Originally Posted by
rickair7777
I agree in that I think age 60 no longer made sense, particularly since it was enacted not by a safety agency conducting due process, but in a corrupt deal between AA's C. Smith and some congressional buddies...in order to get rid of highly paid senior CA's
I also think 65 is about the right cutoff age, although large medical advances might extend that someday.
However, a large majority of ALPA rank-and-file was opposed (obviously for career reasons), and I think the Prater should have gone with their desires. Unions don't exist to "do the right thing", they exist to look after the interests of their members. Personally I think ALPA should have pushed for a gradual phase-in which would have dampened the short-term impact....unfortunately that might not have allowed all the Uber-senior alpa leaders to stay past 60.
Oh, and all that crap about more stringent and frequent medicals for all pilots wasn't going to happen anyway...the whole point of this exercise is to avoid a pilot shortage....the ATA would not have allowed medical requirements which would ground 5-10% of the pilot force.
It wasn't a large majority. It was about 57/43 split according to scientific polling of members. And about 80% said they would support changing the policy if it was inevitable to keep the age 60 rule as is.
It was in the interest of the members for ALPA to change its policy in order to mitigate the effects seeing that the FAA had already started the NPRM process and there were multiple bills in congress working their way to the presidents desk.
And it wasn't just opposing more stringent medicals. It was also about 'opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records, supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60, prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 rule, ensuring stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule, ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the rule, opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit be under age 60, and support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.'
ALPA has been sucessful in all but one of those and has been successful in introducing the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act and the Lost Retirement Act (S2505, S1270, HR4061, and HR2103) to take care of the last issue.