Age 60
 

News
Decision expected soon on pilots' age 60 rule

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Airline pilots may soon be allowed to fly past age 60.

The top aviation regulator is considering a report, released Tuesday, that outlines arguments for and against the change. Federal Aviation Administration chief Marion Blakey is expected to announce a decision soon, said spokeswoman Alison Duquette.

Some pilot groups have been lobbying Congress and the FAA to raise the retirement age. They say there is no medical reason to force pilots to quit at 60, and that pilots need to work longer because their wages and pensions have been slashed.

Other pilot groups, including the largest union, say such a change could compromise safety.

In September, Blakey ordered a forum of airline, labor and medical experts to recommend whether the United States should raise the age limit. That group simply issued the report giving both sides of the argument.

The FAA is reacting in part to the United Nations group that governs international aviation, the International Civil Aviation Organization. ICAO raised the international standard for pilots' retirement age to 65 on November 23.

Since then, the FAA has allowed pilots older than 60 to fly foreign airliners into the U.S.

The age 60 rule has been in place since 1960.

Associated Press Newswires

60
 

I thought she was going to wait for the new Congres?

The NPRM process would likely take up to 18 months, then Congress will have to make a decision on statutory legislation to protect airlines from previously retired employees showing up at 60+ years of age "ready for training".

It appears that the process is moving towards age 60+ although it's far from being a done deal.

Check out the articles on the front page for more info: http://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/

Two issues:

1. If the retirement age is raised to 65, then you can expect FAR more thorough medicals. YOU, age 50, might be kicked out of the cockpit for some basically irrelevant problem.

2. The 65 rule will not be retroactive. That is, if you turn 60 before they raise the retirement age, you won't be allowed to return after it goes up.

At least...that's what I've heard.

N

The FAA board was split on the issue of 65, but they all agreed that it should not be retroactive for those over 60 if the rule change should happen in the future. They made no mention of increased Medical exam requirements.

If the FAA allows pilots to fly 121 over 60 it doesn't automatically mean your company will have to go along with it, just as they now have rules that are more restrictive than the FAA's on other issues.

Doubt the EEOC and the lawyers will see it that way.:rolleyes:

I think the wording was that a company would not be REQUIRED to rehire someone previously forced to retire. This wouldn't stop someone going to another company or being returned to service if the company wanted to do it. This was SB 65, which is irrelevant now. Who knows what the wording will be now. The comment about an attorney or the EEOC disagreeing is right on target.

The EEOC and Lawyers haven't been making the rules prior to this time, it's unlikely they will have a say when the Board rules. As another poster mentioned, the exact wording of any rule change or legislative ruling is unknown at this time. Speculation as to the exact nature of any rule change is just a way of looking at the many ways this could end up. The final outcome may surprise those who have convinced themselves it will be a certain way.

This is from our source with strong connections inside the loop:

*************************************************

Okay, here's the deal.

Stevens was going to push the Transportation Bill [which had an amendment for S65] in December 2006. It was considered for an Umibus Package of 9 separate bills. When the Dem's took the House and Senate, all bets were off for any legislation in Dec due to the "Hey, we've got the ball now, we'll handle it in the new Congress!"

Here we are in January and the new Congress is faced with the same problem. While they could decide to either pass each bill separately or through an Omnibus Package, it is most likely they will go for what they call a "continuing resolution" --- this allows the bill passed last year in 2006 to fund these departments through 2007, while taking the amendments and putting them on hold.

This will put the pressure where it needs to be and that is the FAA. The FAA is planning an NPRM in May, and this process usually takes 18 months. Inhofe's comment is interesting because he may be thinking optimistically that the FAA will change the rule by August. I and Frank do not believe this is realistic, but it is possible.

So there are two parts to this gig. FAA change of ruling. AND then most importantly, is called "Statutory Legislation" from Congress which protects the unions and corporate structures. UAL or anyone else do not want the 63 yr old Captain showing back up saying "Here I am, I'm ready for training!"

So the legislation is set in place to protect from lawsuits, etc. This will not be retroactive for those already 60+ !!!

That's the size of it gang. I do not believe we will see the change till late this year, and if any thing happens --- like a Katrina or more Iraq problems, this issue will go to a back burner.

I also believe it could go to a back burner if the corporations pull the trigger on Consolidation. UAL/CAL or DAL and AMR/NW or any other combination you can think of... Consolidation will certainly direct Congress's interest in a different direction --- thus less concern for age60.

Look, at the end of the day, it's going to happen, it is a matter of when.

yeah...i think it will happen too...only a matter of time...with a bid coming out soon all u senior right seaters better think about upgrading now...you may be preflighting for another 5 years...i have a few 60 plus neighbors chomping at the bit to get back to school to take your seat...:eek:...and you know u all love my avatar:D

The younger pilots at Airlines with FE's are really going to take a hit from this. Because the FE's are still employed by the Airlines. If I'm reading this correct. UPS has over 250 PFE's, that's alot of CA seats. Hell we have some in there mid 70's! They won't leave. Since their still on property, can't they Bid for CA as long as their under 65?

