SWA&UA Pilots Sue-want 65 Retro & want age 70
 

Source - Aviation Week and Space Technology



Pilots caught in a time warp when Congress acted in November 2007 to extend the mandatory retirement age to 65 have asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to give them a day in court.
These pilots--225 of whom are part of the class action suit--had recently turned 60 when the law that raised the retirement age of pilots from 60 to 65 went into effect, and believe they should have been allowed to resume flying. A three-judge panel is expected to answer their appeal in six to eight weeks after hearing oral arguments June 9 in the case (Oksner v. Blakey).
The pilots, led by former Southwest Airlines pilot Michael Oksner, say Congress violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause when it wrote the law, and they should be allowed to fly until they turn 65.
The case is expected to turn on whether the judges think the pilots have a legal complaint or an administrative one. Congress put an age 60 cutoff limit on who among professional pilots could remain in service when President George W. Bush signed an extension of the mandatory retirement age to 65. He signed the law in December 2007.
US Attorney Edward Himmelfarb said it is at Congress' discretion to enact such a provision.
Many of the plaintiffs have found work outside commercial passenger services, such as former United 747-400 pilot James Sweller of Denver, now 62, who has been training UPS pilots for Boeing's Alteon training unit. Sweller had been a 747 pilot flying from San Francisco on routes to Shanghai, Sydney and Melbourne when he was forced to retire. "I love to fly," he says, adding as long as he can pass his physicals he sees no reason to stop into his 70s.
San Francisco attorney Anthony Bothwell, who specializes in age discrimination issues, said the original decision to force mandatory retirement at age 60 was instituted by the FAA as an "economic favor" for airline executives without any medical evidence to support it.
Congress accepted that point in overturning the age 60 limit. When the pilots sought to overturn the provision of the law that blanked out pilots aged 60-65 from being reinstated, they were denied a trial. They appealed that decision in hopes the Appeals Court would order the lower court to hear their case.
It's not clear that the issue of the original cutoff date will play a role in the appellate court's reasoning since Congress has already overturned it. Instead, questioning by the justices indicates they are interested in whether the plaintiffs can seek relief under the Administrative Procedures Act.
They also questioned why the case was brought in California instead of Washington where the FAA is located.
Photo credit: Chicago Dept. of Aviation

Are you kidding me?......I've heard it all now. Ridiculous! :mad::mad::mad:

If they lose can we go back to age 60?

I love to fly. I want to fly until I literally fossilize in the left seat and die on a CATIII approach.

Some of these guys need to get a life. It's time to go play golf, take the dog for a walk, and pursue a new hobby.

The last thing I want to do when I'm 60 years old is to be in a cockpit of an airliner. I'd rather sit in the back and sip some adult beverages while on my way to vacation.

...in this industry, it's all about timing!!! ...maybe they should've been born 5 years later!!!

Look back at my posts and I predicted something like this. I thought it would be the guys who were still flying and about to turn 65. If this is not rejected on some procedural point, they have a good case. They will argue the age limit is arbitrary and capricious. Unless the FAA has some medical research that prove otherwise look for 65 to be overturned also. Sux to be us.

i don't see anything changing past 65 til ICAO does. age 60 shouldn't have passed

I agree. If there was legitimate grounds to change the law in the first place, then excluding those folks from returning might well run afoul of constitutional issues. Of course this sort of constitutional fairness only considers what's good for the plaintiff...it is blind to the affect on anyone else.

And if you're looking for a verdict that protects your rights and feelings at the expense of everyone else, the ninth circuit is the place to go! I would have been astounded if they had gone anywhere else :rolleyes:

I laughed for nearly 2 minutes on this one. Too funny. :D

Satchip,

Why do you feel 65 will be overturned as well?

no age limit
 

The layovers will be fun.

I hope these guys spend every last penny they have in retirement, AND LOSE.

