The Skinny on the Age 60 Rule

[ESS PWR]

Thirty-five years ago, when I first started flying for a living, an old Western Airlines captain assured me that the age 60 rule would eventually be abolished before it would affect me. I would have never guessed that it could still be around in 2006.

Understandably, junior pilots are worried that changing the age 60 rule would cause promotional stagnation. What junior pilots need to understand is that, if they haven't realized it yet, promotions today---yesterday---and forever are related to growth--not attrition. Most pilots remember the mid 80's thru the 90's when a hiring frenzy produced five year upgrades to captain. That wasn't because a lot of older pilots were leaving the property.

I have an answer to all the younger pilots out there who fear that a change to the age 60 rule would be unfair to them by slowing upgrades and causing seniority list stagnation. I say then, make it mandatory for all pilots to retire after serving no more than 20 years with a company or age 65 whichever comes first. If you hire on with a company at age 25, then you are kicked out of the cockpit when you turn age 45 or if you hire on at 45, you retire at 65. That would be equally fair for all and give everyone just enough time to build their 401K.

It is unfortunate, but the sad truth is that policies are economically driven in this country regardless of righteousness. I am comfortable enough to say that if congress mandates the FAA to change the rule, the implementation process from the FAA will not be satisfactory to all pilots.

Your proposition while well intended does not mitigate age discrimination. To force an individual to retire at certain age almost penalize those fortunate enough to attain his desired career at an early age.

 

[Klako]

Of course, my solution only proves the real motives behind all who no not want the age 60 rule to change. It is age discrimination nothing more.

 

[Phaedrus]

I think retirement should be at age 85:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4726300.stm

 

[CaptainMark]

Who brought this thread back from the dead? it will never pass..it's dead..get over it and get your $1.99 dinner at Dennys

 

[ivauir]

Righting a wrong by allowing pilots to remain employed to 63 would cause 3 years of stagnation but would allow most of those subjected to stagnation to be at the top of their scale for 3 more years. Unless you are a 58 year old F/O this seems quite fair. And this stagnation only occurs once. The newbie getting his commercial 3 years from now will only know he's got 3 additional earning years ahead of him. And with little hope of more stability in the future, those 3 years could be quite important to alot of people.
quote]

Umm, math check - if it gets changed to 63 (or anything else)I don't get anymore time at the top - I get 3 more years at where ever I am when the rule gets changed. My time at the top stays the same - I just get to it later. Meanwhile the folks at the top when the rule changes get the full three years at the top .... I am plenty young, but SR65 is unfair.

I say 60+ year olds can stay on as FOs - most would rather quit, so the great unwashed masses trying to get hired will have a chance. Upgrade will progress and those who really need to make more money will have a chance.

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Give me one good reason why it is fair that a pilot should be fired because of their birthday. Yes, those that upgraded earlier due to the current rule "benefitted" from the current rule, but that in no way justifies keeping it at 60. The pilot hired 20 years prior to you at SWA spent a good deal of that time earning less per trip, per day, with lesser benefits than you will enjoy in your carrier there, assuming SWA lasts until you retire.

If age 60 were not the law of the land today, would there be a good arguement to make it one?

 

[3BCat]

While you all were arguing...

I wrote my congressmen...and yours. Did you?

 

[FoxHunter]

...also i hear fred is pushing for the retreads to fly RIGHT seat only...

Must have been the same guy that heard that they were going to stop the MD10 program at 6 aircraft because the company was not satisfied with the aircraft.

 

[The Prussian]

Logic ??!?

I say 60+ year olds can stay on as FOs - most would rather quit, so the great unwashed masses trying to get hired will have a chance. Upgrade will progress and those who really need to make more money will have a chance.

Since when, at any time in history, in any occuption, has concern for the unemployed/unhired been a concern?? You set your goals, do your homework or whatever it takes.....to land your job based purely on supporting yourself and/or your family,and hopefully a sense of enjoyment and fulfillment along the way in your chosen profession. Where does stepping aside to allow "the great unwashed masses" to "have a chance" enter into anybody's equation? Where does this "logic" come from??

Furthermore...where do you get the idea/insinuation that the younger ones are "those who really need to make more money"??!?

TP

 

[Bringupthebird]

You are assuming that 100% of the eligible pilots will choose to remain, which is not realistic. And many other things could contribute to being stuck at one seniority level for 3 years (or more). This isn't a windfall for retiring pilots any more than the Civil Rights movement was a windfall to minorities. It's making something that has been wrong for years, right.