ALPA's opposition to Age 60

[chase]

There has been speculation that ALPA would be reversing it's opposition to the repeal of the Age 60 rule. This letter to Sen. John McCain summarizes ALPA's continued opposition to the rule. Interesting reading.

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATI::~L
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE. N.W. 0 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2CXJ38 0 703-688-2270
FAX 202-797-4052
April 22, 2003
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
On behalf of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALP A), I am writing to urge you to oppose
legislation to repeal the FAA's regulation known as the Age 60 Rule (14 C.P.R. 121.383(c», that
requires commercial airline pilots to retire upon reaching 60 years of age. It is uncommon, if not
unprecedented, for the Congress to usurp the authority of the FAA on important safety
regulations without overwhelming evidence that the agency's position is unwaITanted or
arbitrary and capricious. No $uch findings have been made either by the Congress or by the
Federal courts with regard to the Age 60 Rule.
The Age 60 Rule is based on substantial scientific evidence that subtle declines in cognitive
functions associated with aging can adversely affect the ability of airline pilots to perform safely.
However, medical science has not perfected a testing protocol that can reliably screen out those
pilots whose performance has or will become inadequate and unsafe due to the natural process of
aging. Therefore, it has been determined reasonable to mandate retirement at a specific
chronological age that is within an acceptable range of risk for commercial air transportation
operations.
Throughout the past 20 years, the FAA has continuously reviewed the scientific basis for the
Rule and has consistently upheld it as a sound and effective air safety regulation. On several .
occasions, the Federal courts have reviewed and affmned the FAA's decisions. The most recent
review was triggered in April, 2000, by a group of 69 pilots who petitioned the FAA for
exemption from the Rule based on a "new" testing protocol called the Age 60 Exemption
Protocol, that included a battery of cognitive tests known as CogScreen-AE (for Aeromedical
Edition). Following a thorough review of the research and literature on the CogScreen-AE and
the administration of it by the petitioners' "Exemption Panel" of medical experts, the FAA
denied the petition with the following conclusion:
"In sum, there cun-ently is no research showing which CogScreen-AE
tests sufficiently identify age-related cognitive function deficits that
would impact pilot perfonnance and aircraft safety. Petitioners have not
explained how their Exemption Panel used and resolved the CogScreen-AE
results, particularly those results that appear to be abnormal based on the
research to date. The addition since 1988 of CogScreen-AE to petitioners'
Age 60 Exemption Protocol does not make the protocol adequate to evaluate
SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY .,... AFAUATED wmi AFl-ClO
pilots to continue to serve under pan 121 beyond age 60. The other changes
to the neuropsychological protocol do not improve the predictive value of
the protocol. Accordingly, the neuropsychological protocol is not shown
to be adequate to determine if pilots will remain fit to serve under part 121
as they reach and exceed age 60." Denial of Exemption on Remand, FAA
Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8016 at page 17, December 13, 2000.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the FAA' s denial of the petition was
affirmed. After a thor~ugh review of the CogScreen-AE protocol and its administration by the
Exemption Panel as presented in briefs by the petitioners and the FAA. the Court concluded:
"U1timately, we find that substantial evidence supports the FAA's findings
that CogScreen-AE is not, at this point, an adequate cognitive tool for
determining whether an exemption to the Age Sixty Rule is Walr.anted. Far
from ignoring CogScreen-AE, the FAA actually developed the test. Yet it
has determined that, at present, the test is properly utilized in the medical
recertification evaluation of pilots with la1own or suspected neurolo~cal and/or
psychiatric conditions." Yetman v. Garvey, 261 F.3d 664 at 675 (7 Cir.2001).
On the issue of the FAA' s exemption policy. the Court said:
'The FAA has the discretionary power to establish a rigid policy, whereby
no exemptions are granted, until it is satisfied that medical standards can
demonstrate an absence of risk factors in an individual sufficient to wanant
a more liberal exemption policy from the Age Sixty Rule. Until the FAA
determines that such standards exist, it may adhere inflexibly to a rule whose
validity has been upheld by the courts and reevaluated by Congress, so long as it
continues to consider, as we are satisfied it has done here, new advances in
medical technology." Yetman v. Garvey, at 679.
Some advocates for repeal of the Rule argue that it is flagrant age discrimination; however, the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Professional Pilots Federation v. FAA, 118 F.3d at 763
(1997), held that, "nothing in the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) can plausibly
be read to restrict the FAA from making age a criterion for employment when it acts in it~
capacity as the guarantor of public safety in the air." In this regard, it is noteworthy that several
job classifications in the Federal workforce have statutory mandatory retirement ages. For
example, air traffic controllers are required to retire at age 56 based on the adverse effects that
age-related changes may have on their performance. I can't think of one airline pilot who would
concede that his or her job is any less stressful or rigorous than that of an air traffic controller or
requires less functional or cognitive fitness. Furthennore, I know of no effort being made in
Congress to repeal the mandatory retirement age for controllers based on age discrimination.
Finally, as you are well aware, the U. S. airline industry is undergoing the worst fmancial crisis
in its history that has resulted in an unprecedented loss of airline jobs. Close to 10,000 pilots
have been, or soon will be, furloughed. Hundreds more have been called up to active duty in the
war in Iraq. The vast majority of furloughees and those in mili~ service are pilots with low
seniority numbers at their airlines - many with young families. Given the gloomy economic
projections for the industry, reemployment of these pilots following the war js problematic at
best. Repeal of the Age 60 Rule at this time to enable the most senior pilots to continue their
careers will exacerbate the already difficult reemployment situation facing these furloughees and
reservists. I urge you to keep these young men and women in mind when considering
legislation to repeal the Age 60 Rule.
Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerely,
II

