Age 60
and Global Unity
Robert J. Lavender ©2004
(ALPA national has declined to publish this article and its predecessor
"Learning to Compete Wisely--A Primer in Creating Natural Unity")
For more than 20 years, this writer has actively engaged in working for and
writing about pilot unity. These days, it seems that there is always some
issue around that can either enhance or inhibit the sense of professional
unity that pilots desire. The Age 60 matter is no exception. The purpose of
this article is to show that ALPA pilots should seriously consider
supporting a change to the Age 60 rule (the "Rule") if they intend to be in
harmony with fellow pilots worldwide, the public, and with general global
trends. This paper is about unity, credibility, and relevancy.
Consider this:
"Labor remains in a death spiral, and its house needs a top-to-bottom
overhaul if it's going to survive."
These are the words of Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), the nation's largest and fastest-growing union.
Moreover, Mr. Stern charges, "The AFL-CIO [of which ALPA is a member] has
become an antiquated structure that 'divides workers strength'…Change 'is so
long overdue that we either transform the AFL-CIO-or build something
stronger.'"
Ladies and Gentlemen: The AFL-CIO is the sum of its parts. Anyone who
believes that the Air Line Pilots Association is somehow immune from the
decline suffered by numerous other unions is either globally unaware or in
an awful state of denial. Allegiance to obsolete concepts such as the Age 60
rule represents the mentality causing this decline. Make no mistake about
it, the Age 60 rule is under monumental global pressure and change will
occur for air carriers in the United States. It is hoped that after reading
the following points you will agree that not only should ALPA members
support a change to the Rule, they must take a leadership role in creating
something new.
Influences on the Age 60 Rule
Global Airline Influence: Many other countries and air carriers (including
ALPA and IFALPA) have dispensed or wish to dispense with the Age 60
limitation.
1. Air Canada Jazz (Air Canada Jazz is an ALPA carrier): Canadian pilots may
legally fly as an ATP long as they can hold a medical certificate. Age
restrictions are contractual, not regulatory. Consider this comment from
Monty Allan, vice-chair of the Air Canada Jazz ALPA :
My airline - Air Canada Jazz - is an Age 65 airline. You can retire at 55
(with early retirement penalty), or you can retire at 60 (no penalty), or
you can retire as late as age 65 if you want to accrue more years in the A
Plan.
We all like the system because we all get to benefit from up to an extra 5
years if that is our personal choice.
I am 43 and have seen no tangible personal benefit from the system and will
not for another 17 years. However, as a Negotiating Committee member I have
defended this option for years for the benefit of those that have expressed
a desire for the decision at age 60 to be a personal one, not contractual
(or in your case, regulatory)…we will keep the system that we have.
[Signed]
Monty
(Mr. Allan has also stated that our Age 60 limitation complicates their
monthly bidding. Jazz pilots who are over 60 are not allowed to fly into
U.S. airspace.)
2. BALPA (British Air Line Pilots Association): BALPA is currently
conducting a campaign to bring France, Portugal, and Italy into conformity
with the other 20 country-members of the European Union all of whom allow
pilots to fly past 60. Readers may visit the campaign website at: http://www.balpa.org/intranet/Media---Pr/Campaign-N/index.htm.
Here are the highlights:
The campaign for post-60 flying in Europe
The problem
A small number of EU states forbid pilots aged 60 or over from acting as
commanders on international air transport flights in their airspace.
EU rules: The vast majority of EU member states…and applicant countries have
adopted EU rules…which allow pilots aged over 60 but under 65 to act as
commanders on international flights in their airspace. However, a small
number of EU states have not - namely France, Portugal and Italy.
An absurd and unacceptable situation
easyJet and BALPA believe the current situation is anachronistic and
damaging to the interests of pilots.
Age discrimination
No medical evidence to support ban: There is no medical or other objective
evidence for treating pilots aged over 60 but under 65 differently because
of age. Medical research in fact shows that compared to the population as a
whole, airline pilots as a group suffer less medical impairment and have
longer life expectancy….
What is this campaign trying to achieve?
The object of this campaign is to persuade the authorities in France, Italy
and Portugal to fall into line with other EU states and…permit pilots aged
over 60 but under age 65 to operate as commanders in all EU airspace. Once
age discrimination is made unlawful in 2006, the age threshold of 65 may
increase. [Italics added]
2. SWAPA (Southwest Airlines Pilots Association): In April of 2003, SWAPA
pilots voted by a sizeable majority (60%) to overturn the Age 60 rule. SWAPA
president Ike Eichelkraut described the Rule as "regrettable" and
"irrational" for "ejecting this know-how from the cockpit…merely because of
a birth date." Southwest Airlines chairman, Herb Kelleher, has supported the
pilot position in a letter to Mr. Eichelkraut and authorized him to use the
letter as evidence in public proceedings. SWAPA retains a legislative
lobbyist for the purpose of eliminating the Age 60 rule.
ALPA pilots need to determine if Southwest Airlines is going to rule the
economic roost at every turn in modern times.
