You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!
Pilots fighting age-60 rule
Airlines join to support bid to change retirement
Suzanne Marta
Dallas Morning News
Mar. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
DALLAS - Across about every industry, U.S. workers are pushing retirement later, staying in their jobs to keep busy or earn needed income to fund longer lives.
For the nation's airline pilots, careers have a hard stop: age 60.
Now, some pilots and airlines are challenging the federal rule that was drafted for safety reasons in 1959, putting the so-called age-60 rule to the test.
Southwest Airlines Co. is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a group of 12 pilots that has asked the Supreme Court to review its request for an exemption to the rule.
"We think there are other measures to better gauge a pilot's continued ability to fly than age," Southwest spokesman Ed Stewart said.
Another low-cost carrier, JetBlue Airways Corp., has long supported re-evaluating the age 60 rule and is considering writing a similar brief.
"We strongly believe that the law needs to change," said Todd Burke, a JetBlue spokesman.
The pilot group, sponsored by the Professional Pilots Federation, cites studies showing that older fliers can be capable pilots. It also points out that major carriers overseas allow pilots to fly after they turn 60.
"If a man can pass all their tests at 59 years and 364 days, why should we think he suddenly goes brain-dead at 60?" asked Bert Yetman, federation president.
Many pilots point to more precarious pensions at traditional carriers that threaten much of their retirement income.
Two bills in Congress would raise the retirement age for pilots to 65. Similar legislation has been proposed in the past, but it fizzled in committee.
The International Civil Aviation Organization, which oversees aviation issues for the United Nations, is considering whether to support allowing pilots in command to fly until age 65, if the other pilot onboard is younger than 60.
In the United States, the discussion comes as more employers realize that they inevitably will have to rely more on older workers because of an enormous demographic shift.
By 2012, 23.6 percent of people ages 65 to 74 are expected to be in the workforce, up from 20.4 percent from 2002, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The data were analyzed by the Employment Policy Foundation, a research group.
For workers ages 55 to 64, the participation in the workforce is expected to grow to 65.1 percent, from 61.9 percent.
"People are healthier at 60 today than they were 40 years ago," said Janemarie Mulvey, chief economist at the Employment Policy Foundation. "The boomers aren't thinking about sitting on the front porch."
Still, for many, raising pilot retirement beyond 60 brings the risk of jeopardizing passenger safety.
"These are not desk jobs we're talking about," said Gregg Overman, a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines Inc.'s 13,500 pilots. He pointed to other high-stress jobs with age-based retirement dates, such as air traffic controllers and firefighters.
"Most senior pilots are flying long-haul and international routes," Overman said. "To us, it's just not worth the risk."
Federal Aviation Administration officials say they're open to seeing new research.
However, "we have not seen any medical or other evidence that leads us to consider a change in the rule at this time," said Paul Turk, FAA spokesman.
The Air Line Pilots Association International, the largest pilots' union with 64,000 members, is reconsidering its 25-year support of the age-60 rule in part because of the industry's economic struggles.
US Airways Corp. has turned its pensions over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the agency that assumes weak or terminated plans. United Airlines Inc. management also has said it hopes to terminate all pension plans for its employees.
The union, which says it has supported the rule for safety reasons, is evaluating research about pilot performance after age 60 and is set to solicit member feedback in a survey next month.
"A lot of things have changed in 25 years," said John Mazor, an ALPA union spokesman. "There are pilots who are saying when I hit 60, I may not be where I need to be financially and I may need a couple of more years to work."
Yetman, a former Southwest pilot who now ferries empty planes for extra income, noted that many people don't want to face penalties for tapping Social Security benefits before age 65.
Analysts cautioned that any change to the rule won't come easily.
"There's way too many emotions involved," said Mike Boyd, an aviation consultant based in Evergreen, Colo. "You'd have to prove that it would be better if they worked after 60, and no one is going to be able to prove that."
Pilots fighting age-60 rule
Airlines join to support bid to change retirement
Suzanne Marta
Dallas Morning News
Mar. 28, 2005 12:00 AM
Now, some pilots and airlines are challenging the federal rule that was drafted for safety reasons in 1959, putting the so-called age-60 rule to the test.
