Bill in congress would boost retirement age

[taloft]

In compromise, I propose we slowly spread out the increase ofretirement age by one year for every six years. This will allowpeople to upgrade while still slowly moving the retirement age up to 65.

2008 - retire at 61
2014 - retire at 62
2020 - retire at 63
2026 - retire at 64
2032 - retire at 65

Coincidentally enough, this plan will work out well for me by the timeI reach 64 in 2032. Purely an accident though, I assure you

Just in case you missed the smile above, I'm KIDDING!

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Cpt. Smyth,

If you are so concerned about the brothers you work with, then you might want to think about the 50% of the pilots that sit next to you. Answer the question, if the only way this change were to happen if one were to become an FO after 60, therefore not screwing up the upgrade list, giving an opportunity those that need money, insurance, or those that simply want to continue flying. Would that be a suitable solution? If you want to talk about maturity, stop thinking I have mine and gving the shaft to everyone junior to you. I agree this is age discrimination whatever age you put on it, but dont change the rules midgame when it suits you? If god help us another 9/11 happened, therefore say no growth for 5 years and the limit would change tomorrow, would you be content with your seniority not changing for 5 years? That is what this bill would basically do. And by the way, if we did live to 100 would you want an 80 year old captain flying your family, medicine has done wonderful things but it hasnt done one thing to approve cognitive ability. I have been flying with my father for over 30 years and he even admits and I have witnessed that his ability has exponetially decreased with age and he is a young 68. The wool that your Union Pres tried to pull over those senators last year about the rigourous medical testing was B.S. If anyone wants to argue that a class one is tough, then you really shouldnt be flying. If this law changes everyone hold on for the deep microscope up your ass, because guaranteed that it will ground a higher % than the current standards of a Class one. Peace Out

 

[pilotyip]

taloft, let me guess you turn 65 in 2032

 

[taloft]

taloft, let me guess you turn 65 in 2032

Man, I just can't anything past you. I started with five year increments, but six years works better for me.

In any case, if we knew the median age of a 121 pilot, and assumed thatall pilots would vote to increase their time to retirement in their ownself-interest; And assumed that it was up to a pilot vote todetermine the schedule to increasing the age to 65...

It would be easy to figure out a schedule that could carry a majority vote among pilots. (omg did I just say that?)

But since it's up to Congress, who knows?

Personally, I'd just as soon retire at 60 and have the government makeup the difference for forcing me out as others have mentioned.

 

[Andy]

In compromise, I propose we slowly spread out the increase ofretirement age by one year for every six years. This will allowpeople to upgrade while still slowly moving the retirement age up to 65.

2008 - retire at 61
2014 - retire at 62
2020 - retire at 63
2026 - retire at 64
2032 - retire at 65

Taloft, I would expect congress to mandate a faster schedule than the above. To smooth it out, I'd prefer an immediate (after implementation) 3 month increase in the retirement age, followed by a one month increase each quarter. This would increase the retirement age by one year every three years, but it would eliminate the potential problem of those already retired wanting to return to work.
congress could cap the retirement age at 75 (or higher), if so desired. It would take 45 years to reach a retirement age of 75, giving congress plenty of time to rescind it if desired.

For safety reasons, I do NOT want to see anyone over the age of 60 acting as pilot in command. Period.

While I adamently oppose a change to the rule, it will eventually change. I'd much rather see a gradual change (to allow additional safety-related studies) than a sudden increase in retirement age.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Cpt. Smyth,

If you are so concerned about the brothers you work with, then you might want to think about the 50% of the pilots that sit next to you. Answer the question, if the only way this change were to happen if one were to become an FO after 60, therefore not screwing up the upgrade list, giving an opportunity those that need money, insurance, or those that simply want to continue flying. Would that be a suitable solution? If you want to talk about maturity, stop thinking I have mine and gving the shaft to everyone junior to you. I agree this is age discrimination whatever age you put on it, but dont change the rules midgame when it suits you? If god help us another 9/11 happened, therefore say no growth for 5 years and the limit would change tomorrow, would you be content with your seniority not changing for 5 years? That is what this bill would basically do. And by the way, if we did live to 100 would you want an 80 year old captain flying your family, medicine has done wonderful things but it hasnt done one thing to approve cognitive ability. I have been flying with my father for over 30 years and he even admits and I have witnessed that his ability has exponetially decreased with age and he is a young 68. The wool that your Union Pres tried to pull over those senators last year about the rigourous medical testing was B.S. If anyone wants to argue that a class one is tough, then you really shouldnt be flying. If this law changes everyone hold on for the deep microscope up your ass, because guaranteed that it will ground a higher % than the current standards of a Class one. Peace Out

Ok, I take back what I said in my earlier post.

