FAA’s own data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation “a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.”

Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments.

I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in their bill. The FAA recently convened and Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the Administrator is considering a change in the rule now.

We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to work at least until Age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over the age of 60 this fall.

Mr., President, I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation and help us keep America’s most experienced pilots in the air.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

After reading the ARC report, it is evident they dicussed many of the same issues we have in this thread.

I looks like Ike, Emens, Carr, and Russo threw up the same opinions without citing any need for a Safety Risk Assessment that is standard practice in creating regulation.

Without any facts to support the ICAO ADOPT position, their arguments are pure speculation and fantasy. Dream on.

I especially liked the part about the ICAO FCLTP stating they did not have the abilities to study the issue and instead just produced a suvey they gave inconclusive evidence supporting the ADOPT position.

Inconclusive evidence is far from the proper risk assessment the DO NOT ADOPT position said was required for such as change to be considered.

It will also be a lot of fun to see Ike, Emens, and Carr's position get refuted by their own pilots later this month after the SWAPA Age 60 vote unless the last 2500 pilots at SWA want to be FOs, Lances, or junior captains working weekends and holidays for another five years.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Direct operting costs for airlines will be increased

It was also great to read that the ARC committee concluded direct operating costs of the ADOPT position would be higher.

Salary and Benefit Costs
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]If the new ICAO standard were adopted, some air carriers could be faced with pilots having higher aggregate seniority and therefore higher average wage rates. This would increase the direct operating costs of the air carrier as well as its pension plan expenses. Older airlines with high-longevity employees would be at a competitive disadvantage to younger airlines with newly-hired employees. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The new standard also could require air carriers to have higher reserve pilot manning requirements to resolve 60/65 split conflicts that could occur and cover the increased number of sick days used as a pilot ages, which could result in higher costs to the air carrier. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]There could be increased costs from extending disability benefits beyond 60 years of age, depending on the circumstances between airlines and pilot groups. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]It has been industry experience with pilots who are over 60 years of age who continue as flight engineers that their use of sick leave increases dramatically. The ARC acknowledges there could be reasons other than medical that could drive that increased usage. [/FONT]​

 

[pipe]

FREEDOM TO FLY ACT-TO END AGE DISCRIMINATION FOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOTS
Senator James Inhofe
January 4, 2007

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60 WHO KNOWINGLY FLEW A MALFUNCTIONING AIRCRAFT TO A BOTCHED LANDING ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule—a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years.

Our bipartisan bill called the “Freedom to Fly Act” would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60.

Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age—a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace.

This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent.

Mr. President, we cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America’s most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags “Welcome to our airspace.”

Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not asking for a handout.

They are just saying to the FAA; “Give me the same right you granted our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us continue to fly, to work, to continue to contribute to the tax rolls for an additional 5 years.” We join them and echo their sentiments to Administrator Blakey. Mr. President, as far as we are concerned, that is the least we can do for America’s pilots, who are considered the best and the safest pilots in the world.

Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last year.

The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The Aerospace Medical Association says that “There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.” Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree.

When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much lower—at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at over 77 years. The FAA’s own data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation “a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.”

Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments.

I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in their bill. The FAA recently convened and Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the Administrator is considering a change in the rule now.

We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to work at least until Age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over the age of 60 this fall.

Mr., President, I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation and help us keep America’s most experienced pilots in the air.

Cheers-

PIPE

 

[Black Hawk]

Change it to 65.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Age 60 is not age discrimination

For those claiming discrimination, the courts fail to agree. Plus new court cases will be brought by those wronged by the ADOPT position that have not been heard so far. AND NEW MEDICAL STANDARDS WILL BE APPLIED EFFECTING THOSE THAT WOULD NOT CURRENTLY BE EFFECTED.

Sounds like a deal killer to me.


Depending on the reasons articulated by the FAA if they changed the Age 60 Rule to age 65, there may be problems/issues created under ADEA that have not been previously realized; and

Use of a maximum age, just like a minimum age, is a safe and proven methodology for ensuring that only healthy and competent individuals.
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]
[/FONT]The courts have consistently abstained from taking any action that would undermine the FAA’s Age 60 Rule. Nevertheless, changing the age limit to a
year greater than 60 will likely do little, if anything, to abate the ongoing court challenges to the FAA’s maximum pilot age rule; and
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]
[/FONT]Elimination of any maximum pilot age, which is the expressed goal of the age discrimination opponents, will almost assuredly result in more stringent health and cognitive abilities testing, which will adversely impact pilots of all ages, not just those approaching retirement age.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

