capt_zman

I also don't know any FDX guys who lost their pension either, but argue like it's their god given rite to work until 65. And what makes it even worse, that they can go to an engineer seat and make 150k per year, but would much rather screw everyone else just so that they can "fly".

FoxHunter

Yea, ya got it. Just like all those guys like FJ that screwed some young guy out of a job at FedEx. He has a full military pension, then goes out and takes a job away from some other guy that deserved it.

BTW we have quite a few Braniff, EAL, and others that lost, or did not have much in the way of pension. Lot of guys out there that will have far less than 25 years at age 60.

I suggest you have ALPA work on keeping age 60 as the NORMAL retirement age, with an unreduced pension at age 55 with 25 years service.

OscartheGrouch

CZ,

The comment about you not having a clue was out of line on my part. Flying with my father on his last day was an experience I am glad I did not miss. There certainly were some odd emotions swirling around.

We all have plans that have to be adjusted based on variables we cannot control. One for me is that I don't have any plans now to fly past 60. That is a ways off so I will deal with it then, but I can't bring myself to deny someone who still has the abilities and still enjoys his/her job. So absence any overwhelming evidence I would defer in favor of not discriminating against anyone. Just my opinion among many on this very emotional issue.

__________________
Left seat and happy

capt_zman

In all honesty, if 60 is discrimination, isn't 65? A spade is still a spade, even if its five years older. So if this is the case, why is there not a push to get rid of an age limit all together?

As for you Foxhunter, as stated previously, you and all the other ex-whatevers can go to the FE seat and still contribute ~150k towards your pension or 25 yr. multiplier. I'm pretty sure your ego would fit into the backseat of a 72.

ATlineholder

Jeeze. What a sh!t for brains statement. Go to any hospital and you'll see surgeons waaayyyy over 55 who enjoy their work. Same with lawyers in any courthouse you might want to visit. If Hollywood thought like you they wouldn't be able to make half the movies they do. Being a 737 captain has got to be the easiest job I've ever had in my life. Right now I'm making three (that's 3) times what I was making as a pilot in the Air Force and I've got more time off than I know what to do with. In fact, I like my job so much I'm thinking about volunteering for a pay cut - yuk, yuk. How's that for an answer you can understand?

FoxHunter

One step at a time. I expect that by the time you get to 65 there will either be no age limit or it will be raised to at least age 70. The important issue is that you will have a choice. We have a guys in the back seat today over age 70 that are sharper and in a lot better shape than a few of the under 40 crowd.

RedeyeAV8r

George you and both know that is the exception rather than the rule.

__________________
RedEyE

P Emens

"In all honesty, if 60 is discrimination, isn't 65?"

Absolutely.

But with the amount of opposition to moving the age to anything (63 was a hard sell back in the mid 90s, even though the FAA's own study said it should be done and would be safe) moving it to 65 is at least PROGRESS - a change for the FIRST time in almost half a century!

Other countries around the world have been flying past 60 for about a decade+, some with no limits at all. 65 is the age ICAO picked to build unity.

So 65 it is.

Maybe someday retirements will be based on health, competency and desire - but that time isn't now.

P Emens

"Just two questions Doc, if "there is no medical basis for continuing this blatant age discrimination", then why must a pilot over 60 require an under 60 First Officer."

From the ICAO Report:

"The Secretartiot is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties...the Secretariot does not consider this proviso safety relevent..."

Dr. Tilton, the Federal Air Surgeon, commented to the members of the Age 60 ARC that having one pilot under the age of 60 was not relevent or necessary from a safety or medical standpoint.

The over-under provision is 'used' by opponents of change to 'prove' that older pilots are not safe, but the fact is that the use of that provision in that manner is a bastardization of the facts of the issue.

P Emens

Federal Aviation Administration
Office of the Chief Counsel
Room 915B
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
Re: Rules Docket AGC-200
Docket No. 28154
To Whom It May Concern:
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC or Commission] has long been concerned about the impact of the Age 60 rule on pilots and copilots. {footnote} The Commissions’ longstanding interest in the Age 60 Rule is demonstrated in public testimony, comments, and statements including: Testimony of Constance L. Dupre, Associate General Counsel, EEOC, Panel on the Experienced Pilots Study, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, May 27, 1981; EEOC’s Final Interpretations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 49 Fed. Reg. 47,724 [1981]; EEOC Comments on the FAA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 47 Fed. Reg. 29,784 [1982]; Testimony of EEOC Chairman Clarence Thomas before the House Select Committee on Aging, October 1985; August 12, 1986 letter from EEOC Chairman Clarence Thomas to FAA Administrator Donald Engen urging the FAA to grant a petition by 39 pilots for exemptions from the Age 60 Rule so they could participate in a controlled study envisioned by the National Institute of Aging panel; October 14, 1993 letter from EEOC Chairman Tony E. Gallegos to the FAA urging initiation of a rulemaking about the Age 60 rule and lifting of the age 60 limit for commercial pilots and co-pilots.
The ADEA prohibits employment discrimination against individuals…unless the employer can establish that the age limitation is a bona fide occupational qualification [BFOQ]. The FAA does not provide evidence to demonstrate that age is a BFOQ for…pilots…subject to part 121 rule. …the law requires an age limit to be justified.
As a general proposition, the EEOC does not believe that a chronological age limitation is a BFOQ for any pilot. Pilot skills and health can be assessed accurately on an individual basis, regardless of age. Indeed, the FAA itself relies on individualized testing as a basis for issuing medical certificates to people of all age, including those age 60 and above, who now serve as pilots in non-port 121 flight operations. Additionally…many experts have testified that Class I medical testing is fully sufficient to identify health or performance problems for pilots regardless of age. These experts also have stated that, to the extent further testing may be desirable, cardiac stress tests, enhanced blood work-ups, and neuropsychological screening could be added to the standard battery of Class I tests for all pilots.
As you know, the report titled “Age 60 Project, Consolidated Database Experiments, Final Report” [Hilton Report], prepared for the Civil Aeromedical Institute of the FAA, supports the conclusion that an age 60 limit for pilots is not defensible as a BFOQ under the ADEA. Based on careful statistical analysis, this report found “no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.” This conclusion is especially significant in light of the report’s avowedly conservative interpretation of the data.
Finally, we again urge the FAA to vigorously pursue its reconsideration of the Age 60- rule and ultimately to change that rule. The practical experience of older pilots has great value in a professional calling for complex and split-second judgments. Moreover…medical and proficiency tests are effective and non-discriminatory ways to assure that commercial pilots maintain the highest standards of safety at all ages.
Elizabeth M. Thornton
Deputy Legal Counsel