Another worthless age 65 question/musing
 

I must have been asleep when the debate about age 65 took place a few years ago, but it certainly snuck up on me. It seems as though it happened without a shot being fired. I admit, I wasn't paying much attention though.

Maybe this has been hashed over a hundred times, but did the FAA, ALPA, or any other group consider phasing in the age 65 rule? Had they first gone to 62 and then bumped it up to 65 over a period of time, might that have been a little easier on the various pilot groups?

This just my own view, but I think the new age limit came along at the worst possible time for the industry. Had the good economic times continued, maybe the this new rule would have been little more than a bump in the road, but it came at the start of the worst recession since the 1930's.

I think the age 65 rule is fine, but did it gum up the works and lead to furloughs that may not have happened otherwise? Of course, the pilots hitting 60 would have been out of the game, but maybe furloughs at the bottom wouldn't have been so large.

I don't know, I'm just tossing the idea out there.

As usual the senior "union" pilots threw the junior guys under the bus for their own financial gain. nothing new here same ole story:eek:

Whacker77,
Disclosure- The congressional ruling cost me the left seat.
Factually, Congress steamrolled this event. Unions could and did weigh in on opinion. (ALPA did, some chose to stay neutral).
To blame the senior ALPA union leadership is easy flamebait, certainly plays well to us more junior pilots. However, objectively, if you study the history of worldwide airline retirement age, it was clear the U.S. congress was going to change the age by congressional action.
You are right, this was all discussed more than is useful over the last 22 months. The congressional law cost me significantly, but cannot blame 'over 60' pilots any more than I blame them for the worldwide economic mess.

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.

Just so we're on the same page, I wasn't trying to blame senior pilots for anything. I was just wondering out loud how things might have been different had the rule been phased in or if it hadn't been done right at the start of a period of significant furloughs. Not trying to flame at all. I do my flaming the Louisville football message board!

www.firekragthorpenow.com

This all started in the Senate. The AVERAGE age of the Senate is over 60. On one side you had a bunch of people whose pensions were terminated a few years before they were going to retire, trying to survive, especially US Air and United. On the other side you had people arguing that a 61 year old was too old and decrepit to fly an airliner. You were making this argument to 70-75 year old men. Guess which side won. ALPA didn't sell anyone out. They were run over by the US Senate which has much more power than any one union or all unions combined.

This should have been processed through the FAA and the normal Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process. The FAA and the Bush administration made promises to these Senators and they didn't follow through. It is not good to ignore US Senators.

Didn't mean to infer that you were blaming the older folks. I stand corrected. It is a common theme wanted to blunt and this topic is so easy to get messy like a Cards game <g>, Agree that the timing was particularly challenging to the group in view of the economy.
Rather spirited website <g>

I'm not bothered by the age 65 rule, but I gotta say that nobody cares how many years they were furloughed. They chose their career with all the pitfalls that entails...Furloughs entitle none of them to a single thing.

B2P

What a miss informed statement. Do a little research on how it came about. I will give you a small hint. Once ICAO went to 65 and the FAA allowed pilots to age 65 to fly in the US the issue was over. The FAA could no longer claim safety. It became a age discrimination issue only and they would have lost in court without any question. The only aspect left was to define how 65 would come into being in the US. ALPA was able to get several protections into the bill the key being that pilots over 60 could not come back. That almost did not happen. You might also take a quick look at the congressional record on the age 65 vote. It just might give you a hint of enlightenment. Keep in mind who makes law in this country.

Well we will see if you can openly look at the facts here, and accept one mans opinion so here goes,
Ive done some research, and the common theme here is the older guys only backed this because it helped them, even though it was started by ICAO alignment, they were quietly dead set against it when it would have affected their career progression. Proven by the fact that this thing was kept under the rug for decades by this same pilot group until that group all of a sudden needed it. You cant deny the timing of it was coinciding with the largest long term group of guys ever locked in aviation were about to be forced out. Pilot shortage and all, I get that, but at least have the guts to admit you older guys didnt give a crap about the younger generation, despite your lipservice, your votes on key union issues over the years prove your no different than anyone else, at the end of the day its about numero uno. Sorry I call it as I see it..

Let me be clear I am patiently sitting on furlough not necesarily angry over the situation just waiting for my turn, I just get annoyed when the Older "die hard" Union guys talk about teamwork, and solidarity and your brother, but then constantly have proven over history they are only talking the talk not walking it. This is one case that proves that and Ive spelled out why. I will be patient cause I now have five extra years and it washes out. But like I said dont pretend that you didnt throw the junior pilot group under the bus, because the unions did just that if for no other reason than their inaction on the subject. If you can prove my points wrong I'm willing to debate it, but from what I've seen and heard and read this is how I see it

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."