The true champions of the piloting profession

XJT pilots need to stand up and be counted on this issue. XJT is 2500 strong who will be directly discriminated against by an ADOPT position. XJT pilots need to write their home state senators and congressmen in opposition to changing age 60. XJT could be a solid unified force.​

The Do Not Adopt the ICAO Standard Working Group position is endorsed by the following ARC members: ​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Jim Kaiser, American Airlines, Inc.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Keith Champion, Allied Pilots Association (American)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]John Lux, ALPA (Federal Express)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Terry McVenes, ALPA International
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Bill Dressler, ALPA (Express Jet)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Konstantinos "Dino" Atsalis, ALPA (Delta)

 

[luckytohaveajob]

AGE 60 needs remain as it currently is written because...

The FAA should not adopt the new ICAO standard’s maximum pilot age of 65 years of age because— ​

1. ICAO did not conduct a safety risk analysis to evaluate the impact of the change in the standard on safety. Before initiating a rulemaking that could change the Age 60 Rule, the FAA should conduct a safety risk assessment with the participation of airline, pilot, and aeromedical representatives.

[FONT=Arial Narrow,Arial Narrow]Age 60 ARC Recommendations to the FAA 16 Age 60 ARC Recommendations to the FAA 17 [/FONT]

The new age 65 standard arbitrarily replaces one age limit with another.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]T[/FONT]here is no criterion-based process for determining pilot fitness to fly past 60 years of age.

No mitigations have been offered that would provide for an equivalent level of safety if the ICAO standard were adopted over the existing Age 60 Rule.

Adoption by the FAA of the new ICAO standard would reduce the current U.S. airline safety standard.

The FAA will be in compliance with the new ICAO standard on November 23, 2006, without changing the existing regulations because the standard does not preclude the United States (or any ICAO State) from setting a lower maximum age limit.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Before initiating a rulemaking that could change the Age 60 Rule, the FAA should conduct a safety risk assessment with the participation of airline, pilot, and aeromedical representatives.
[/FONT]

 

[FoxHunter]

Age 65, The New World Standard

Finally, we agree with medical and flight safety experts who have studied the Age 60 Rule and have conclusively found that experience is the best indicator of how a pilot will perform when there is a crisis in the cockpit. Therefore, the ICAO standard improves safety by keeping the most experienced pilots in the air for up to an additional 5 years.​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]The FAA Should Immediately Adopt the ICAO Age 65 Standard [/FONT]
The Adopt the ICAO Standard Working Group recommends that the FAA revise its current Age 60 Rule by adopting ICAO Amendment No. 167 to increase the upper age limit for pilots to 65 years of age, provided another pilot in the cockpit is under 60 years of age.​

For domestic operations, the FAA should consider waiving or amending the over-under provision and allow both pilots to be over 60 years of age. Eliminating the over-under provision would streamline many implementation issues and benefit the industry.​

The working group further recommends that the FAA initiate the regulatory process necessary to implement these changes immediately upon receipt of the ARC Report.​

[FONT=Arial,Arial]Key Factors Considered in Adopting the Pro-Change Position [/FONT]​

1. ICAO Amendment 167 provides a catalyst and a rationale for immediate change.​

1. Beginning November 23, 2006, foreign pilots over 60 years of age will be allowed to fly in U.S. airspace; unless the FAA changes the Age 60 Rule, U.S. pilots will still be forced to retire at 60 years of age.
2. If foreign pilots over 60 years of age are deemed safe to fly in U.S. airspace, then there is clearly no rational explanation for applying a different standard to U.S. pilots.
3. One level of safety, two sets of rules[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]: [/FONT]This is a double standard that cannot be tolerated.
4. ICAO conducted an international survey of flight safety data and found no evidence to support an upper age limit of 60 years of age for commercial pilots.
5. ICAO recognizes that pilot performance, longevity, and health have improved dramatically, along with the aircraft, systems and the aviation operational environment.
6. ICAO surveyed existing flight safety data which was conducted both in the United States and abroad and came to the conclusion that a "higher upper age limit is compatible with safe flying." They based their findings on "[d]ata compiled from 64 States, accumulated experience with well over 3,000 older pilots and totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years."
7. The risk analysis conducted by ICAO concluded that the risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time is "thus one per trillion hours, a risk so low that it can safely be disregarded."

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Nobody would be flying at age 65 for 5 years. The proposed change effectively raises the age limit one day per day. The sky isn't falling.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Experience not the be all end all

Sorry FoxHunter, but experience does not ensure safety.

