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.

 

[filejw]

cat, Not quit true on the medical . Some country's are some are not.

 

[Klako]

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

What a crock of horse S%#t!

Ralph Hunters’s article is nothing but but pure APA propaganda, a pathetic example of twisted logic. It is becoming clear that as a result of recent actions by the ALPA and APA, the so-called legacy carriers like United, American, Northwest and Delta are condemned to the death throws of extinction. Greed, ineptness and blindness to reality will also destroy the likes of the ALPA and APA. The old guard pioneers of the golden age of aviation should be raging mad in their graves at the miss deeds of today’s big airline union politics.

You call it "a money and job grab". Yes, that is what we have now. The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed of his job just to placate junior pilots who smell blood every time a senior pilot nears age 60.

 

[Black Hawk]

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.

Let em sue. Look at all the whining we're hearing on this thread and how little of it has to do with flight safety. Even if the rule changes ALPA can still negotiate a forced retirement at age 60 if they determine flying past that would impact flight safety adversely. They do that with rest requirements and other issues as well. The FAA just sets minimum standards to comply with. If ALPA and some airlines want to exceed those minimum standards then that's fine.

 

[b757driver]

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.

Yep, I do!
It's on the cards and it WILL happen - maybe not this year but within the next 12-18 months.
It's time for us, the "great" (such as it isn't) American airline industry to get it's head out of the sand and see what's happening outside these borders. Virtually every Western country will have the 65 rule by year end and there will be Captains - including US citizens flying foreifne-registered aircraft into US airspace.
As someone once said, change is hard for some people and some find it harder to accept.
Time to wake up to reality and realize this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with safety but everything to do with ME. ME, ME ie. greed!
It's going to happen, so you might as well get used to it.
If you want to retire at 60, then that is YOUR perogative, but don't tell others what they should and should not do. You do NOT know their circumstances nor reasons why they might opt to work past 60.
It's a free country, I think, so, let the individual decide, not ALPA or some other union.
Finally, we all know how and why this 60 rule was brought in. And it wern't for safety reasons. It was politics and we all know how noble that profession is :0 !!

 

[pilotyip]

repeat of an old thread, but it fits here. Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism

 

[b757driver]

someone say politics??

repeat of an old thread, but it fits here. Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism

Like I said, politics, pure and simple!
And everybody (well, some of us) were led to believe that it WAS in the name of safety.
And we all know that politicians and CEOs always tell the truth and nothing but the truth....lol !!!

 

[filejw]

YIP is right on the money history and all. And I'm an old guys who is afraid of the change as I think the IRS will change the pension rules. Just like he said. Me Me Me.

 

[Andy]

Andy: With answers like this do you think anyone will believe anything you write now. Then why not quit now if the age-60 rule changes, or at 55, or 59 1/2 or 62 or 65? What is so magical about age 60. Please answer this question please. Thank you.

Nice edit job on my response; you should consider running someone's political campaign. You've got a real talent for creative editing.

I don't know what's magical about 60; you'd have to dig up the research on it. I would, but the only problem that I see with 60 is that it's too old. Based on the FAA data that I've posted, I would be in favor of reducing the retirement age to 55. Pilots over 55 are a definite safety risk.
If you've got issues with the age 60 rule, dig up any FAA documents from the 50s that discuss the change and their safety rationale behind the change. I've already done a lot of research and posted multiple links. You've done none of that; you're just winging it, trying to find a plausible reason to cover your greed and lack of integrity.

If this is truly a 'cause' that you be fighting for, is it safe to assume that you will continue to champion this effort after January 28, or will you join the rest of the 59ers who have recently 'seen the light,' only to disappear once there is no personal benefit to them?

 

[Andy]

Here we go again, experienced Hero Pilot from ALOHA forced to retire. Must make room for new pilots. Can they equal this captain?

http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/business/story02.html

Newsflash: EVERYONE'S REPLACABLE. Even you.
Are you really able to fit through a cockpit door with an ego that large?

