Fly 'till you die!

Not the nicest thought is it? Reality though is that it's not to far from the truth.

Called the "Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act" (HR 4343) is anything but fair. This bill was fast tracked through Congress (by unanimous consent) and on the Presidents desk to sign last Thursday before you could say pass me the peanuts. This bill effectively (and immediately) allows airline pilots the ability to now fly up until their 65 birthday, superseding the 47 year reign since the FAA's Age 60 rule was imposed.


To be fair, the FAA was studying a change to their rule indicating they were leaning toward something similar to the ICAO standard. But the FAA moves slowly, pondering language, the impact of their rules toward safety and how it'll affect the industry as a whole. In this case, what medical or flight standards might be appropriate for a pilot to fly past age 60? At what cost (or savings) to the airlines? What do the major unions have to say about the matter? The FAA then sends out a draft for all to see and comment on. Probably an environmental impact report is ordered as well. The point is the FAA doesn't rush into something willy-nilly (at which point I must say that this is the first time I've ever used the phase willy-nilly in a sentence). The imposition by Congress and the President throws all that out the door.

Immediately after the Age 60 rule became effective pilots protested. Unions protested. Wives protested (what am I going to do with him sitting around the house all the time now?) Pilots, certain airlines, and unions applied for waivers - both individually and collectively; all were denied - the FAA smartly refused to open up that Pandora's Box.

It is certainly true that setting the mandatory retirement age at 60 was completely arbitrary. Life expectancy then wasn't what it is today, it seemed like a good guess and it's worked all these years just fine. Healthy living habits were a bottle of scotch and a pack of cancer sticks while eating your liver & onions smothered in some fatty sauce. Pilots then may have had a legitimate beef (or liver) in their complaint regarding career expectations. But the rule filtered in over the decades and everybody flying today knew the day they started their career what the rule was.

Then came 9/11 and the aftereffects of poorly managed airlines where USAir, United, Delta and Northwest all tweaked the bankruptcy process to abrogate their pilot contracts and abscond or freeze their pilots pension plans. Many pilots were also furloughed, or reduced in position from Captain to First Officer. Pay was slashed as well, further deepening the financial hurt. Pilots were scrambling - among other things to work longer to make up for the shortfall. Big mortgages, too many ex-wives owed too much alimony, kids college costs, etc. - the age 60 fight was renewed.

Age 65 is another completely arbitrary age. Pilots in 5 years who're forced to retire will again bitch and moan about the unfairness of it all. Truth is most of these guys (and gals) are at the top of their seniority, flying the best schedules (least number of days to the best layovers), have the longest vacation periods, and also utilize the most sick leave.

With these guys choosing to stick around it'll mean lousier monthly schedules, worse vacation periods, and delayed career progressions (FO's looking to upgrade to Captain) - which all translates into less $$ for the rest of us. It'll also deter the new hire process, which means that not only are new guys not getting hired but pilots at the bottom of the seniority list stay there longer.

The new law requires that special emphasis in training "to ensure continued acceptable levels of pilot skill and judgement" as well as performance evaluations every 6 months. Also a GAO report is due within 2 years on the effect on safety (if any) with this modification to age standards.

I shout BS! Remove any and all artificial age barriers altogether and insert more stringent medical requirements and training checks at more frequent intervals for everybody. Wouldn't the passengers just love seeing the pilot being driven through the terminal to the gate on one of the electric carts, and hobble onboard - a lot of confidence there!

We have a lot of pilots (a lot of pilots!) who now who must medically retire prior to age 60, let alone age 65. Though if we started weeding them out sooner, the economic detriment to the airlines would be astronomical. There's a shortage of qualified pilots now available in the pipeline - if the retirements are delayed then maybe the reservoir will start to replenish. Ah I'm starting to see reasoning behind all this madness.

Most pilots look forward to leaving at age 60 and not working a day more. But the few who have cried about being kicked out too early seemed to have won the war; though those whiners already retired can be rehired but not at their original seniority - they start on the bottom, let's see how many want to come back with that stipulation?

I work to live, not the other way around. But now that it's the law I'll have to live with it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. If I could afford it I'd retire tomorrow, unfortunately it'll be a few more years, but I'd definitely like to go before 60 if I can.

I wonder though - the FAA requires that all ATC Controllers retire at age 56. I understand that they have a stressful job - but not any more so than mine. When the s__t hits the fan they're sitting in a nice air conditioned room in a comfortable chair sipping their favorite drink; quite different than my working conditions. They're also compensated accordingly with government health care & benefits with a guaranteed pension to boot. I doubt there's any movement to increase their retirement age, I wonder why?