Age 65 rule came at worst possible time?
 

Over the past few weeks, I have begun to wonder if the new age 65 limit may have contributed to the current employment crisis in the airlines. Certainly, it hasn't had an impact on the economy, but is it possible the rule has played a bigger role in staffing levels than we might have thought?

Had the rule not been instituted in late 2007, we would be in the midst of many reitrements. As such and even as capacity has been reduced, major carriers would still have had to fill spots left open by retirements. In turn, this would have created openings at regional carriers as more experienced captains moved on to more lucrative pay. If nothing else, the onslaught of retirements probably would have mitigated furloughs.

Instead, most pilots reaching the age of 60 have chosen to continuing flying. Because pilots of 60 years of age have many years of seniority, they cost airlines more in pay. Certainly, they're more expensive than the first and second year hires who would have replaced them. Regardless and through no fault of their own, the works have been gummed up and we see the furloughs which continue to be announced.

I don't know if what I have written has any validity, but I thought I would throw it out there.

AGE 65 has everything to do with the current layoffs and hiring (lack thereof) currently. had the rule not changed we would likely not have as much if any furloughs and could potentially be looking at hiring even in this economy.

It couldnt have come at a worse time

If I understand the situation right, not implementing age 65 would have resulted in sanctions against the US reducing our ability to fly internationally. Wouldn't that be worse for the pilot population in general?

I agree with all of the above except that which is highlighted. New hire FO’s can't replace senior CA’s………………senior FO’s do. And those senior FO’s more than likely have 12+ years experience which means they are maxed out in pay and therefore it cost the company more when you add upgrade training cost. The savings is in replacing the $137 FO with a $50 FO.

Also think of the training cost associate with the retirement wind fall. Senior 777 CA retires and is backfilled by a 757 CA who then backfilled by a 737 CA who is backfilled by a 757 FO backfilled by a 737 FO…………………………………..then comes the new hire.

Overall it’s cost effective to have these old guys stick around which creates stagnation and prolongs the inevitable. That is unless you’re airlines overstaffed and needs relief. Then they want the old guys to retire so the airline can benefit from stagnant cheaper labor.

What a cluster this industry has become.

Age 65 is a move in the right direction. Even better would be no age restrictions. Some are on the short end of this change currently but will benefit long-term. Sure those who fall into the 60-65 age range are a big expense to the airlines but in most all cases they have also earned it.

I am actually surprised when I hear pilots who are not in support of this change. We see so many comments on professional pay, treatment and solidarity. The age 65 change, unless I am missing something was not a win for the airlines; it was a win for the pilots. Just because we not in a position to immediately reap the rewards does not mean we are not going to get our turn.

I would like to think that at the age of 60 I would want to be free to pursue my own interests. I understand that life circumstances have made this very difficult for some pilots to do, especially since they cannot draw other benefits for 2 to 5 years after "retirement." I feel fairly sure that if finances weren't a factor, most of us would leave at 60 to be free to do whatever we want. Unfortunately, that isn't the way things have worked out.

When the age 65 rule was passed, all you could read about was the huge shortage of pilots. Obviously, that changed quickly; however, I believe that in the long run, there is still projected to be a huge shortage of pilots.

Also, look at how many pilots have lost their pensions. Many pilots were counting on that to support them in retirement. Since they no longer have that, some of them NEED to work beyond age 60 because they didn't have enough saved up otherwise. Also, 60 is relatively young considering that people are living longer and longer (or so that's what I hear).

Age 65 causing the employment problems? Give me a break. For a YEAR after Age 65 was enacted, the Regionals were hiring guys with 500/100, some as low as 500/50.

What changed? As the Clinton campaign team used to say:

"Its the economy, Stupid." That, and the oil speculation price spike last summer. Period. Age 65 is a pimple on the butt of the airline tailspin.

I don't know if it was for a whole year after age 65 was enacted, but I agree with you that the age 65 rule is not the real issue. And 500/100 and 500/50 might be on the high side... I definitely have seen several people that were hired with fewer hours than that.

Not true. The only possible issue would have been if the US refused entry to foreign airliners flown by over-age pilots. But as an ICAO member, we agree to honor the certification and many operating rules of foreign airlines...this allowed age 60+ pilots to fly to/from the US before we changed the law.

Understandably, this would tick off some US pilots