Bill in congress would boost retirement age

[mad691]

Bill in Congress would boost pilot retirement age

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Two senior congressional Republicans reintroduced legislation Monday to raise the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots by five years to 65.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Jim Gibbons of Nevada said the regulation currently enforced is outdated and changing it over time would save jobs and retain experienced pilots.

"Our nation has hundreds of experienced, skilled, and capable pilots. Unfortunately, they cannot fly for any commercial airline because once they turn 60 they are forced to retire," said Gibbons, a former airline pilot.

Previous attempts to rescind the 44-year-old rule have failed, including one during the last session of Congress by Inhofe and Gibbons.

Absent safety data showing conclusively otherwise, the FAA continues to believe that overall cognitive abilities necessary for being an effective airline pilot may begin to deteriorate at 60.

But some critics have said the rule is an economic tool that benefits airlines because it allows them to replace expensive senior pilots with lower paid ones.

Leaders of the largest commercial airline pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association, are reviewing the age 60 rule this year to stake out the position of the group's 64,000 members.

Some pilots wish to remain on the job longer to try and recoup wages and retirement benefits lost to the wholesale airline cost cuts of the past few years.

The union believes 60 is an arbitrary age, but also wants to ensure that any change, for which it would have to lobby, would not affect safety.

 

[dlredline]

Duck . . . . Incoming!!!

 

[Bandit21]

"Jim Gibbons of Nevada said the regulation currently enforced is outdated and changing it over time would save jobs and retain experienced pilots"

Meanwhile thousands of experienced pilots continue their furlough, and job loss, while those who knew age 60 was it, change their mind...

 

[bluestreaking]

I don't know how ALPA could support an increased furlough for thousands of their pilots, meanwhile others will be racking in another 5 years of max captain pay. I know pensions have been hit hard, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

[xjcaptain]

I don't know how ALPA could support an increased furlough for thousands of their pilots, meanwhile others will be racking in another 5 years of max captain pay. I know pensions have been hit hard, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Actually I do think you know how ALPA can support this. Let me think...their percentage of a VERY senior pilot, or their percentage of a very junior pilot. Follow the $$$

 

[InclusiveScope]

Bluestreaking and XJCaptain,

You both imply that this issue is a money issue. ALPA says this is just a safety issue. Which is it? ALPA wouldn't be using safety as an excuse would they? Say it ain't so! Would ALPA actually use safety as an excuse to financially benefit one group over another? Ahhhh..... the hypocracy of this "union" continues....

Inclusivescope
In favor of changing age 60

 

[sandman2122]

I'm not in favor of this change. Let's keep furloughed guys on the street even longer. Riiiiiiight, that'll pass.

I'll vote NO.

Sandman

 

[pilotyip]

Bring it on, put me back in that DC-9 Cockpit.

 

[skykid]

Total disaster for those looking for a job or furloughed. I'm writing my Senators, again.

 

[canyonblue]

Total disaster for those looking for a job or furloughed. I'm writing my Senators, again.

I don't think ALPA cares about those groups. It's going to be who pays the bills now.

 

[klhoard]

Has this subject ever been discussed on FlightInfo.com before?
.
.
Are there any other threads on the Age 60 rule??
.
.
I would really like to hear other pilot's opinion of the Age 60 rule.
.
.

 

[xjcaptain]

I'm not in favor of this change. Let's keep furloughed guys on the street even longer. Riiiiiiight, that'll pass.

I'll vote NO.

Sandman

You're assuming that ALPA leadership will put this to a nationwide vote? I guess it's good to be an optimist.

 

[nimtz]

I'm not in favor of this change. Let's keep furloughed guys on the street even longer. Riiiiiiight, that'll pass.

I'll vote NO.

Sandman

Well I wish our votes counted collectively, but the only say we hadpassed in November. I know my senator doesn't support Age 60, butI'm afraid that the nays exist far less in this new Congress. It's a disaster, but I'm afraid it is only a matter of time before theage 60 rule goes the way of the navigator position.