Typical pitiful “reporting”! It is REALLY too bad that Marta, and most of the others reporting on this, don’t do their research and due diligence before spouting such TRIPE! ANYONE who has looked into Age 60 KNOWS it had NOTHING to do with “safety” !
The CEO of American Airlines, CR Smith, in collusion with the first appointed head of the brand New FAA, Gen. Pete Quesada, conjured up the Age 60 rule out of thin air, to solve a “management” problem Mr. Smith had with his curmudgeonly senior captains. Smith was weary of dealing with his senior “labor problems” and felt that these old goats were incapable of making the transition from recips to jets -and Quesada wanted to show the Congress that he could “accomplish” something. He wielded SO much power at the fledgeling Agency that he ran Age 60 through without the benefit of even one Congressional Hearing!
Quote:
Federal Aviation Administration officials say they're open to seeing new research.
Another CROCK. When did they EVER look into any “research” -in the 1st place!
Quote:
Yetman, a former Southwest pilot who now ferries empty planes for extra income, noted that many people don't want to face penalties for tapping Social Security benefits before age 65.
New Subject: I wonder if Mr. Yetman, or any of the aforementioned “many people” have even done the math? I have (I start collecting next month) and you would have to be an idiot to NOT start taking the money early, at age 62. For the measly $300+- per month difference , you would have to live a LOT beyond the actuarial designated ‘national average’ to make waiting until full retirement age worth it.
The real issue, plain and simple. . is Age Discrimination! Especially in light of the fact that 60+ year old folks are a LOT healthier today than their counterparts were in 1959! It was Age Discrimination THEN . . it is compounded NOW!
It waaaay past time you money grubing senior guys get on with
your life.
Go out and buy some golf clubs!
Us Junior pukes have no retirement anyway.
At least get what is yours.
Anyone reading this post that is 40 something OR YOUNGER
knows damn good and well that "There ain't gonna be a retirement"
Can someone please explain why these pudnockers who are opposed to repealing the "age 60 rule" have the right to deny me job in my chosen profession simply by virtue of an arbitrary age. To hold to such an arbitrary statement as "age 60 is the time to retire" is a claim that is put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual. To make an assertion that just because a person has reached an arbitrary age they no longer have the cognitive or physical skills to fly an airliner that is engaged in public transportation is a statement that has no basis in direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. It is what arbitrary means: a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.
A lot of airline guys nearing the age 60 barrier have been thoroughly screwed out of any sort of retirement compensation. Most young guys are eager to get in, but the limit of 60 years old is rather arbitrary and i'm sure when we get to be 59 we'd like the age lifted. The senior guys definitely deserve the chance to make a few bucks to make up for their lost income and retirement.
at this stage i really don`t give a rats ass what the US/FAA/ALPA does anymore, i`m going to INDIA i`ve had it up to here with this cr#p, but before i haul ass the capt who said this is a piece of BS reporting is dead on, its not even accurate, for 1 thing ICAO has already passed 65 which will become law in oct, which means that pilots from "the rest of the world " on ICAO type licences will be flying into the us on thier licences so US pilots will be left to fight among themselves --whats that saying "pilots are thier own worst enemies"
By the time you are 60 your kids are grown the wife is gone your friends have moved away and the young girls see you as a grandpa. Why would they want to retire? Money isn't the real issue. It is the long days alone staring at the walls that drive them to want to stay in the seat while the younger generation is starved out. If the 60 rule was never created many of you would have been forced into selling insurance or long haul trucking long ago. Your predecessors were shown the door and you were given a break while still young enough to benefit from it. Time to do the same.
Can someone please explain why these pudnockers who are opposed to repealing the "age 60 rule" have the right to deny me job in my chosen profession simply by virtue of an arbitrary age. To hold to such an arbitrary statement as "age 60 is the time to retire" is a claim that is put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual. To make an assertion that just because a person has reached an arbitrary age they no longer have the cognitive or physical skills to fly an airliner that is engaged in public transportation is a statement that has no basis in direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. It is what arbitrary means: a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.
Perhaps we should repeal the minimum driving age too? Maybe 18 to be a commercial pilot should be Arbitryry as well? Someday we could have High School kids flying regional airliners for school credit?
Similar Threads
Pilots fighting age 60 rule
not again --moan
--whats that saying "pilots are thier own worst enemies"
Linear Mode
