From FLTops.com
===============================
Dear FLTops TODAY subscriber:
During the nearly 15 years I've been involved with the aviation industry, many
issues affecting pilots have developed. The death of a few of a major airlines,
recessions, expansions, pay-for-training, labor strikes, the pension crisis, record
contracts, record concessions, broader utilization of regional jets, scope language pendulum swings, airlines within airlines, and a couple of new major airlines are just a few of the things that have occurred. One divisive issue that was discussed then and remains to be discussed now is the Federal Aviation Administration's age 60 rule.
I've written about the age 60 rule previously, with the most recent time being
in 2004. And while there continues to be considerable discussion about the merits of retaining the rule--or the sheer lunacy of it--depending on one's perspective, the FAA to this point has not publicly indicated an interest in initiating a change to its rule that has been in place for more than 45 years.
As I've said in the past, the driving force behind the age 60 argument is economics. Many younger pilots, even those fortunate enough to have landed and retained a major airline job, want to maximize their financial opportunities through upgrades. Upgrading from first officer to captain and moving to larger equipment generally is how major airline pilots increase their earnings.
The pension crisis has added a twist to the age 60 rule debate. Pilots who still
have a defined benefit pension plan--as tenuous as it may be--generally don't
have the same financial concerns as do pilots without them. In fact, in the late
1990s I interviewed a number of major airline pilots about the age 60 rule and I
found few pilots who wanted to change the rule relative to those who wanted the rule retained. The exception was Southwest Airlines pilots, several of whom I spoke with and most opposed the rule. I attribute that to Southwest's lack of a defined benefit (DB) pension plan, while, at the time, pilots at other major carriers generally had DB pension plans. There were a number of pilots at other carriers who opposed the age 60 rule, but a strong majority wanted no change.
One of the major arguments from those opposing the age 60 rule is that it is arbitrary. Sixty is not old, and it isn't as old as it was when the rule was first implemented. I say that because of research that indicates that Americans are living longer, healthier and more productive lives. Additionally, I'm not aware of any empirical data that suggest that safety is jeopardized when U.S. pilots approach 60 years of age, nor have I seen research that suggests that pilots older than 60 flying in other countries have an increased rate of incidents or accidents. One problem in changing the rule is, do you replace 60 with another arbitrary number? Or, would the onus fall on the check airmen--fellow pilots--to determine the fitness of a pilot? Clearly, they evaluate competence, but there would be tougher decisions if the rule was abolished or the maximum age substantially increased. On the other hand, would it positively impact safety as tougher check rides and fitness exams spot problems in pilots regardless of age? Just as some pilots could easily and safely fly well past 60, it can also be said that a few pilots who aren't yet 60 aren't as fit to fly as others. Would amending the age 60 rule lead to better identifying those pilots?
Not only is economics driving those who desire the change, it also drives those
pilots who oppose it. No matter how you feel about the age 60 rule, changing it would impact the number of jobs, including the number of upgrades--to both larger, generally higher-paying equipment and from right seat to left--available for pilots throughout the industry. For example, if the age 60 rule was amended to allow pilots to fly to age 65, effective next year, there would be an estimated 9,270 pilots who would potentially be eligible to remain in the cockpit over the five-year period, an average of 1,854 annually. Obviously, some--perhaps many--of those pilots would choose to retire before age 65, but this illustrates the potential of a rule change. This year alone, the number of major airline pilots reaching age 60 ranges from a low of less than a dozen at one smaller major carrier to 346 at a large, global carrier. This forced attrition, fair or not, opens up recall, new-hire and upgrade opportunities for an even larger number because of the "trickle-down" effect. It also impacts the military, commuters, corporate operators and other suppliers of major airline pilots, and alters the career progression of all of the pilots aspiring to the cockpits of their respective aircraft.
Two years ago I wrote that I expected the effort to change or overturn the age 60 rule to continue, particularly if more pilots lost their defined benefit pension. While that has occurred at some level, I haven't personally noticed the effort being appreciably more intensive than in the past. The age 60 rule is a heated topic of discussion on message boards, but I believe more pilots will have to push the issue--there is strength in numbers--before there is a change. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which has historically opposed changing the rule, has said that any effort to change it should be based in fact regarding safety. I agree, but I also believe that politics--and by politics here I mean more people wanting to change it and fewer people opposing the change--will also play a role. In some countries, the retirement age is older, and in some it's younger. In the latter case, it's not younger through government regulation; rather, it's an item negotiated between carrier and union representatives. Although the issue isn't grabbing as many headlines as you might think, recent efforts have focused on Congress, and the legislative pursuit may just pay off. When changing the rule becomes more palatable to more pilots, it may in fact become more palatable to a larger number of U.S. senators and representatives.