 

[atldc9]

The bills are S.65 and HR.65. The one in the house actually talks aboutpilots who are over 65 not being able to go back and claimseniorityrights from the carrier they retired from. HR. 65 also doesnot specifya mandatory age, but stipulates that any mandatory age mustnot be prior to being eligible for full social security bennies.

The age for mandatory retirement would be rom the Social Security act cited in HR 65:

Retirement Age

(l)(1) The term “retirement age” means—

(A) with respect to an individual who attains earlyretirement age (as defined in paragraph (2)) before January 1, 2000, 65years of age;
(B) with respect to an individual who attains earlyretirement age after December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2005, 65years of age plus the number of months in the age increase factor (asdetermined under paragraph (3)) for the calendar year in which suchindividual attains early retirement age;
(C) with respect to an individual who attains earlyretirement age after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2017, 66(years of age;
(D) with respect to an individual who attains earlyretirement age after December 31, 2016, and before January 1, 2022, 66years of age plus the number of months in the age increase factor (asdetermined under paragraph (3)) for the calendar year in which suchindividual attains early retirement age; and
(E) with respect to an individual who attains early retirement age after December 31, 2021, 67 years of age.

(2) The term “early retirement age” means age 62 in the case of anold-age, wife's, or husband's insurance benefit, and age 60 in the caseof a widow's or widower's insurance benefit.

(3) The age increase factor for any individual who attains earlyretirement age in a calendar year within the period to whichsubparagraph (B) or (D) of paragraph (1) applies shall be determined asfollows:

(A) With respect to an individual who attains earlyretirement age in the 5-year period consisting of the calendar years2000 through 2004, the age increase factor shall be equal totwo-twelfths of the number of months in the period beginning withJanuary 2000 and ending with December of the year in which theindividual attains early retirement age.
(B) With respect to an individual who attains earlyretirement age in the 5-year period consisting of the calendar years2017 through 2021, the age increase factor shall be equal totwo-twelfths of the number of months in the period beginning withJanuary 2017 and ending with December of the year in which theindividual attains early retirement age

 

[skykid]

Someone explain the legalities of this - can congress change 14 CFR or does this bill make a reccomendation to the FAA, or what?

What about retired pilots between 60 and 65 who want their job back?

 

[Jim Smyth]

Its about time for the change! Long overdue of age disscrimination!

 

[Dizel8]

No to the change!

I would think the yes group and the no group could probably be defined by relative age, but that is just my guess.

I would rather see a change to the SS rules, since age 60 is a mandatory retirement age set by the goverment, so we should be allowed to collect at retirement. Not that I will get much, since my own retirement planning should decrease the SS to almost zilch. For that reason, I am also against raising the SS taxation above the curent 85K, although I have heard it rumoured, that it may be set higher.

 

[atldc9]

First off, both of these Bills are just that, Bills introducedintotheirrespective side of the 109th Congress. For the lastfewCongress', Billshave been introduced to raise the mandatoryretirementage, to no avail.Will these Bills get any farther? Whoknows. ALPA hasbeen consistentlyopposed to any increase in themandatory retirementage, but that stanceseems to be changing. WithoutALPA lobbyingagainst an increase in theretirement age, the Bill mayhave a bettershot at becoming law.

In order for it to become law, the Bill must be voted onbytherespective houses of Congress, then be reconciled, then besignedby'ol GW. If all that were to occur then yes, the FAA wouldberequiredto comply with the new law.

As an aside, the FAR's we commonly refer to are found inTitle14,Aeronautics and Space, of the Code of Federal Regulations. I.E.14CFR121.1, would be FAR 121.1. Regulations are promulgatedbytheregulatory agency with jurisdiction over the activity.

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=688902252159+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

The Laws enacted by Congress referencing Aviation are part of theUnited States Code, Title 49. IE the infamous 709 ride is found at 49USC 44709. These items are mandated by Law, and then the FAA makes regsto implement the Laws.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title49/subtitlevii_parta_subpartiii_chapter447_.html

One last thing, for 2005, the Social Security tax limit was raisedtothefirst $90,000 of earnings. Congress wants to eliminate the capaltogether.

