Originally Posted by DogPit

I spent over a decade flying with guys in their late 60s/early 70s. Been there, have the tshirt and have no desire to go through it again. And I do enjoy the 65 and under captains I fly with.

Originally Posted by Sliceback

What happens on their 65th birthday? They grow a horn on their head?

Originally Posted by DogPit

Please elaborate on your decades experience flying professionally with this demographic.

Originally Posted by Sliceback

I'm just wondering what happens when they cross over to the 'other side'. Is it like the Dark Knight version of the golden rainbow? I've flown with both <65 and >65 yr olds and the difference is often, as I'm sure you're aware, is the personality of the individual. Nothing happened when Age 60 became Age 65. What happens at 65 and one day?

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76

Oh, a lot happened when Age 60 became 65. Those at the top of the seniority list at the time of the switch got to enjoy 5 more years that their predecessors didn't get to. They also made roughly 7 figures more at the expense of those who stagnated as the result of it. This is not even taking into account guys and gals who were furloughed, who otherwise wouldn't have gotten furloughed. But in any case, they stagnated many careers.

It took many years to catch up to where we would have been had Age 60 not gotten raised to 65. Now that I personally finally reached the top of it all, I'm with you 200%. But forget Age 67. I want Age 85. Now that we (SWA) secured arguably one of, if not the best LTD/LOL in the industry, I want Age 85 and I'll join you and whine to high heaven about the unfairness of "age discrimination." After all, if our Cryptkeeper occupying the White House and the mummies in Congress can keep their jobs, how the hell is it fair that you and I become pumpkins on our 65th birthday?

Originally Posted by 5tools

Same old song and dance by ALPA! Here's some more history for you, where have we heard this before?? Sounds like ALPA needs a new study group. Someone show example in last 20 years where a 121 or 135 accident has been caused by age? We are all waiting anxiously.

"The Age 60 Rule is based on substantial scientific evidence that subtle declines in cognitive
functions associated with aging can adversely affect the ability of airline pilots to perform safely."

