Outsourcing Pilots
I have on my computer a blistering e-mail attacking ALPA, the union of many airline pilots. This diatribe cometh not from hardhearted management or flaming free-market entrepreneurial types, but from airline pilots.
You may well know that the International Civil Aeronautics Association (ICAO) is reported to be in the final stages of changing the so called Age 60 Rule so that airline pilots elsewhere can fly to age 65 rather than age 60. The ruling has no legal force in the U.S., however. At least not for U.S. pilots employed by U.S. companies.
It’s not quite that simple, of course, but basically, foreign airlines flying to, from, and over the U.S. will be able to use pilots over age 60. U.S. airlines will not. The U.S. guvmint has thus mandated and ALPA—which I imagine has more young pilots than old pilots—is not fighting it.
The result is predictable. Many pilots will retire from American, Delta, United, FedEx, US Airways (and other companies then still in business), then go to work for foreign airlines. These older pilots will be landing right behind and just in front of 59-year-old pilots at MIA, JFK, LAX, et al. The e-mail I received says that at least one U.S. air carrier already has plans to sell the company to a foreign entity, then use pilots over age 60. (Foreign ownership of airlines operating in the U.S. has been restricted, but that, too, seems to be easing.)
Many pilots say this entire situation will be used to squeeze pilot salaries, and I rather expect they are right.
I wonder how it will come out.
We’d love to post your comments. Click the comment box at the top.
As a passenger now & then am totally mystified as to why our American (USA) pilots are treated so shabbily…how does the governement get away with this? Isn’t there some way the situation can be changed for the better? Perhaps at 83 I am naive, but I truly am apalled.
The age 60 rule is just another issue which ALPA will eventually fold on. I am a Usairways pilot who has had a lack of senority since the my first year at Piedmont airlines. ALPA has allowed my senority to be given to other pilots at Usair, PSA, and now the mother of all windfalls, they are giving a 3 year f/o at America West senority ahead of a 20 year pilot at Usairways! ALPA is a self serving money machine for the top officers. The presidents salary is 550,000 cfo 300,000. the secretaries went on strike and they now make around $70,000. Such a travisty, thousands of families have been destroyed. This will eventually cause an accident when one has had enough, that day is coming soon. fifteen hour work days with a 10 hour break and then another 12 hours. Fatigue, who cares, just keep those $49.00 fares coming.
I predict Usairways will lead the list of late flights and lost bags for all of the Summer! As the saying goes.. time to spare go by air.
The age 60 rule is just another issue which ALPA will eventually fold on. I am a Usairways pilot who has had a lack of senority since the my first year at Piedmont airlines. ALPA has allowed my senority to be given to my other pilots at Usair PSA and now the mother of all windfalls, they are giving a 3 year f/o
Ralph:
This morning, Nov. 28, 2006, at 6 AM, the first captain over the age of 60 landed at JFK. Under an ICAO rule change, effective Thanksgiving day, it became legal for ALL foreign carriers to fly into and out of the USA utilizing captains up to age 65. The captain, Dorion Cohen-Nov, of El-Al airlines, will be departing tonight at 11:50 PM for a flight back to Tel Aviv.
The European Joint Aviation authorities (JAA) have just posted a medical decision that shows that pilots should be able to fly to age 70 without problems. http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/11/28/Navigation/177/210768/Pilots+could+fly+on+until+they+reach+70.html
When will our congress see the light?
Capt Wilson–
I agree. If any other industry tried such a silly rule it would be sued by the ACLU. I don’t understand it either. One thing you didn’t mention, but others have: I am told that ALPA supports the age-60 rule, and they do have a lot of clout. I wonder if that could ever change as long as there are more young pilots in the union than age-60 pilots?
Thanks for writing,
Ralph Hood
The federal law mandating that all airline pilots must retire at the arbitrary age of 60 was never intended to be a vehicle to enhance aviation safety. Safety is the ruse that the FAA has used to deflect criticism of it’s “Age 60 Rule” as being discriminatory and unfair to older pilots. The FAA defends the “Age 60 Rule” solely on the grounds that no one has come up with a study proving that pilots will be safer beyond their 60th birthday. The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Marion Blakey, says that the available safety data and latest medical research are insufficient for the agency to begin the steps necessary to change the age 60 rule. Thus the FAA’s official position is that, in spite of numerous scientific studies, it has insufficient evidence to prove that an airline pilot would be as safe or safer if allowed to fly beyond age 60 and therefore all airline pilots must be grounded on their 60th birthday. What a pitiful distortion of logic that the FAA uses to deprive otherwise qualified persons their right to perform in their lifelong career. If the Federal government wants a law that denies an otherwise qualified person to practice in their profession, then that government must prove that there are enough scientific reasons for such a law to exist. It is the federal government’s burden to prove that all airline pilots suffer an unacceptable decline in their ability to fly beyond age 60 which poses an unacceptable safety risk to the flying public. This proof is something that Congress has repeatedly directed the FAA to come up with for over 20 years but the FAA has failed produce such proof. That proof simply dose not exist.
