View Full Version : FAA to increase PIC max age beyond 65?

14th Apr 2001, 01:55
Part 121 operators maximum age for commanders is 60 years.I hear this issue is before senate commitee to increase that max to beyond 60?
Would anyone be kind enough to throw some light on this.

...information will be given on a need to know basis...

evil airman
14th Apr 2001, 02:41
Rumor that FAA POI for operator of 757 has seen docs for rise to 63. Also, 3-holer friend of mine hit the 60 mark recently, was checked for PIC in anticipation of continuing.

14th Apr 2001, 05:40
IMHO, not a snowballs chance in a very warm place. (at least for now...)

1.) The airlines pay the 59 year old guys big bucks. $300,000 US x 5 more years hurts them big time.

2.) The Prez, or as we affectionatly call him, "Dubya," is pro-big business, aka, the airlines.

Hey, I'd be the first one to want this, I got into this game at 38 years old, but I just don't see it happening yet...

14th Apr 2001, 05:41
It was only a Senate commitee. It could take months or years before it becomes an FAA regulations, which in effect is an FCR, Federal Code of Regulations.

Still many hoops to go. Urgh, not so good if you are just about to upgrade.

Rogaine addict
14th Apr 2001, 06:45
In case you missed this posting before on an earlier thread. Now you know "the rest of the story" The only people that will benefit are the ones that would be forced to retire in the next few years, everybody else gets screwed.
----- Original Message -----
From: Judas Escariot
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:33 PM
Subject: Age 60 Retirement Rule
Committee Approves Bill Raising Retirement Age for Pilots
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation today (Mar 15th, 2001) approved 13-8 a bill to raise the maximum age of pilots to 63. The original bill, S. 361, introduced by Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), would have increased the mandatory retirement age to 65, but the bill was amended by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Committee, to change the maximum age of pilots to 63. The bill also gives the Federal Aviation Administration the authority to require those pilots to undergo additional medical and cognitive testing for certification.
“This rule was established more than 40 years ago in a somewhat arbitrary manner,” McCain said. “Since then technology has dramatically changed the way we fly, and life expectancies have significantly increased. This bill makes sense and will make an important step in addressing the current shortage of qualified airline pilots. I commend Senator Murkowski for his tremendous work on this issue.”
Under existing law, commercial airline pilots cannot be 60 years of age or older. A Full Committee hearing on S. 361 was held on March 13, and the issue came up during two hearings of the last Congress that addressed the impact of pilot shortages.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, gentlemen, it’s coming right at you and you probably don’t know it. Thanks to organizations like PAAD (http://www.paad60.com/default.htm, Captain Paul Emens, SWA, Chairman, Pilot’s Against Age Discrimination) and the PPF (http://www.ppf.org/), not to mention SWAPA, your retirement is under ATTACK!
If this is signed into law do you know what it will do to YOU and YOUR FAMILY? Read the attached position paper and you will be shocked. Have you noticed that the Fly-Till-You-Die folks have managed to keep this off the radar screen? You need to ACT NOW. Write your congressman, then follow it up with a phone call. Your wife votes, right? Have her do the same. Phone calls and letters have a much bigger impact than email (but do that too!). A sample letter is on the last page.
PLEASE don’t stand by while others decide how and when you’ll retire! Print this document out - post it in your domiciles and hand it out to others. Then Email it to everyone you know. Above all, write those letters and make those calls!
Some Points to remember:
1) Every airline pilot working for a 121 air carrier today has enjoyed the career progression and advancement resulting from the age 60 retirement rule (Established in 1959).
2) Every airline pilot working for a 121 air carrier today accepted employment in this industry knowing full well that his or her career progression would be enhanced by the age 60 retirement rule and that his or her retirement plans and funding would be based upon this reality.
3) Every airline pilot working for a 121 air carrier today has enjoyed the benefit of the current part 61 medical certification rules which determine and limit ones ability to earn a living in this profession. A change to the age 60 rule would certainly result in more stringent medical certification requirements that ALL 121 pilots would be exposed to and have to pay for with adverse results for some.
4) Every airline pilot working for a 121 air carrier has enjoyed exemptions from IRS rules pertaining to distributions of pension funds from qualified plans prior to age 65.
5) Flying transport category aircraft for years at high altitudes, with exposure to high levels of ionizing radiation and disruptions to circadian rhythm on a regular basis is hazardous and life threatening. The age 60 rule is a hard won privilege that limits ones exposure to these hazards while allowing a full retirement without IRS or pension plan actuarial penalty.