The International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) decision to increase the
maximum age to 65, effective November 23, 2006, of either the pilot-in-command or second-in-command (until November 23, the SIC can be more than 60, but the pilot at the controls has to be younger than 60), has garnered attention in the industry and brought optimism to those who support a rule change. Unless the FAA files an exemption to the rule, the U.S., beginning November 23, must allow pilots in command who are older than 60 but haven't yet reached their 65th birthdays to land as long as the SIC is younger than 60. Bert Yetman, the president of the Professional Pilots Federation (PPF), an organization formed 15 years ago to eliminate or amend the age 60 rule, said there is reason for optimism.
"I think we are a lot closer than we've ever been [to amending the age 60 rule] and that is because of the ICAO change," Yetman said. The PPF supports proposed legislation (Senate Bill 65 and House Bill 65) that would raise the maximum age of airline pilots to 65 from 60. Whether there is enough support to get the legislation passed and signed into law remains to be seen.
"Other legislation is taking precedence right now," Yetman, who opposes the
age 60 rule despite the fact that he retired from the industry nearly 14 years ago, added. "We need to get some of these other bills [addressed] so we can have room on the agenda to get it going."
Even with all of the industry changes since Sept. 11, 2001, a majority of ALPA-represented pilots opposed the change as recently as last year. In a survey conducted last year, 56 percent of ALPA members--excluding furloughed pilots--participating indicated they supported the age 60 rule, while 42 percent opposed it. I was surprised by this, as I assumed the pay cuts and pension terminations would have caused a stronger shift toward supporting an increase in the mandatory retirement age. Capt. Duane Woerth, ALPA's president, echoed my surprise in testimony to Congress 11 months ago, acknowledging that ALPA believed the results would favor changing the rule. It would be interesting to see how the union's members feel today, as the industry's
struggles continue, and again a few years from now if any additional airlines terminate their defined benefit pensions.
Sincerely,
David Jones
Contributing Editor
FLTops.com
===============================
Dear FLTops TODAY subscriber:
During the nearly 15 years I've been involved with the aviation industry, many
issues affecting pilots have developed. The death of a few of a major airlines,
recessions, expansions, pay-for-training, labor strikes, the pension crisis, record
contracts, record concessions, broader utilization of regional jets, scope language pendulum swings, airlines within airlines, and a couple of new major airlines are just a few of the things that have occurred. One divisive issue that was discussed then and remains to be discussed now is the Federal Aviation Administration's age 60 rule.
I've written about the age 60 rule previously, with the most recent time being
in 2004. And while there continues to be considerable discussion about the merits of retaining the rule--or the sheer lunacy of it--depending on one's perspective, the FAA to this point has not publicly indicated an interest in initiating a change to its rule that has been in place for more than 45 years.
As I've said in the past, the driving force behind the age 60 argument is economics. Many younger pilots, even those fortunate enough to have landed and retained a major airline job, want to maximize their financial opportunities through upgrades. Upgrading from first officer to captain and moving to larger equipment generally is how major airline pilots increase their earnings.
The pension crisis has added a twist to the age 60 rule debate. Pilots who still
have a defined benefit pension plan--as tenuous as it may be--generally don't
have the same financial concerns as do pilots without them. In fact, in the late
1990s I interviewed a number of major airline pilots about the age 60 rule and I
found few pilots who wanted to change the rule relative to those who wanted the rule retained. The exception was Southwest Airlines pilots, several of whom I spoke with and most opposed the rule. I attribute that to Southwest's lack of a defined benefit (DB) pension plan, while, at the time, pilots at other major carriers generally had DB pension plans. There were a number of pilots at other carriers who opposed the age 60 rule, but a strong majority wanted no change.
