Repeal the rule!
I make no bones about it--I support abolishing the Age 60 rule. It is not that I'm that close to senility. It is a simple logic test. The rationale for maintaining that law does not pass the common sense test.
In simple terms, it is age discrimination. No one can support--with studies--the contention that pilots past the age of 60 are unsafe. But what about the other arguments I've read here on the board?
"It isn't fair to change the rules of the game once it has started." Hogwash. Does this logic imply that racial discrimination should not have been stopped because "that's how it has always been?" Rules change all of the time according to legal and societal evolution; this law is no different. Discrimination is shameful and ultimately unfair to those participating in the system; to alter an injustice is appropriate, not counter to some misapplied sport metaphor.
"Abolishing the Age 60 rule benefits the old geezers at the expense of the new hire's advancement." This is true to some extent. However, let's face it--cost effectiveness or not, ending the Age 60 rule will do one thing: allow pilots of that age the choice of continuing to do what they are trained to do. Not all of them will do so. I have no studies to back it up, but my bet is that many will still elect to retire and live the good life. Movement on the seniority list will be slowed, but not as much as one may think.
The issue remains a zero sum gain in the end, however. If I am allowed an extra three years of flying at the end of my career and I choose to take that time as an employed pilot, I theoretically delay a new guy a pilot position for three years. Once he is hired to replace me at the end of that three years, however, he still gets the same three year extension to fly during his career--his total time in the airline industry remains the same.
OK, I admit that given this scenario my total time in the cockpit is three years greater than my new hire buddy. Again, an injustice is being corrected and the new hire's life in the industry is delayed three years--but he is no worse off other than the time value of his deferred earnings during that initial three year hire period. He gains from the theoritical increase in pay at the end of his career, however.
"If a guy at the majors hasn't saved enough money to retire by the age of 60, then he's been doing something wrong." No arguments there, but why does that argument imply that he must retire at that age? How about a doctor? Shouldn't he or she have enough money to retire at age 60 and let the new docs have the potential customers? True, there is no seniority system in the medical profession, but they certainly should have made the money to retire at the august age of 60. And doing so would benefit the limited numbers of younger doctors in a given area with an increased market share of patients.
Here's a better example: Congressmen and Senators. They have a seniority system with no age limits for retirement, and certainly they make sufficient coin to retire at a relatively early age. Why don't we make them retire at a certain point and let the younger crowd take the majority and committee head positions?
Because THEY CAN STILL DO THE JOB, is why. So can we--safely--past 60. How far? Don't know, but a reasonable extension is prudent, say three to five years above the current limit.
"I've seen too many Captains that aren't safe now, much less past the age of 60." OK, so why don't you do you %*$& job and report them for incompetence? An inability to do the job is not a function of increasing age, it it symptomatic of attitude problems, training failures or neurological disorders. Treat these symptoms with action; don't correct non age-related problems via a de facto attrition program.