 

[PastV1]

Just to remind everyone of what is also at stake. I'm sure someone can correct me if I am wrong on this but........


I believe we have Defined Contribution Plans (B Plans) because of the mandatory
age 60 rule. The IRS allowed the plans to help make up for the loss of earnings until you hit the normal age 65 retirement.
So lets say the FAA approves the age move to 65 then the IRS disallows the DC plans..... what would that cost us all?



Past....

 

[Huck]

They benefitted from this rule their entire careers: getting hired earlier, upgrading earlier, moving to bigger aircraft earlier.

Now that it's my turn they want to change it.

I flew with several over 60 guys in the corporate world - including one King Aire guy in his seventies. You really gotta see it to believe it. I still have nightmares.

Read the report on the King Aire crash that was going to pick up Lou Holtz....

 

[alaskaplt]

Its about time for the change! Long overdue of age disscrimination!

Why is it age discrimination at 60 but not at 65?

 

[FoxHunter]

Someone explain the legalities of this - can congress change 14 CFR or does this bill make a reccomendation to the FAA, or what?

Yes Congress can, and has changed FAA requirements. You can look at what happend with TCAS. The FAA opposed it, Congress mandated it.

 

[skykid]

There has to be an arbitrary cutoff, because in commercial aviation you can't afford to have people who don't know when to quit. I investigate aircraft accidents, and the number of old farts who crash flying General Aviation is amazing. I'm glad my dad quit when he started feeling his "skills" slip, and he wasn't much past 60. I've flown with a few guys who were having senior moments in their 50s. I'm sure plenty of pilots are sharp enough well past 60, but lets stick with what is working. At least make it nonretroactive so old timer can't come back through training and cost the company thousands to get retrained, and then bump everybody down, only to go out on a medical.

 

[Echopapa]

We need to think beyond next week.


1. I have flown with many captains who want this rule changed. When I talk to them I ask them what effect they think it will have on their retirement. They all respond...no effect. They are assuming that the retirement rules will not change along with the law. They think, "Of course our retirment will still be guaranteed at age 60, but now we have the option to retire at 65". Not so fast. We as a group need to realize that IF this rule is changed, then so will our retirement plans. There will now be a penalty for anyone who wished to retire prior to age 65, instead of the current age of 60. If your company currently reduces your benefit by 3% a year for each year you retire before age 60, surely they react to the change so that every year you retire before age 65 will cost you 3%. What does this mean to the pilot group: Lets do the math....3% or 2% X 5 years....15 - 20 % decrease in retirement benefits.

2. We are already dying at a young age. When the current life expentancy of a un-named cargo company is around 63, why on earth would anyone want to "fly till you die".

This is stricktly a financial argument. Not to mention all the issues with Captains I fly with who are age 57 who cant read the Jeps, can't hear radio calls, and who I have to literally yell at to get a checklist response.

EP

 

[FlyComAirJets]

Maybe they need to take the ugly one, too.

I think raising the retirement age will directly extend the furlough of thousands of pilots for a directly proportional number of years. I am probably spelling this wrong but that is just unconscionable. How could anyone sleep knowing that after benifiting for years from the Age 60 Rule, they can now trash can it and sock it to their junior pilots like that? This is worse than the B Scale ever was.


What did they do to deserve this, didn't they laugh at your tired old jokes enough or complliment the landing profusely enough?

 

[HalinTexas]

If it passes you'll see a great big difference if FAA physicals. ALPA has put out some literature lately illuminating the history of the Age 60 rule and a comparison to other countries that have higher retirement ages. It's a pretty interesting read. Pretty scary too. Brittish are paying $2000 for physicals, usually paid for by the company and the "nanny state."

Whatever happens, it won't be just a change in the retirment age. There will be conditions.