If it did how would an airline such as XJT have safety operated for the last six years with a complete replacement of all its experienced pilots being hired away, the addition of 200 aircraft, and 2000 new pilots added? The majority of all XJT pilots currently on property have been hired since 1999. And those inexperienced pilots have operated a statistical safe airline with a low level of experience as a perfect example contrary to the theory that experience creates safety.


Below are direct quotes from the ARC study:

"Other concerns expressed by the Federal Aviation Agency (regarding over 60 pilots) included the loss of the ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; resist fatigue; maintain physical stamina; perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment; apply experience, judgment, and reasoning rapidly in new, changing, and emergency situations; and learn new techniques, skills, and procedures." American Airlines got it right in 1960 as well as the ARC study of 2006.

"Older airlines with high-longevity employees would be at a competitive disadvantage to younger airlines with newly-hired employees." The airlines of today are about making money not charity work. How is that experience going to help the profit margins?

"1994: FAA Hilton Study. The accident rates of older pilots with a first class or second class airman medical certificate declined from age 40 through the early 60s, but showed a slight increase from age 65 to 69." Looks like the 65 year is less safe.

 

[FoxHunter]

Sorry FoxHunter, but experience does not ensure safety.

If it did how would an airline such as XJT have safety operated for the last six years with a complete replacement of all its experienced pilots being hired away, the addition of 200 aircraft, and 2000 new pilots added? The majority of all XJT pilots currently on property have been hired since 1999. And those inexperienced pilots have operated a statistical safe airline with a low level of experience as a perfect example contrary to the theory that experience creates safety.


Below are direct quotes from the ARC study:

"Other concerns expressed by the Federal Aviation Agency (regarding over 60 pilots) included the loss of the ability to perform highly skilled tasks rapidly; resist fatigue; maintain physical stamina; perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment; apply experience, judgment, and reasoning rapidly in new, changing, and emergency situations; and learn new techniques, skills, and procedures." American Airlines got it right in 1960 as well as the ARC study of 2006.

"Older airlines with high-longevity employees would be at a competitive disadvantage to younger airlines with newly-hired employees." The airlines of today are about making money not charity work. How is that experience going to help the profit margins?

"1994: FAA Hilton Study. The accident rates of older pilots with a first class or second class airman medical certificate declined from age 40 through the early 60s, but showed a slight increase from age 65 to 69." Looks like the 65 year is less safe.

Only the ALPA/APA side agreed with the above. I realize you're very upset that is changing but you will benefit in later years.

 

[Freight Dog]

I just read that report in its entirety.

Wow!

Same hash/rehash we had here. I'm surprised there's no more talk about any implementation of this and the cost associated with changing this rule. I can assure you the cost would come from our own pockets in forms of paycuts. But hey, who cares about everyone else, right Fox? As long as you get to keep lining your pocket at the expense of everyone else... life is good!

Amazing... simply amazing.

 

[Phaedrus]

Head, meet wall.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

I probably will not make the cut, but it's clear that change is coming sooner rather than later.

"A house divided against itself can not stand."

Change will probably come in a form not expected. And sooner than expected.

 

[Freight Dog]

UF... if you really want to keep working, I'm sure there's some ex-pat work flying 777 in one of ICAO countries where they have a true pilot shortage we were discussing earlier.

I'm thinking Emirates or Eva or another entity like that.

Might be a way to augment your retirement.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

UF... if you really want to keep working, I'm sure there's some ex-pat work flying 777 in one of ICAO countries where they have a true pilot shortage we were discussing earlier.

I'm thinking Emirates or Eva or another entity like that.

Might be a way to augment your retirement.

Thanks for your suggestion but I'm really not interested in being based overseas. My home is here and that's where I'll be.

There are still many angles to this issue.

My primary interest is flying for my company if there will be an 11th hour call from the FAA. But in any case, I have placed my order for my last crew meal before termination.

 

[Sluggo_63]

I realize you're very upset that is changing but you will benefit in later years.

How so?

 

[Flopgut]

Thanks for your suggestion but I'm really not interested in being based overseas. My home is here and that's where I'll be.

There are still many angles to this issue.

My primary interest is flying for my company if there will be an 11th hour call from the FAA. But in any case, I have placed my order for my last crew meal before termination.

You're not being terminated, you are retiring normally and that is a privilege. You've had a great career.