Well in a hundred years from now when everyone lives to be 100 years old it would be pretty silly to make us still retire at 60 Huh? By then we will have to wait until 80 to collect Social Security and 85 for Medicare. Seems real fair to me.

I think maybe we should look at this from a different view. Lets say we only start hiring new hire FO's at the age of say 35. No one gets to a major before that. That way they would have some real life experiance and would have matured.

Better raise it to 40 years old for New Hires!

 

[nimtz]

The average American pilot is far more fit than theaverage European pilot. When I started in this business 80+% of pilotssmoked, now less than 10%.

Extremely scientific souding study. So the only thing that wouldendanger a pilot's long term health is smoking then? Try showingme some hard numbers to back up your post. Oh wait, that's whatALPA is trying to do right now? But they only mean BS don'tthey!?! In the mean time check out the life expectancy of theaverage American vs. English and French. Guess who liveslonger? Until you put down more conclusive evidence don't try toclaim the average American airline pilot is healthier the our European'cousins'.

 

[FoxHunter]

Extremely scientific souding study. So the only thing that wouldendanger a pilot's long term health is smoking then? Try showingme some hard numbers to back up your post. Oh wait, that's whatALPA is trying to do right now? But they only mean BS don'tthey!?! In the mean time check out the life expectancy of theaverage American vs. English and French. Guess who liveslonger? Until you put down more conclusive evidence don't try toclaim the average American airline pilot is healthier the our European'cousins'.

The Civil Aviation Medical Association (CAMA) contacted its flight physician membership in 2000 concerning their views on the FAA age-60 Rule as it pertains to certification of commercial airline pilots in the United States. This information was summarized and presented to the Board of Trustees for their evaluation and decision as to the stand the Civil Aviation Medical Association should take on the subject. The January 2001 consensus of CAMA is that retirement for an individual operating as a pilot under FAR Part 121 should not be made mandatory solely on attaining age 60. In the experience of this group of physicians it is felt that if the pilot passes the FAA appropriate physical examination requirements (placed on all pilots regardless of age) the age 60 limitation placed on airline pilots is unjust and unfounded The Civil Aviation Medical Association supports the concept that pilots operating under FAR Part 121 should not be forced to retire from piloting duties based solely on attaining age 60.

 

[FoxHunter]

June 18, 2001

Captain Duane Woerth, President
Air Line Pilots Association, International
535 Herndon Parkway
P.O. Box 1169
Herndon, VA 20170



Dear Captain Woerth:


You are fighting a good fight. You are spending millions of dollars. You have representatives swarming over the Hill. But you are going to lose. The Age 60 Rule is going to be repealed. Repeal is long overdue, and this time - more than ever before - the FAA knows it, pilots know it, passengers know it, and our senators and congressmen - whose offices acknowledge that the majority of the calls and letters and faxes they receive favor repeal (despite ALPA's best and costliest efforts) - know it.



Unlike the 1979 House attempt to overturn the Rule, the 2001 effort has scientific data to support a change. In addition to the 1993 Hilton Study, the FAA's most recent study,1 commissioned by the United States Senate specifically to address the safety of pilots aged 60-63, shows that among those pilots with an ATP rating and a Class 1 medical, there was no difference in safety comparing the pilots 60-63 with any other age group. There are two very significant features of this particular arm of the study: First, the composition of this study population was limited to the population of interest - those pilots who could be airline Captains by the very nature of their rating and medical clearance. The group did not include pilots with lesser qualifications. Second, the 60-63 year old airline pilots in this study, by virtue of their age and the Age 60 Rule, were limited to then-Part 135 operations. It is acknowledged as fact - based on industry statistics - that Part 135 operations are less safe than Part 121 operations. That this cohort of older pilots was as safe as any younger group of pilots, while flying in riskier operations, speaks particularly well of their abilities and safety record.



I know you like to quote previous failed legal challenges to the Rule. And in light of the recent scientific evidence showing that there is no logical reason to maintain the Age 60 Rule, I'd do the same if I were you,

because it's the only argument you have left. But you're on sinking sand. Those challenges failed not because the jurists felt there was merit in the Rule itself - indeed, they have acknowledged the Rule for the age discrimination that it is - but rather because the courts must favor the FAA on this issue based on the language of the FAA Act. Surely ALPA knows this best, having a distinguished 20-year history of challenging the FAA to repeal the Rule on 8 different occasions prior to 1979!



It's really time to stop frightening your membership with scary stories of unnecessarily prolonged working lives and reduced pensions. We both know that the tax language can be changed to continue to allow 60-year-old pilots to retire comfortably (those who are able to do so, that is). It's also time to stop referring to the Rule as a necessary safety standard. In this "robust market economy" the industry is scrambling for pilots, willing to accept young pilots with minimal experience while our most experienced Captains are turned away. Does that sound safe to you?