One of the major arguments from those opposing the age 60 rule is that it is arbitrary. Sixty is not old, and it isn't as old as it was when the rule was first implemented. I say that because of research that indicates that Americans are living longer, healthier and more productive lives. Additionally, I'm not aware of any empirical data that suggest that safety is jeopardized when U.S. pilots approach 60 years of age, nor have I seen research that suggests that pilots older than 60 flying in other countries have an increased rate of incidents or accidents. One problem in changing the rule is, do you replace 60 with another arbitrary number? Or, would the onus fall on the check airmen--fellow pilots--to determine the fitness of a pilot? Clearly, they evaluate competence, but there would be tougher decisions if the rule was abolished or the maximum age substantially increased. On the other hand, would it positively impact safety as tougher check rides and fitness exams spot problems in pilots regardless of age? Just as some pilots could easily and safely fly well past 60, it can also be said that a few pilots who aren't yet 60 aren't as fit to fly as others. Would amending the age 60 rule lead to better identifying those pilots?
Not only is economics driving those who desire the change, it also drives those
pilots who oppose it. No matter how you feel about the age 60 rule, changing it would impact the number of jobs, including the number of upgrades--to both larger, generally higher-paying equipment and from right seat to left--available for pilots throughout the industry. For example, if the age 60 rule was amended to allow pilots to fly to age 65, effective next year, there would be an estimated 9,270 pilots who would potentially be eligible to remain in the cockpit over the five-year period, an average of 1,854 annually. Obviously, some--perhaps many--of those pilots would choose to retire before age 65, but this illustrates the potential of a rule change. This year alone, the number of major airline pilots reaching age 60 ranges from a low of less than a dozen at one smaller major carrier to 346 at a large, global carrier. This forced attrition, fair or not, opens up recall, new-hire and upgrade opportunities for an even larger number because of the "trickle-down" effect. It also impacts the military, commuters, corporate operators and other suppliers of major airline pilots, and alters the career progression of all of the pilots aspiring to the cockpits of their respective aircraft.
Two years ago I wrote that I expected the effort to change or overturn the age 60 rule to continue, particularly if more pilots lost their defined benefit pension. While that has occurred at some level, I haven't personally noticed the effort being appreciably more intensive than in the past. The age 60 rule is a heated topic of discussion on message boards, but I believe more pilots will have to push the issue--there is strength in numbers--before there is a change. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which has historically opposed changing the rule, has said that any effort to change it should be based in fact regarding safety. I agree, but I also believe that politics--and by politics here I mean more people wanting to change it and fewer people opposing the change--will also play a role. In some countries, the retirement age is older, and in some it's younger. In the latter case, it's not younger through government regulation; rather, it's an item negotiated between carrier and union representatives. Although the issue isn't grabbing as many headlines as you might think, recent efforts have focused on Congress, and the legislative pursuit may just pay off. When changing the rule becomes more palatable to more pilots, it may in fact become more palatable to a larger number of U.S. senators and representatives.
The International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) decision to increase the
maximum age to 65, effective November 23, 2006, of either the pilot-in-command or second-in-command (until November 23, the SIC can be more than 60, but the pilot at the controls has to be younger than 60), has garnered attention in the industry and brought optimism to those who support a rule change. Unless the FAA files an exemption to the rule, the U.S., beginning November 23, must allow pilots in command who are older than 60 but haven't yet reached their 65th birthdays to land as long as the SIC is younger than 60. Bert Yetman, the president of the Professional Pilots Federation (PPF), an organization formed 15 years ago to eliminate or amend the age 60 rule, said there is reason for optimism.
"I think we are a lot closer than we've ever been [to amending the age 60 rule] and that is because of the ICAO change," Yetman said. The PPF supports proposed legislation (Senate Bill 65 and House Bill 65) that would raise the maximum age of airline pilots to 65 from 60. Whether there is enough support to get the legislation passed and signed into law remains to be seen.
"Other legislation is taking precedence right now," Yetman, who opposes the
age 60 rule despite the fact that he retired from the industry nearly 14 years ago, added. "We need to get some of these other bills [addressed] so we can have room on the agenda to get it going."
Even with all of the industry changes since Sept. 11, 2001, a majority of ALPA-represented pilots opposed the change as recently as last year. In a survey conducted last year, 56 percent of ALPA members--excluding furloughed pilots--participating indicated they supported the age 60 rule, while 42 percent opposed it. I was surprised by this, as I assumed the pay cuts and pension terminations would have caused a stronger shift toward supporting an increase in the mandatory retirement age. Capt. Duane Woerth, ALPA's president, echoed my surprise in testimony to Congress 11 months ago, acknowledging that ALPA believed the results would favor changing the rule. It would be interesting to see how the union's members feel today, as the industry's
struggles continue, and again a few years from now if any additional airlines terminate their defined benefit pensions.
Sincerely,
David Jones
Contributing Editor
FLTops.com
