AirBear

AARP has come out against the NJA age 65 bill. This is huge because AARP has a lot of influence on Capital Hill.

I'll post their letter below:

April 19, 2018

The Honorable Bill Shuster, Chair
The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 2251 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio:

On behalf of our 38 million members and all Americans age 50 and older, AARP is writing to express our opposition to any proposals that would impose a mandatory retirement age on general aviation and commercial charter pilots (FAR Parts 91K and 135). AARP has long opposed mandatory retirement; using an arbitrary age as a proxy for competence is wrong in any occupation, and it is wrong for pilots. Pilots should be judged on the basis of their individual ability, flying skills, and their health, not on stereotypes or mistaken assumptions about their fitness based on age.

The pilots affected are already subject to twice-yearly medical certifications and “check ride”tests of fitness and competency to fly. AARP supports requirements for testing and exams that are designed to measure the job-related characteristics needed to do the job. If different or additional types of tests are needed, the focus should be on determining that. But age should not be used as a shortcut to devising more meaningful and accurate means of measuring qualifications. Aging affects different pilots differently, and the greater experience that comes with more years of flying can neutralize some effects of aging.

The proposal to impose a mandatory retirement age on charter and general aviation pilots is not about safety. Otherwise, it would not have a coverage threshold of 100,000 flights per year, which apparently applies only to one company. That safety is not the driving motivation for this proposal is also revealed by the fact that time-share charter jet companies often use back-up charter companies for high-demand times such as around Thanksgiving or during the recent solar eclipse; these smaller companies, which would remain exempt from the proposed age-65 retirement requirement, themselves often use older pilots.

The shortage of pilots facing carriers – a circumstance due in no small part due to the impending mandatory retirements of boomer-generation pilots – has some experts proposing that the mandatory retirement age for pilots be increased, including forcommercial airlines: “There appears to have been little if any impact on airline safety since ... [the increase in retirement age to 65 from 60] was implemented. Raising this age to 70,perhaps in increments, should now be considered.” A few years ago, Japan increased the retirement age for their domestic commercial pilots from 65 to 67.4 In sum, a proposal to impose a compulsory retirement age on pilots who currently are not subject to one is a proposal headed in exactly the wrong direction.

On behalf of an aging workforce, AARP urges the House not to include a new mandatory retirement age in its FAA reauthorization bill. If an amendment is offered to do so, we urge the House to vote it down. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me or have your staff contact Deborah Chalfie on our Government Affairs staff at 202-434-3723.

Sincerely,

Joyce Rogers,
Senior Vice President AARP Government Affairs

Cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader

Jetlife

It will be interesting to see if it gets added. I think the bill has a good chance of passing without it, I’m not sure how much of a concentrated effort there is to turn down the bill if it does get added but I hope to see it pass. It doesn’t even remotely fix the major issues at NJA but from a safety standpoint and a movement standpoint it will help.

mooneymite

Yeah. Those over 65 pilots have been crashing NetJets planes everywhere!

Definitely an age issue.

Jetlife

Yep because crashing is the only metric to safety. Allegiant is the safest airline in US history based on that benchmark 🤦🏻*♂️

BuckeyeFO

Union can probably get all/most the info about sick calls, fatigues, ASAPS, NASA forms, training failures and break down the info based on whatever metric they'd like.

The fact that we aren't seeing a data driven campaign by the union saying "see, a 70 year old pilot is just as safe, productive, and trainable as a 40 year old" tells me all I need to know.

Age-related cognitive decline is a fact of life.
The argument of "if I can hold a medical then I'm good" is garbage. Come take a medical in Oklahoma City and get back to me.

GeeWizDriver

The gloves are off.

The VP of Ops issued an email today indicating NJ management supports a mandatory retirement age tied to the Part 121 age limit.

I actually agree although I’m not hip to the rule only applying to operators conducting more than 150,000 turbojet operations per year. If you hold out to the public under Part 135 or Part 91K, buh-bye at 65.

If you own a jet and don’t care that your pilot gums his food, by all means, hire a fossil.

I just spent three days on the line with the walking poster child for mandatory retirement. He couldn’t stay awake on a 90 minute flight in the middle of the day in a high density environment after a 28 hour layover in his home time zone. We won’t talk about the two night flights that sent him off to the Sandman. At 73, he lacks the intellectual honesty to know he is DONE. THAT is why we need a mandatory age.

And yes, I confronted him about it. And yes, I called FDAC about it. He’s been through it before....

OtherGuy

AirBear...

Do you support ANY mandatory retirement age?

Marko

That may no longer be enough. If those avenues are exhausted, reporting it to the chief pilot is probably the only way to go.

AirBear

Yes, I think your full Social Security Retirement Age would be a good cutoff. Around 67 for most. We all know there are AME's out there where if you're healthy enough to write the check you're healthy enough to pass. Lots of older pilots are still capable but lots are not. Those who don't know when to quit are the problem. I've read NJA has 2 pilots turning 80 this year. Not sure if that's true or not.

An alternative would be for a company to send older pilots to the company AME for a through Physical. NetJets has that ability in the contract. The Bill they're lobbying for is total BS when they say it's for safety. It's for saving money, and for creating upgrade slots so maybe the exodus of F/O's will slow.

Lotsof Blue

I flew with one in his late 70's a while back, he's had an awesome career and a great guy, but def. time to retire. I think around 67 is a fair compromise. 65 is too young and 80 is too old.