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

 

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.

 

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......and you know u all love my avatar