 

[Andy]

A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Now, what's your brilliant solution to get rid of unsafe pilots?
In my experience, most pilots would never call it quits; their egos are too large to admit that the physical and mental abilities are diminishing. Heck, one of the studies cited by the paper that you posted a link to verified that vis a vis aging pilots' visual acuity.

Come up with a REAL solution, not just another 'arbitrary' number.

 

[jbDC9]

Yes, that is what we have now. The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed of his job just to placate junior pilots who smell blood every time a senior pilot nears age 60.

Again with the broken record, or beating a dead horse if you prefer; yet again you mention "The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed..."

Klako, please, would you enlighten us as to how that "senior more experienced pilot" came to be in that position?? Or are you going to just ignore that tidy little fact like you always do and keep you head buried in the sand, hoping that it's not true? Perhaps you actually think that the 50+ yr old senior guys were born as graybeard captains and never needed the Age 60 rule to move up the list?

 

[catIIIc]

Again with the broken record, or beating a dead horse if you prefer; yet again you mention "The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed..."

Klako, please, would you enlighten us as to how that "senior more experienced pilot" came to be in that position?? Or are you going to just ignore that tidy little fact like you always do and keep you head buried in the sand, hoping that it's not true? Perhaps you actually think that the 50+ yr old senior guys were born as graybeard captains and never needed the Age 60 rule to move up the list?

That fact is always conviently left out of the arguments made by guys like Klako and Undaunted. They just don't seem to grasp that they have benefited their entire career by this rule and now that it is there turn it is unfair.

 

[Klako]

That fact is always conviently left out of the arguments made by guys like Klako and Undaunted. They just don't seem to grasp that they have benefited their entire career by this rule and now that it is there turn it is unfair.

Andy, CatIIC and jbDC9 just don't seem to grasp that the “Age 60 Rule” has been and will always be wrong. Ageism and age discrimination simply must not continue to be institutionalized by a federal law such as we now have in Section 121.383(c) of the FARs, commonly referred to as the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule”. When the State deprives a person of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected. Experienced professional airline pilots are fighting for their careers, their future and their ability to earn a living in a chosen profession. At the very least, pilots wish to work to the age of 65 when they are eligible for Medicare and the Social Security fund distribution age. If the junior pilots of today want to have the choice of working past age 60 someday, then those junior pilots must understand that this change must happen NOW. The appropriateness and the circumstances that could effect a change to happen have never been better than they are today and those circumstances may never again become any better. If bills S.65 and H.R.65 that are currently in congress should fail, we may never again see an opportunity to abolish the “Age 60 Rule”.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Age 60 - Reasons for Change


1. The rest of the civilized world will standardize 65 as the upper limit when the ICAO rule takes effect. Member states in ICAO can choose to disregard the 65 limit and impose something lower, but they will not be able to deny other member states from operating in the non-compliant member's airspace. So unless the US changes we will have virtually every other nation operating in our airspace with pilots in command up to age 65 as long as the other pilot is under 60. This is age discrimination in it purest form. In private industry, this activity has been struck down by the EEOC on 17 consecutive occasions.

2. The cost savings to the federal government are enormous. We have a brand new study (7/18/06) prepared by Mr. Darryl Jenkins that details nearly $1 billion per year net revenue positive to the Treasury from the combined effects of keeping pilots on tax roles and off federally subsidized programs like PBGC, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Mr. Jenkins is highly credentialed and recognized in DC in this arena. He authored the Handbook of Airline Economics and has consulted to the FAA, DOT, and NTSB.

3. Safety is no longer a deterrent. If safety were a concern based on age 60:
A. Why did ALPA negotiate and sign off on the Air Canada Jazz contract allowing pilots in command to work to 65? Take a look at their route structure sometime.
B. Why has ALPA been silent about the fact that co-pilots on foreign carriers have been operating in our airspace for years over the age of 60? Why isn't ALPA protesting right now to the FAA and DOT about foreign carriers with over-60 captains using our airspace beginning this fall?
C. Why did ALPA fight the age-60 rule as discriminatory for the first 20 years of its existence?
D. Why have virtually all the member states to ICAO adopted the rule? Are they not concerned about safety? Case in point: Japan went to 63 many years ago and studied their own pilots in the post-60 population. After 15,000 man years of data collected on that group with no perceivable compromise to safety, they adopted 65.
E. Why haven't the collective corporate managements of US based carriers disavowed and terminated all their code-sharing agreements with their foreign partners who employ pilots over the age of 60? Why would the IATA support such a change if it were unsafe?