 

[Flopgut]

Finally, we agree with medical and flight safety experts who have studied the Age 60 Rule and have conclusively found that experience is the best indicator of how a pilot will perform when there is a crisis in the cockpit. Therefore, the ICAO standard improves safety by keeping the most experienced pilots in the air for up to an additional 5 years.​

We are all part of a large system and the system is safe. Don't get too carried away with the experience factor. The pilots waiting to fill your shoes have plenty of experince; they may even posses skill levels you don't have. You should be glad that seniority progression afforded you so much and ashamed you want to deny others the same.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Amen Flopgut.

Without a Safety Assessment Risk study, any age change is dangerous. The ICAO change was done politically with a survey. The ARC committee pointed out that such a practice has no basis in safety. The FAA is now officially aware of these facts which are without dispute and will be considered as this issue moves forward.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

The safety argument may float if this rule was originally enacted based upon some safety data to support it. If no rule existed today, I have seen no data to support placing a limit at 60. Many who argue safety, when challenged, will quickly go back to the "you knew the rules" or " you had your chance to make the big dough, now it is my turn" arguments. If you a safety concern, you should be happy that the age limit effectively goes up by one day per day and there will always be a youngster under 60 in the cockpit.

 

[Flopgut]

The safety argument may float if this rule was originally enacted based upon some safety data to support it. If no rule existed today, I have seen no data to support placing a limit at 60. Many who argue safety, when challenged, will quickly go back to the "you knew the rules" or " you had your chance to make the big dough, now it is my turn" arguments. If you a safety concern, you should be happy that the age limit effectively goes up by one day per day and there will always be a youngster under 60 in the cockpit.

Well Chest, The safety arguement floats better than the discrimination arguement. You can't say age 60 hasn't worked as a safe retirement age, while age 65 is just as perfectly discriminatory as 60. ANY age will always be discriminatory, ANY age will not always be safe (you can't have a 7 year old ATP!) You can not EXCLUDE the possibility this will be less safe (acknowledged by the FACT that one pilot must be <60), you CAN EXCLUDE the possibility that this is less discriminatory.

What I'm also concerned about, if this is not done right, guys like you are going to want to work until age 70. I'm monitoring the process and resisting any change that will enable an arguement for perpetual increases.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Well Chest, The safety arguement floats better than the discrimination arguement. You can't say age 60 hasn't worked as a safe retirement age, while age 65 is just as perfectly discriminatory as 60. ANY age will always be discriminatory, ANY age will not always be safe (you can't have a 7 year old ATP!) You can not EXCLUDE the possibility this will be less safe (acknowledged by the FACT that one pilot must be <60), you CAN EXCLUDE the possibility that this is less discriminatory.

What I'm also concerned about, if this is not done right, guys like you are going to want to work until age 70. I'm monitoring the process and resisting any change that will enable an arguement for perpetual increases.

I totally agree that the discrimination arguement is not on firm ground either. Any limit can be argued as discrimination. I think that 65 is less so due to my belief that most will retire on their own terms prior to reaching the limit. I do not believe that no limit is the answer, just that 60 is not correct.

Don't be concerned about me sticking around. I have been fortunate and I hope to go a little early but one never knows what life has in store.

I always look forward to your well thought out opinions, even if I disagree with them.

 

[pipe]

Thanks for your suggestion but I'm really not interested in being based overseas. My home is here and that's where I'll be.

There are still many angles to this issue.

My primary interest is flying for my company if there will be an 11th hour call from the FAA. But in any case, I have placed my order for my last crew meal before termination.[/quote]


Dead man walkin'.

 

[Flopgut]

Likewise Chest. Neither one of us is wrong, that's the problem we have.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Age 60 and merging

"While Northwest officials declined to comment on the reports of a merger with Delta, Wall Street analysts say the Minnesota-based carrier signaled its willingness to partner up when it hired Evercore Partners (EVR) last December to explore "broad strategic alternatives" on its behalf. "Northwest would sell under the right terms," says Ray Neidl, an airline analyst for Calyon Securities in New York. "And strategically, Delta and Northwest are a good fit."
For one, analysts note that Northwest has an aging workforce that is poised to retire in coming years, making the task of cutting labor costs that much easier. "A lot of those Northwest workers are going to drop off the rolls," says Roger King, airline analyst for CreditSights, a New York-based institutional research firm. "

Since the judicial questions of age 60 and discrimination have already been decided, the only two remaining options are regulator and legislative.

The FAA has been unwilling to act so regulatory. Legislatively age 60 will be a factor in merging as the politics weight job loss risks. And what legislator wants to put workers on the streets because of a last minute change that has stood for 50 years?

Seniority integration is going to be a supporter of AGE 60 as it is today.