I cordially invite you to meet with me at your convenience to discuss the Age 60 Rule. ALPA should have every opportunity to get on the right side of this issue, and you can make this happen.



Sincerely,







Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH

Medical Advisor, Pilots Against Age Discrimination

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​

 

[Flying Freddie]

You should be able to stop flying when you want to stop flying. Raising the age or keeping the age gives everyone a fair and balanced playing field. Anything less is, well, un- American. Just my "paytriotic" view.

 

[FoxHunter]

Rules and Positions change!

ALPA 1968

Vol. 19, No.19 May 8, 1968

ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT—The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provisions is unreasonably discriminating against all of the airline pilots. When the FAA turned down ALPA’s petition which asked for an exemption to the age 60 retirement rule for a pilot, Captain M. Gitt, ALPA was aghast. The FAA’s denial is extremely unfair to a pilot’s rights…Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public s well as the Industry.

As a result of the denial, the following resolution was adapted at the Executive Committee meeting held in Chicago the week of April 22, 1968.

“WHEREAS the FAA has rejected ALPA’s petition for exemption from Section 121.383 (c), the age sixty (60) provision of the FAR, filed on behalf of Captain M. Gitt and other pilots similarly situated, and

WHEREAS the FAA has taken this action in a swift and summary manner without any form of evidentiary hearing or examination of any facts or reasons advanced with the petition, and

WHEREAS the type of arbitrary action is repugnant to the traditional American sense of fair play, and

WHEREAS the lack of jurisprudence exhibited by the FAA in its rulings on the age question is highly contrary to the basic concepts of our democratic government,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Executive Committee of the Association expresses its extreme dissatisfaction with the manner in which the FAA has handled its action in this case, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Association continue to support and process its age 60 program in accordance with the current program of the Special Age 60 Committee,”

ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.

 

[TonyC]

June 18, 2001

...

In this "robust market economy" the industry is scrambling for pilots, willing to accept young pilots with minimal experience while our most experienced Captains are turned away.

...

Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH​

That point certainly lost its punch not even 90 days later.

FoxHunter, I'm sure you'll agree that FPA made a fool of themselves fighting the Common Type Rating of the MD-10 by trying to wage "war" on two fronts simultaneously. They tried to argue (and I think quite legitimately, but that's for another day) that there were safety concerns that should require separate type ratings, and separate crew positions. They also argued against the common type rating and single crew position based on what they feared it would do to scheduling and lifestyles. In the process, the only message heard was that pilots were whining about what it might do to their schedules - - the safety argument was lost in the noise.

In my opinion, they would have had a much better chance of successfully arguing the need for dual qualification, dual currencies, etc., if they had stuck to the safety theme. Likewise, in my opinion, this doctor would stand a much better chance of advancing his agenda if he were to stick to the medical issues at hand. He's not an expert in economics, and he should refrain from comments about such. As it is, his whole letter is rendered rather moot because of his comments about the economics of the industry.

 

[TonyC]

Rules and Positions change!

ALPA 1968

Vol. 19, No.19 May 8, 1968

ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT—The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provisions is unreasonably discriminating against all of the airline pilots.

...

ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.

So, what does this prove? That ALPA is the culprit? Not hardly.

The culprit is capricious rule chages in the middle of the game.

I've been thinking through a football analogy -- bear with me here...


Air Force is playing Navy, and it's a good, tight game. The clock ticks to zero with matching scores on the board. A coin toss begins the first overtime, and Air Force gets the first possession. Unable to make the end zone, the Falcons settle for a field goal. Now, as you all know, college football overtimes give both teams a possession, and a difference in score at the conclusion of 2 possessions will indicate a winner; a tied score sends the game to another overtime. But today, the President of the NCAA steps on the field and declares the game is now over, the victory goes to USAFA. As of this moment, NFL overtime rules apply, and the sudden-death winner is Air Force.

(OK, I rigged the story, but I'll even it out later, OK?)

ALPA rushes in and says, "Wait, that's not fair. These teams were playing under a defined set of rules, they planned the game based on the rules, Navy won the toss and deferred to Air Force based on an understanding of those rules, and now you're arbitrarily changing them during the course of the game. Sudden-death playoffs is unfair."

(OK, so ALPA doesn't have much experience representing NCAA football teams, but it's just a story, OK?)

ALPA fights this thing all the way to the supreme judiciary body of the NCAA (whatever that might be) and repeats over and over, Sudden-death playoffs is unfair. ALPA loses. Sudden-death playoffs becomes the new rule for NCAA football.

20 years later...

