Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Another worthless age 65 question/musing >

Another worthless age 65 question/musing

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Another worthless age 65 question/musing

Old 09-24-2009, 05:51 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: What day is it?
Posts: 963
Default

Where a ALPA fell short was on the internal Age 60 debate program. It was not as neutral a program as it should have been and was slanted to side with the change. This led to a skewed poll with commensurate results.

Yes the change had occurred elsewhere. The proper way to implement it would have been to do a "look forward" with an implementation date certain and no reach backs. I realize this inflames many of the people who were able to come back, but the simple and inescapeable fact is that each one of us signed on for this career ride of our own free will. We knew that there could be furloughs, failures and shutdowns. We also knew what the rules of the game were when we signed on...60 and out. To be able to jump back in with a mulligan was wrong.

These are the same guys who would have had a screaming fit had this happened to them in the 80's and 90's. To make the argument that. "well the junior guys will now have an extra five years to make up for this" is spurrious. If their airline fails, they bust a medical or the economy tanks...duh...they're on the street and won't have the chance.

ALPA should have been more forceful with this and said, "If you're past 60, sorry."
ATCsaidDoWhat is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 06:16 AM
  #12  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
Default

Originally Posted by FoxHunter View Post
The FAA and ALPA had very little to do with the change to age 65. The Congress did it with a vote in the House 390-0, passed the Senate by without opposition, signed by President Bush.

Most of those able to continue had 4-10 years furlough at the beginning of their career.

I spoke at length with a very prominent US Rep (who is also a former pilot / military officer). When I asked him after the fact how all of this came to be, he said, "Your union got on board and pushed it through. It wouldn't have happened without their support." This was an at-length conversation (1-2 hours) in a very informal environment. I'm also not this guy's constituent so he had no reason to lie to me.

After that conversation, I'm pretty sure ALPA knew what they were doing.

PIPE
pipe is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 06:45 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 466
Default

Of course ALPA rammed this through. Do you really think a congressman would vote for an age extension bill if ALPA was screaming that it was not safe for the majority to fly past 60? If ALPA was complaining that there were no studies done to see if it was safe would this of happened? If it was so safe, why can't two +60ers fly together on international routes? It was just rammed through due to APAAD/ ALPA without any thought whatsoever. And if you want to complain about age discrimination why didn't the Air Traffic Controllers get their "age discrimination" rule lifted?
Moose is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 06:49 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Default

Originally Posted by pipe View Post
I spoke at length with a very prominent US Rep (who is also a former pilot / military officer). When I asked him after the fact how all of this came to be, he said, "Your union got on board and pushed it through. It wouldn't have happened without their support." This was an at-length conversation (1-2 hours) in a very informal environment. I'm also not this guy's constituent so he had no reason to lie to me.

After that conversation, I'm pretty sure ALPA knew what they were doing.

PIPE
Was the rep from MN, because if so...he was fully behind it without any pushing.
iceman49 is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 07:05 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,707
Default

Originally Posted by TPROP4ever View Post
As usual the senior "union" pilots threw the junior guys under the bus for their own financial gain. nothing new here same ole story
I suppose when you are senior you would be more socialistic in you views. You can change things when it is your turn. Question is will you?
buddies8 is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 07:24 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SaltyDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Default

Here is an excerpts of the facts:
Certainly open to interpretation, however, the idisputable fact remains: ICAO gave congress , acting on behalf of the U.S. as a contracting state to follow the ICAO convention. Thus congress would and did act on it's own behalf.


Opinion varies, mine is that even though ALPA endorsed the ICAO Age 65 convention, it only affected the speed, not the outcome. Maybe it would have happened later in the 110th Congress, but the 110th was going to change the law even without ALPA endorsement because the U.S largely follows ICAO convention. Additionally, Congress (with ALPA endorsement) wanted to protect further PGBC liabilty with the bankruptcy of so many airlines. I blame the airline managements for that contribution to the age 65 congressional mandate, not ALPA (who simply used that vehicle provided)

I didn't like it personally, but alas, 110th Congress, failed managements, ICAO convention, and FAA Marion Blakey drove the change, ALPA only endorsed the action. Endorsement, though self serving to older pilots, it was not the driver of the change. Debate must recognize these relevant contributors. Cannot take an endorser (ALPA) out of context.


Other comments to fuel the fire:
"The move to rewrite pilot retirement rules gained momentum in November 2006, when the U.S. government first allowed overseas carriers to fly into the U.S. with pilots over the age of 60 at the controls. This created a politically untenable situation, since foreign pilots or Americans flying for international carriers were granted a right denied to pilots flying for U.S. airlines.