4. There is strong support from unions. The Teamsters representing over 7000 pilots at 14 carriers have testified before the Senate Commerce Committee urging Congress pass both S.65 and HR.65. SWAPA representing all the Southwest pilots with strong endorsement all the way to Herb Kelleher have been fighting for this change for years. Jet Blue pilots and management have formed a coalition team to carry the same message to Congress. We have strong letters of endorsement from both the AARP and the Seniors Coalition.

5. Raising medical standards for all pilots or older pilots is not an issue. Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton has said he sees no need to change medical certification standards based on the potential change to the upper age limit. Our standards are already compatible with most ICAO member states.

So there you have it.

 

[Andy]

1. The rest of the civilized world will standardize 65 as the upper limit when the ICAO rule takes effect. Member states in ICAO can choose to disregard the 65 limit and impose something lower, but they will not be able to deny other member states from operating in the non-compliant member's airspace. So unless the US changes we will have virtually every other nation operating in our airspace with pilots in command up to age 65 as long as the other pilot is under 60. This is age discrimination in it purest form. In private industry, this activity has been struck down by the EEOC on 17 consecutive occasions.

Well, I can name a couple of other countries that are keeping 60 as the max age ... France and China. So it's not universal.

2. The cost savings to the federal government are enormous. We have a brand new study (7/18/06) prepared by Mr. Darryl Jenkins that details nearly $1 billion per year net revenue positive to the Treasury from the combined effects of keeping pilots on tax roles and off federally subsidized programs like PBGC, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Mr. Jenkins is highly credentialed and recognized in DC in this arena. He authored the Handbook of Airline Economics and has consulted to the FAA, DOT, and NTSB.

Apparantly you didn't read Captain Hunter's response to a letter in the Ft Worth Telegram on the cost savings. Here's a reprint, thanks to AA767AV8TOR:
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.

3. Safety is no longer a deterrent.

Please. It's all about safety. After a pilot hits 55 (on average), the deterioration of their physical and cognitive abilities more than outweigh the 'experience' factor.

Undaunted Flyer, you were hired at age 22 (yes folks, he was hired at United at age 22!). You've had a long time in the cockpit. Time to step aside before you become excessively dangerous. But instead of ending your career in a dignified manner, you've chosen a course of action where it's all about you. Have you noticed that everyone voicing a strong opinion on extending the retirement age is over 55?
I would like to be on furlough for another couple of years (which would probably happen if the age were extended to 65) because I am having a successful career outside of United. I opted to bypass when I got my recall letter. If I were selfish, I'd be right on the bandwagon to extend the age to 65. But I'm not because it's unsafe. And the unfortunate thing is that most pilots who are unsafe do not realize it. And from the way that both you and Klako describe yourselves, I think that you both must be from Lake Wobegon, where everyone is above average. I'm betting that you both are stretching the truth.
While donating blood today, I thought about you. Can you name a single selfless act that you've done in the last ten years to better society where you gained no personal benefit? I don't think that you can ... it's just not in your nature.

 

[b757driver]

1. The rest of the civilized world will standardize 65 as the upper limit when the ICAO rule takes effect. Member states in ICAO can choose to disregard the 65 limit and impose something lower, but they will not be able to deny other member states from operating in the non-compliant member's airspace. So unless the US changes we will have virtually every other nation operating in our airspace with pilots in command up to age 65 as long as the other pilot is under 60. This is age discrimination in it purest form. In private industry, this activity has been struck down by the EEOC on 17 consecutive occasions.