Duane E. Woerth, President
DEW :jw

Just so folks know, the Southwest Airlines Pilot Association (SWAPA) is supporting legislation to amend the Age 60 rule to the age of 65.

 

[chase]

SWAPA's view on the Age 60 rule

The letter below summarizes the views of SWAPA.


Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association Position Paper on the FAA Age-60 Rule
May 11, 2003
In April of this year, Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association (SWAPA) concluded a system-wide
referendum of our 4,100 pilots regarding their opinion of the Age-60 Rule, an arbitrary limit imposed upon
many commercial pilots for the past 44 years. A sizeable majority (60%) expressed a desire to see this
ceiling either raised or eliminated altogether. These results reaffirm a similar inquiry accomplished several
years ago. As the representative spokesman for SWAPA, I believe that the majority of our pilots view the
Age-60 Rule as an unnecessary restriction upon a pilot’s opportunity to stay gainfully employed in his or her
chosen profession, based solely upon an arbitrary round number, 60.
The current age ceiling impacts the pilot in a very personal manner by forcing that pilot to forfeit a
primary source of income. However, much more is affected than just the individual pilot. The Age-60
limitation is also a regrettable waste to both Southwest Airlines and the American traveling public. The flight
experience accumulated over the career of a professional pilot approaching the age of 60 is considerable.
Ejecting this know-how from the cockpit of a commercial airliner merely because of a birth date is not only
untenable but irrational. Commercial pilots have the potential for safe, productive years of aviating ahead of
them beyond their 60th birthday. I would wager that most of the 40% of our pilots voting to retain the Rule
would agree. Quite honestly, many of SWAPA’s pilots on the dissenting side of this question have
expressed concern that increasing or eliminating the Age-60 Rule will destabilize the current system of
advancement which is inherently tied to Age-60 attrition. If the ceiling changes, First Officers face a
probable delay advancing to the Captain’s seat of the aircraft and the commensurate higher pay levels
coupled to the duties and responsibilities accompanying that position.
There are a multitude of mechanisms to mitigate much of this angst. Gradually increasing the ceiling
over a period of years is but one solution. Another would be to raise or eliminate the current age limit and
let the individual pilot unions tailor workable solutions internally. Attrition beyond the age of 60, either
voluntarily or by medical disqualification, might indeed make much of this debate moot. The overriding issue
is that once it is decided that attaining the age of 60 does not by itself make one unsafe to operate a
commercial airliner, then the details and ramifications of the change, perhaps complex, are not
insurmountable.
SWAPA celebrates its 25th anniversary this year and believes that adjusting or eliminating the Age-60
Rule is long overdue. SWAPA seeks nothing more for the commercial pilot than what any American
desires – the opportunity to be productive at one’s profession as long as one is mentally and physically
capable of doing so safely. I urge each United States Senator and Representative to support legislation in
their respective chambers which promotes this principle. SWAPA stands by in any capacity to assist in
developing a viable solution.
_____________________________________________________
Ike Eichelkraut, President, Southwest Airlines Pilots’ Association

