Safety is key in pilot retirement age
Lyndon Shumaker - Yukon, Okla.

In response to the recent debate about raising the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots, I wholeheartedly agree with Capt. Ralph Hunter's view, "Public comes before pilots" (Opposing view, Air safety debate, Nov. 24).

As a pilot for a major cargo carrier, I witness firsthand the cumulative effects of flying across multiple time zones, shift work on the "back side of the clock" and long trips away from home. Sixty is simply old enough. The fact that the International Civil Aviation Organization requires that one of the two pilots in the cockpit be younger than 60 should be a wake-up call for air safety advocates.

If pilots older than 60 are safe to fly, as some allege, why not allow two 64-year-olds to fly together?

Another important consideration is that when a pilot turns 60, he is not suddenly unemployable; he just cannot fly for a major carrier. He can, however, attain a position as a corporate pilot, flight instructor or other flying jobs that operate under different regulations than air carriers.

Finally, I see hypocrisy in the fact that many of those arguing for the change are nearly 60 themselves. These pilots have benefited from the age 60 rule their entire careers, and now, at the last possible minute, they want to change the rules to benefit themselves.

Some pilots are able to safely fly beyond age 60, and some are not. The safety of the public must be the primary concern of the Federal Aviation Administration as it considers these rule changes.

Money is 'dirty secret'
Bret Henry - Lake Oswego, Ore.

Capt. Ralph Hunter's opposition to changing the airline pilot retirement age from 60 to 65 is just smoke and mirrors. As president of the Allied Pilots Association, he must represent the wishes of his union, which wants to keep the age at 60.

Those who want to keep the age 60 rule will always use the "safety" argument. They know the public will support more safety in the skies, even though the worries regarding retirement age haven't proved to be true. The dirty little secret is that this debate is all about money. Younger pilots get paid more money when they move to the captain's seat and/or when they fly larger aircraft. This happens through fleet expansion and, more often, through mandatory retirement at age 60. The sooner a pilot retires, the more money the next pilot will make.

As a 47-year-old airline pilot who has been in this industry for more than 21 years, I have supported an older retirement age since I was in my 20s. This isn't about money; it's about fair treatment and a pilot's choice to continue to fly after age 60.

Most of the world has approved a rule that allows pilots to fly to age 65. The United States should, too.

'Get out of our seat'
Charles Curreri, Legacy air carrier first officer - Arlington, Texas

Are we supposed to feel sorry for United Airlines Capt. Allan Engelhardt, 59, and pilots like him?

I want to know what he and many other captains at United, Delta and U.S. Airways have done with their former $250,000-plus annual salaries as wide-body captains over the many years. They hold the best schedules (10-12 days a month), best vacations and best pay. Why? Because previous pilots left the cockpit at age 60, allowing them to enjoy the financial perks of captainhood.

As for stringent check rides and FAA physicals: baloney. Most FAA Class 1 physicals are a joke. As for flying evaluations, show up, be alert and you pass. Capt. Engelhardt got his, now we want ours. Get out of our seat, Capt. Engelhardt.

Posted at 12:10 AM/ET, December 01, 2006 in Air travel - Letters, Business issues - Letters, Letter to the editor, Pay/Income issues - Letters | Permalink
Comments
Heart-less wonders these contentious pilots. Didn't the American Air pilots show their true colors when they defied a Federal Judge's order? Didn't the United pilots hold passengers "hostage" as a tactic during contract negotiations?

These boys must really enjoy the fruits of their labors treating each other as objects rather than humans being!

When all the younger pilots approach the age sixty, will they want to have the choice to continue with their livelyhood? "Gosh, perhaps we just keep shooting ourselves in the foot."

Let's hope Congress will level the playing field by ordering the FAA to make a change commensurate with the ICAO States which ratified and adopted a change without all the drama.




interesting...same old points...sorry if repost

Cogent argument. However, I got into this biz because I could get out with a retirement a full 7 years before my Social Security compatriots. I figured that my ability to go at 60 was a kind of payback for basically giving up any semblance of an actual, normal life. Now this thing rears its ugly head. I am confident that my company, one of the few with a defined benefit, will negotiate fiercely during our next go-around to reduce the multiplier. So my "choice" will turn into no choice at all. Stay until 65 (or 70, or whatever these guys come up with) or you won't collect a full retirement. Also the defined contribution can be reduced (maybe eliminated) since I will have to work 5 of the previously uncovered years toward a full Social Security benefit.

Safety aside, how am I better working for more years for the same (or possibly less) retirement money? I'm not naive enough to believe that FedEx will avoid the obvious financial windfall available to them during negotiations. Plus I can't, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wants to do this a minute longer than is currently regulated, but that's a personal thing.

First of all, you'd be the first person on the face of the earth who got into their job, with the expressed intention of " I could get out with a retirement a full 7 years before my Social Security compatriots.." I've got to congratulate you on your wisdom and awareness. Most of us got into this business because we loved to fly airplanes.

However, your thinking that "I figured that my to go at 60 was a kind of payback for basically giving up any semblance of an actual, normal life." was not too accurate. Your ability to go to 60 was put in place years ago by people who didn't know the first thing about an age limit, but wanted to punish some senior pilots, whom the airline president didn't want to pay their senior pilot rate. Nothing more and nothing less.

