Age 60 informal poll

[Klako]

I'm sure those were the same things you were saying about the 60yr olds who retired to trigger your upgrade class.

I can hear you now on the first day of class: " Hi, I'm Klako and I just want everyone to know I'm really uncomfortable with this. All of us in this room are stealing from a bunch of 60 year olds today. Congress must STOP THIS MADNESS NOW! By the way, does anyone have the name and address of our senator? When I write them to try to bring those guys back I also want to mention the tax rate. I already computed my new tax rate on Captain pay and this is bull$hit".

I can honestly say that I have always been in favor of abolishing the age 60 rule. I fly for the best regional airline in the USA. I chose my company over a major airline for many reasons, most important was the fact that the company had a very successful Part 135 operation allowing me to fly until I was 65. Then in 1995 the FAA forced us to convert to Part 121.

When I hired on with my company, about 90% of the pilots senior to me were younger than I was. I upgraded not out of the forced retirement of those senior to me but through expansion. I still bid below the middle of the captains for my equipment.

It is a disgusting situation when a labor unions such as ALPA and APA could dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire. The crybabies at ALPA and APA who fear the loss of their precious “Age 60 Rule”, most of them make more than I do as a 17 year captain at my company. Our union does not support the age 60 rule and never will

 

[pipe]

I will throw you one bone here. You actually got hired on with a plan and a recognition of how the rule would influence your career. You even had a good plan for how to mitigate that. For all of that I salute you.

You are one man (a rarity, I might add) who considered this stuff before the 11th hour. They (your company) changed the rules on you. You are justifiably pi$$ed.

Clearly then, you understand the emotions of THE MAJORITY OF ALPA / APA MEMBERS, when you suggest changing the rules. Pi$$ed, just like you were. Main difference? We're the majority.

If this rule does change, it will mirror everything else in our pc society. The majority always rules until it negatively impacts one person. In that case we'll just screw the majority on their behalf.

PIPE

 

[Black Hawk]

I'm for abolising the age 60 rule. I see a lot of comments on how it might impact someones career expectations but not a lot about the impact it might have on flight safety which is the purported reason for the rule. If some union wants to require their membership to retire at 60 that's fine with me. They can do that. Just negotiate it with the company. Don't they also negotiate more restrictive (on the company) rest requirements than provided for by the federal government? The function of the age 60 rule should be related to flight safety and not the economics of some pilot's career. In today's age I think 68 is a reasonable age to retire from the Captain's seat.

 

[jbDC9]

In today's age I think 68 is a reasonable age to retire from the Captain's seat.

68? How can you say that? That's age discrimination!! It ain't fair, I'm gonna sue!!! Seriously, as soon as you pick a number like 65 or 68, you're gonna have the 64 or 67 yr olds whining about discrimination.

My job and seniority is something that no one below me should have the right to take away from me. Those of you who think that the forced retirement of senior pilots is your God given path to seniority progression had better plan on all that changing and soon. The age 60 rule has always been wrong and it is high time that Congress puts an end to it.

Same old paragraph you've posted what, a dozen times now? Yet not once have you acknowledged the fact that these senior pilots got to where they are by older pilots ahead of them reaching age 60 and retiring so today's senior guys could move up. Yep, these guys who were drooling over the Age 60 retirements and upgrades 25 years ago are now whining about it. Ironic isn't it?

We get it that you hired on at 40 something and haven't benefitted much from retirements... but virtually every other graybeard senior guy has. Like Pipe said, screw the majority, gotta change the rules to fit one pis$ed off person's circumstances.

 

[filejw]

Anybody else think this is a silly argument? After November foreign carriers will be flying into US airspace with pilots over sixty including some US citizens.The writing is on the wall it won't be long after that and we will have the same rules.

 

[catIIIc]

Lets say in november that congress passes this as law. The FAA will at a minimum take at least a year in changing the medical standards and the FAR's before it even takes affect. So Undaunted you will still have to reitre in January. They law even states that you cannot sue to get your seniority back so what type of plans do you have now?

 

[filejw]

cat . Don't be disappointed if the FAA just match's what the rest of the world (ICAO) does. No law change, no change in the physical, nothing. Just changes the age FAR .

 

[catIIIc]

The reason the FAA has to is because ICAO medical is alot tougher and more expensive then our current one. If they change the age based on ICAO they have to follow ICAO rules. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

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.

 

[Klako]

Lets say in november that congress passes this as law. The FAA will at a minimum take at least a year in changing the medical standards and the FAR's before it even takes affect. So Undaunted you will still have to reitre in January. They law even states that you cannot sue to get your seniority back so what type of plans do you have now?

That is not correct.
Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public and without such proof, to proceed with the FAA’s normal rule changing which could change the “Age 60 Rule”. This has been going on now for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof or begin the protocol for a rule change.
Now it is time for the Congress to put the FAA, the airline industry, ALPA and APA back on the right track. This is why the Congress must over-ride the FAA's normal rule making protocol and mediate a solution. ICAO, now recognizes the harm done by the age 60 rule standard and will amend the international standard to age 65, which should become applicable on 23 November 2006. The Burns substitute amendment to The U.S. Senate Bill S. 65, if voted into law by the U.S. Congress, would direct the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter. It now appears that the majority in Congress supports the Burns amendment that would over ride any FAA rule change protocol and could make the effective date for such a change as late as 22 December 2006.