 

[321 busdriver]

What a ridiculous argument you make! I can only assume that you work for FedEx. Let's just compare for a minute. You're a captain with 7000 hours. At U, 16 year guys are on the street and it takes 20 years to be bottom captain at $125/hr. Your 2nd year pay f/o pay is better than a 19 year f/o . A 2% A plan versus no A plan. I could go on and on. Are you really telling all of us that you have never flown with a forty something that needs to be babysat? Or a 59 year old guy that is as sharp as anyone on campus? Age has very little to do with it. Your either mentally and physically sharp enough to do this job or your not. Age sixty rule is outdated and needs to be changed! It sounds to me that you're a spoiled junior captain with a big case of leftseatitis! Don't worry about the guys who got screwed, as long as you get yours. There are guys at U that never upgraded and never got the chance to move to bigger aircraft. The difference between 60 and something higher could be the difference in staying in your home or moving into an apt. In helping your kids go to college or not, etc.,etc. As far as the King Air accident goes, I also remember the DC-10 FedEX accident in EWR some 10 years ago, flown by 3 qualified sub-sixty guys. You should be ashamed of yourself!

They benefitted from this rule their entire careers: getting hired earlier, upgrading earlier, moving to bigger aircraft earlier.

Now that it's my turn they want to change it.

I flew with several over 60 guys in the corporate world - including one King Aire guy in his seventies. You really gotta see it to believe it. I still have nightmares.

Read the report on the King Aire crash that was going to pick up Lou Holtz....

 

[klhoard]

. . . <snip>. . I also remember the DC-10 FedEX accident in EWR some 10 years ago, flown by 3 qualified sub-sixty guys. You should be ashamed of yourself!

.
.
What does the crew's age have to do with undeclared hazardous cargo catching fire in the back of the plane??
.
.
.

 

[FoxHunter]

We need to think beyond next week.


1. I have flown with many captains who want this rule changed. When I talk to them I ask them what effect they think it will have on their retirement. They all respond...no effect. They are assuming that the retirement rules will not change along with the law. They think, "Of course our retirment will still be guaranteed at age 60, but now we have the option to retire at 65". Not so fast. We as a group need to realize that IF this rule is changed, then so will our retirement plans. There will now be a penalty for anyone who wished to retire prior to age 65, instead of the current age of 60. If your company currently reduces your benefit by 3% a year for each year you retire before age 60, surely they react to the change so that every year you retire before age 65 will cost you 3%. What does this mean to the pilot group: Lets do the math....3% or 2% X 5 years....15 - 20 % decrease in retirement benefits.

2. We are already dying at a young age. When the current life expentancy of a un-named cargo company is around 63, why on earth would anyone want to "fly till you die".

This is stricktly a financial argument. Not to mention all the issues with Captains I fly with who are age 57 who cant read the Jeps, can't hear radio calls, and who I have to literally yell at to get a checklist response.

EP

For the UAL or USAIR pilot 3% per year for 5 years would be great. If lucky they will get 20% of their expected pension, big difference between $130,000 and the reality of $27,000. F/As and mechanics may retire with a higher PBGC pension because they are not forced to retire at age 60.

Where I work there is another upside to changing the age upward. If I'm age 55 with 15 years service and medical out I get disability until I turn 60 and retire with 20 years service or 40% of Avg of best five years. If 65 becomes the normal retirement age I would collect disability till age 65 then retire with 25 years service or 50% of my best five years.

Not sure where guys live to an average of 63 years. I just read about two guys I has flown with that just turned 90. We had a guy retire a few year ago at age 80, flew P47s in Europe during WW2.

Hell, I get F/Os that can't understand the radio, understand the airplane, know the difference between getting cleared to eight zero and eight thousand, know when to change from ground to tower, and the list goes on.

I think the old guys probably understand all the issues far better than you do.

 

[321 busdriver]

.
.
What does the crew's age have to do with undeclared hazardous cargo catching fire in the back of the plane??
.
.
.

I believe you're thinking of Valujet. The EWR accident had nothing to do with undeclared hasmat. And in keeping with the tone of the thread, I was simply pointing out that accidents can and will happen, irreguardless of age. If you can't do the job at 40, 50, or 60, then it's time to move on.