Retirement age to 70? (wild speculation)
 

Has anyone heard news of airlines proposing a retirement age extension to 70?

What benefit would an airline achieve financially by extending the retirement age? Is the industry hurting for pilots that bad?

One word...WOW!
:eek:

It'll be just like the Luftwaffe...fly 'til you die.

Yes the pending pilot shortage has been coming for the last 30 years....:rolleyes:
And Fedex has only 20,000 applications on file.

Many airlines have hundreds of pilots a year reaching 65 very soon. This means many, many training events which they may not really be able to handle. Age 70 allows them to kick the can another 5 years.

I'm sure ALPA is totally fine with this. They won't put up a fight.

Why should they?

(Not all airlines are ALPA, ya know)!

Protect the rest of their members, prevent another 5 years of stalled career progression for everybody, maintain some level of dignity rather than encourage pilots to become senior citizens and continue to fly?

I hope this gets knocked down.

Before anyone else jumps on the sky is falling bandwagon, has anyone actually seen pending legislation or an FAA NPRM that would change the retirement age? I haven't.

This has no semblance of fact, somebody was bored this morning.

Google says this is only being talked about here.

No more Pilots than would have reached 60 a few years ago. In fact, with age 65, more pilots will retire early rather than actually reaching 65 "smoothing" out the numbers - I disagree with your premise.

Then again, if age 70 becomes the ICAO standard - bend over boys! :eek:

Scoop

Bored? Just wanna kick the hornet's nest?

How would extending mandatory retirement age to 70 help out the airlines?

All that would do is keep the highest paid employees on the payroll longer, preventing lower paid (1yr FOs) from lowering payroll.

Rumor is not even logical, though it's been floating around for at least a year or two.

-k

I have no problem increasing age 60 to 65, but I think it should've been signed and not implemented for at least 5 years for planning purposes not only of the airlines but the pilots. Same with 70, required 10 years of data for the increase of 60 to 65.

That way, without much warning, a law was signed that made pilots born that day get 5 years longer than the pilot born the day before.


http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1305778464

Out with the old...in with the new!

Well I'm going to rip a fart in church here, but why should there be an age limit at all? Why should someone who can pass a physical and a check ride on the day before their birthday, lose their job 24 hours later?

Prediction, soon someone will bring suit on 14th Amendment grounds (Equal Protection) abolishing the age limit. They will win.

APC is rapidly getting all the credibility of the national enquirer because of posts like this with flashy false headlines.

One reason... the physical is a freaking joke.

before anyone jumps on me... I don't support raising the age, and I think this thread is nothing but flamebait.

It may be flame bait, but it is a serious discussion we will be having soon. Yes, some physicals are a joke. But how many pilots have dropped dead or become incapacitated since the rule change? I can remember one but he was under 60. The soon to be 70 yo's will have 5 years of empirical evidence supporting their claim.

I believe there already has been a few lawsuits about the age limit, and they all lost.

If mandatory age 60 retirement was not age discrimination or against the law according to the courts, why would age 65 be? Might want to do some research before posting blather. As for age 70, all I have to say is....get out my seat, beotch. (and stop it with the ben gay. It stinks)

Shop Talk + Sex + Gossip + Controversy.

It's what pilots want. :D

There were perhaps half a dozen attempts since age 60 was mandated to overturn it in the courts. All the attempts lost on the basis of safety. The courts have long ruled that in the interest of public safety you can mandate a retirement age.
When the ICAO raised the retirement age to 65 and the FAA agreed it was safe for pilots to fly into the US over age 60 the safety issue was no longer a viable defense in court. Everyone knew at that point age 65 was a done deal in the US when the next case went through the court system.
The only thing that amazed me is that it was not retroactive. How they managed to keep that from happening surprised me. There are actions in court now over that issue and I suspect they will win but the individuals will be to old to return to flying when the decisions are made.
If ICAO goes to 70 which is highly unlikely and the FAA allows that flying into the US then the US rule will go to 70 shortly after. I don't however think there is any real chance of that and there has not even been a discussion of it as far as I know.

But it was retroactive. The guys who had already retired at age 60 were given the opportunity to return at the bottom of the seniority list.

Surprise! No one did.

There may have been a few airlines that allowed that but it was up to the airlines. Most airlines required a pilot be rehired and go through the entire interview process. There were a few at Delta who bailed in the pre chapter 11 timef rame who came back via being a new hire.

Because it was never about "poor me, do you know about how much health insurance is gonna cost me?". It was about, "Look at me, top of the pay scale, weekends and holidays off, king of the hill....why yes, I DO think that I should get to stay".

The change in the retirement age was kept on the down low right up until they jammed it through with the "Fair treatment for experienced pilots" title that hid what it really was. It was a crap sandwich to let the government off the hook for allowing pensions to get stolen and it only cost pretty much every FO at a major 5 extra years in the right seat while keeping regional pilots stuck in the lower paying trenches. Thankfully, I'm not bitter....