Arguments supporting a change to the "Age 60 Rule"

[Klako]

Arguments that support Senate Bill S.65, which would increase the FAA’s mandatory pilot retirement Age of 60 to 65:
· There is no credible information available that supports the notion that airline pilots over age 60 pose more of a safety risk than younger pilots. There are, however, numerous credible reports supporting a ban on the FAA’s arbitrary age 60 mandatory retirement law.
· There is growing support within the pilot unions to change the “Age 60 Rule". There are only two organized labor unions that now oppose a change to the “Age 60 Rule”, ALPA and APA. This begs the question, what legitimate labor union would actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leaves them with reduced benefits? Even though ALPA's official position is that they are still against it, there are growing sentiments within the rank and file of ALPA for changing the "Age 60 Rule”. The IBT Teamsters Airline Division is now supporting a change to the “Age 60 Rule”. The "Teamsters Airline Journal-News from the Airline Division", published this statement:
"The Airline Division is working to repeal the requirement that commercial pilots must retire when they turn 60 years old. See 'Legislative Action' on page 9 to learn how you can help increase this threshold."
Understandably, some junior pilots are still worried that changing the age 60 rule would cause promotional stagnation. The short-sighted “me now’ attitude of a few junior pilots ignores the consequences awaiting those pilots at the end of their own careers. This may be the last chance that an obvious wrong can be corrected. At the very least, pilots should be able to work up to age 65 when coverage by Medicare and Social Security begins. The rule now is age discrimination, pure and simple. If the record shows that more experienced pilots have a better safety record than do younger less experienced pilots (and it does), why should they be treated differently than other Americans?
· ALPA no longer has any credibility in telling Congress that the "Age 60 Rule" must not change. This is because the Airline Pilots Association's (ALPA) has now signed Canadian air carrier “Jazz” to a contract allowing pilots to fly to age 65. ALPA represents Jazz and has approved a contract that set pensions at age 60 and allows flight to age 65. Additionally, ALPA's President Duane Woerth publicly stated that he would sign any ALPA over age 60 contract for a United States carrier if the Age 60 Rule were to be changed in the United States.
· The FAA is "Neutral" on changing the Age 60 Rule” as "safety" can no longer be used as a valid argument against changing the "Age 60 Rule". Now the FAA says that it is "NEUTRAL" The FAA's Administrator, Marion Blakey, stated on 7 April 2006:
"The FAA's position at this point should there be a legislative change on the age 60 rule, is that we are neutral on it. We do not have evidence at this point, safety data or medical evidence, to change the rule any more than we have a reason at this point to oppose a change...There is no question about the fact that internationally, this is turning the direction of having two people in the cockpit of commercial carriers, one of them possibly being over the age of 60… I would not be at all surprised to see this country fall in line behind that."
The FAA being “Neutral” on changing the “Age 60 Rule” destroys the only credible argument that ALPA and APA have in trying to convince members in the United States Congress to not pass bills that would increase the mandatory retirement age for commercial air carrier pilots.
· The FAA's own modification of its air traffic controller retirement age demonstrates that the FAA no longer considers age as a safety issue.The agency has long held that 56 was a required age due to safety but this year granted age-waivers to the age of 61. At the latest Senate hearing on the Age 60 Rule, the FAA's Dr. Jordan could not construct a valid response when asked by Senator Stevens why pilots were not granted waivers based on proficiency if controllers were. When FAA Administrator Blakey was asked at a news conference if waivers would be granted pilots, she commented there was no need as there "is no pilot shortage", mentioning nothing about safety. With those words she turned the Age 60 Rule into a jobs program.
· The International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) committee studying the amendment of the world retirement age standard for pilots has recently voted 27-4 to raise the pilot mandatory retirement age standard to 65. This decision was based on extensive studies, global experience (data compiled from 63 States) with older pilots, totaling 25,500 pilot-years, and the expressed wish of 93 States. The ICAO now recognizes the harm of the current age 60 rule standard and is amending the international standard to age 65, which will become applicable on 23 November 2006. 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. The world standard will change on 23 November 2006 and if the United States does not change also, it will be increasingly apparent that the United States is holding back for reasons unrelated to safety, i.e. AGE DISCRIMINATION.
· There is now an “uneven playing field” that is unfair to United States air carrier pilots. This is because the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) now gives an advantage to domestic FAR Part 135, FAR Part 91 and foreign air carriers. The FAA now permits pilots who are over the age of 60 to pilot the same types of large airplanes in FAR Parts 91 (general aviation) and 135 (air taxi) operations that it denies in United States FAR Part 121 (commercial air carrier) operations. Beginning on 23 November 2006, foreign air carriers will be allowed to operate large aircraft engaged in commercial air carrier operations within United States airspace and some of those aircraft will be the piloted by pilots that are over the age of 60. United States FAR Part 121 pilots, however, who are over age 60 will all still be grounded unless the Congress passes Senate Bill S.65. This bill would coincide with the new international standard recently adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Bill S.65 now proceeds to the full Senate for its consideration. There is a companion bill in House of Representatives, H.R.65 that was introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada).
There would be considerable savings to the taxpayer supported Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).Even at reduced pension payments, the burden is awesome. Now that more and more carriers could be facing bankruptcy, the problem is increasing rapidly. US Air, United Airlines and now Delta Airlines have all terminated their pilot pension plans and the list will likely grow. This ugly scenario could soon likely be played-out in other industries as well. Delaying their own retirement may be the only solution for individuals caught up in this. Big business is the only winner in all of this. Both tax payers and individuals will be the losers if the retirement age is not increased.