There has been some great points both for and against the repeal of the age 60 rule. For some of you, it seems to boil down to the fact that you think its discrimination not to allow you fly past your 60th birthday. The federal courts have already determined this not to be the case (read below), and for what its worth, I agree with the court. I have a vested interest in having the opportunity to get back into the airline industry and having senior pilots stay around longer or, gasp, come back from retirement because they didn't prepare in advance for the eventual day they wouldn't have a regular paycheck coming into their checking account scares me. As previous posters have noted, you don't have to stop flying; you can get your own aircraft, fly other than part 121, or start instructing. You had the privilege to live through the "boon" years with the airlines and at some time you're going to have to walk away.
UAL has taken a look at the repeal of the age 60 rule as well. Their VP-Ops, Capt Steve Forte, recently stated in a meeting at TK that in the beginning UAL mgt concurred with ALPA that the retirement age should remain at 60 but later changed their minds. However, most recently, they "crunched" some numbers and have agreed once more that the age should remain at 60. This industry has had too many changes and challenges lately. One more like this is not needed. By their calculations, about 1,200 retired pilots would come out of retirement. Captains would hence be surplused from fleets to fleets and create yet another nightmare. As a UAL furloughee that is an absolute nightmare of a possiblity. For those of you in my shoes or hoping to make the jump to a larger airline someday, this would also crush your "career expectations".
I'll also throw in some more ALPA information, or disinformation, as some may think. They do a decent job of going through the major points that have been brought up on this board and giving their opinion on each. More food for thought....
Agency Responsibility -- As the agency responsible for safety regulations, the FAA has reviewed the Age 60 Rule numerous times and determined it is warranted in the interest of maintaining the highest degree of safety in air transportation. Unless Congress or the Federal Courts find that the Age 60 Rule is not warranted on safety grounds or that the FAA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner in establishing and maintaining the Rule, the determination of the FAA should be upheld.
Medical Basis of the Rule -- In a study directed by Congress in 1979, and conducted under the auspices of the National Institutes of Health, the study panel found that, “age-related changes in health and performance influence adversely the ability of increasing numbers of individuals to perform as pilots with the highest level of safety and, consequently, endanger the safety of the aviation system as a whole. Moreover, the Panel could not identify the existence of a medical or performance appraisal system that can single out those pilots who would pose the greatest hazard because of early, or impending, deterioration in health and performance.” The Panel recommended that the Age 60 Rule be retained and also applied to Part 135 carriers and pilots.
FAA Review of Cognitive Test -- In December, 2000, the FAA, after a thorough review of the most current cognitive testing technology known as CogScreen-AE (for aeromedical edition), concluded that, “In sum, there currently is no research showing which CogScreen-AE tests sufficiently identify age-related cognitive function deficits that would impact pilot performance and aircraft safety.” On appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the Court, in Yetman v. Garvey, 261 F.3d 675 (2001), affirmed the FAA’s decision with the following conclusion: “Ultimately, we find that substantial evidence supports the FAA’s findings that CogScreen-AE is not, at this point, an adequate cognitive tool for determining whether an exemption to the Age Sixty Rule is warranted.”
Accident Studies – There have been numerous studies over the years that have attempted to correlate accident rates and the age of pilots. The results of these studies have been contradictory and inconclusive. The often-cited Hilton Study (The Age 60 Project Consolidated Database Experiments Final Report), 1993, was rejected by the FAA as a basis for changing the Rule, and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the FAA’s decision in Professional Pilots Federation (PPF) v. FAA, 118 F.3d 769 (1997). Critics have also asserted that accident rates are a very crude tool to examine the relationship between pilot age, health, and performance.
Age Discrimination -- Although the Rule mandates an “arbitrary” chronological age for retirement, it has been determined in federal court that it does not constitute age discrimination nor does it violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In PPF v. FAA at 763, the Court held that, “nothing in the ADEA can plausibly be read to restrict the FAA from making age a criterion for employment when it acts in its capacity as the guarantor of public safety in the air. . . . Therefore, we conclude that the ADEA does not limit the authority of the FAA to prescribe a mandatory retirement age for pilots;”. Notwithstanding this opinion, increasing the mandatory retirement age for pilots to 63 or 65 would be no less arbitrary or discriminatory.
International Standards -- The claim is made that many foreign nations have increased their pilots retirement ages beyond 60. This is a misleading assertion. The international (ICAO) standard for retirement is still 60 for the pilot-in-command, and it is recommended, but not required, for the second-in-command. Some countries have modified their regulations for licensure purposes as one way to assist carriers with their pilot staffing needs. However, for most of the major national carriers the pilot retirement age is governed by their collective bargaining agreements, and in most cases the age is less than 60. Because of U.S. age discrimination law, such contractual provisions in U.S. carrier agreements would arguably be illegal. Generally, those carriers that allow pilots over 60 limit them to the second-in-command position.
Pilot Shortage and the Experience Factor – When legislation to repeal the Age 60 Rule was introduced in the Senate several years ago, it was argued that it was needed to address the pilot shortage and that we were losing our most experienced pilots. If there was a pilot shortage at that time, this is certainly not the case now with over 10,000 pilots on furlough because of the depressed economy and the unprecedented poor financial condition of the airline industry. Also, the experience argument is not valid. Although experience is an important factor in piloting as in any other profession, those pilots with 30 years of experience are not therefore the safest and most competent pilots. At some point the age and experience lines cross and the effects of aging on performance outweigh the number of years of experience. For example, no one would argue that a 75-year-old pilot with 50 years of experience is a better (or safer) pilot than a 50-year-old pilot with 25 years of experience. Most medical and scientific authorities are in agreement that if there is to be an arbitrary chronological age for retirement, age 60 is reasonable and warranted in the interest of maintaining the highest degree of safety.
Inhofe Bill – S. 959, introduced by Senator Inhofe, would raise the retirement age immediately to 63 which would open the way for pilots who had retired at 60, but are not yet 64, to return to work. Thereafter, the maximum age would be raised to 66. The back-to-work feature raises some interesting questions. For example: What rights would a retired pilot have to return to work at his former carrier? Would he be able to return with his full rank and seniority or would he go back as a new-hire at the bottom of the seniority list? Such questions should be clarified in the legislation or would most likely be litigated.
Great discussion so far and thanks for getting me better educated on the subject. Whatever your belief; for or against, don't forget to voice your opinion to your elected officials! Next up....