 

[active_herk]

food for thought

Stirctly conjecture here, but could it be that SWA pilots are against the age 60 limitation due to their retirement fund? The US Air pension fund fiasco notwithstanding, most of the major airlines have an A and/or B fund in addition to a 401k. These funds are 100% company funded for the most part. With these pension funds in place, it is to the employee's benefit to retire at age 60. (Although, with the problems of many of the airline's pension funds being woefully underfunded, I wonder if feelings are changing across the board.)

SWA pilots, on the other hand, have only a 401k plan as part of their retirement, and therefore have incentive to work past 60. I wonder if the tone at SWA would change if they had a company funded A and/or B fund. Also, I believe that many SWA pilots made a great deal of money with the rise of SWA stock in the past. This has benefited many of the pilots who have been around for a while, but the rate at which the stock has risen is most likely not sustainable, and the younger pilots at SWA more than likely realize that. If this is in fact true, the younger pilots at SWA will see a much smaller retirement than their more senior counterparts. I would be interested to find out which pilots at SWA are for the age 60 rule, the younger ones or older ones.

 

[chase]

SWAPA voting results

These are the overall percentages from the April vote on whether SWAPA should continue to use union funds to support the repeal of the Age 60 restriction.


Capt FO Totals %

Yes 988 470 1458 60.25%

No 334 628 962 39.75%

% of elgible voters who voted

Capt 63.74%

FO 54.79%

Total 59.34%

Some will make the conclusion the younger pilots (FOs weren't in favor) & the older pilots (Capts) were in favor. It isn't as simple as that since SWA has for years hired folks from a broad range group. Some will intrepret the data different ways. No way to really tell other than the majority of the pilots wanted to support the effort.

The discussion about what an A/B fund would do to impact opinions of pilots is a moot point. There is little interest in having the company control a retirement fund. ALL of my retirement money is mine & is controlled by me. This includes not just the 401K (with 7.3% matching from company) but profit sharing (total of 21%) of my annual salary over the last two years.

What impacts whether folks support this extension is very broad & diverse. I'm sure there are many ALPA pilots (APAAD.org) who now support this repeal since they have seen their retirement funds diminish. We all have different reasons for supporting or not supporting the repeal. My posting isn't to start the discussion all over but to merely let folks who are considering SWA to know where the majority of the pilots (as well as the company, they support our efforts also) sit in terms of the Age 60 rule.

 

[Slug]

Vote Clarification

I'd like to point out and clarify the vote that Chase is talking about from the SWA membership.

The vote was not a direct opinion of the Age-60 rule, but was a vote as to whether or not SWAPA should be spending more funds to attempt to repeal the law. I myself voted against the measure (1st year FO). Not because I believe everyone should be forced to retire at age 60, but because in this day and age SWAPA funds could be spent on more important issues. IE...airport taxes, security, jumpseat legislation, arming pilots, TSA battling, etc.

In actuality I am for repealing the law and feel that if a company and a pilot want to work past 60 they should be able to. I myself won't, but the option would be nice.


Slug

 

[Boeingman]

Whatever side of the fence you're on about age 60, the unions should mandate that if the rule stays, the government provides retirement, SS, and medicare benefits at 60.

 

[chase]

Thanks slug

As always, my fellow SWA FO is looking out for his peer. Thanks, slug is exactly right, many more were in favor of the repeal but didn't wish to spend money on the issue vs. spending limited funds on other items. I believe the numbers would be much higher.

Since the voting is secret, no way to determine DOH. Can't imagine that would be possible for any union vote in any airline unless exit polling was done...not likely.

