Picking up where we left off last month, we move from who supports an increase (or elimination) of the airline-pilot retirement age, to who is against an increase in the current Age-65 Rule.
Starting at the top, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the body that establishes global aviation standards, does not presently support a change in the retirement age. However, they have signaled (pursuant to health and safety data—and certainly pressure from member states such as Canada, Australia, Japan, and China) that their position could change in the future. If the U.S. were to amend the retirement age ahead of ICAO, then under the current conception of a lengthened retirement age, U.S. pilots older than 65 would likely be prohibited from operating international flights. This means they could fly only in U.S. domestic airspace, requiring many of these senior pilots to be retrained to smaller, domestic-only aircraft and flight routes. We’ll come back to this in a bit with A4A.
Moving on to the FAA, the Administration also presently opposes it. Yet, they have left the door open to a change with, “…the need for more research in order to determine the viability of a retirement age extension.” Really though, the FAA may just be waiting to see what ICAO does rather than initiate a change themselves.
As for individual airlines, most are rather quiet on the subject. However, Airlines for America (A4A), the industry body that collectively represents the leading U.S. airline management groups (passenger and cargo), does not generally seem to support it. They have indicated substantial training burdens and costs, as well as scheduling issues. Additionally, what would likely occur would be long-term disruptive displacements wherein pilots are bumped from their aircraft to accommodate the training of senior pilots to their “new” narrow body aircraft. The results could be a massive increase in training costs. Yet, A4A has also waffled a bit indicating a willingness to support an increase in retirement age, possibly based on members‘ competing interests. Some airlines may be hedging their bets against a future pilot shortage—a problem that is easily held at bay by appropriately compensating pilots for their knowledge, training, and skills. Some airlines have also indicated that the most senior pilots account for the majority of absenteeism—they have the most vacation time, ability to drops trips, use of sick time, and need for long-term disability provisions. And in terms of payroll, they cost the most. So, where’s the benefit of retaining an aging population?
However, the strongest opposition to an increase in retirement age comes from a majority of pilot unions and other airline labor groups. Chief among their concerns is, of course, safety, which is fair and accurate enough. But there does exist an absolute apprehension regarding the near certainty of many years of expensive contract re-negotiations in addition to scores of costly grievances and lawsuits that would follow a change, as many aspects of pilot contracts are predicated on retiring at age 65. Again, as everywhere else in this debate, money is a substantial factor.
As a side note regarding pilot unions, the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA), did not previously support an extension, but has apparently swapped their position based on a recent pilot-group survey indicating support for increasing the pilot-retirement age.
For the average line pilot, extension concerns revolve around career stagnation, conflict on the flight deck, and consumption of corporate as well as union resources and finances to fix a problem that is not broken. On the other hand, money is money, and as long as career stagnation isn’t too lengthy (a purely subjective measure), and wages aren’t cut to support years of additional and unplanned pay to pilots at the top of the pay scale, then the opportunity to keep paychecks coming in after age 65 might not be a bad thing. This of course depends on who you ask and how close they are to the conclusion of an airline career. Then again, some line pilots out there are seemingly indifferent to the whole thing.
This brings us to the end of our series on an unresolved debate. Yet, before signing off, and in Grey Matter fashion, we close with a few other potential challenges to consider in the wake of a retirement age change. As suggested in previously drafted retirement age extension language, if an extension were passed to age 67, and an already retired airline pilot who was within the age increase (say 66), were eligible to return to flying as an airline pilot:
- Is the airline they retired from obligated to re-hire them? If not, are they entitled to some kind of pay protection for the duration of the extension instead?
- If not re-hired by their airline, would other airlines be required to consider them? If not, would this become grounds for an ageism lawsuit?
- If they were re-hired, is the pilot a new-hire again, starting over at year-one pay and benefits as well as under the conditions of first-year probation, or do they return as if nothing happened and with full seniority? Would they be entitled to any back pay?
- If they were new hires again and thus junior first officers subject to reserve life, flying long, exhausting domestic schedules in aircraft (A320, B737, or smaller), and throwing gear for a captain a third their age, how long would they last? Who would be mentoring whom?
- How often or quickly would these older “junior” pilots drop trips, call off fatigued or sick, or end up on long-term disability?
- Where is the supposed mentoring in this formula, the effective stopgap for a “pilot shortage”, and the return on investment for training and requalifying the pilot over several months just to get a few months or a year in return?
- What about the elimination of a retirement age – can any retiree return or file a lawsuit for lost career opportunity and wages?
These are just some of the questions and concerns that are bound to arise if (more than likely when) an increase in airline-pilot age legislation re-surfaces.