Not every over 60 FE will (or may want) to go back to a front seat depending on their age AND if their company allows it.

Example: A 63 yr old FE wants to go back up front. Well, he's got less than 2 years before he's forced BACK to the FE seat and say if the company will train him 12-18 months down the road.....he's not useful to the company for such a short period.

And then the company has to retrain him again IF he/she want's to camp out beyond 65 as a FE...........what a mess.:rolleyes: Probably a lot of passover pay possibilities.........

The lawyers and management are going to love sorting this cr@p out IF it gets approved. But it's not happening tomorrow so put your geriatric party hats back in storage for a while, probably a few years!:)

Per the contract, the company will not train you if you are within 2 years of retirement, whether it's 60 or 65. I would doubt if that policy changes regardless of the retirement age.

Many of the former Captains at UPS have moved to the back with hopes of being a Captain again. It seems unlikely that they would get to escape the no retroactive part of the FAA rule, if that is actually how the rule is written, whether they are on the property or not. On the other hand, the FE positions have been a very good deal for those already over 60 pilots.

Not gonna happen:

There are two parts to this gig. FAA change of ruling. AND then most importantly, is called "Statutory Legislation" from Congress which protects the unions and corporate structures. Airlines do not want the 63 yr old Captain showing back up saying "Here I am, I'm ready for training!"

Dang Capt Mark.....that's some serious "junk" in the trunk!!!

I believe there was specific language in the original bill that did not allow a pilot who has already left the property, to have rights to their old job back. I assume that you are referring to that with your above quote. As far as someone who is still on the property, well then, that's a different matter. If the law is 65, then, anyone should be able to hold any seat their seniority will allow. If the company has different ideas, then that person should be compensated accordingly, under the law. So at 63 if a guy can hold left seat, but the company doesn't want to invest the time and money to train him, that's fine. However, he should be paid as if he were holding that seat, i.e. passover pay. IMHO!

I agree, as I understand it the statutory legislation that would be part of S 65 would prevent previously retired pilots from returning to work. In your example, it sounds like a modification to the CBA.

Good point. That really sucks for anyone working at FedEx, UPS, and other major cargo airlines with over 60 flight engineers. Do you think this will either:
1) Stagnate growth for a long time
2) Cause pilots to be displaced (widebody to narrowbody, or captain to FO)

If there are 250 over 60 FE's at UPS, it seems to me that would cause displacements. Does anyone have an opinion as to whether option #1 or option #2 are more likely.

I think before we displace anyone we would have to have a bid. If that happened, I don't think a displacement would affect anyone already in the seat.

no to both at fedex.

[QUOTE=Nashmd11
The younger pilots at Airlines with FE's are really going to take a hit from this. Because the FE's are still employed by the Airlines. If I'm reading this correct. UPS has over 250 PFE's, that's alot of CA seats. Hell we have some in there mid 70's! They won't leave. [/QUOTE]


First of all, if the law is changed to 65, it doesn't effect anyone over that ("mid 70's") age, it will however, effect everyone on the seniority list in all seats. If an over-60 guy elects to retrain (and the company allows him to do so) from his currently held s/o seat, back to his previous window seat (either capt or f/o), then guys below his seniority number will be somehow effected. It's also important to remember that according to the FAA, a person is considered "current" for up to (I believe) 2 years, which means that if I've turned 60 in March of '06, then I would be current, and therefore eligible to return to my previous seat, with a simulator and check ride, up until March of '08. After that I'd have to go through training again. Theoretically anyway.

As for the PFE's at UPS, I believe that they are just that. Professional Engineers, and not pilots, I could be wrong, but traditionally, a PFE has been doing that job his entire career and wouldn't know the first thing about being a captain or f/o, for that matter.

At FedEx, there should be enough fleet additions to not hurt anyone too badly. Of course, moving back only one seniority number can be a very big deal, but usually not in growth times. That's not to say that people won't be effected, because they will. Just ask the guy who came up to me a few months ago and confronted me for "taking his line."

No, these age 60+ S/Os moved to the S/O seat without a bid because of the "regulated age", once the "regulated" age changes the reverse should be true. How has the company handled the situation in the past when a pilots's medical situation forced him out of the left seat and his medical situation was resolved at a later date? When things have changed in the past pilots have always been able the go to any position their seniority would hold.

I believe the company will do the right thing by these over 60 S/Os, sorry I'm not as confident the same will hold true for ALPA. I hope I'm wrong on that point. The EEOC may have something to say about any restriction on the age 60+ S/Os returning to either the left or right seat.

George, George, George ...

You've never given ALPA credit for doing the "right thing." Not ever! Somehow I'm just not very surprised that you are taking yet another opportunity to bash ALPA AGAIN.

Maybe you can help educate us "young 'uns" George. The current contract says that retirement age is 60. "If" the FAA raises the retirement age, why wouldn't the company have to negotiate with ALPA as to what would happen to the "grandpa pilots?"