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

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?

Was the rep from MN, because if so...he was fully behind it without any pushing.

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?

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."

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 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

Nope. Republican from CA.

PIPE

That article from two years ago was intersting to read. It did quite a good job of foreshadwoing the issues we are discussing today. I guess I still would have prefered the rule be instituted in phases. Moot point now.

Why the sudden push for 65?
 

I suspect the "pension dumping" had a lot to do with it. Before that happened, working past age 60 wouldn't have yielded enough additional after-tax income to be an attractive prospect for most guys. That's probably why proposals to extend the retirement age gained little traction in the past. Just a guess, since I retired at age 55, a few years before the rule changed. :)

I think it goes well beyond just senior pilots. The generation those senior pilots belong to will go down as the most selfish in history. The 2005 editorial below points out just how greedy early baby boomers have been. Those who pushed for the age change when it no longer benefited them as they were approaching their 60th birthday were just acting like their Greediest Generation peers. The losers in their selfish game won't be just junior pilots. As the author points out, the biggest losers will be America's children. Sadly, members of groups like APAAD are just a symptom of a much larger illness..

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/01/op...01kristof.html

So its not just the senior pilot groups that pushed us junior guys under the bus your whole generation is going to do it to my whole generation?

" Sadly, members of groups like APAAD are just a symptom of a much larger illness.."


I've read, and heard statements like this before. It was in the 1950's, and they were directed at the NAACP. :(

Well lets face it, no one in our generation ( the next one) will see a dime of SS, even though we will have paid a good chunk of our life long earings.
Gen X'ers we are slated to pay the huge bill come due built by and for the baby boomers.

The most ridiculous and out of line reach I have ever read on these boards. Care to comment on the contents of the editorial? If not, keep your flamebait comments to yourself.

Why would I waste my time commenting on the contents of the editorial. There is nothing I could possibly say that would change your mind. After all I'm just a, how did you phrase it, " symptom of a greater illness" One of a generation of greedy people taking food out of the mouths of children. Reread your own post before going off on me Dawg.
I'll post what I like. The moderators can sort out the flamebait.

I understand. You have no real defense of your generations greedy actions, including yours as a member of APAAD. It's all about changing the rules to help you at the expense of everyone younger than you, just like the author points out your whole generation is in the midst of doing. So instead of an intelligent rebuttal, you think of the most atrocious comparison possible, even though it has no relevance, and throw it out there. That tells me you have no intelligent rebuttal to that editorial. Thanks for your lack of input. Your silence speaks volumes.

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

Sc#%w the editorial, lets look at your words. You put a rather derogatory label on an entire group of people whom you know how many of? You know nothing of their motivations, but if they are "boomers" then they are greedy. They are symptomatic of some "Greater illness". It's called bigotry sir. It has no place on this forum. The members of APAAD whom I have met are outstanding individuals, and fine pilots whom have made a positive contribution to the profession. Disagree with them if you like, but please don't defame them on this forum.
I would also ask that you not question my intelligence on the forum either.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) at first fought hard to repeal the age 60 rule.

In 1968 this was ALPA’s official stance on the Age 60 Rule:

“ALPA CONTINUES OPPOSITION TO AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE. The Air Line Pilots Association strongly advocates that the Federal Air Regulation in its arbitrary age 60 retirement provision is unreasonably discriminating against all of the air line pilots. Shortening a pilot’s career with no realistic justification is cheating the public as well as the industry. ALPA has expended and continues to expend its utmost efforts in attempting to overcome this highly dissatisfying and unfair federal regulation.”

Sadly, ALPA turned traitor to its senior members after supporting the abolishment of the age 60 rule for over twenty years. ALPA then institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers the question why would ALPA, a labor union, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own members, force them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?

ALPA President Henry Duffy’s made this statement in the 1990 Baker v FAA:
“It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60, on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable”. He also stated during this testimony “Pilots over 55 comprise 5-6% of the total membership. The other 95% selfishly view the forced retirement of older pilots as their guaranteed path and a God given right to their promotions!”

Safety was the lie that ALPA and APA used to mask blatant ageism directed against its most senior pilots to promote early promotions for junior pilots.

In July 1979 Captain J. J. O’Donnell, then president of ALPA, testifies before the House Public Works and Transportation Committee:

" Congressman Anderson, I gather from your testimony before the Select Committee on Aging that some of your members do not want to see the Age 60 Rule ended. Do those who oppose ending the age 60 rule do so on the grounds of safety or economics?” Captain O’Donnell; “It would be misleading [to say that] they do it on the basis of safety. ... [i]t is economics to those who object to the change in the regulation.”

