Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age 65

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Status
Not open for further replies.

bluefin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
384
Not to be a dead horse that has been beaten to death, but how many countries actually have age 65 besides us? A couple months ago the French threatened or did go on strike to keep it from changing, the Canadians don't have it. I just talked to an Air Canada guy and he said the 270 are retiring so that will eliminate furloughs. Were we led down the path of, "other countries have age 65 we need it too?"
 
No. It was voted on by ICAO. Only 4 countries voted against it, the U.S. and France being the primary opponents.

Once the ICAO reg passed, it was only a matter of time before we were forced to comply.
 
Were we led down the path of, "other countries have age 65 we need it too?"

YES

My understanding is that only Finnair and El Al in ICAO have over 60 pilots flying into the US. Probably numbers less than 50.

The difference between us and other ICAO countries is their individual companies can still set the mandatory retirement age vs. having to comply with the robust age discrimination laws here.

So while ICAO allows BA to fly to 65, BA sets their retirement age at 58. No legal challanges.

We were absolutly snookered and screwed by the PR on this.
 
The difference between us and other ICAO countries is their individual companies can still set the mandatory retirement age vs. having to comply with the robust age discrimination laws here.
I don't see anything that would prevent a union and management from agreeing to set 60 or any other age below 65 as a mandatory retirement age in the US. The reg change allows airline pioots to age 65 - it doesn't require airlines to fly them till then.

That being said, the company would probably want a pretty hefty quid pro quo for lowering the retirement age below the legal limit and the unions would be unwilling to pay that price.
 
I don't see anything that would prevent a union and management from agreeing to set 60 or any other age below 65 as a mandatory retirement age in the US. The reg change allows airline pioots to age 65 - it doesn't require airlines to fly them till then.

That being said, the company would probably want a pretty hefty quid pro quo for lowering the retirement age below the legal limit and the unions would be unwilling to pay that price.

Quid Pro Quo? You mean management would want something in return for booting some from the highest payscale and hiring FNGs at Walmart wages? I believe it was the airlines that pushed for the age 60 rule in the first place.
 
The rule was changed..fine.

It would have been nice that those over 60 would have been the first to go in lieu of furloughs.

That could have been a stipulation to the rule change.
 
Quid Pro Quo? You mean management would want something in return for booting some from the highest payscale and hiring FNGs at Walmart wages? I believe it was the airlines that pushed for the age 60 rule in the first place.
Well in that case, it should be very easy for the unions to get that in their next contract, right? If the companies want it and the union supports the majority of the pilots, then it's a done deal.
 
I just have one question. If the government believes that over 60 pilots can perform their job without compromising safety, how come TWO over 60 pilots cannot be paired together. It seems to me that the boyzz in DC do in fact have concerns. This little subtle rule proves it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest resources

Back
Top