I say to those few pilots, whom for whatever reason, seek to change the age 60 rule at a late date in their careers to suit their own selfish needs, shame on you! The vast majority of pilots do not wish to give up this hard fought privilege, do not wish to have their pension plans actuarially modified to the detriment of those who wish to continue to retire at age 60, do not wish to have their career progression stymied by those few pilots who seek to overturn the age 60 rule when they themselves have benefited from it throughout their careers, do not wish to expose themselves to additional years of health risks this profession entails in order to achieve a full retirement, I say to you, shame on you...
In closing, and as a mater of public interest, while it may very well be true that there are some individuals who could continue to fly beyond age 60, it is also true that we have pilots die in the cockpit, even under the current rule. The traveling public and the piloting profession have been well served by the age 60 rule. The old adage that says, "if it is not broken, don't try to fix it", still applies.
Let Me Know What You Think!
PS The paper below is attached as a MS Word Doc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a concerted effort on this airline and others, nationwide, to adversely affect your working conditions, advancement, salary and retirement. An organized group of vocal pilots is advocating a change to the age 60 retirement rule. These pilots, if successful in their efforts, will change the remuneration you receive over your career, your ability to advance through seat and/or equipment, your retirement income and, quite possibly, the age at which YOU retire.
Resolutions are being introduced at the grass roots level demanding ALPA change its opposition to the age 60 retirement rule. Proponents of changing the rule have formed their own political action committee (PAC) known as the Professional Pilots' Federation (PPF) See http://www.ppf.org/ . The sole purpose of the PPF is to lobby Congress and the FAA to change the rule.
The fact that all of this is happening in an election year that, in all likelihood, will cause one of the biggest turnovers in Congressional history is hardly coincidental. These pilots are organized and counting on your apathy.
Their argument is well known. It is the same argument they have made for the past 20 years. The age 60 rule, in their eyes, is an arbitrary age for retirement. They cite evidence concerning longevity, medical advances and pilot experience to support their argument. They have recently added two important caveats to their argument, however, that have made people in a position to change the rule sit up and take notice. Those arguments are 1) the age 60 retirement rule is "age discrimination" and as such is illegal and 2) those pilots not wanting to work past age 60 will still be able to retire with full retirement benefits.
I will not address the medical arguments as I am not physician. An observation can be made, however, regarding the relationship between illness and age. 55% of the pilots on extended sick call are wide body pilots (April 1992 Bayliner).
Every pilot on the seniority list who has not yet reached the age of 60 will be adversely affected should the age 60 retirement rule be changed. EVERY PILOT.
Changing the age 60 rule will expose everyone to tougher medical standards, decreased promotional opportunities and force everyone to fly past age 60.
MORE STRINGENT MEDICAL AND PROFICIENCY STANDARDS: The proponents argue that they will submit to more thorough medical exams and proficiency checking. The first time one of these individuals fails either exam, they will claim age discrimination. In order to show that they do not "discriminate", the FAA will require everyone to submit to the same standards.
DECREASED PROMOTIONS: Assume the retirement age has been raised to 65. In the next 25 years an average of 200 pilots per year will be retiring. Out of the 200 let's say 100 decide to remain past age 60. Over the five years (between ages 60 and 65) 500 pilots will remain in the most senior positions, pilots that normally would have been required to retire at age 60. This figure does not include those pilots who are flying as Second Officers or have retired and have not yet reached age 65. A percentage of those pilots would undoubtedly attempt to regain their left seat jobs.
IRS PENALTIES IF YOU RETIRE EARLY: IRC 415 defines "early retirement" as a person retiring prior to their Social Security retirement age. For most senior pilots that is age 65, for me and others my age, it's 67. Qualified pension plans are *REQUIRED* by IRC 415 to limit payments to early retirees. That's a big problem for pilots because we are prohibited from working until our SS retirement ages.
A number of years ago ALPA addressed this issue with a successful campaign resulting in the addition of a paragraph to IRC 415 which says that pilots retiring at the FAA mandated retirement age would not be considered early retirees for the purpose of applying the early retirement penalty. But if you retire prior to that time, you are an “Early Retiree” and you will pay the penalty.
Let's say one of our 59 year old pilots has planned for, and is preparing to, retire next month. If he has 25 years with ABX then he'll be due 50% of the average of his highest 5 consecutive of the last 10 years. Many guys in such a situation have maxed their last five years to the tune of $250k or so. So, this guy is now expecting a pension of about $125k per year.
If the age 60 rule is changed tomorrow to age 65, this guy will no longer be able to receive his full pension due to being classified as an early retiree at age 60 under IRC 415. In order to get the full pension he will have to continue working until the new retirement age of 65. The current penalty for early retirement is 6% per year so this guy would be facing a 30% penalty. This could easily "force" a pilot into working past 60 against his will, despite what the over 60 folks say. Combine that with the loss to your B Fund and A Fund by retiring at 60 when the new mandatory age is 65 and this “option” will not really be one at all.
MANDATORY FLYING PAST AGE 60: With 500 pilots in the senior equipment flying past age 60, everyone on the seniority list would be 500 numbers junior should they choose to retire at age 60. This will seriously impact your salary, B plan contributions and A plan benefits.
Everyone attempts to maximize their salary in their final 3 years. Because of this 500-pilot "plug" you will now be forced to fly past age 60 in order to maximize your salary and retirement benefits.
Here's how the 500-pilot plug would adversely affect some typical pilots. The basic assumptions used are: Each retirement at the top affects up to 6 seats (2 each 777, 767 & 737 - the effect would be different with a different fleet mix.) The most junior 747-400 Captain has a seniority number of roughly 500. It is assumed that a large majority of the post 60 pilots will fly the 747-400. Blue book pay rates are used from 3/92 through 3/94. 3/94 pay rates are used for every year after 1994. Remember, the impact will be much greater using our new Contract 2000 rates.
PILOT A is 32 years old, has 5 years with the company and is currently flying in the right seat of the B737-300. Her current salary is $73,784 for 78 hours/month. Her B-plan contribution is $6640. She could reasonably expect to have 5 transitions over the next 28 years - 767 F/O to 747-400 F/O to 737-300 Cap to 777 Cap to 747-400 Cap. The plug will inhibit this pilot from the normal progression up the seat/equipment ladder. Unless this pilot "chooses" to work past age 60 the financial impact to her would be: 1) $466,430 in lost or late compensation; 2) $50,190 in lost or late B-plan contributions plus the associated interest compounded over the 28 years; 3) a top end pay scale 500 numbers short of what could have been expected; and 4) an approximate $900/month reduction in her A-plan monthly benefit.
PILOT B is 45 years old, has 14 years with the company and is currently flying in the right seat of the DC-10. His current salary $116,897. His B-plan contribution is $10,520. He could reasonably expect to have 3 transitions over the next 15 years - 737-300 Cap to 777 Cap to 747 Cap. Unless this pilot "chooses" to work past age 60 the financial impact to him will be: 1) $400,840 in lost or delayed compensation; 2) $36,075 in lost or late B-plan contributions plus the associated interest compounded over 15 years; 3) a top end pay scale 500 numbers short of what could have been expected; and 4) an approximate $412/month reduction in his A-plan benefit.
PILOT C is 52 years old, has 26 years with the company and is currently a 767 Captain. His current salary is $157,360 with B-plan contributions of $14,162 per year. He could reasonably expect 1 possibly 2 more transitions - either to the 747 or to the 777 then 747-400. The second possibility is illustrated. Unless this pilot "chooses" to work past age 60 the financial impact to him will be: 1) $206,920 in lost or delayed compensation; 2) $18,621 in lost or late B-plan contributions plus the associated interest compounded over 8 years; 3) a top end pay scale 500 numbers short of what could be expected; and 4) an approximate $808/month reduction in his A-plan benefit.
PILOT D is 56 years old, has 28 years with the company and is currently a DC-10 Captain. His current salary is $172,083 and his B-plan contribution is $15,487. He could reasonably expect 1 more transition to the 747-400. However, the 500 man plug now negates that move up. Unless this pilot "chooses" to work past age 60 the financial impact to him will be: 1) a loss of $93,000 in compensation; 2) a loss of $8368 in B-plan contributions and the associated compounded interest; 3) this pilot is in the top paying equipment for his seniority based on an age 60 retirement date; and 4) an approximate $862/ month reduction in his A-plan benefit.
We've seen how everyone age 60 or less has been impacted by an increase in the retirement age to age 65. Let's look at who benefits from a change in the retirement age.
PILOT E is 60 years old and has 32 years with the company. He is currently flying as a 747-400 Captain. His annual salary is $192,348 with B-plan contributions of $17,311. He is currently earning the maximum contractual amount. The benefits to him to work past age 60 are: 1) $1,032,217 in compensation he would not normally have gotten; 2) $92,899 in B-plan contributions he would have not normally gotten; 3) an increase in his relative seniority of on average 100 numbers per year until age 65 with the consequent increase in schedule and vacation selection and 4) an increase of approximately $1205/month in his A plan benefit.
The age 60 proponents benefit from your loss by 1) 5 years of pay they were not entitled to; 2) 5 years of continued B-plan contributions that they were not entitled to (plus the compounded interest); 3) an increase in their relative seniority by 100 numbers per year with the attendant increase in vacation/schedule selection; and 40 A-plan benefit increases.