The age 60 rule was perpetuated by big union politics for over 40 years but the reality of the situation is that a wrong has been corrected and attitudes must now change. Experienced professional airline pilots deserve the right to continue earning a living in their chosen profession.

Could not have said it better.

Didn't question your intelligence, just your lack of an intelligent rebuttal, but I think you are smart enough to know that already. I am sure you are quite intelligent, which begs the question...why you won't address the issues about baby boomers being the "Greediest Generation" in the editorial. Stop trying to make this about me. If you recall, the editorial pointed to "Age discrimination" law suits as just a part of the evidence that this generation cares only about themselves and not what happens to everyone else as a result. APAAD has the words "Age Discrimination" in their title!! So, tell me where the editorial is wrong and stop trying to make this about me. Personal attacks are the first sign you have nothing relevant to add to the subject. Prove me and the editorial wrong with your intelligent rebuttal. I look forward to your reply..

BTW.. love your Eric Stratton impersonation! Next your going to accuse me of bad mouthing the USA right!? Way to try and change the subject..

YouTube - bad mouth the usa

Correct me if I am wrong but the tenor of your post's suggest that you feel you have a right to an airline job and that begs the question by virtue of what? Why should anyone sacrifice their financial gain for anyone else?

REMEMBER YOUR QUOTE THE NEXT TIME A PILOT GROUP UNDERBIDS YOU ON SOME FLYING, OR A REGIONAL BUYS OUT A MAJOR AND FURLOUGHS THE WHOLE PILOT GROUP TO SAVE MONEY, OR CROSSES A PICKET LINE, OBVIOUSLY YOUR STATEMENT IS JUSTIFICATION, RIGHT?????(SARCASTIC) :rolleyes:Now that you have proven my point :
Why not read all my posts on this subject, and stop putting words in my mouth. What I do care about is a bunch of senior guys(APAAD) pretending they are all about the future of the industry and brotherhood, yet they push for this only when THEY needed it, not before when it would affect their career progression. These same guys holding seniority are bidding open time and in some cases at some airlines FO open time even if they are a captain, and all while junior pilots are on the street. It reeks of greed, You're right you are entitled to it, I am not, based on seniority, but at least have some stones and admit you care less about junior guys, quit screaming solidarity and brotherhood. It is insulting...We all know gen X (my gen) is going to pay for the lifestyles you baby boomers have lived, This is a sore subject that goes deeper than age 65, its about one generation robbing the next and leaving it to pay for the previous. If you were gen x facing no SS even though youve been taxed your whole life, no pension, and lowered 401k expectations youd be peeved too, oh and dont forget that since you have to get your SS, to go with your A fund, I'm not allowed to stop paying SS taxes and invest the money for myself because then you wouldnt have it, so my gen just gets screwed.
So let me reitterate, this is less about whether 65 is right or wrong, and more about me calling your GEN out for talking the talk but not walking the walk...THATS THE TENOR OF MY POST

Age 65 is only an issue because of the current state of the industry, if the airlines where hiring 80 pilots a month like pre 9/11 nobody would say a word

Quite right. The scarcity of jobs has increased the competition for each job and thus the Lord of the Flies mentality of the Gen Xers.

Hey kids, I've got a question for you. Did you get all exercised about guys being hired with 200 hours and a commercial? They are a bigger threat to your perceived right to a rapid upgrade to wide body captain than the over 60 crowd.

Who is more greedy, one who wants to keep what he has, or the one who wants to take what is not his for himself?:cool:

I fully support the change to mandated minimums. I would be fine if they were 2500tt or more, let alone 1500TT. Our issue is that you guys are where you are because the guy in front of you moved on, and now that isn't happening. Its easy to say "tough, thats life" when you are there, where you wanted to be but put yourself in our shoes. Yes, you've earned it, you put in the work and should enjoy it but don't screw over the guy behind you. We're earning our way to your seat right now, and there will be a generation of pilots coming in behind us that I hope I can help however I can.

To answer your question, both are equally greedy in this case. Enjoy your seniority, but move on so those under you (not necessarily the 200hr wonder kids, but the guys who have earned it) can move up. I, for one, am glad we won't see people getting hired with that much time for a long time.

Just Google "The Greediest Generation" and read all about it. APAAD was always about greed and is just a small example of the legacy the baby boomer generation is leaving behind. Still waiting for someone to tell me why the editorial I posted earlier was wrong. As I said, the silence is deafening.