"Age 60" Rule to Become "Age 65" Rule?

[Barb-SAN]

"Age 60" Rule to Become "Age 65" Rule?
back to top (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1014-full.html#top) http://www.avweb.com/images/top_arrow.gif
"House Passes Age-65 Bill

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/capitol2.jpg The House has unanimously passed a bill that would raise the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots to 65. According to The Associated Press (the actual bill was not available on the Library of Congress Web site at this writing) the proposed legislation, which still has to pass through the Senate, would bring the U.S. in line with the rest of the world. However, it appears there’s an important difference in the House’s version of the legislation compared to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s rule. According to The Associated Press’s understanding of the bill, two 65-year-old pilots could fill left and right seats, where the ICAO says at least one member of the flight crew must be 60 years or less. The bill says that flights bound for other countries must have the ICAO’s mix of relative youth and experience. The Age-65 bill was part of the FAA reauthorization bill that’s now stalled in the Senate. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and his Republican counterpart John Mica, of Florida, agreed to separate the measure from the larger bill in hopes the Senate would pass it quickly. "Each day that passes without raising the retirement age to 65, approximately five of our senior, most experienced pilots will be forced to retire," Oberstar told the House."

From today's AVWebFlash.

What do you think, Capt.Hutch? I'm wondering if it would complicate scheduling if at least one of the pilots needed to be younger than 60. To me....the age seems less relevant than the physical condition of the pilot. There are certainly some people at high risk of a heart attack at 40 (and I know that commercial pilots undergo frequent medical exams to be sure they are fit to fly).

[EyesSkyward]

To me....the age seems less relevant than the physical condition of the pilot.

My thoughts exactly.

I see the reason behind the law. They want to ensure that the pilot is healthy enough (physically and mentally) to fly the plane. The problem is, one's age is a pretty rotten indicator of one's health, as you point out.

It would make sense if it was the only indicator we had. Look at voting and drinking ages. Just because someone turns 18 that doesn't mean they know anything about democracy or politics, and just because they're 21 that doesn't mean they should be trusted with a bottle of Jack Daniel's. But we don't have any better method. We certainly shouldn't start giving aptitude tests to voters (as tempting as that may be), and it would be a logistics nightmare to start licensing drinkers. :tongue: So we go with age. It's the best we've got.

Not so with pilots. We do certify them already. An airline pilot has to undergo a fairly rigorous medical exam every, what, six months? There's absolutely no need to go with just age. A far better system for determining a pilot's fitness to fly is already in place.

- Jeff

[spiffyone]

Not to be cynical, but I always thought this had at least as much to do with money as with safety. I would think most 63 year old pilots are making a lot more than 30 year old pilots, and it may be pretty expensive to pay them those last 5 years.

[Barb-SAN]

Not to be cynical, but I always thought this had at least as much to do with money as with safety. I would think most 63 year old pilots are making a lot more than 30 year old pilots, and it may be pretty expensive to pay them those last 5 years.

Some of them have also taken big pay cuts in the past couple years to help their airlines emerge from bankruptcy. There may also be some issues with their pensions. I'd also heard that the bigger the plane, the higher the salary.

What I'm wondering is what happens to the 60+ yr. old First Officers under the proposed new system. Presumably there would be more 60+ Captains than FO's, so it might be harder for the older FO's to find a younger Capt. with whom to fly.

[Barb-SAN]

just because they're 21 that doesn't mean they should be trusted with a bottle of Jack Daniel's.....it would be a logistics nightmare to start licensing drinkers. :tongue: .

- Jeff

:rotflmao::rotflmao:

[tusphotog]

What I'm wondering is what happens to the 60+ yr. old First Officers under the proposed new system. Presumably there would be more 60+ Captains than FO's, so it might be harder for the older FO's to find a younger Capt. with whom to fly.

I think this part of the rule deals with more international pilots. There are 3 or 4 pilots up front on long trips, so it's not inconceivable to have a 60+ crew that does the flying and a relief crew who are very junior (25-30). It's also not uncommon for an international FO to be older. They could have come from an A320 and upgraded to a 747/777. Since they are new to the type, they might get stuck in the right seat in order to get the most hours.

This is really good news. As long as the pilots can pass their first class medical every year, and are capable, then it's no big deal. Pretty much every other country has crews that are 60+.