Whereas you might be "confident that my company, one of the few with a defined benefit, will negotiate fiercely during our next go-around to reduce the multiplier.", I might tend to disagree, but since neither of us has a crystal ball, we'll just have to wait and see.

The company could negotiate changes to their current plans, but it's negotiations, get it. As far as eliminating or reducing the defined benefit, they could do that anyway, again, after negotiating it's disappearance.

As far as safety is concerned, there's no evidence that flying past 60 causes any safety concerns at all, other than younger guys hoping that something happens to the older guy. And as for the changing of the age from 60 to something over 60 causing additional health testing that could adversely affect younger pilots. Good. Just as you don't want to fly with an over-60 guy who might keel over at any moment, I don't want to fly with a under-60 guy who might do the same thing. And you can bet there's a bunch of them around.

And as to your comment "I can't, for the life of me, figure out why anyone wants to do this a minute longer than is currently regulated, but that's a personal thing." I'd say: first off, part of the issue is the word regulated. Personally, when I'm in my car on an open road with a "regulated" speed limit of 55, I'm usually going about 70 (except in G'Town or C'Ville). I think most of us do the same thing. Whereas some regulations are ok, some are not. The ones we view as inappropriate, we usually find some logic to disregard; Secondly, if you really can't figure out why anyone wants to fly past 60, I'd suggest that you're in this job for many of the wrong reasons, and that explaining to you my reasons why I do want to continue to fly, would be a waste of my time and yours. But maybe you explained yourself in your second sentence of your post. If that's the case, I'm sorry.

"And as for the changing of the age from 60 to something over 60 causing additional health testing that could adversely affect younger pilots. Good."

That's real nice. You've successfully made your career, fed your family, put kids through college and drive a porsche. Now, you want to subject the entire junior crew force to more stringent medicals, so we have an even greater chance of never making retirement. I don't care how healthy you are or how much you work out, stuff happens, especially in this job.

You wonder why there is such animosity between pilots, it because of this crap. F--- everyone else, as long as I get mine. Makes me sick. Nothing more than pure self-centered greed.

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

Hey Mark I like the new Avatar. What is that a DC3? or some old Russian antique plane?
Looks like a hand ful of old airplane. :cool:

I guess your girlfriend wanted her picture removed.

yeah..i think i will bid the md-11...what an amazing jet...easy to land too...see vid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wkznzVZG5o

Roomy, who's' that?

r1200rt...you know u miss the bus...a little reminder..notice the difference in landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwgDvSuSKh4

That's not what I was trying to say at all (although after rereading your quote of my post, I can understand where it seems like I'm specifically talking about younger guys.) What I'm saying is that we should all be medically fit to do this job. Pure and simple. If the Feds up the age, and they want to increase the medical requirements for older guys, I'd have absolutely no problem with that. I'm not at all asking to "subject the entire crew force to more stringent medicals." Are you saying that one group of pilots should have one standard and another group of pilots have another standard? How fair is that? But again, I'd have no issue with increasing the medical requirements for over 60 guys, if it were a requirement to regain a window seat, or even for the f/e seat.

The fact that I've fed my family, put my son through college and drive a porsche (and also a Mercedes CLK), doesn't mean that I want everyone else to fail or not make it to retirement. That's pure BS. This is my 3rd airline, the one where I had to sit in the back seat for 5 and a half years (the first time), because they weren't hiring. I managed to do the above things because I've been lucky enough to have planned, worked two or three jobs my entire life, and not had any toys, vacation homes, etc. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry, but I won't apologize for landing at the right airline at the right time, any more that I'd expect these new guys apologizing for getting hired directly into the right seat of a widebody, or guys making captain after 4 or 5 years at the company. It's a matter of luck and lucky timing, nothing more. Good for all of them. I think it's great and hope it continues indefinitely.

Thanks for the response. I'd say that my reasons for getting into this game had nothing to do with a love of airplanes or flying, but a desire for high pay, time off and early (compared with the rest of the working population) retirement. If those three things were offered to ditch diggers, then I'd be digging ditches.

I fully understand why the rule was put into effect and that it had nothing to do with me. However, it was part of the calculated decision I made a long time ago when I started this. You can't tell me you never thought about the ability to retire at such a young age.

Any change to medical standards will be met with same apathy that current standards are exposed to. Come on, we all know there are professional pilot friendly AME's and unfriendly ones. Which one do you go to? I go to the one that's more interested in making a buck than serving as some FAA narc. Personally I think the medical standards are already too rigid, but I'll never have influence regarding that anyway.

While I appreciate your point of view with regard to the regulations, when you state that "The ones we view as inappropriate, we usually find some logic to disregard" I don't think there is an actual "we" here. From where I'm sitting it sounds like a vocal, well-financed, influential minority pulling for this change. Sure I know that ICAO made the change, but there's lots of things that individual member states have ICAO exceptions to. This could just be another exception, like any of the other thousands of exceptions that are listed in the books we carry.

With all that said, the change is coming and I know that. I don't want it now and I won't want it when I turn 60. I can only hope to save enough money so that maybe I can quit at 60, live off savings and take an unpenalized pension at 65 (assuming we still have one, but that's a discussion for another day).

KLM guys do better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mao2i8I2bSY