Global Economic Influence/Internal Pilot Competition: Retirement costs are
an important factor in global competition and companies will invariably
respond to global economic imbalances. A company's relative retirement
burden and, therefore, competitiveness is a direct function of it workers'
post-employment longevity. By flying to age 65 (or, potentially, older)
pilots in the European Union (and elsewhere) provide their companies with a
cost advantage over those whose pilots retire at a younger average age.
Pilot communities who fail to respond to this competition and insist on
retaining the Age 60 limit invite risk. It is reasonable to expect that a
disparity in average retirement age will motivate airline managers to
outsource flying opportunities to pilots who are relatively more
competitive. This may be accomplished through the expanded use of cabotage
and/or by shifting flight hours around global airline networks. Given the
current economic and political environment, it is unlikely that the U.S.
government either can or will "protect" the U.S. piloting profession from
such actions. ALPA pilots must act for themselves on this and other
strategic economic matters.
Extending pilot working life in the United States is consistent with general
trends. The longevity and health of Americans has improved dramatically in
the last 50 years, and the financial losses suffered by many pilots as the
result of corporate bankruptcies, furloughs, and retirement plan termination
has made flying to an older age desirable.
Defined Benefit Plan Security and Negotiating Capital: A hard-to-miss reason
for raising the retirement age for pilots in the United States stems from
the laws governing pension plans that are terminated. When a plan is
terminated and responsibility for it is assumed by the Pension Benefit
Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the PBGC pays reduced benefits to the
participants. Where a plan is based on age 60, the maximum payout is $28,500
per year (according to press reports, this is what the USAir pilots will
receive). However, if the retirement age is 65, the PBGC will pay up to
$44,386 per year, an increase of some 54%. (It should be noted that pilots
who have already retired and are receiving payments from a defined benefit
plan are not immune from the above limitation should their plan be taken
over by the PBGC.)
Since a higher average retirement age significantly reduces both a company's
cash payment and retiree health care liability , it also reduces pressure to
terminate a plan in the first place. Thus, pilots who have already retired
(or who choose to retire at age 60 or younger) may view those who work
longer as contributing to the financial well-being of their plan. Likewise,
the enormity of the savings achieved may be leveraged into "negotiating
capital" that is currently not available to pilots employed at even the
"healthy" carriers in today's economic environment. A longer working life
potentially frees up cash that can be spent on things other than retirement
costs.
Public Perception and Professional Image: A discussion of the Age 60 rule
cannot be complete without considering how the piloting profession is
perceived by lawmakers and the general public. A profession that is already
viewed as disconnected from the average person is ill-advised these days to
distance itself any further. A public whose own working life is getting
longer and whose social benefits are sliding to a later age is unlikely to
sympathize with a group that insists on bucking trends considered reasonable
even by other pilot unions. This is a bigger issue than it might appear.
Union membership has reportedly dropped to about nine percent of the private
sector, likely, in part, because unions are often seen as averse to
progressive action in even the most obvious circumstances.
If ALPA pilots wish to retain the designation of "professional," they must
cease burning political and public capital on issues that smack of
short-term, "it's all about me" thinking. They must cease raising the
"safety" flag where it is not warranted. And, they must come up with
professional-type solutions to the issues with which they are confronted.
Rules that were created in a highly regulated economic environment, 50 years
ago, don't work. And insistence on their preservation creates not only an
image of amateurism and isolationism, but appears downright bizarre to
outside observers. This is the kind of thing that leads to union irrelevancy
and it must be avoided.
Concluding Statement
The Age 60 matter is reminiscent of the effort in the early 1980s to keep
the third pilot in the cockpit of the B-737. Southwest and other carriers
were flying the aircraft with two crewmembers but ALPA pilots thought they
could buck the trend. They were wrong. When the status quo is out of harmony
with everything reasonable in the world, pilots who insist on preserving it
will be ignored. It does not matter what "the rules were when we signed up."
The rules change every day and it is the failure to sensibly respond that
damages credibility and leads to irrelevancy.
It is possible but risky to ignore the position and actions of the British
Air Line Pilots Association, SWAPA, and other pilot groups regarding age
discrimination in the cockpit. And, while ALPA pilots could choose to remain
in a state of disunity with these pilot unions, it would make more sense for
ALPA to disavow its past position on the matter, call it ancient history,
and throw its weight behind shaping new rules. An alternative, of course, is
to let changes be legislated into existence and delivered to the pilots as a
government mandate. If pilots take control of the issue, it is easy to
envision a plan akin to that at Air Canada Jazz, wherein, retirement at Age
60 without penalty is an option. If the lawmakers do it…well, you know the
answer.
There has been evidence published in Air Line Pilot Magazine over the last
year that some people are seriously thinking "outside the box" these days.
With the Age 60 issue, ALPA pilots can demonstrate a wider view of what is
going on in the world, a willingness to rise above self-centered thinking,
and an ability to act strategically to manage today's challenges. By helping
to rewrite the rules ALPA pilots can unify with pilots worldwide and enhance
the professional stature of pilots in this country.
Some pilots have been thinking outside the box for a long time. Now, it is
time to act outside the box.