Citing that discrepancy, both the Federal Aviation Administration and the nation's largest pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association, eventually supported changing the retirement age. But with FAA officials warning it could take years to rewrite the regulations already on the books, activists such as Emens turned to Congress for relief."


"After decades supporting a rule requiring commercial airline pilots to retire by their 60th birthday, the FAA earlier this year signaled that it now supports raising the retirement age to 65, matching a new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard."

"It's time to close the book on age 60," former FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said in a Jan. 30, 2007 speech. "The retirement age for pilots needs to be raised. A pilot's experience counts. It's an added margin of safety. Foreign airlines have demonstrated that experienced pilots in good health can fly beyond age 60 without compromising safety."

U.S. pilots can fly until 65
Bush signs bill raising retirement age, ends debate dating to 1950s

By Julie Johnsson
chicagotribune.com
Tribune staff reporter

December 14, 2007

Ending an airline industry controversy that has smoldered for a half-century, President Bush signed a bill Thursday that raises the retirement age for commercial pilots to 65 from 60, a standard observed by the rest of the world.

Pilots say the new law reflects the reality that today's 60-year-olds are physically fit enough to continue flying, and their experience shouldn't be taken out of the cockpit.

The new law doesn't come a day too soon for Southwest Airlines Captain Paul Emens, 59, who has spent more than a decade trying to persuade members of Congress to rewrite federal rules that require pilots to retire by their 60th birthdays.

"I have two very close friends who retire tomorrow," Emens said Thursday. "That makes me highly motivated: trying to save the jobs of people I know."

Emens' friends now will be allowed to work for five more years, provided they pass regular medical and piloting exams.

The new law doesn't allow pilots who've already turned 60 to reclaim their jobs or seniority, the all-important airline pecking order that establishes work assignments and compensation.

Pilots who've already retired would be allowed to resume their careers, provided they return as lowly new hires, assigned as co-pilots on a carrier's smallest aircraft.

"I'd have to go back as a junior first officer on a [Boeing] 737, which I haven't flown in 18 or 20 years," said Marty Noonan, a retired Continental pilot, who opted instead to head overseas to fly brand-new Boeing 777s for India's Jet Airways.

The president's action ends a dizzying week for proponents of the new pilot-retirement rules, which had stalled in Congress for months as part of a larger funding bill Bush had vowed to veto.

But once the pilot legislation was spun out as a separate bill, it sped through Congress. The House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 390-0 Tuesday, while the Senate unanimously approved identical language Wednesday evening.

It ends a debate that began in the late 1950s, when the federal government first mandated that pilots retire by age 60. Emens says his father, a captain for Pan Am, fought unsuccessfully to block its passage, contending it was age discrimination.

But the rhetoric has been especially heated this decade as an aviation downturn stalled promotions for younger pilots and upended retirement plans for those at the end of their careers.

The new law gives pilots who've lost much of their pensions to airline bankruptcies five more years to recapture lost income and will help airlines deal with a growing shortage of pilots, advocates say.

Older pilots who worked for carriers that scrapped their employee pension plans, such as United Airlines or US Airways, were hurt by the age 60 rule because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the quasi-government agency that assumed control of the pension plans, has a rule that cuts retirement benefits for those who leave the workforce before age 65.

Kit Darby, a 23-year veteran of Chicago-based United Airlines, estimates he lost three-quarters of his retirement income and about $1 million in pay because he was forced to retire when he turned 60 in May.

"It's pretty tough to swallow, and it's totally arbitrary," he said.

But extending the working lives of older pilots could have financial consequences for their younger peers, especially those who've been unable to move into larger aircraft and higher-paying jobs during a recent slump as airlines shrank their aircraft fleets and canceled orders for new planes.

Darby, who's also an Atlanta-based consultant specializing in pilot hiring, estimates that about half of the roughly 3,000 airline pilots who turn 60 each year will remain in the workforce.

"It means five years of stagnation for those who expected to move on when older people retired," notes aviation consultant Robert Mann.

Others worry safety may be compromised since pilots in their 60s may find it tougher to battle fatigue or rebound from jet lag than younger colleagues.

"The reality is no one knows what would happen with large number of 65-year-old pilots in the cockpits of modern commercial airlines operating in today's demanding environment," wrote Captain Lloyd Hill, president of the Allied Pilots Association, in a letter urging Bush to veto the bill. His union, which represents pilots at American Airlines, opposed changing the retirement age.

