AirTran Pilots and Union Board Support Changing FAA Age 60 Rule

[j41driver]

ATLANTA, April 5 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Pilots Association, AirTran's 1,400 member pilot union, released survey data today showing that just under two-thirds (63%) of its members support changing the current mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots from sixty (60) to sixty-five (65).
"The six-pilot NPA Board of Directors also supports raising the retirement age to 65," said Capt. Allen Philpot, President of the National Pilots Association. "Our board has voted unanimously in support of changing the law to allow U.S. pilots to fly an additional five years, just like our international counterparts."
The FAA plans within the next two-years to adopt the new International Civil Aviation Organization standard that allows one pilot on the flight deck to be up to age 65, provided the other pilot flying the aircraft is under age 60.
"Most people in the industry now see this as a case of 'when,' not 'if,'" said Captain Philpot. "Provisions need to be put in place now to keep those pilots who want to fly beyond age 60 on the job. It would be unfortunate to lose our most experienced pilots."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070405/aqth012.html?.v=8




Now can someone tell me how our union came up with 63% of 1400 voted in favor when they didn't ask all 1400??

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

oh boy.............

 

[Mooseflyer]

63% eh? And how many pilots weren't asked for their opinion? I'll start.......... 1.

 

[j41driver]

If you feel misrepresented, email the BoD and let them know. Email addresses are on www.npa-atl.org

They are there to represent us right??

 

[Nindiri]

I was asked when they did their survey using the Wilson people.

 

[j41driver]

I was asked when they did their survey using the Wilson people.

While I'm not doubting that, the Wilson polls are always a representative sampling of the group. i.e., not all members are polled. That may be fine for some subjects, especially those that go to the membership for ratification such as a TA. I just think that a sampling is a bad way to find out how the group feels about a subject as emotionally charged as Age 60. Could've used Ballotpoint.com or something similar to poll the entire membership.

 

[Lear70]

While I'm not doubting that, the Wilson polls are always a representative sampling of the group. i.e., not all members are polled. That may be fine for some subjects, especially those that go to the membership for ratification such as a TA. I just think that a sampling is a bad way to find out how the group feels about a subject as emotionally charged as Age 60. Could've used Ballotpoint.com or something similar to poll the entire membership.

EVERYTHING will be 60/40 votes in favor of something you don't want from now until eternity.

Didn't you get that memo?

 

[ferlo]

Gee, what a surprise...

Let me guess, America West pilots are in favor as well

 

[SLEDNECK]

While I'm not doubting that, the Wilson polls are always a representative sampling of the group. i.e., not all members are polled. That may be fine for some subjects, especially those that go to the membership for ratification such as a TA. I just think that a sampling is a bad way to find out how the group feels about a subject as emotionally charged as Age 60. Could've used Ballotpoint.com or something similar to poll the entire membership.

Absolutely. You can spin something like this very easily. All you have to do is poll certain groups of pilots. Those polls can be as "random" as they want it to be. Besides, he said he got his results "years ago" for the BOD to support age 65. Anyone polled "years ago"? If they are asking on the latest round of wilson polling, it's AFTER they decided to support it, not before. Besides, the statement says "The National Pilots Association, AirTran's 1,400 member pilot union, released survey data today showing that just under two-thirds (63%) of its members support changing the current mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots from sixty (60) to sixty-five (65). That means that 910 pilots here want it changed. I don't think so.

The quote said it would be a shame to lose our most experienced pilots, AKA our most senior pilots like ones on the BOD perhaps?

 

[Flydaplane]

Geez and I thought our union was overreaching!

 

[humveedriver]

We have roughly 50 pilots turning 60 over the next five years out of 1500. So this affects about 3% of our retirements. I think thats small potatoes. Of course if your one of 50 first officers who misses a chance to upgrade earlier I understand, but otherwise we are a young pilot group.

 

[SLEDNECK]

We have roughly 50 pilots turning 60 over the next five years out of 1500. So this affects about 3% of our retirements. I think thats small potatoes. Of course if your one of 50 first officers who misses a chance to upgrade earlier I understand, but otherwise we are a young pilot group.

You're missing the point. This "young pilot group" is using all of our dues to support something that helps a fewat the top while hurting the rest of the group. It's not that NPA is going to have any weight on whether it happens or not, it's using our dues to fund something that is not supported by the majority, which is what the union is supposed to be for in the first place.

 

[j41driver]

EVERYTHING will be 60/40 votes in favor of something you don't want from now until eternity.

Didn't you get that memo?

Yeah, I got that memo. The point is the BoD didn't poll the entire group. If they're going to come out (to the national media no less) and say that 63% of the 1400 pilots want to change the retirement age, at least make sure you got the opinion of 1400 pilots.

 

[Ty Webb]

My answer would have been "no" had they asked.

I say if they are going to raise the age, make them be FO's. Then they won't step on anyone's upgrade, and if they die in flight, who cares? The weight and balance is done, the ATIS and Clearance are done, and I'll be happy to grab the post-flight walk-around . . . . after I scratch them off the seniority list, of course.


.

 

[SLEDNECK]

[
I say if they are going to raise the age, make them be FO's. Then they won't step on anyone's upgrade, and if they die in flight, who cares?

Yep, if the <60 pilot HAS to be there in order for the >60 pilot to be there, shouldn't the one that is required be the one making Captain's pay? That way there is at least a little incentive to retire and those that really need to stay, can.

 

[T3700]

2 1/2 years at AirTran and I have yet to be surveyed. I am beginning to think that they survey only those that have the answers they want to hear.

 

[ferlo]

2 1/2 years at AirTran and I have yet to be surveyed. I am beginning to think that they survey only those that have the answers they want to hear.

DING DING DING DING We have a Winner!!!!

 

[airfogey]

Duh, now you know how ALPO does its poling also--however if at AIRTRAN you only have 50 pilots hitting 60 in the next five years then you should realize that the way 99% of the upgrades at AIRTRAN will be is because of expansion--not attrition--and that is how the vast majority of upgrades have been--with the exception being the fossilized "legacy" carriers who had unsustainable contracts that took the hits after 9-11--it wasn't the LCC's that had to shrink after 9-11--food for thought.

Airfogey

 

[BSkin]

2 1/2 years at AirTran and I have yet to be surveyed. I am beginning to think that they survey only those that have the answers they want to hear.

Just over that and have not either. They did call one time when I was out, wife told them when I'd be around -- never got a return call. I would've voted no!

 

[crosscut]

If this is NOT about safety, then WHY does the other pilot have to be under 60? This shows they ARE concerned about the possibility of health failures, which is a SAFETY risk. Otherwise, let both be over 60! Very logical... NOT

P.S. I like Philpot’s age reference to experience. The botched landing in RDU was by a 55-year old; Southwest’s rwy overrun was by a 58-year old, to name a couple… I guess it must be ALL THAT experience, Philpot. Accidents/incident can happen to anybody. While age = experience, experience does NOT equate to safety.

P.P.S. One more observation: “Provisions need to be put in place to keep those … beyond 60 on the job.” Is he saying he wants those who have retired (but are under 65) OR who will retire between now & the ruling to return via some “provision?”