finis72

Age 65 was going to happen with or without ALPA. Prater made a decision to go ahead and support age 65 but on ALPA's terms I.E no post age 60 pilots coming back which could have happened without ALPA being involved and relevant. The APA was adamantly against age 65 and they got steamrolled with a unanimous vote against their cause just like ALPA would have been had they continued their opposition. APA had no say in the age 65 legislation, ALPA on the other hand had a large role in influencing the final language. When served lemons make lemonade.I don't always agree with ALPA but I believe they made the best choice out of several bad options.

Spaceman Spliff

You're a 777 captain. You have nothing to lose with the Age 65 decision. Nothing. If this happened 15 years ago, what would you be saying?

My guess is, you would not be as "philosophical" as you are in your current position.

HercDriver130

amen brother.

finis72

I've said all along it depends where on the food chain you are.There is no doubt 15 years ago I would have been against age 65,of course 15 years ago I had a pension.I don't plan on staying to 65,just long enough to provide a decent living in retirement for my family.All I was saying in my post was "once ICAO passed age 65 it was just a matter of time" didn't matter what you or I wanted. Pro or con I think Prater chose the only practical path.not popular but practical given the inside information that it was going to pass with or without ALPA.What's done is done,let's move on.

Klako

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), back in the early 1960s, at first fought hard to repeal the FAA’s age 60 rule. Click here to see: The Chronology of the "Age 60 Rule"

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE . The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilots career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, in the 1980s, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting a change in the age 60 rule for over twenty years. ALPA then saw the age 60 rule as a convenient vehicle to promote institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots.

One would have to beg answers these questions:

Why would ALPA ever consider that younger pilots should have more of a right to work than their senior, more experienced pilots?

Why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own senior members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leaves them with reduced benefits?

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA

“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA used to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots. In reality, ALPA promoted institutionalized age discrimination against senior pilots, insuring early promotions for their junior pilots.
In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee: Congressman Anderson:

“I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “I would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

Age discrimination is against the law. The FAA’s age restriction against qualified airline pilots is in violation of the U.S. Constitution that is supposed to protect those in the minority from the mal intensions of the majority. When the State deprives people of their liberty to work in a profession that they are qualified, this violates that person’s equal protection guarantied by our Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because of this blatant violation of civil rights, ALPA, APA and the FAA will likely have hell to pay when the law suits start flying.