S959, sponsored by Sen Inhofe-R (OK) is sponsoring an amendment to this bill moving for the elimination of the age 60 restriction & replacing it with 65...not perfect but better in the minds of many. Despite the recent letter from ALPA to Sen McCain who is chairman of the committee there is a concerted effort to change the FARs. FYI

 

[FoxHunter]

ALPA
"It is uncommon, if not unprecedented, for the Congress to usurp the authority of the FAA on important safety regulations without overwhelming evidence that the agency's position is unwaITanted or arbitrary and capricious."

Just for clarification! The only reason TCAS was installed is because of Congress. The only reason pilots can carry guns is Congress. ALPA opposed the age 60 rule from the day it was created until about 20 years ago when they did a flip flop on the isssue.

Have to wonder if the USAIR pilot pension would have been terminated if the age limit had been changed. Will the UAL "A" plan be terminated? Will the A/A a plan be terminated? How significant are the differences in the funding requirements of an age 60 retirement vs age 65?

 

[FlyDeltasJets]

SWA guys against age 60....



Typical

 

[FoxHunter]

FlyDeltasJets

"SWA guys against age 60....



Typical"

ALPA not polling it's own members on the issue. Now that sounds typical.

 

[yaks]

Alpa's opposition to age 60

The real issue I think is whether there will be a penalty for retiring at 60 if the mandatory age is raised, similar to the current (AA) penalty for early retirement.

 

[BLUE BAYOU]

The folks that won't want the Age 60 rule repealed are the major airlines themselves. Gosh, could you imagine what that would do to their bottom lines if they allowed their most senior pilots (most likely their most expensive) to continue to fly??? I think a good compromise would be a bridge to age 65...

 

[General Lee]

With the number of furloughed pilots out there and the potential for other airlines to fold, I can't see Congress going for the extension of the rule. Maybe a couple years ago when 200 hour wonders were getting on with the regionals, but that just isn't the case now. It's all about supply and demand. Also, most pilots who don't need to go to 65 have a good retirement--something that some airlines DO NOT OFFER. Sure, those airlines that now have a good retirement are probably in bad financial shape, but the pension coverage problem is mainly a function of the stock market, and as it goes up (which it is doing), the pension shortfalls disappear. We have had a rash of early retirements lately due to the low Gatt rate and possible pension shortfalls seen at USAir---and a lot of the pilots were between 55 and 57 years old--with more years to fly. As long as they had 25 years with the company, they were eligible for full retirement, and they were large ones. I hope that is the same for the future, although I think there may be some changes.....

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Falconjet]

Arbitrary

Age 65 is just as arbitrary as age 60. If you repeal the age 60 rule you should just let pilots fly until they can no longer obtain the required medical certificate. That would put a ton of more heat on the FAA medical examiners and I doubt they'd just sit back and accept that kind of responsibility. If there is going to be an arbitrary maximum age, it might as well be 60, just to give the younger folks a chance to move up the food chain.

 

[Full of LUV]

It's all about medical insurance!

It's all about medical insurance.

SWA doesn't provide any retirement medical, PILOT JUST PAYS for insurance until elegible for medicare at age???? 65!

Some airlines provide retirement medical until elegible for medicare.

Legacy carriers provide medical insurance throughout retirement.

Why no one sees this as a further eroding of benefits to the profession is beyond me. You have to retire some day. It sure would be nice to retire to a gof course rather than a nursing home.

I wish SWAPA would fix the contract instead of pulling the rest of the industry down to suffer.

 

[CitationLover]

raising past 60 migh be bad......

for the pension funds at least.....

with age 60 built in the minimum required contributions to these pension funds have been accelerated versus a "normal" age 65 pension. it 60 was moved to say 65, then these employers could "stretch" out their contributions and not fund these plans as much as they need to be.

my guess is if age 60 gets raised, then you will see more of the usair pension fiascos.

finally someone knowledgeable about pensions, General Lee. GATT rate!! However, I would assume most retirees wouldn't know what a GATT rate is unless they had a lump sum option.

 

[General Lee]

Citationlover,

The only reason I know anything about the Gatt rate is that that is the key phrase I now hear all the time in the crew lounge. I guess the Gatt rate is now at it's all time low, which makes a big difference to your lump sum. We had 92 guys leave early on May 1st, and all of those guys were senior with over 25 years of service. We expect a lot more on June 1st and thru July. That is good for everybody, and hopefully will eventually start the furlough recall.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[chase]

citationlover

I would disagree a change to the age 60 would create further pension problems. In fact, I believe the airlines would prefer to stretch the age 60 rule out further for the following reasons.