One other group will benefit from an extension of the age 60 retirement rule. By extending retirement past age 60 (using the proponents' own figures) United stands to gain $40,000,000 per year in saved training costs, pay differentials and staffing levels (read jobs). One the age 60 rule has been lifted, the next round of negotiations will undoubtedly bring a demand from the company for a contractual increase in the retirement age. Retiring at any age less than the maximum will take the requisite "hit" in retirement benefits. So much for your "choice" to retire at age 60.
Remember, they are counting on your apathy. Are you apathetic? The issue of flying past age 60 has nothing to do with medical advances, age discrimination, pilot experience or "...wanting to do what I enjoy doing." This issue has to do with one thing and one thing only - M-O-N-E-Y. Those individuals advocating an increase in the retirement age beyond age 60 are advocating a fundamental change to our seniority system. They cloak their arguments with terms like "fair", "just", "experience" and "discrimination"; terms that are meant to generate sympathy from you for their cause. What they don't tell you and what they don't want you know is that this change will take money out of your pocket and put it into theirs.
Over the majority of their careers, these pilots have enjoyed the best times this industry has had to offer, both economically and politically. Can you say the same? For the majority of our careers, we have suffered through deregulation and the likes of Ferris and Lorenzo. Cabotage lurks on the horizon. We are now asked to pay for a few individuals desire to work (and earn) beyond the age to which they originally agreed.
These people are organized and dedicated. As demonstrated by their recent mobilization and lobbying effort, they feel now is the time to press their cause. A recent newsletter from their Professional Pilots' Federation stated: "Together, we will succeed in changing the Age 60 rule. And when you receive your first pay check after you turn 60, you'll know that it was money, time, and energy well spent!"
============================================================ ==============================
Don't Be Stupid: Changing Age 60 Is Not About Fairness... It's About Money! By Martin J. Levitt, July 2000
With the recent introduction of legislation to extend our mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65, wouldn't that be fair to the guys who want to continue flying if they physically can?
On May 2, 2000, Republican Congressmen Don Young (Alaska) and Jim Gibbons (Nevada) introduced legislation (HR 4352) to increase the mandatory retirement age of pilots from age 60 to age 65. This comes on the heels of another bill, S. 1855, which was introduced in November 1999 in the Senate. And for all you conservative, ex-military, management wunnabes out there that love to vote Republican, you'll notice that the sponsors of these bills are... you guessed it, REPUBLICAN! So go ahead and vote Republican this Fall, and let those flag waiving buddies of yours do it to you where it really hurts... your retirement!
Even though this movement has been rejected for years, both by the FAA and the Supreme Court, the airline industry will not give up in changing the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. Why?
What are commonly referred to as "B-Plans" in the retirement sections of airline pilot contracts have become a tremendous financial commitment by the airlines. These plans were originally designed and advanced by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) to adjust for the "early" mandatory retirement age of 60 all airline pilots face in the United States. This loss of earning income, when compared to other career fields, was adjusted for by the creation of supplementary retirement language that required airlines, after their collectively bargained pilots negotiated for it, pay a percentage of income into specially named B-Plan accounts for individual pilots.
These plans and their accumulated value have risen into the billions of dollars. Although airlines would never be able lay claim on these monies under the currently proposed HR 4352, the bill itself, if enacted, would lay the foundation for future IRS changes to B-Plans by either reducing the ceilings of such plans, or doing away with them altogether.
Why after decades of B-Plan payments and the accumulation of stock growth in a bull market, would retiring pilots want to continue flying? Easy. "I've got mine. Screw you!" These guys, a very small minority of the total career group, are not interested in fairness, they only want to get more. Who benefits besides them?
The Airline Transport Association (ATA).
ATA members are quietly supporting these propped-up whining pilots by indirectly funneling money to lobbyists in Washington who convince Republican congressmen that this is good for big business... and it is!
If airline pilots allow this bill to pass, and these greedy SOBs get their way by increasing the mandatory retirement age to 65, then you will have witnessed one of the best union busting ploys of the 20th century! FedEx tried years ago to get legislation through Congress that would allow for non-collectively bargained pilots to receive the same B-Plan benefits as other collectively bargained pilots. This was at a time when it was fighting the election of a union representative for FedEx pilots. They lost that battle when ALPA was elected, partially on a platform of increased retirement benefits for pilots through a B-Plan. Later, the company won a major victory when it replaced AFL-CIO ALPA with it's own toothless in-house union, FPA. Expect the FPA to slowly and incrementally support the increase in mandatory retirement age by not doing anything substantial to fight it. More FedEx pilots will resign from the in-house association in disgust, and Fred Smith will have killed two birds with one stone.
Also watch as this issue is blown out of proportion by well oiled union-busting firms who will, through Washington lobbyists, press hard to convince a Republican dominated Congress "it's not right that pilots who are in perfect physical and mental condition should be forced out to pasture... the increase will help solve the pilot shortage... and it will save the airline industry billions."
And don't forget the current Administration's fondness for Open Skies and harmonization agreements. HR 4352 will add fuel to the argument that such reductions in retirement benefits for airline pilots will make airlines more competitive with foreign carriers who will arrive on U.S. soil to service your routes very soon. Streamlining airman certification requirements will also mean older foreign pilots will be able to carry American passengers intra-United States.
You guys are asleep at the wheel, and don't even see it coming. Maybe it's time to retire. Or maybe it's time to start acting like union members instead of that tired old management mantra you wrap yourselves up in. You are not management! Get it? They are out to screw you!
PS Marty Levitt wrote "Confessions of a Union Buster"
============================================================ ================================
Life Neither Begins Nor Ends at 40 -- It Slows Down
Dec 19 2000 1:17PM
LONDON (Reuters) - Some say life begins at 40 and others believe that's where it may as well end, but research released Tuesday showed that most of us just slow down.
Research presented to the British Psychological Society in London showed that our reaction times, concentration span and powers of memory start to decline markedly from the age of 40 to 45 years onwards.
"Life is pretty good until you get to about 40," said Keith Wesnes, honorary professor of psychology at Northumbria University in England. "After that there is a pretty steady decline which continues right until you are in your 80s."
His conclusions are based on a study by the Cognitive Drug Research company of nearly 2,300 healthy people aged between 18 and 87.
While the ability to retain information and recognize words, pictures and digits did not decrease significantly until well into the 60s, the speed at which people could "drag up" the information came much sooner.
"By the time you reach middle age you can be 10 to 15 percent slower to react than when you are in your 20s," Wesnes said.
The most obvious example in everyday life was the difficulty people had in recalling a name quickly at a party or in the workplace.
"This lag time can be very embarrassing in a social situation where you cannot remember someone's name or where you have seen a person before."
While the exact reasons for the slowdown in carrying out cognitive tasks have not been established, they may be related to the efficiency of the brain's transmitter system.
"The efficiency of this transmitter system decreases in our 40s and 50s," said James Semple, a brain specialist at Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge.
"This means the chemicals which allow the nerves to communicate with each other."
One theory is that the more people exercise their brains, the better it functions, and the longer.
"This is the use it or lose it theory," Semple said, adding there was no conclusive evidence to back it up.
Another possible way of staving off the effects of aging was herbal medicine, Wesnes added.
He said a concoction including extracts from the Southeast Asian tree gingko taken for an extended period by 256 middle aged people improved their memory quality by over seven percent, although it did not improve the speed.
"This effect was sustained some two weeks after cessation of dosing."
Wesnes added that young people drinking three to four units of alcohol effectively slowed down their reaction times to those of someone who was 60 or over.
"So, as good as the start of the day may be, if you are 60 then you are already at the (young person's) equivalent of three or four measures of vodka," he said.
============================================================ ==========================
Here are the relevant parts of IRC 415. My copy is a bit old and the $90,000 limit has been indexed up a bit.
For those wishing to skip to the meat, scroll down to 415 (b)(2)(C) and 415(b)(9)(A).
Benefits with respect to a participant exceed the limitation of this subsection if, when expressed as an annual benefit (within the meaning of paragraph (2)), such annual benefit is greater than the lesser of--
(A) $90,000, or
(B) 100 percent of the participant's average compensation for his high 3 years.
If the retirement income benefit under the plan begins before the social security retirement age, the determination as to whether the $90,000 limitation set forth in paragraph (1)(A) has been satisfied shall be made, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, by reducing the limitation of paragraph (1)(A) so that such limitation (as so reduced) equals an annual benefit (beginning when such retirement income benefit begins) which is equivalent to a $90,000 annual benefit beginning at the social security retirement age. The reduction under this subparagraph shall be made in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe which is consistent with the reduction for old-age insurance benefits commencing before the social security retirement age under the Social Security Act.[...]
In the case of a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d)), a plan maintained by an organization (other than a governmental unit) exempt from tax under this subtitle, or a qualified merchant marine plan--
(i) subparagraph (C) shall be applied-- (I) by substituting "age 62" for "social security retirement age" each place it appears, and (II) as if the last sentence thereof read as follows: "The reduction under this subparagraph shall not reduce the limitation of paragraph (1)(A) below (i) $75,000 if the benefit begins at or after age 55, or (ii) if the benefit begins before age 55, the equivalent of the $75,000 limitation for age 55.", and
(ii) subparagraph (D) shall be applied by substituting "age 65" for "social security retirement age" each place it appears.[...]
For purposes of this subsection, the term "social security retirement age" means the age used as the retirement age under section 216(l) of the Social Security Act, except that such section shall be applied-- (A) without regard to the age increase factor, and (B) as if the early retirement age under section 216(l)(2) of such Act were 62.
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), in the case of any participant who is a commercial airline pilot-- (i) the rule of paragraph (2)(F)(i)(II) shall apply, and (ii) if, as of the time of the participant's retirement, regulations prescribed by the Federal Aviation
Administration require an individual to separate from service as a commercial airline pilot after attaining any age occurring on or after age 60 and before the social security retirement age, paragraph (2)(C) (after application of clause (i)) shall be applied by substituting such age for the social security retirement age.
If a participant described in subparagraph (A) separates from service before age 60, the rules of paragraph (2)(F) shall apply.
============================================================ =============
1st Session
S. 361
To establish age limitations for airmen.
February 15, 2001
Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. ENZI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To establish age limitations for airmen.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
(a) GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall not apply;
(2) no certificate holder may use the services of any person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that person is 65 years of age or older; and
(3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that person is 65 years of age or older.
(b) CERTIFICATE HOLDER- For purposes of this section, the term `certificate holder' means a holder of a certificate to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Amended by Sen McCain to Age 63
============================================================ =============
1234 Mystreet Dr
Anytown, IL 12345
March 25, 2001
The Honorable Floyd Spence
2405 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4002
Re:S. 361, The Age 60 Rule for Airline Pilots
Dear Rep. Spence,
I strongly urge you to vote against S. 361. The Age 60 Rule is based on two fundamental principles of medical science that are indisputable. First, the risks of incapacitation and unacceptable decrements in performance increase with age. Second, medical science has not developed a regimen of reliable tests that can be administered effectively to identify those aging pilots who are, or will become, incapacitated, or whose performance will decline to an unacceptable level. The issues surrounding the regulation have been studied as thoroughly as any aeromedical matter affecting pilots, and after two decades of comprehensive studies and exhaustive review, these two principles are still valid as the underlying basis for the Rule. As a matter of fact, the FAA, as recently as December 13

Edited to make it fit a bit better

[This message has been edited by Capt PPRuNe (edited 14 April 2001).]

Few Cloudy
15th Apr 2001, 14:30
That's it?

15th Apr 2001, 21:23
It is about money, but spare a thought for the many pilots who are not in the Part 121 system, or who don't work for a US carrier at all. You guys who see your retirement benefits reduced are able to affect those who have no retirement plans, or who in their best years don't make as much as you will when you hang it up. There are many more of us than there are of you, but our views are ignored.
What galls me particularly is that the US bans all pilots from flying airliners over or into the US when they reach 60, regardless of the rules applicable to their own aviation authority. Thus an airline that flies into the US has to retire its pilots at 60, otherwise they would be restricted to domestic ops only, even though the age 60 rule is not in accordance with ICAO, simply so that the US airline pilot will not have his retirement package diluted. Though how a 63 year old Brazilian pilot flying into JFK a couple of times a month would be able to affect the retirement of a Delta pilot I have not been able to work out.