[Captain Hutch]

If I understand the newspaper accounts correctly, the cockpit mix of 60 year old and 65 year old pilots only applies to flying outside of the US, therefore US domestic flying could include two 60-65 year old pilots. Only the captain need maintain a First-Class physical, which means a physical every 6 months. The first officer only needs a Second-Class physical, or once per year. Airline pilots over 50 years old are required to get an EKG once per year during their FAA physical. The actual first and second class physicals are the same, one is just done every six months and the other every year.
In my opinion the FAA physicals are relatively inadequate for determining a pilot’s physical condition, and actually, they aren’t really meant for more than that. Pilots who really want to know if they are at risk for say, heart disease, get their own physical. My own family doctor offers a “21st century” physical that includes a full body CT scan and extensive blood testing, which I took earlier this year for my own personal benefit (I passed with an “excellent”—at $650 I consider a bargain).
Piloting an airplane in today’s environment is tough on your body and pilot work rules have changed so that companies can push the pilots to the fatigue limit. Some (well, at least one that I know of) have eliminated pensions and health insurance for retiring pilots—these 2 factors may be the drivers for many pilots to continue flying after 60.
So, I am not exactly sure what the new bill contains, but it needs to allow pilots to fly more reasonable schedules for increased pay, time and credits for staying in shape (i.e. the schedules are excessive in that there is less time for even adequate physical conditioning), company paid extensive physicals, and more pay for extra training (if required). My point is that if the companies, or the public want more experience in the cockpit then that experience should be paid for. And I do agree that there is an enormous value to many years of experience. Unfortunately the companies themselves have been moving to decrease the pay for experience and longevity and size of aircraft for a long time.
How many 60+ year old first officers a company has is quite dependent on that particular company, depending on previous mergers of that company and it’s hiring policies, so for some companies having to deal with the mix of 60+ and 60- will be a factor.
Personally I am against this change, or at least the way it seems that it will be implemented. The impact on the seniorty issue for pilots is huge, and willy-nilly implementation will have far reaching effects.
I hope this has shed a little light on the issue.

Captain Hutch :magic:

[Barb-SAN]

I was talking to a woman pilot last night who flies cargo for UPS (767's to Hawaii and Asia). She said that UPS has been hiring pilots from the legacy carriers, and that they are well paid with good benefits (though I didn't ask her for specifics). She said you have to like night flying, since that is when they do most of their flying. Pluses...they get 75-100 hr. layovers sometimes as they don't fly on the weekends. :) And...it's unlikely there would be any kind of "issues" from the "passengers".

I'm wondering if the proposed change in age limits for airline pilots is being pushed more by the airline industry, or the pilots?

I know a woman who is a FO...started her pilot career late as she was a flight attendent first for 20 yrs. Now she's 58, and looking at forced retirement before she's ready to stop flying.

On the other hand...it seems that by "letting" pilots fly until they are 65, the pressure is lessened on the airlines to pay them their former salaries, since they now have an additional 5 years they can work to make up what they lost (and were counting on receiving, in the case of the missing pensions and health insurance). :(

Another issue would be that it would take longer for FO's to move up to Captain rank, if those seats remained filled an extra 5 yrs. by the older pilots. I'm assuming that there are a fixed number of positions for Captain and FO within each airline. Or is it possible for two Captains to be assigned a flight together? Seems like the airlines would not want to pay two Capt. salaries on a flight if they could avoid it...but that's just a guess on my part.

I'm glad we have your input here, Capt. Hutch. I'm sure you can count on our support here in favor of work rules that reduce pilot fatigue, and reward experience and staying in good physical shape! :D