Mark

The current CBA only refers to "a pilot's normal retirement date." I haven't found anything that specifically refers to age 60 being the normal retirement date.

Not a bash, just a concern.;) Now they may surprise me, so only time will tell. When the regulated age changes I expect that ALPA do all possible to make sure that these pilots that were forced out of the left or right seat because of the regulated age be returned.

Now I realize that there are a number of age bigots that have made statements against those over the age of 60 in the cockpit. They are not much different that those that opposed minorities and women.

Oh, now that people don't argree with YOUR opinion on raising the long established retirement age from 60 to 65 they're "bigots" and they "oppose minorities and women"??:rolleyes:

TO some degree I agree with FoxH. I personnally am opposed to raising the age limit but I am also opposed to those who make blatant disrespectful comments that go beyond a disagreement on the issue. The limit will be raised. That's the reality. We ought to deal with the reality of that first. Debating all of the issues related to it is healthy.

wtf.........just like FoxH's blatant ignorant comment about those of us who might disagree with him are racists and bigots?:rolleyes:

It's too bad that all the growth and upgrades at FedEx and UPS over the last several years can be compromised by changing this rule. Oh well. Looks like:
More time on reserve
More time as FO
More time at lower pay
More crappy schedules

Bottom line...If age 60 changes, every pilot under 60 will have to do more work to earn the same amount of money. And I have no desire to be flying anything else but a Cessna-172 with my grandson in back when I am 60!

Let him ride upfront! how's he supposed to learn? :D :D

Really, quit being an age bigot!:rolleyes:

Why fly past 60 anyway?
 

Age bigots? If I didn't think you might be serious, I would think that was pretty funny (it's not though). I don't view the issue as an age descrimination one, rather it's just that you are sitting in my seat (and seniority number). It's my turn to get it. See ya later old man.

And George, you've bragged many times on this board about how well your investiments have done. So why fly past 60 anyway? Your family wouldn't like to spend more time with you? You have no hobbies?

Here is the part of the over 60 arguement that I just don't understand, especially for the guys that have their 25 years of employment time. How much would the company pay you to retire at 60? How much will they pay you to be a 727 s/o (the DC-10's will be gone soon)? Subtract the difference ... that's what you are really working for. Is it really worth being awake all night for the small difference? It's not to me.

Get a hobby, volunteer at the local nursing home, teach a class at the local community college, garden, fish ... get a life and enjoy your retirement! You really don't want to be a 727 s/o do you George?

Mark

Mark, you appear to be a Bigot. Get reformed, or you may have to get a new job. It is none of your business what choice I or others make. The way I see it you may be gone soon.:mad: Make my day!

Nobody here is an age bigot. We didn't make the rules and we won't make the new ones. If they up the age it won't be because they have sympathy for anyone, or their plight, or their desires.

The rules are made to satisfy the airlines. Congress and the FAA will do whatever it is that gets them reelection funding or budget funding. We get to live with the rules.

i am not for the age 60 deal for reasons such as possible medical changes and or b-fund abolishment etc...but with other airlines around the world adopting it i think it will definately change...what a blessing for fdx guys who didn't save for their retirement(all the dc-10 s/os) or blew it on ex-wives(foxhunter)......i refer to fdx guys because the pax guys have legitimate reasons...like pensions being eliminated...noone here is an age bigot because we will all be there one day...and where is maydaymark going?

Why do all the young guys think that everyone "blew" their retirement. Furlough, elimination of pension plans (that some guys WORKED 30 years to earn), are all factors in guys needing to work past 60. Also, the government doesn't really want you to retire "early" - reduced social Security at age 62. There is no way to have saved enough money to replace reduced/eliminated pension benefits - those were negotiated in good faith and the unions gave up something (matching 401K, defined contribution plan, lower pay, tougher work rules) in order to get a pension. I believe (and I will be affected by the age 60 rule) if guys are physically qualified and want to do it they should be allowed to work past 60. Remember, a lot of us will live until 90-100 - there's nothing wrong with working until 65.

Why do some guys not read the whole statement:

yeah...read the whole statement...!

Foxhunter can be my s/o anytime
 

I don't agree with raising the age 60 rule so I'm a bigot? OK ... if you say so George. And just for the record, if you and your old buddies stick around past age 60, it affects my seniority for the rest of my career. So ... I argue that it is my business. It'll have MUCH more affect on my career than yours. I'm surprised you don't see that perspective (notice I didn't say you had to agree with it).

I recommend you get ready for your second career. Can you say, "Welcome to Walmart" George? Or how about, "Would you like fries with that?" If the age 60 rule changes it will likely be after your 60th birthday. We'll all hope so anyway. But either way, you can be my s/o any day. I always liked flying with my dad when I was younger.

And George ... I want you to remember (when you are my s/o) that there is only one other seat in the airplane that sits sideways! And it flushes!

Mark:eek: