Age 60 Panel

[Bake]

Panel Splits on Raising Airline Pilot Retirement Age (Update2)

By John Hughes

Nov. 30 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. government panel couldn't agree whether the retirement age for airline pilots should be raised to 65 from 60, calling the issue ``contentious.''

If the Federal Aviation Administration does lift the age, pilots who are already retired shouldn't be allowed to return to work, the panel said in a report to the agency in Washington.

The split leaves FAA Administrator Marion Blakey without an industry consensus as she decides whether to change the agency's 47-year practice of forcing pilots to retire at age 60. Prodded by some pilots and lawmakers to change the age limit, she named the panel on Sept. 27 to advise her by late November.

``It's basically a tie,'' said Washington-based consultant Clay Foushee, a former vice president of operations at Northwest Airlines Corp. ``It doesn't really help clarify the matter at all. It's a very politically difficult situation for the administrator.''

Pilots who have had pension benefits pared as U.S. airlines struggled financially have been pushing to work longer to make up at least some of the difference. Younger pilots who want more opportunities for promotions tend to oppose a higher age.

No Recommendation

``The age 60 issue remains contentious for the commercial aviation industry,'' said the panelists, who included airline representatives and pilot union leaders. Their report made no recommendation on raising the age and devoted roughly equal space to the pro and con views of a change.

The FAA received the report yesterday and hasn't released it publicly, spokeswoman Laura Brown said. ``We appreciate the hard work of the committee,'' Brown said. ``We're reviewing it.'' Bloomberg News obtained a copy today.

Six panel members opposed raising the age, including four representatives of the Air Line Pilots Association, the world's largest pilot union. The panelists from AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and its Allied Pilots Association also opposed any change.

The four panelists who favored raising the age were from Southwest Airlines Co., JetBlue Airways Corp., the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association and a group called Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination.

``This breaks down along some predictable lines,'' said William Voss, chief executive officer of the Flight Safety Foundation in Alexandria, Virginia. ``This isn't going to help Marion Blakey very much.''

Neutral Leaders

Some panelists didn't endorse either view in the report, including the co-chairs, Jim May, president of the Air Transport Association airline industry trade group and Duane Woerth, president of the Airline Pilots Association. Both men declined to comment through their spokesmen.

A representative of the Aerospace Medical Association, filed a separate opinion that ``age should not be the sole criterion'' for disqualifying airline pilots. The advisory panel began with 14 industry members and added two more, according to its report.

The group's lone recommendation is that the FAA not change the age retroactively. ``Any element of retroactivity would add more complexity to the issue and make it almost impossible for any agreement on implementation,'' according to the report.

Pressure to raise the age has come from U.S. lawmakers such as Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, himself a 72-year- old private pilot. The Senate Appropriations Committee in July approved lifting the age to 65 as part of a $69 billion budget bill. That legislation still hasn't been enacted into law.

Other Countries

Countries such as Australia that allow older pilots to fly and wanted them to be able to cross other nations' airspace also want the U.S. to lift the age.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, which recommends global air-safety standards, adopted a standard that nations should allow pilots to fly to age 65 as long as the other pilot in the cockpit is younger than 60. The change took effect Nov. 23, which means older pilots on foreign airlines can fly in U.S. skies, if allowed by their carriers and governments.

Airline pilots currently flying over age 60 include 18 with Japan Airlines Corp., 20 with Qantas Airways Ltd., 35 at SAS Group and 20 at Air New Zealand Ltd., according to an Oct. 12 letter from the International Federation of Air Lines Pilots Associations. The letter was included in the report.

``Age alone is a very poor discriminator of risk of incapacitation,'' said Voss, former director of ICAO's air navigation bureau who worked on the age-60 issue. ``We should end the debate on what the right age is and start a new debate on how do we evaluate risk of incapacitation with current, modern medical methods.''

Foushee, a consultant with Zuckert Scoutt and Rasenberger LLP in Washington, said he had hoped the FAA panelists' decisions ``would be made more on technical and physiological grounds, rather than political grounds.''

To contact the reporter on this story: J

 

[Andy Neill]

Thanks for the update.

 

[FNG_that's me]

Well, so much for the notion that the medical standards won't change. Nice going UF, and the rest of your selfish generation.

Did it ever cross your mind that some people want the age to remain at 60 just so you(UF) have to get out of the business?

Beware the man with nothing to lose...because he'll ruin this industry for the rest of us!!!

 

[Bake]

FNG, you and I seem to read that the same way. The camel now has his nose under the tent on this one. Our first class medicals could get alot more complicated, not only driving up the cost but you could be tied up with FAA paperwork for a long time. Next the FAA will have a longer wait time for waivers. In my opinion that just sucks.

 

[satpak77]

this is the govt we are dealing with. If it is "split" on what to do, they will do what is easiest and safest, which is vote for no-change.

If the panel absolutely wants a change, then the govt will begin the bureacratic process of drafting new regulations, having meetings, updating the industry, etc etc.

However, if it is split, there is no incentive to go to the "lets change it" side.

If so, it will then therefore remain in place, with a few catch-phrases tossed out along with it, such as "We have no compelling evidence or information supporting a reason to change it from Age 60" etc etc blah blah blah

 

[HA25]

I know it's selfish to say, but I sure hope they don't do this for at least 3-4 more years.. this is not the time to drop demand for pilot hiring. Sorry for the senior guys right now waiting on the ruling, but someone is going to lose out of this either way, and I'd rather it not be me.

 

[HA25]

It is interesting how the unions are all split on this... Legacy's don't want it, and LCC's do.. what's the logic?

 

[satpak77]

I know it's selfish to say, but I sure hope they don't do this for at least 3-4 more years.. this is not the time to drop demand for pilot hiring. Sorry for the senior guys right now waiting on the ruling, but someone is going to lose out of this either way, and I'd rather it not be me.

Nothing will happen tomorrow. The democrats will want to put their hands on this issue also. God forbid if Bush comes out on public TV and says he supports it, then it is dead in the water, just bury it right then and there.

Lets see what the FAA votes to do first, we are not even at a decision yet.

Plan on 2 years MINIMUM before any said change is officially in place and in effect.

 

[satpak77]

It is interesting how the unions are all split on this... Legacy's don't want it, and LCC's do.. what's the logic?

partially goes back to ALPA. Legacies have XXXX thousands on the street, or did anyway, and memories of that are still fresh. So raising the age will keep guys on the street (possibly, depends who you talk to). LCC's such as AirTran, JetBlue, etc have guys who got furloughed somewhere else and ARE WORKING at a new company and need to recoup some 401(k) losses and recoup some cockpit time in the friendly skies before they are mandatorily retired. An ex-TWA'er laid off at age 47 by AA now at Airtran may want to work past age 60 if he can. A retired military guy hired at SWA at age 45 may want to work past age 60 if he can.

BUT, a 30 year old FE at AA hired in 1999 (example) is pending recall at AA and does NOT need Age 60 to change. He indeed might be at Airtran also. BUT if Age 60 is not changed, he can return to AA if recalled, or stay at Airtran. If Age 60 is changed, he possibly will never return to AA and may not get that choice.

etc etc

depending on who you talk to and the position of the moon that day, you will get 10 different reasons why the various groups want or don't want Age-60

 

[General Lee]

And what about all of those people who petitioned the FAA on that website? In reality, those people were mostly wives, daughters, and sons of pilots who want them to keep out of the house another 5 years. They don't want them back home 24/7. Especially the wives, they were IMPLORING them to change the rule. Ridiculous.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Chest Rockwell]

And what about all of those people who petitioned the FAA on that website? In reality, those people were mostly wives, daughters, and sons of pilots who want them to keep out of the house another 5 years. They don't want them back home 24/7. Especially the wives, they were IMPLORING them to change the rule. Ridiculous.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Are you suprised that hardly anyone gives your posts much credit when you make stuff up?

 

[FoxHunter]

If the age 60 rule is about safety the rule will remain age 60. If the age 60 rule is a job protection/promotion program for junior pilots it will change very soon.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Psst! The FAA's own working group (the wonks in the head shed...not the ARC) have outlined the significant issues that would have to be settled before any change to Age 60 could be implemented.

A partial list:

1. Minimum standards
2. Testing to minimum standards
3. Self-certification
4. Phase-in

1-3 are problematic, and JAA has been unhelpful in providing meaningful (ie: black-and-white) insight into how they reconciled them.

#3 itself is the ultimate paradox. The thingy that lets you know you're not cutting it is the same thingy you use to determine it's not working. Not too dissimilar from Comcast's on-line Help function with an option that reads: "Click here if unable to get on-line".

 

[AA717driver]

If I go back to AA, I'll need to work past 60. But, if they are going to change it at least have a reason to peg it at 65 or 70 or whatever. Don't just get rid of an arbitrary number, replacing it with another arbitrary number.

BTW, let's all drop the pretense here. Those who are in favor of the change have that position for selfish reasons. "My retirement isn't going to be enough when I hit age 60 (through no fault of my own)."

Those who oppose the change also hold that position for selfish reasons. "I don't want to wait another 5 years to upgrade."

Let's just drop the lame rationalizations on both sides. TC

 

[HA25]

I
BTW, let's all drop the pretense here. Those who are in favor of the change have that position for selfish reasons. "My retirement isn't going to be enough when I hit age 60 (through no fault of my own)."

exactly! And that's why in my post, I stated "For selfish reasons" cause you only have a horse in this race if it effects you.

 

[General Lee]

Are you suprised that hardly anyone gives your posts much credit when you make stuff up?

Did you actually look at the posts? I did. They were canned and most were obviously not listened to. Sorry. And, if you don't like my posts, put me on ignore. I hope you do. Sorry about the Age 65 thing likely NOT passing.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[dsee8driver]

I guess I can post this qustion here.

If the FAA does not change the rule based on SAFETY, will they warn the public about flying on foreign carriers with over 60 pilots and tell them it's unsafe? God forbid I will fly another carrier with a pilot over the age of 60 since it is UNSAFE. What would the other goverments say when the feds warn the american people?

 

[General Lee]

I guess I can post this qustion here.

If the FAA does not change the rule based on SAFETY, will they warn the public about flying on foreign carriers with over 60 pilots and tell them it's unsafe? God forbid I will fly another carrier with a pilot over the age of 60 since it is UNSAFE. What would the other goverments say when the feds warn the american people?

They should. And, why would ICAO advise NOT having two over age 60 pilots in the same cockpit? Any reason for that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[FoxHunter]

They should. And, why would ICAO advise NOT having two over age 60 pilots in the same cockpit? Any reason for that?


Bye Bye--General Lee

NO, according to ICAO.:beer:


" In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]— [/FONT]1012 or one million [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]x [/FONT]one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded."

 

[Andy]

this is the govt we are dealing with. If it is "split" on what to do, they will do what is easiest and safest, which is vote for no-change.

If the panel absolutely wants a change, then the govt will begin the bureacratic process of drafting new regulations, having meetings, updating the industry, etc etc.

However, if it is split, there is no incentive to go to the "lets change it" side.

If so, it will then therefore remain in place, with a few catch-phrases tossed out along with it, such as "We have no compelling evidence or information supporting a reason to change it from Age 60" etc etc blah blah blah

Shack! The FAA got exactly what they wanted; no clearcut recommendation from the panel. They can continue to publicly express no opinion. And no reason to make a regulatory change. The ball's back in Congress's court. No change.

 

[Andy]

FNG, you and I seem to read that the same way. The camel now has his nose under the tent on this one. Our first class medicals could get alot more complicated, not only driving up the cost but you could be tied up with FAA paperwork for a long time. Next the FAA will have a longer wait time for waivers. In my opinion that just sucks.

FNG and you are correct. Medical standards WILL change if age 60 changes. You may want to take a look at Japan's medical standards - just to see what this Pandora's box has in store for US pilots.