Well if they win this then how is the judge going to say okay the rule should be 70? Because if they say 60 is a age discrimination and 65 is as well then so would any age. Hell if it moves up to 70 they mine as well do away with it and just say fly till you can't pass a medical and be done with it. Then I will officially say ****** it and go find another career as well cause ain't none of us going anywhere after that happens

let em sue. the clock is ticking. Like Stevie Rae sings....Tic toc tic toc tic toc people, times ticking away.... by the time this is settled, they will be 70 and then its over. Remember, it took 40 years to overturn the 60 rule. Enjoy that retirement

Hey, they knew the rules of the game when they signed on for the ride...60 and out. They should have gone into some other career that allows you to change the rules as you see fit...like managing a hedge fund.

Why is it I'm guessing most of these guys were the LAST people anyone wanted to fly with anyway????

Rules be damned, especially those they agreed to. They should form their own union and fight this!!

OFALPA- Old Farts Air line Pilots Association.

Kinda gives "Coffin Corner" a new meaning eh?

You had to know this was coming... and this is just the beginning... THEY WILL attempt to move the age limit to 70 and beyond....

you may be right,my favorite senior captains in my previous life wanted nothing to do with flying past 60,and all are happily retired,hey if you want to fly past 60,thats what pt 135,Aeronca Champs (mmmmmmmmmmmm Champs),and J3 Cubs are for,for crying out loud,enjoy your family,and your life !

The original poster has chosen to misrepresent the article. No where in the article or in the actual law suit is there a attempt to raise the age to 70. The lawsuit is strickly about allowing pilots under 65 to return to work. There is one comment from a pilot that he could work into his 70's. As long as ICAO is 65 there will be no attempt and the will not succeed in raising the age. If ICAO goes up then the age limit in the US will go up. There is no way a court challange could be withstood otherwise. Once they allowed foreign pilots to be able to fly in the US tell 65 the age 60 rule was dead and gone. I know its popular to blame ALPA but this was a train no one could have stopped period.

I don't blame simply ALPA I blame Prater. When he was running for office this was a decisive issue and he stated he would support the wishes of the pilot group. Well guess what, the pilot group majority supported retaining the age 60 rule. ALPA led by Prater quickly changed course and supported the age 65 ruling when the going got tough and it looked like it was going to pass...... It's time we get some honest leaders in ALPA and get rid of guys like Worthless and Prater!

As far as I know, there is nothing in the law that prevents a pilot from returning to work that was between 60 and 65 at the time of passage. The only thing it provided for was that their seniority couldn't be retained. Basically under age 65 could be hired and start from the bottom.

I thought I was protected against ex post facto laws. As a way younger than 65 pilot, this would do me harm.

I think they should change it back to age 60 rule just to get away from all the legal crap that is happening from the 65 rule. It's funny these guys knew about the mandatory retirement age when they began their careers just like the rest of us, and for years worked under it, now all of a sudden when they got shafted by increasing it to 65 and they missed it, they want to try a lawsuit against it.

Although I must say I can't blame the UAL guy cause they really got the retirement shaft. They helped build the company to what it is, and took it in the shorts for the commitment to the company.

If they win the suit, do you think they will be happy about going to the right seat? They will want their old seniority number with back pay.

New, I think the age limit will be eliminated all together. If the plaintiff's argument prevails that there is no scientific reason for mandatory retirement at 60 or 65 then the 14th Amendment argument would prevail that it would be unlawful to deny someone Life, Liberty, or Property without due process based solely on age. The FAA and the Air Lines have established criteria for employment as an Air Transport Pilot. If a 65 or 67 or 72 year old can maintain those qualifications the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment would, seems to me the layman, prevent his mandatory retirement absent some hard medical/scientific reason.

As a previous poster said, the 9th Circus is the place to go to invent new rights and laws. However, if there are not published data supporting mandatory retirement, even the 2nd Circuit might find in favor of scrapping the age limit.

BREAK BREAK

Sailing, I'm not faulting ALPA for either this nor the original age 65 change. That train was not stopping and I doubt ALPA wanted to lay down on the tracks. Whether there were other motivations involved, I can't say. I'm just sayin' that ALPA couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to and they won't be able to stop this if the court rules as such. After all the Constitution is much greater than ALPA.

To tell you the truth, even though it directly harms me, I kinda agree with the plaintiffs and the scrapping of the age limit. Either we take our Constitution seriously or we don't. Look at the current government and their actions to see where selective interpretation leads us. If the age limit is arbitrary and not backed up by scientific evidence then it is wrong. After a certain age, elderly drivers must take a driving test and and eye test in order to renew their licenses. We don't take their driving privileges away based solely on their age.

I can see no age limit but increased scrutiny as one gets older. More often and more intrusive medical exams as well as more frequent checkrides may be in the future for "more senior pilots". Also don't forget the law of unintended consequences". The senior generation may win the right to work well past 60 but the increased medical scrutiny may eliminate more than they planned.

Man I see daily how senior citizens drive, can one imagine how they would fly....

There will be no attempt? You promise? How do you know?

Seems like you again "have chosen to misrepresent" while accusing others of doing so.

Nothing prevents them from "returning to work" flying. They can find themselves a nice little 135 Charter gig, or Part 91 Corporate.

All this does is prevent them from "taking" their jobs back. Doesn't a pilot resign? You had to at every place I've worked. The age limit might have been the reason for the resignation, but still.

And the rules were they'd get their "B" fund check and their "A" fund check every month.

Why don't all the furloughed guys sue whoever decided to change the rule in the first place. It could easily be argued that they (the 60+ guys) caused them (myself included) to lose their jobs. If it's good for the goose...

Or better yet, let them work past age 65, with a PC every two months for PIC and 4mo for SIC above 65, 3 and 6 (60-65) 6-12 below 60...and above 65 First Class medical every 3 months...I mean they believe they're totally fit to fly so they should have no problem with that consession..see this way they get what they want, and we save a ton of legal fees with the upcoming case, besides most of em wouldnt stay around long...if they needed concession to get what they want. I think this is fair, the law increases scrutiny on older drivers, so why not pilots..? Sure ill be furloughed longer but I get to work longer if I meet these standards past 65.....Oh wait I chose this job so I could retire at 60 not 70, are these guys insane???

These are random numbers I picked. Im simply saying why waste the money on an endless legal battle, both sides concede and both win..oh wait that cant happen in aviation..

yeah and could get their SS check every month too outta my pocket, and continue to bankrupt my generation.......sheeeesh, just like everything else this is all about money...nothing else

I agree with all the points above, and just to reiterate.....the mandatory retirement at age 60 was arbitrarily chosen. I'm not sure what year it was determined, but I do think that it was settled upon when life expectancy was around 63-67 years or even younger for men.


atp

True, it was very arbitrary. And even assuming that it WAS valid at the time, life expectancy and health have improved greatly since the 1950's...especially amongst airline pilots who are more health-conscious than the general population.

When I look around the flight ops area, I just don't see that.

Yep....you're right. Pilots these days come in all kinds of shapes and sizes. However, I will say that just because someone may have a bit of a belly, doesn't mean that they're not in good health though.

In some cases, I know the connotation of the word...pilot....automatically brings to mind some evenly tanned guy, with rippled abs and that chisled chin look jetting off to some far distant Marakesh type place. But that's the way pilots were portrayed in the 50's and especially the 60's. Unfortunately, that picture and mindset is still prevelant and foremost in some people's minds today.

Sorry......not the norm anymore.


atp

Unless the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides to trash the U.S. Constitution, the over age 60 airline pilots will win in this case.

I see hope in returning to the left seat with my 20 years of seniority intact.

If you hope t return to a unionized 121 carrier hope away..... Your chances of returning to a previous job with this type of carrier with seniority and position will never happen. The age limit may be abolished but for those who have retired the chance of getting their old job back is somewhere between zilch and zero.

Former 121 pilots are now poised to sue the FAA for conspiring with ALPA and APA in forcing pilots out of their jobs for no other reason than age discrimination.

The thousands of airline pilots who were forced out because of the age 60 rule could each receive settlements in the millions of dollars. The option of allowing those pilots their right of returning to their former positions with full seniority may become the only viable option for the airline pilot unions.

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