[Barb-SAN]

http://images.clickability.com/partners/3770/mainLogo.gif (http://www.aviationweek.com/)

http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
By Madhu Unnikrishnan/Aviation Daily
President Bush signed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act (H.R.4343) into law on Friday, thus raising the retirement age for commercial pilots from 60 to 65.
The bill passed unanimously through both houses of Congress last week. Introduced last Tuesday by Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), House Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, the law stripped the pilot retirement age provisions out of the FAA reauthorization bill into a stand-alone bill (DAILY, Dec. 12).
"With enactment of this law, we've changed a half-century-old age discrimination rule that has left skilled veteran pilots at a disadvantage to international competitors," said Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), House Transportation Committee ranking member and co-sponsor of the bill.
Mica earlier this month called on Oberstar to pull the pilot retirement age provision out of the FAA reauthorization bill, currently stalled in the Senate, but Oberstar was not in favor of creating a stand-alone bill (DAILY, Dec. 6). H.R. 4343 marks an about-face for the Transportation chairman.
FAA and industry applauded the act. The passage of a stand-alone bill prevents a lengthy rulemaking process and allows experienced pilots to continue flying, according to an FAA employee memo.
The Air Transport Association called the legislation a "milestone" that keeps "experienced aviators on the flight deck," said James May, president.

http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aviationdaily&id=news/BUSH12177.xml&headline=Bush%20Signs%20Pilot%20Retirement%20Age%2 0Act

[Captain Hutch]

Yes, it looks like this baby is law now. Not too many pilots I know are excited about flying past 60, but most of them are to make up for loss of pension, loss of pay in the last several years, and loss of medical insurance after retirement. The slightly younger copilots are not happy because now they will have to hang on longer to make captain. The pay scales that I know about reach max longevity pay by about 12 years, so most pilots' pay will remain the same. The only caveat I know about so far is that every pilot over 60 must get an FAA physical every month, not just the captain (any age). It depends on the airline as to whether a pilot's retirement pay will increase the longer he stays.

Hutch:tiphat:

[Captain Hutch]

Oh yes--I know that a few years ago with my airline a captain could fly right seat under certain circumstances, but not now normally. However, a check pilot (also a captain) that is checking out a new captain on a regular revenue flight (usually several flights composed of a trip carried out over 3 or 4 days), will fly right seat with the new captain in the left seat. Both will be paid as captain. I believe this is pretty much standard thruout the industry.

Hutch :)

[tusphotog]

Yes, it looks like this baby is law now. Not too many pilots I know are excited about flying past 60, but most of them are to make up for loss of pension, loss of pay in the last several years, and loss of medical insurance after retirement. The slightly younger copilots are not happy because now they will have to hang on longer to make captain. The pay scales that I know about reach max longevity pay by about 12 years, so most pilots' pay will remain the same. The only caveat I know about so far is that every pilot over 60 must get an FAA physical every month, not just the captain (any age). It depends on the airline as to whether a pilot's retirement pay will increase the longer he stays.

Hutch:tiphat:

You know, it's really funny you mention this. I sat next to a UPS captain on my flight to Seattle the other day and I asked him what he thought about the age 65 thing. His comment: "I don't want to fly past 60, or even 55!" He then added that if you're in good health and can pass your first class medicals, he doesn't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to fly until 65 or even older. He did mention that he's very happy to be flying for UPS since he doesn't have to deal with a lot of the "airline crap." Since we were on a passenger jet, we didn't talk about what, exactly, he meant by "airline crap." ;) This guy was a riot to sit next to. It just confirmed my thoughts that the freight guys are a much different breed.

[Barb-SAN]

From today's AVWebFlash:http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1043-full.html#197049
When Congress last year hurriedly passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, which raised the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots to 65, nobody read the small print, say some age-60-plus pilots who have lost their jobs. About 3,000 pilots who were required to retire between Nov. 23, 2006, and Dec. 13, 2007, were specifically barred from being rehired at their same seniority levels, the Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/464974.html) reported on Monday. The law also bars pilots from challenging the law in court. "I just don’t see how Congress can do that," said Lew Tetlow, president of the Senior Pilots Coalition (http://www.seniorpilotscoalition.org/). He plans to challenge the law in federal court nonetheless. "The new law is poorly written and expressly denies carriers the right to treat older pilots fairly," says the group's lawyer, Jonathan Turley. "Congress clearly enacted this law with little understanding of its implications," he said. He added that a legislative remedy would be preferable to a court fight.

The law says the retired pilots can be rehired by the airlines, but must be treated as a new hire, at the bottom of the pay and seniority scale.

Seems to me that the government should not be determining the pay scale of non-government employed pilots, especially since there is a shortage of pilots right now. Surely those senior pilots deserve to be compensated fairly for their experience, and not have to go fly Air India in order to be well paid. ;)