2. The cost savings to the federal government are enormous. We have a brand new study (7/18/06) prepared by Mr. Darryl Jenkins that details nearly $1 billion per year net revenue positive to the Treasury from the combined effects of keeping pilots on tax roles and off federally subsidized programs like PBGC, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Mr. Jenkins is highly credentialed and recognized in DC in this arena. He authored the Handbook of Airline Economics and has consulted to the FAA, DOT, and NTSB.

3. Safety is no longer a deterrent. If safety were a concern based on age 60:
A. Why did ALPA negotiate and sign off on the Air Canada Jazz contract allowing pilots in command to work to 65? Take a look at their route structure sometime.
B. Why has ALPA been silent about the fact that co-pilots on foreign carriers have been operating in our airspace for years over the age of 60? Why isn't ALPA protesting right now to the FAA and DOT about foreign carriers with over-60 captains using our airspace beginning this fall?
C. Why did ALPA fight the age-60 rule as discriminatory for the first 20 years of its existence?
D. Why have virtually all the member states to ICAO adopted the rule? Are they not concerned about safety? Case in point: Japan went to 63 many years ago and studied their own pilots in the post-60 population. After 15,000 man years of data collected on that group with no perceivable compromise to safety, they adopted 65.
E. Why haven't the collective corporate managements of US based carriers disavowed and terminated all their code-sharing agreements with their foreign partners who employ pilots over the age of 60? Why would the IATA support such a change if it were unsafe?

4. There is strong support from unions. The Teamsters representing over 7000 pilots at 14 carriers have testified before the Senate Commerce Committee urging Congress pass both S.65 and HR.65. SWAPA representing all the Southwest pilots with strong endorsement all the way to Herb Kelleher have been fighting for this change for years. Jet Blue pilots and management have formed a coalition team to carry the same message to Congress. We have strong letters of endorsement from both the AARP and the Seniors Coalition.

5. Raising medical standards for all pilots or older pilots is not an issue. Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton has said he sees no need to change medical certification standards based on the potential change to the upper age limit. Our standards are already compatible with most ICAO member states.

So there you have it.

Spot on!

China and France, eh? Well, nuff said........you want to lump the US in with that crowd, then go ahead. It may not be quite universal but it's certainly in the MAJORITY.
And....it's OK for foreign pilots over 60 to fly into US airspace and US airports (safety or no safety) but not for US citizens to fly US-registered aircraft in their OWN country. Now, how sensible is that? Wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Legal Opinion of Age-60/65

The BATA (Bilateral Air Transport Agreement) is signed by each individual nation, hence the actual document is a form where you fill-in-the-blank for the date, the country (Canada, Venezuela, etc.) and the acting authority at the end signs for and in behalf of the Government of the United States of America.
Since ICAO is a treaty, and thereby falls under Article VI of the Constitution, the legal argument as far as BATA is thus -
If the ICAO adopts pilot flying as age 60+, yet one of the member states (USA) does not allow its' member represented subjects (US registered airlines) to also allow age 60+ pilots to operate under the terms of BATA with each individual signatory to the agreement, then the United States government is in de facto violation of Treaty, and under rules of ICAO, has 30 days in which to notify each member state of the violation and begin resolution process.
The layman's argument is that if you are a member of ICAO, you can't pick and choose which provisions of the treaty you can abide, just as you can't pick and choose which parts of BATA you can abide. If you're a ICAO member, and particularly, if you've signed the BATA with the United States (which all ICAO members have who operate to the US), then either EVERYBODY flies past age 60, or NOBODY flies past age 60.
A successful argument can also be made that this also violates the NAFTA provisions because it allows unfair advantage to other nations in air commerce - their pilots (foreign pilots) can keep flying past age 60, whereas US pilots must, by federal mandate, retire and the US airlines (in theory) need to screen, select, hire, train, and certify their replacements...this allows an economic advantage to the other airlines from outside the USA who do not have to meet this standard.
The executive branch (DOT and FAA) have also stated in their policies the age 60 as being a safety issue. Due to the written statements (implied warranty) of safe operating practices within the United States, they are also in violation of their own rules if they allow US citizens to board any commercial aircraft within the United States (regardless of the carrier) with a pilot in excess of age 60 in command.
There are also other trade agreements in place besides NAFTA, along the lines of what the US State Dept. qualifies as MFN status (Most Favored Nation), of which virtually all of Europe and Asia (amazingly, even China!) currently hold.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

[/color][/size][/font]

Can you name a single selfless act that you've done in the last ten years to better society where you gained no personal benefit? I don't think that you can ... it's just not in your nature.