The annual rematch of the boys from Aluminum U. and Canoe U. reaches the end of regulation play with another tie score. It's the first time they've tied since the famous playoff debacle that led to the change of the playoff rule those many long years ago. Navy wins the toss and manages to draw blood on a 23-yard field goal by the Plebe from Colorado Springs. (It's good to have irony in a story, right?) Amidst the ensuing celebration we see the new chief muckety-muck of the NCAA running across the field waving his hands and shouting, "Wait! Wait! Now it's Air Force's turn!" What? Yes, it's Air Force's turn. Now they get a chance to score. Both teams get one possession, and we'll check the score at the end of that to see where we go from there. Each team should have an equal number of possessions in overtime play.

Stunned, the teams take the field again. The Midshipmen are shaken by the sudden change of rules, and their celebratory mood still clouds their brains as the Doolie linebacker from Annapolis (is that too much irony?) cuts to the left, breaks a tackle, then runs up the middle to the end zone. (Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say I would even out the fortunes? Sorry. Sue me. ) The Cadet Wing celebrates the victory with free weekend passes for all.

Anybody care to guess what position ALPA will take this time? The position of fairness, of course. This time it's fair to object to the use of the old NCAA-style overtime rules. Both teams were playing under the assumption that the win would go to the team that scored first. Had Navy known that there would be equal possession, they might have deferred the first possession to Air Force, so they would know whether they should go for the touchdown, or if a field goal would suffice. Changing the rules midstream made their planning ineffective.

Could you fault ALPA at this point for having said all those many years ago, "Sudden-death playoffs is unfair."?

I don't think so.



Changing the rules has a profound impact on many aspects of the pilot's welfare, with compensation being merely the tip of the iceberg. That ALPA is resistant to suddenly changing the rule, in either direction, is not problematic to me. What worries me is folks that want to change it without taking any of the other issues into account.

 

[Peanut gallery]

Wait, Wait , not just yet

Ok now 1 year before I am 60, then change it and make it effective only for birthdates after aug 10, 1957. and make it unlimited age only for those born on aug 11, 1957....yea,yea that's the ticket

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Cpt Smyth,

Thats fine go ahead and change it to 40 for new hires, because Im already here. Same philosophy as you guys that want to change the law to 65 after you have your Cpt seat.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Cpt Smyth,

Thats fine go ahead and change it to 40 for new hires, because Im already here. Same philosophy as you guys that want to change the law to 65 after you have your Cpt seat.

Lets see they came up with age 60 with no reason other than to get rid of older Pilots. No medical reasearch what so ever. That sounds fair to me doesnt it for you? Ya right! If you want to get right down to it, all FO's want the guy in the Left seat out and all the Left seat guys want to stay forever. There has to be an upper limit or some guys would stay till they rotted in there seats just like our Congressmen do. Strom Thurmond comes to my mind.

I came up flying from both seats, Flight Instructing, 135 Charter and 121. I played a check airman in a former 121 life and I sat in both seats. I have gone Chapter 11, Chapter 7 and started over again more than once. I dont really care what seat I'm in as long as the PAYCHECK CLEARS. Face it, we are all in this for ourselves and our own personal reasons.

If you read my other statements in this thread, I really dont give a rats a$$ if they up the age limit even though I think the age limit currently is total Bull$hit. As long as they make it fairer to guys that have to be "forced" out at 60 to be eligable to collect Social Security and have Medicare. If your 40+ you should know how much medical issues run and how fast it can wipe your carrer assests in a heartbeat if your not covered. If you havent learned this you are in for a rude awakening someday.

I do feel for the Pilots that have had the rug pulled out from under there feet (many of them my friends at other Airlines) in reguards to there Pension plans maybe not being there when they have to retire or if they are there at a very reduced rate. They did plan appropriately! This get rid of the pension Bull$hit is new and seems to be catching on rapidly and is a real shame for the industry. Unfortunately ( in your opinion) this is whats going to change the age limit to something older than 60. The last ALPA magazine devoted practically the whole magazine to the age 60 issue. The writings on the wall.

I am so glad we have a 401K in place where I work. Money that cant be touched by management and will be there when I retire. I have planned my life out accordingly with my ups and downs in aviation. I will be riding my Winnabago off into the sunset in 15 years when I hit age 60 and hopefully sooner! I hope you planned your life out accordingly too! YMMV

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

I think were in basic agreement then.P.S I just saw that LUV is ending service to IAH.

 

[Jim Smyth]

IAH has to be our smallest station in terms of flights. I havent flown into there in over 10 years. I think they only did like 6 flights a day back them. The most junior guy on the ramp there had like 20 years senority. Kinda like semi retirement for those guys so if its true it wont be that big of a hit to us.

 

[ACAFool]

Anyone know when this will be voted on by Congress? Maybe, someone posted it , but couldn't find it in these 8 pages.

Thanks