However, both the FAA and international regulators have dismissed safety issues, determining there's no statistical proof older pilots pose a greater risk than younger, less-experienced peers.

"There's no safety issue; there never has been," said Denny Holman, 57, who's a Boeing 777 captain for United Airlines and an advocate of later retirement. "I take two physicals a year. Every nine months, I go back to our training center and take check rides. At any point, an air carrier inspector can jump on my airplane and observe me flying."


"But once the pilot legislation was spun out as a separate bill, it sped through Congress. The House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 390-0 Tuesday, while the Senate unanimously approved identical language Wednesday evening.

It ends a debate that began in the late 1950s, when the federal government first mandated that pilots retire by age 60. Emens says his father, a captain for Pan Am, fought unsuccessfully to block its passage, contending it was age discrimination.

But the rhetoric has been especially heated this decade as an aviation downturn stalled promotions for younger pilots and upended retirement plans for those at the end of their careers.

The new law gives pilots who've lost much of their pensions to airline bankruptcies five more years to recapture lost income and will help airlines deal with a growing shortage of pilots, advocates say.

Older pilots who worked for carriers that scrapped their employee pension plans, such as United Airlines or US Airways, were hurt by the age 60 rule because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the quasi-government agency that assumed control of the pension plans, has a rule that cuts retirement benefits for those who leave the workforce before age 65."
SaltyDog is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 07:31 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

Originally Posted by Moose View Post
Of course ALPA rammed this through. Do you really think a congressman would vote for an age extension bill if ALPA was screaming that it was not safe for the majority to fly past 60? If ALPA was complaining that there were no studies done to see if it was safe would this of happened? If it was so safe, why can't two +60ers fly together on international routes? It was just rammed through due to APAAD/ ALPA without any thought whatsoever. And if you want to complain about age discrimination why didn't the Air Traffic Controllers get their "age discrimination" rule lifted?

ALPA did not spend one dime of money pushing the age 65 bill. In matters they have supported they spend large amounts of money. You only get support in congress when you buy it. They also only chnaged their stance when 65 became the ICAO rule and it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the next court challange would be lost. By getting onboard they were able to help craft and shape the way the rule went into effect. They could have held their breath and stamped their feet and cried "No 65". Had they done that 65 would still be the rule today except you would have thousands of pilots who were over 65 returning back to work and a much more intensive physical process for all pilots regardless of age.
sailingfun is online now  
Old 09-24-2009, 07:39 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TPROP4ever's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: none ya...
Posts: 1,154
Default

Originally Posted by buddies8 View Post
I suppose when you are senior you would be more socialistic in you views. You can change things when it is your turn. Question is will you?

I doubt it, I am in my 40's. By the way read my other post, where I plainly state that while I am not necesarily mad, or even for or against age 65, I only wish the older guys would just be honest about why they wanted this, quit trying to sugarcoat it. It was about selfish reasons plain and simple, if you'd just admit that, we could move on... Read my Whole post...period end of story
TPROP4ever is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 08:19 AM
  #19  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
Default

Originally Posted by iceman49 View Post
Was the rep from MN, because if so...he was fully behind it without any pushing.
Nope. Republican from CA.

PIPE
pipe is offline  
Old 09-24-2009, 08:48 AM
  #20  
Senior by choice
 
formerdal's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 425
Default

Originally Posted by sailingfun View Post
ALPA did not spend one dime of money pushing the age 65 bill. In matters they have supported they spend large amounts of money. You only get support in congress when you buy it. They also only chnaged their stance when 65 became the ICAO rule and it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the next court challange would be lost. By getting onboard they were able to help craft and shape the way the rule went into effect. They could have held their breath and stamped their feet and cried "No 65". Had they done that 65 would still be the rule today except you would have thousands of pilots who were over 65 returning back to work and a much more intensive physical process for all pilots regardless of age.
I'll buy that alpa saw it coming and wanted to have some control. That being said, it was already going to be put off because of the FAA reauthorization bill was delayed. Alpa got involved and made it happen (seperate legislation just for the age change)instead of allowing it to travel via the normal process ie. NPRM which would have allowed hundreds of more retirements over the 18-24 months it should have taken>
formerdal is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SWAjet
Major
39
10-31-2013 01:57 PM
Bucking Bar
Aviation Law
69
07-18-2009 06:48 PM
Whacker77
Aviation Law
22
07-18-2009 08:50 AM
JDFlyer
Major
1
03-11-2009 10:44 AM
Cessnan1315efw
Regional
60
12-08-2008 01:18 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices