APA pilots, no to age 60.
 

AMERICAN AIRLINES PILOTS OVERWHELMINGLY REAFFIRM THEIR SUPPORT FOR RETIREMENT AT AGE 60


Safety of the traveling public was cited as the No. 1 reason for maintaining the current retirement rule


Fort Worth, Texas (March 15, 2007)—The Allied Pilots Association (APA), representing the 12,000 pilots of American Airlines (NYSE: AMR), released the results of two recently conducted polls that demonstrate strong continuing support for maintaining mandatory retirement at age 60 for the nation's commercial pilots.


In the first poll, 86 percent of American Airlines pilots favored the current retirement rule, while 12 percent reported that they wanted a change — an overwhelming 7-to-1 margin. When the poll results were broken down by age, they showed that even the oldest pilots expressed a desire to maintain mandatory retirement at age 60. Furthermore, the safety of the traveling public was cited as the No. 1 reason for maintaining the current regulation. This poll was conducted by the Wilson Center for Public Research, a professional survey organization with extensive experience conducting polls on behalf of a wide variety of pilot groups and other labor organizations. The poll, conducted by phone, used a stratified random sample that resulted in an accurate cross-section of the American Airlines pilot group. A total of 600 interviews were conducted, providing a sample margin of error of 4 percent.


APA also conducted an in-house, Internet-based survey. Of the 2,496 American Airlines pilots who responded, 79 percent indicated they support maintaining mandatory retirement at age 60, while 18 percent indicated they desire a change.


Federal Aviation Administrator Marion C. Blakey recently announced that the FAA will issue a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) later this year that calls for raising retirement age to 65 to comply with a newly adopted international standard. Ironically, this untested standard requires that at least one pilot on the flight deck be under 60 years old, indicating that there continue to be legitimate concerns about how old is too old to operate commercial aircraft.


Since the FAA established age 60 retirement 48 years ago, not one single airline accident has been attributed to the sudden or subtle effects of aging. Multiple studies have shown that a pilot's mental and physical performance is impaired with increasing age, and there is no definitive medical or functional test that can determine which pilots could safely fly past age 60.


“The FAA should consider the concerns of the men and women in the cockpits who have personally witnessed the impact of advancing age on their fellow pilots,” said APA President Captain Ralph Hunter. “APA strongly supports the current mandatory retirement age of 60 until the FAA can definitely establish that there will be no decrease in the current level of flight safety. Without this assurance, any change would be tantamount to conducting an experiment on the traveling public.”


Founded in 1963, the Allied Pilots Association—the largest independent pilot union in the U.S.—is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. APA represents the 12,000 pilots of American Airlines, including more than 2,800 pilots on furlough. The furloughs began shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Also, several hundred American Airlines pilots are on full-time military leave of absence serving in the armed forces. The union’s Web site address is www.alliedpilots.org.


American Airlines is the nation’s largest passenger carrier.

Amen to that one. If any of you out there who are for this thing can prove by document or photo that you were opposed to age 60 when you were 35 or younger, I'll listen to your side of the story.

If not, your p!ssiing in the wind.

I wonder if these numbers are indicative of the rest of the pilot population. I personally think industry wide, the percentages would be higher against a change. It would seem like regional pilots would be EVEN MORE OPPOSED to changing age 60 since it will stagnate their career even more, while many of the major pilots have progressed to near the top of the latter.

Many of the senior pilots at my regional want the age raised to 65. They never had a retirement plan, and are currently making 100k-120k. An extra 5 yrs of banking away cash into the 401k is what they want. Personally, I applaud APA and hope they are able to keep safety first.

Thats funny, p!ssing in the wind is exactly what APA is doing.

I say we grandfather anyone who was alive when the rule was first imposed in 1960. After all I remember when I was three saying this is Horse doodoo I'll have to retire before everyone else.

It may be ****ing in the wind, but we will conintue the fight. While I have my issues with APA, they decided to POLL the membership for a current look at what the MEMBERSHIP wants. They now knkow what the majority wants and will represent them.

A little more than ALPA and the "blue ribbon panel".

AAflyer

Safety...uuummm....yes, that's right! Safety!

Hmm...need to have one pilot below the age of 60 to fly with one older...Hmmm why.... I don't know, but that has nothing to due with safety.


AAflyer

Oh ya, I almost forgot the other line.... Well the airlines will give up all that experience and these copilots (sitting the co-pilots seat for 10-20 years) just don;t have the experience to do my job (senior captain)...yawn..:rolleyes:


AAflyer

[quote=AAflyer;133959]It may be ****ing in the wind, but we will conintue the fight. While I have my issues with APA, they decided to POLL the membership for a current look at what the MEMBERSHIP wants. They now knkow what the majority wants and will represent them.

AA,

I could not agree with you more. The APA represents the interests of it's membership-the line pilots-and in effect is the mouthpiece of it membership...a textbook definition of what a union is.

It is noted that you may not agree with the APA, but you are 120% correct, they know what the majority wants and they have represented them in their actions.


I only bring this up because, like you, I have issues with the APA. In fact, as a former TWA pilot, I don't agree with anything the APA has done to me. But like you said, their actions may not find you personally in agreement; however, their actions represent the majority of the AA pilots.

Good luck in your fight.

:cool: Safety...and an intact retirement plan

[QUOTE=FliFast;133974]
Flifast,

I agree with you, and as you know now I do not agree with the way the APA treated you. I also have some reservations in the way the BOD conducts themsleves now.

However, it is promising to see the union ask "what the membership" wants and then pursue that regardless of what the leaders want.

I wish that they had asked the membership what we thought of the integration of our pilot group. I KNOW many would have asked for something better than you receieved.

I fear that age 60 will vanish in the next 2 years, however I posted this more for "an exrecise in unionism" This is what the membership wants, this is what we will do.

If it were only that simple for everything else.

Best,

AAflyer

I don't work for American, and therefore, they don't dictate the desires for those pilots who desire to fly beyond 60. In response to the statement that, pilots flying beyond age 60 is tantamount to an experiment in public transportation is a load of crap. Take a gander across the pond. So far there has not been one recorded incident involving any crewmember over the age of 60.

Bottom line… if the airman can pass his first class medical then let him continue to enjoy his or her livelihood. Pairing issues in Europe are such that there are no two airmen over the age of 60 in the cockpit at the same time.

If the mandatory retirement age is raised to age 65, each union has the right, by vote to keep the retirement age for their group to 60.

There is a financial consideration for those airlines that currently maintain defined benefit plans, by creating unfunded liabilities for those pilots who desire to work beyond 60.

Not every pilot wants to work beyond 60. In the long run do you really think it will delay the upgrade of F/Os to the left seat?

If each union had the right to require a 60 age retirement don't you think that would be over turned by a court? That would appear to be real age discrimination.

Like I said earlier, if the union was able to leave the pension and retirement benefits fixed to age 60, that may help.

AAflyer

Yes, I think you will see stagantion in the right seat, it will vary from company to company. It will probably be worse at companies who have shed their pensions in the BK.

I agree about the stagnation concept especially with those airlines that have no retirement benefits. If retirement benefits are frozen at age 60 with no further contribution, that would probably give current pilots the incentive to retire.

Hooray for APA
 

Good. Lets keep the opposition to this rule change strong. The more the opposition, the longer it will take to implement this pig. And every day, more guys fly that final flight. I was just in ops signing a retirement pic earlier today.

AA,

I appreciate your candor. But I will hold your feet to the fire, one last time, then drop it. If the membership was asked how to integrate the TWA pilots, how do you think the list would have been merged, and why has their not been any attempt, a grassroots attempt, by the line pilots to demand a change to the integration. I ask both of these rhetorically, but will interject, that the lack of opposition by the NAAtive American rank-n-file to demand recourse is perceived by the former TWA pilot, rank-n-file as passive support for the horrific intergration. Furthermore, if you want to open a can of worms, look how the NAAtive American Flight Attendants treated their TWA counterparts, all but fired them. In July 08' when their recall rights expire, I would bet my tuna fish sandwich that AA will start to hire F/As.

AA, you seem like a decent guy and accept my apology for hijacking this thread. But many of us wish, the APA would expend a tenth of the energy used towards the age 60 fight, towards righting the seniority lists. In two to four years when all the staplees are back, you can only imagine the hate and discontent that will be part of YOUR work environment. I think if the APA has an sincere interest in YOUR safety, it will start today in righting the wrong before their seeds of hatred fully blossom. The division and mistrust that will flourish between the recalled staplees and their counterparts is both a safety and unionism concern that, IMHO, is just as interesting as the age 60 rule.

We will see if the APA comes forward with letter writing campaigns and the like to oppose the integration, or if they will passively support Supp CC by telling everyone how bad it is but do nothing about it.

Back to your topic...........again, Best of Luck.

Flifast,

Arbitration would have been the way to go. Period. There are too many ifs and buts. If 9/11 hadn't happened. If we had continued to grow, etc. etc. Each group (majority) will always want to preserve what they have. Select groups on each side will always want to take advantage of a situation to suit themselves.

It is hard to say how many would agree with me, howeve I know a few and we seem to think along the same lines. In all honsety I can tell you shortly after the announced intergration I dealt with twins being born, a long divorce, fear of being furloughed and an immediate resume update and job search.