1. Many folks are retiring early at the legend carriers putting a greater than expected strain on pension funds. Stretching out the age requirement might entice some of these folks to continue working (not taking money to the fund) allowing for the market to recover, i.e. pension funds back to respectable levels. This would also allow the company to allow (hopefully) increasing revenue add to the yields & returns thereby adding to the financial health.

2. Flying longer, accumulating more wealth by the pilot, not drawing upon one's retirement funds until 1-5 years later, will put less stress on the system. Pension funding methods are obviously going to change, folks who don't believe that are mistaken IMHO. This will help companies recoup some of their losses but will lower expectations for future retirement funding (downside).

I'm no financial guru & all of the above is open for debate but the view by some that $100-$150K retirement income after Age 60 will continue adinfinitim is unrealistic. For now it may happen & that is why so many legend pilots are retiring early in hopes of grabbing the apple now.

As for the SWA medical. I agree, changes hopefully will be coming in the future but realistically when one talks about what will happen for pilots, one has to imagine what will happen to all employees retiring from SWA or company XX. To think that only pilots will/can negotiate this benefit without other labor groups asking/getting the same thing is also unrealistic. SWA is 85% unionized. Can a public company provide 100/90/80% medical coverage for all retiring union members from all groups for the rest of the existance of the company? What is realistic for continued growth? I don't have the answers, open for suggestions that are don't risk the solvency of the company.

 

[CitationLover]

chase,

point #1 would work if pensions had been traditionally funded to retirements past 60. they haven't. this extension would give the funds an "excuse" to lower their contributions (since there will not be as many retirements closer to the funding date) thus weakening the system.

general lee,

the gatt rate is basically the 30yr treasury rate, however since the government retired all the 30yr debt it is now extrapolated from 15yr securities. this lower rate is one of the primary factors in the pensions being "underfunded". the contributions are calculated at a long-term rate of 7-8.5% (i.e. the assets are based on this rate) and the assets are being paid out at real low current gatt rates (5%), thus there is more being taken out versus put back in.

please keep in mind retirement medical benefits are not guaranteed like pensions. besides, unions negotiating retirement benefits is bad practice. the union could care less about retired members who pay no dues.

 

[FoxHunter]

CitationLover

"chase,

point #1 would work if pensions had been traditionally funded to retirements past 60. they haven't. this extension would give the funds an "excuse" to lower their contributions (since there will not be as many retirements closer to the funding date) thus weakening the system."

ALPA has been trying to get Congress to change the law so airlines could stretch out pension contributions.

ALPA's Communications Department provides information and support for news media inquiries. An ALPA communications representative can be reached in the Herndon, Va. office at (703) 481-4440.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

News Release

Release #03.042
May 14, 2003

ALPA Leads Charge For Pension Law Reform

WASHINGTON, D.C.---The head of the nation’s largest pilot union calls on Congress to support special legislation to protect workers’ pension plans. Working with a coalition of airlines and all the major AFL-CIO airline unions, ALPA provided Congress with a special funding rule draft for airline employee defined benefit plans.

"As we discovered at US Airways, the very ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) law dating to 1974, originally designed to protect workers’ pensions, has a perverse effect of actually setting in motion in today’s unusual economic environment an arbitrary set of actions that almost certainly would lead to the termination of many additional plans that the law was designed to protect," said Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. "We are focusing our legislation at the deficit reduction contributions, which function like gigantic balloon payments that airlines simply do not have the cash to pay."

The coalition of airlines and the airline unions are concerned that under current regulations, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation might be forced to demand these extraordinary balloon payments from virtually every airline that has a defined benefit plan no later than very early next year. If an airline fails to pay, the Treasury Department could put a lien on an airline’s assets, which would either force an airline into bankruptcy or prevent the exit from bankruptcy without pension plan terminations.

Founded in 1931, ALPA is the world’s oldest and largest pilot union, representing 66,000 pilots at 42 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. Visit the ALPA website at http://www.alpa.org.

###



ALPA Contact: John Mazor (703) 481-4440