WOW! There were SO MANY different people and groups advocating a maximum age limit. Perhaps it was the letter from Rev Hesburgh (the President of Notre Dame University) to Quesada, recommending a maximum age of 50 that was THE causal event?
Or perhaps it was the medical committees which recommended maximum retirement ages in the mid/late 50s?
Or perhaps it was the Naval admiral (flight surgeon) who recommended a maximum age of 50?

There was a call from many more people than CR Smith for the change.

 

No Andy, it was CR Smith reaching out requesting support for the change. Contrary to your previous assertion CR Smith was the force behind the change. Yes, there were those that were concerned about age 60+ pilots checking out in these new jets. These were guys that had started in the Ford Trimotors, Curtis Condors, before airlines actually flew passengers. Today the pilot age 60 has 18-20,000+ in jets. ICAO has found that there is no safety issue. The data suggests that it in fact the older age group has the lowest accident/incident rate.

 

This is APA Communications Director Gregg Overman with the APA Information Hotline for Thursday, November 2.

Also today, Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman First Officer Keith Champion updated the Board on the Aviation Rulemaking Committee that the FAA has convened on the issue of age 60 retirement. First Officer Champion is participating in this ARC on the union’s behalf, along with representatives from a range of other stakeholders, including other unions and various carriers. The question before the ARC is whether the United States should adopt the newly established International Civil Aviation Organization standard of age 65 retirement, and if so how to implement the higher retirement age. APA may ask the membership to participate in a legislative alert-type process later this month to reinforce our institutional support for maintaining age 60 retirement as our nation’s standard.



Tomorrow’s APA News Digest will feature step-by-step information on how to participate in the public comment period that the FAA has convened on the issue through November 15. In addition, First Officer Champion reminded the Board that an amendment that calls for raising pilot retirement age is currently attached to a Senate appropriations bill. APA has expressed to Congress our view that this complex issue should not be decided as part of the appropriations process and that the ARC should present its report prior to any action by Congress.



The decision whether to change pilot retirement rests with the FAA Administrator or the U.S. Congress. Both have the authority to stipulate a change—the FAA by modifying the regulation, and Congress through legislation.

 

Bellerophon,

Thanks for your input and greetings to you on the other side of the pond. Many Europeans airlines find themselves in a server pilot shortage and were the major impetus behind the ICAO rule change. In the US, we have no such problem. In fact after 911, many thousands of US pilots have been furloughed and have found themselves in dead end stagnate jobs.

At my airline – American, we currently have over 2800 pilots on furlough. We have seen no movement the last five years. If this rule is enacted, we most likely would see no career advancement for another five years making it 10 years of stagnation. Any rule change would also curtail any serious hiring at the majors for the next five years thus keep many junior pilots from advancing to the next level and stuck at the lower paying regionals.

Though this rule is overtly about safety, it has its roots based on economics.

Besides those lucky few that get to hold on to their high paying jobs another five years; most of us will only be working to make back the money we lost in the first place due to delayed advancement and stagnation invoked by any rule change. In my personal case, I only become cash positive at age 64, some 19 years from now. I hope this puts some perspective on the major fight going on over here. The rule change will have a negative impact on a great deal of pilot’s careers.

Cheers,

AA767AV8TOR

 

I think the age should change to 65 for all those born after Jan 1, 2007.

That's fair.

 

Bellerophon,

A couple of questions for you. How has this rule change affected the lives of the pilots at your airline? Aside frome the obvious fact that pilots will have 10 more years on property. Will pilots still be able to retire with full benifits at age 55? Is this a voluntary extension to age 65 or are you penalized if you elect to leave the company at 55? These are the most important questions for me. I would be happy to see some healthy, happy soles fly as long as they want to, I, however, want out at 60 (U.S.).

Also, what is the aircraft in you avitar?

 

Wonder what it will do to our LTD premiums, or if they will even insure those wishing to fly to 65. At CAL, sick bank is used to pay for bridge medical until 65......if the age moves up....won't be any need for that. I say we have a big sick bank cash-in party.

 

What about all the pilots like me who began their career with a company knowing and planning that they could fly past age 60 but then the rules changed.


All Airline pilots need a rule that poses the least harm to all across the board, a rule that best assures their future not one that merely placates their situation early in their careers. There are just too many pilots now who at one time worked for Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern Frontier, or other carriers gone bankrupt, merged or otherwise forced to seek employment elsewhere, starting on probation wages.... again. Many pilots have four or five different uniforms in their closet, gaining seniority only in age, and need to work beyond age 60 to enjoy a decent retirement. Only the largest major airlines have the big pensions, and therefore are against any change, however, with the demise of the younger hiring age, many of their newer pilots are realizing the possibility of inadequate pensions at age 60. Most, if not all, smaller or newer carriers do not have a fixed benefit retirement. For those pilots, retiring at age 60 could be their worst nightmare. Realization of this fact may come to late for the non-forward thinking as they get nearer to the guillotine of the “Age 60 Rule”.

 

65 is not arbitrary. Since we were kids, that was always the number we were told for SS and retirement. It is not arbitrary....60, however, is

 

Ageism and age discrimination simply must not be institutionalized by a labor union and a federal law such as we now have in Section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, commonly referred to as the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule”.
It is a disturbing situation when a labor union such as ALPA and APA would try to dictate to the rest of the United States airline industry when all airline pilots must retire. The real motivation for maintaining the Age 60 rule has always been driven by political and economic issues, hidden behind the smokescreen of a concern for safety, after all who would argue against airline safety. The truth is that the rule has never had anything to do with safety as there has never been any evidence indicating that pilots over the age of 60 pose an unacceptable risk to aviation safety.

ALPA turned traitor to it’s senior members after supporting a change in the rule for over twenty years. ALPA has now institutionalized age discrimination as an accelerated job advancement scheme for its junior pilots. One would have to beg answers these questions:

When did younger less experienced pilots became more valuable than senior more experienced pilots?
Why would APA and ALPA, both labor unions, actively support a rule that discriminates against its own senior members, forces them to leave their workplaces and leave them with reduced benefits?

Shame on APA and ALPA for trying to block the new ICAO rule change from becoming effective in the USA!