As time has passed an events in my personal life have calmed down I have had the oppotunity to fly with and discuss the past events of our two airlines. I have talked to captains and fos (formerly captains), Ozark ,and orginal Red. I have made friends, and learned much. I have heard everything from "we at TWA got screwed) to some who have said they expected less. Some who said (living in STL) there lives and current position never changed or were affected. I actually had a few say they were in the process of leaving and this worked out better than they expected.

I would not personally be able to formulate an integration list here with out the ability to go back and look at everything. A way to protect both sides. AA has a horrible history of purchasing airlines and dumping them.

I think what happened to the FAs was horrible, and you are probably correct about hiring next year after there recall rights expire. I am still not sure how the handful that are furlughed would truly effect the bottomline of a company which does 21 BILLION in revenue.

I guess in the end after blabbing on and on I would say again arbitration, and would need a little time to think of an appropriate way to address the TWA guys coming back (there treatment) and how to move forward. I will get back to you on that.

Regards, and thanks for being professional,
AAflyer

I thought of PMing you, but think it is important for you to know I will say the same thing to you in private as I would say on a public forum. I have ben bitten by both sides. I have been told by some of my peers that I have the Stolkhom Syndrome for relating to your pilot group, and some former TW guys who hate all things AA regardless of our support of them.

Good for you AA!

Here's my worthless prediction: Age 65 will pass. Medical retirements will increase at AA, NWA, FDX, and UPS as the pensions are intact ... it might be as simple as placing a tack in your shoe and poking yourself while you take an EKG to get abnormal readings (just a theory). :)

I don't believe a ton of guys are going to hang around past sixty. A lot of people did have their pensions wiped out or dumped and didn't have a personal 401k or other retirement vessel. A lot of guys did prepare for retirement apart from their company and don't want to be anywhere near Jet A past 60. I myself hope to be amuck in America in a Prevost, but it'll probably be a used Winnebago.

Tom

http://www.prevostluxurycoach.com/gallery.html

Attachment 531

I realize you might not have seen this question answered the other 15 or so times, but here it is again: the reason for the FO under 60 is politics; it's what it took to appease the nay sayers. This requirement too will pass a few years down the road.

The one thing that really chaps me about this whole debate is the BS BOTH SIDES are using to try to place the emphasis on safety. Admit it: the whole argument is about MONEY. The young guys want it. The old guys want it. The only valid argument is, is it fair to force an individual to retire based solely on his age. All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Is an old guy with 20,000 hours safer than a less old guy with 12,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, anyway. Is a less old guy with 12,000 hours safer than an old guy with 20,000 hours? Probably not. There's no scientific support for that, either.

That sounds like a threat. Are you actually saying that once the former twa pilots return to the property they're going to wage some sort of campaign against the safety of the AA pilots?

I think you misread his statement ... I didn't get the same meaning. FWIW. I think he's saying the age 60 issues is the ONLY safety issue, no threats.

Tom

The BS on both sides I certainly agree with! Which simply leads back to why change the rules we all knew existed when we started. If the pro 60 crowd is truly doing it to right the wrongs of the past, and only have honorable intentions then why not start the clock on all 121 or new ATP pilots from the day it is changed. NO windfalls to the old guys hanging out on the WBs.

After all the only way they got their WB captain's seat was because of retirements and age 60.

These are obviously personal views, so as you said. "The BS on both sides" is getting deep.

My orginal goal to this thread was more about unionism and having a specific group being polled and then having the union honor it's membership's wishes. I probably should have made that more clear.

Regards,

AAflyer

Interesting survey. I'm just curious--in light of the number of furloughed guys at AA (and the remaining guys who effectively got knocked several thousand rungs down the seniority ladder)--I'm not surprised that they'd like to keep the retirement age at 60. Bumping it up to 65 could keep them 5 or more years less senior.

Just a different way to look at things.
Riddler

BINDING arbitration. That would have only been fair. But that isn't what happened.

I also think third party neutral binding (or whatever) arbitration would have been the fair way.... but you all already know that (see a certain thread on page 2... :-)

Flifast, regarding a revised integration, as I told you below, there just isn't enough support from most of the APA members to succeed.... and then they would have to get past the BOD. Although Flyer and myself share common views (I swear, that's all we share...) we are in the minority.

YES to age 60!
73

The only way individual MECs will be able to "vote" to keep mandatory retirement at 60 is to maintain contractual language that allows pilots to take their retirement at 60 with no early retirement penalties.

Individual MECs cannot override FAA rule or U.S. Law.

BINGO!!!!!:)

AA

I promise I won't use the "safety" argument as long as you promise you won't use the "age discrimination" argument. Your right its about $ on both sides.

Sounds good to me. I've always felt it's a question of who's ox is being gored. I don't have a problem at all with the younger guys wanting the rule to continue as long as they don't snivel about safety. Same for us older guys. Anyone using safety as a factor for or against has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.