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATI::~L
1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE. N.W. 0 WASHINGTON. D.C. 2CXJ38 0 703-688-2270
FAX 202-797-4052
April 22, 2003
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
On behalf of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALP A), I am writing to urge you to oppose
legislation to repeal the FAA's regulation known as the Age 60 Rule (14 C.P.R. 121.383(c», that
requires commercial airline pilots to retire upon reaching 60 years of age. It is uncommon, if not
unprecedented, for the Congress to usurp the authority of the FAA on important safety
regulations without overwhelming evidence that the agency's position is unwaITanted or
arbitrary and capricious. No $uch findings have been made either by the Congress or by the
Federal courts with regard to the Age 60 Rule.
The Age 60 Rule is based on substantial scientific evidence that subtle declines in cognitive
functions associated with aging can adversely affect the ability of airline pilots to perform safely.
However, medical science has not perfected a testing protocol that can reliably screen out those
pilots whose performance has or will become inadequate and unsafe due to the natural process of
aging. Therefore, it has been determined reasonable to mandate retirement at a specific
chronological age that is within an acceptable range of risk for commercial air transportation
operations.
Throughout the past 20 years, the FAA has continuously reviewed the scientific basis for the
Rule and has consistently upheld it as a sound and effective air safety regulation. On several .
occasions, the Federal courts have reviewed and affmned the FAA's decisions. The most recent
review was triggered in April, 2000, by a group of 69 pilots who petitioned the FAA for
exemption from the Rule based on a "new" testing protocol called the Age 60 Exemption
Protocol, that included a battery of cognitive tests known as CogScreen-AE (for Aeromedical
Edition). Following a thorough review of the research and literature on the CogScreen-AE and
the administration of it by the petitioners' "Exemption Panel" of medical experts, the FAA
denied the petition with the following conclusion:
"In sum, there cun-ently is no research showing which CogScreen-AE
tests sufficiently identify age-related cognitive function deficits that
would impact pilot perfonnance and aircraft safety. Petitioners have not
explained how their Exemption Panel used and resolved the CogScreen-AE
results, particularly those results that appear to be abnormal based on the
research to date. The addition since 1988 of CogScreen-AE to petitioners'
Age 60 Exemption Protocol does not make the protocol adequate to evaluate
SCHEDULE WITH SAFETY .,... AFAUATED wmi AFl-ClO
pilots to continue to serve under pan 121 beyond age 60. The other changes
to the neuropsychological protocol do not improve the predictive value of
the protocol. Accordingly, the neuropsychological protocol is not shown
to be adequate to determine if pilots will remain fit to serve under part 121
as they reach and exceed age 60." Denial of Exemption on Remand, FAA
Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8016 at page 17, December 13, 2000.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the FAA' s denial of the petition was
affirmed. After a thor~ugh review of the CogScreen-AE protocol and its administration by the
Exemption Panel as presented in briefs by the petitioners and the FAA. the Court concluded:
"U1timately, we find that substantial evidence supports the FAA's findings
that CogScreen-AE is not, at this point, an adequate cognitive tool for
determining whether an exemption to the Age Sixty Rule is Walr.anted. Far
from ignoring CogScreen-AE, the FAA actually developed the test. Yet it
has determined that, at present, the test is properly utilized in the medical
recertification evaluation of pilots with la1own or suspected neurolo~cal and/or
psychiatric conditions." Yetman v. Garvey, 261 F.3d 664 at 675 (7 Cir.2001).
On the issue of the FAA' s exemption policy. the Court said:
'The FAA has the discretionary power to establish a rigid policy, whereby
no exemptions are granted, until it is satisfied that medical standards can
demonstrate an absence of risk factors in an individual sufficient to wanant
a more liberal exemption policy from the Age Sixty Rule. Until the FAA
determines that such standards exist, it may adhere inflexibly to a rule whose
validity has been upheld by the courts and reevaluated by Congress, so long as it
continues to consider, as we are satisfied it has done here, new advances in
medical technology." Yetman v. Garvey, at 679.
Some advocates for repeal of the Rule argue that it is flagrant age discrimination; however, the
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Professional Pilots Federation v. FAA, 118 F.3d at 763
(1997), held that, "nothing in the ADEA (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) can plausibly
be read to restrict the FAA from making age a criterion for employment when it acts in it~
capacity as the guarantor of public safety in the air." In this regard, it is noteworthy that several
job classifications in the Federal workforce have statutory mandatory retirement ages. For
example, air traffic controllers are required to retire at age 56 based on the adverse effects that
age-related changes may have on their performance. I can't think of one airline pilot who would
concede that his or her job is any less stressful or rigorous than that of an air traffic controller or
requires less functional or cognitive fitness. Furthennore, I know of no effort being made in
Congress to repeal the mandatory retirement age for controllers based on age discrimination.
Finally, as you are well aware, the U. S. airline industry is undergoing the worst fmancial crisis
in its history that has resulted in an unprecedented loss of airline jobs. Close to 10,000 pilots
have been, or soon will be, furloughed. Hundreds more have been called up to active duty in the
war in Iraq. The vast majority of furloughees and those in mili~ service are pilots with low
seniority numbers at their airlines - many with young families. Given the gloomy economic
projections for the industry, reemployment of these pilots following the war js problematic at
best. Repeal of the Age 60 Rule at this time to enable the most senior pilots to continue their
careers will exacerbate the already difficult reemployment situation facing these furloughees and
reservists. I urge you to keep these young men and women in mind when considering
legislation to repeal the Age 60 Rule.
Thank you for considering my views.
Sincerely,
II

Duane E. Woerth, President

Originally Posted by ImSoSuss

huh


............

Originally Posted by cornbeef007

It doesn’t need to be fair…we are operating a jet, while they sit at a desk and have ample time to make any sort of decision.

Not picking on McConnell directly but what if he had an episode a knot before or after V1 with a motor cut. How do you think that would work out? The same can be said for Biden and Trump as well.

McConnell would freeze, Biden would forget where he was and believe he entered some sort of alternate reality while Trump would start pressing random buttons and start blathering on about the dems and the boarder.

Originally Posted by checkgear

He’s showing everyone the effects of cognitive decline

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76

Oh, a lot happened when Age 60 became 65. Those at the top of the seniority list at the time of the switch got to enjoy 5 more years that their predecessors didn't get to. They also made roughly 7 figures more at the expense of those who stagnated as the result of it. This is not even taking into account guys and gals who were furloughed, who otherwise wouldn't have gotten furloughed. But in any case, they stagnated many careers.

It took many years to catch up to where we would have been had Age 60 not gotten raised to 65. Now that I personally finally reached the top of it all, I'm with you 200%. But forget Age 67. I want Age 85. Now that we (SWA) secured arguably one of, if not the best LTD/LOL in the industry, I want Age 85 and I'll join you and whine to high heaven about the unfairness of "age discrimination." After all, if our Cryptkeeper occupying the White House and the mummies in Congress can keep their jobs, how the hell is it fair that you and I become pumpkins on our 65th birthday?