Age 60 ARC Report to the Administrator
01-16-2007, 09:17 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
Age 60 ARC Report to the Administrator
http://www.faa.gov/media/Final_Age_6...11_29_2006.pdf
This link is to the Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee Report to the FAA Administrator. It is a 5-page Executive Summary followed by the 31-page report.
This link is to the Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee Report to the FAA Administrator. It is a 5-page Executive Summary followed by the 31-page report.
01-16-2007, 01:09 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
A couple of interesting quotes I took out of this reading...
Elimination of any maximum pilot age, which is the expressed goal of the age discrimination opponents, will almost assuredly result in more stringent health and cognitive abilities testing, which will adversely impact pilots of all ages, not just those approaching retirement age.
Age 60 will lead to increased costs across the board. There are too many quotes for me to reference, but I guarentee that reading the article will leave you of the opinion that age 60 is costly.
Air Carriers With Second Officers
Some air carriers currently employ pilots over 60 years of age as second officers. If the FAA were to adopt the ICAO standard, these air carriers would be faced with the following options:
■
Retrain all second officers over 60 years of age. Retraining and allowing these previously affected age 60 second officers to return/reclaim captain and/or first officer positions could disrupt operations and substantively increase training obligations at these air carriers. Each training cycle is expected to take an average of 75 days, would tie up that carrier’s training facilities, and reduce or delay training for other pilots. Allowing over age 60 second officers to subsequently train for captain or first officer could also produce over manning in certain crew positions and under manning in others. This option can be complex, expensive, and operationally disruptive.
■
Pay the over age 60 second officers pass-over pay. This option would be operationally viable but expensive for affected air carriers. Paying second officers as captains or first officers would create a compensation windfall for the second officers as air carriers choose to avoid the additional costs and implications of retraining them by just paying them at the higher compensation pay rate.
Any change to the Age 60 Rule should apply to captains/first officers continuing as captains/first officers. Second officers who were transitioned to second officers as a result of the previous application of the Age 60 Rule may be retrained and phased into their former positions if agreed to per collective bargaining agreements or seniority. Prospective application of the rule as it pertains to second officers transitioned to second officers because of a previous application of the Age 60 Rule is another alternative that could mitigate costs and risks.
Thought that was interesting.
Elimination of any maximum pilot age, which is the expressed goal of the age discrimination opponents, will almost assuredly result in more stringent health and cognitive abilities testing, which will adversely impact pilots of all ages, not just those approaching retirement age.
Age 60 will lead to increased costs across the board. There are too many quotes for me to reference, but I guarentee that reading the article will leave you of the opinion that age 60 is costly.
Air Carriers With Second Officers
Some air carriers currently employ pilots over 60 years of age as second officers. If the FAA were to adopt the ICAO standard, these air carriers would be faced with the following options:
■
Retrain all second officers over 60 years of age. Retraining and allowing these previously affected age 60 second officers to return/reclaim captain and/or first officer positions could disrupt operations and substantively increase training obligations at these air carriers. Each training cycle is expected to take an average of 75 days, would tie up that carrier’s training facilities, and reduce or delay training for other pilots. Allowing over age 60 second officers to subsequently train for captain or first officer could also produce over manning in certain crew positions and under manning in others. This option can be complex, expensive, and operationally disruptive.
■
Pay the over age 60 second officers pass-over pay. This option would be operationally viable but expensive for affected air carriers. Paying second officers as captains or first officers would create a compensation windfall for the second officers as air carriers choose to avoid the additional costs and implications of retraining them by just paying them at the higher compensation pay rate.
Any change to the Age 60 Rule should apply to captains/first officers continuing as captains/first officers. Second officers who were transitioned to second officers as a result of the previous application of the Age 60 Rule may be retrained and phased into their former positions if agreed to per collective bargaining agreements or seniority. Prospective application of the rule as it pertains to second officers transitioned to second officers because of a previous application of the Age 60 Rule is another alternative that could mitigate costs and risks.
Thought that was interesting.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