I bought a round of MiaTai's in HNL just the day before yesterday. I gave blood once too.

Andy: It is really pointless to get into a discussion about yours or my life. The topic is the age 60 rule. It will be changed soon, this year or next year. Get used to it.

Also, you really need to calm down. Get a life; you will probably be a captain some day too. Just be patient. Your day will come if you can only wait your turn. Please relax and stop making such ridiculous arguments over an over as if you know more than the whole rest of the world about the safety of flying past age-60.

 

[Sluggo_63]

The BATA (Bilateral Air Transport Agreement) is signed by each individual nation, hence the actual document is a form where you fill-in-the-blank for the date, the country (Canada, Venezuela, etc.) and the acting authority at the end signs for and in behalf of the Government of the United States of America.
Since ICAO is a treaty, and thereby falls under Article VI of the Constitution, the legal argument as far as BATA is thus -
If the ICAO adopts pilot flying as age 60+, yet one of the member states (USA) does not allow its' member represented subjects (US registered airlines) to also allow age 60+ pilots to operate under the terms of BATA with each individual signatory to the agreement, then the United States government is in de facto violation of Treaty, and under rules of ICAO, has 30 days in which to notify each member state of the violation and begin resolution process.
The layman's argument is that if you are a member of ICAO, you can't pick and choose which provisions of the treaty you can abide, just as you can't pick and choose which parts of BATA you can abide. If you're a ICAO member, and particularly, if you've signed the BATA with the United States (which all ICAO members have who operate to the US), then either EVERYBODY flies past age 60, or NOBODY flies past age 60.
A successful argument can also be made that this also violates the NAFTA provisions because it allows unfair advantage to other nations in air commerce - their pilots (foreign pilots) can keep flying past age 60, whereas US pilots must, by federal mandate, retire and the US airlines (in theory) need to screen, select, hire, train, and certify their replacements...this allows an economic advantage to the other airlines from outside the USA who do not have to meet this standard.
The executive branch (DOT and FAA) have also stated in their policies the age 60 as being a safety issue. Due to the written statements (implied warranty) of safe operating practices within the United States, they are also in violation of their own rules if they allow US citizens to board any commercial aircraft within the United States (regardless of the carrier) with a pilot in excess of age 60 in command.
There are also other trade agreements in place besides NAFTA, along the lines of what the US State Dept. qualifies as MFN status (Most Favored Nation), of which virtually all of Europe and Asia (amazingly, even China!) currently hold.

But FAA instrument procedures are substantially different than ICAO instrument procedures. Are we in violation there since we don't use the ICAO standard in our country. There is an exemption to BATA. I don't think we are in violation of the treaty because we have a lower age.

Going to age 65 may allow foreign airlines a five year hiatus in hiring, then it will resume at the same pace as before. It's just all the junior pilots get the "privilege" of staying in their seat an additional 5 years.

This is a poor argument.

 

[Sluggo_63]

Get a life; you will probably be a captain some day too.

Yes, five years later than he thought, if your plan comes to fruition.

Just be patient. Your day will come if you can only wait your turn.

We have been patient. You have had your turn (in your case for 37 years). Now it's time to let others have the same opportunity you have had.

Please relax and stop making such ridiculous arguments over an over as if you know more than the whole rest of the world about the safety of flying past age-60.

It's not the whole rest of the world. Secondly, why does the ICAO rule (and the proposed FAA law) require that one person up front has to be under 60. I have not heard a good argument for that that doesn't mention safety.