Captain Delany–
Gotta admit, you taught me something I didn’t know about the exceptions to seniority ruling. Thanks.
Heck, no I don’t know how I would do it. I don’t run an airline, so do not need to know. If I did run an airline I would get fired. As said, I just don’t see why we need the seniority system. Never have, doubt I ever will. Seems a little like tenure for teachers to me. We’ve probably played this subject about as far as we can without getting a little testy. Let’s just agree to disagree. And have a nice trip.
Ralph Hood
At the risk if entering into a debate of define “need” such as that of Bill Clinton asking to define “sex”, what’s your alternative? It would seem that you’ve given some thought to this, so what comes to mind?
By the way, at UAL as I’m sure at other major carriers, “seniority” is not always absolute when it comes to matters of ability/capability. Those pilots unable to upgrade at UAL are held back by various means, whether it’s to prior position (can’t make captain) or prior equipment (can’t figure out the new plane). Other carriers often have more draconian “up or out” policies. While I’ve always felt UAL’s multi-attempt upgrade policy genrous to a fault, how do you determine the day to day bidding of schedules, vacations, domiciles, andother such matters requiring resolution. Share with me your thoughts on these matters and, when I get back from 6 days in Europe I’ll relate to you my experiences at carriers where the seniority sytems where abrogated in one form or another, and how they worked.
Also, would you advocate a “prove you can make that approach where old Joe doesn’t think it’s safe and I’ll upgrade you over him”, method as exists in some areas of coporate aviation? While there are many reasons why corporate aviation may not be as safe as the scheduled carriers, don’t you feel such issues contribute to their safety record?
Bill
Captain Delany–
Now you have indeed hit on something I truly do not understand–why we need a seniority system. I’m not saying it’s wrong, just that I don’t understand why we need it in the airline industry when we don’t need it anywhere else. Whoever decided that all pilots are equal except for their employment date? How come we don’t need it in the other life-or-death industry, medical care? You may be right, but I don’t understand it.
Ralph Hood
Bob Lavender–
I will, indeed go to the site and read all eleven pages. Thanks for giving me the site.
Ralph Hood
RaRalph, I certainly understand why one might question working under a seniority system. As to why it exits, just think about the potential risks to the general public posed by an aviation industry basing advancement on a manager’s/chief pilot’s perception of “pilot abilities”. The pressures, sometimes subtle, sometimes less so, to get that flight into XYZ airport on a dark and stormy night can be very heavy indeed.
Chief pilot says to Captain Smith, “I understand you think it’s not safe, but Captain Jones tells me that he can make it in. The new seniority list (vacation awards/parking lot priveledges/you name it) comes out next month and I get to decide how the initial awards go. Still don’t think you can make it?” Meanwhile, Grandma’ and the kids from Des Moines become smokng crispy critters in some corn field off the end of some runway. That’s the way the airlines started out, and this sort of thing still happens all the time in corporate aviation in varying degrees.
Think it can’t still happen with the major air carriers? Do you happen to remember that American Airlines fatality accident in Little Rock a few years ago? The captain was a new AA management type. While we will never really know what was going through his mind when he decided to go for an approach into a thunderstorm surrounded field on THAT dark and stormy night (after putting in a day’s work at the office before he went out to fly), it’s not beyond the relm of possibility that he was (subconsciencly, perhaps) trying to prove himself as get-it-done type management troop, worthly of further advancement in those ranks.
Just a little something to ponder the next time you strap yourself into the back of some metal tube on some dark and stormy night.
Regards, Bill Delany
Ralph,
I would welcome you to my website: http://www.pilotunity.com
There, I have posted an article I wrote two years ago titled “Learining to Compete Wisely, A Primer in Creating Natural Unity.”
Part of this article is dedicated to the “seniority” matter and I think you would find it interesting. ALPA refused to publish this article because it contained a section on Age 60 which differed from ALPA’s stated policy. I have received many kind remarks about the article so I hope you have a chance to print and read it (11 pages).
Sincerely,
Bob
Bob Lavender–
You might be glad to know that I have received a copy of your letter to Mr. Woerth from many pilots. Makes sense to me. Well written, and I agree.
Thanks for writing,
Ralph Hood
Gary Cottingham–
Simply put, I agree.
Thanks for writing.
Ralph Hood
Captain Delany–
I can understand that you don’t think I understand the seniority system. Truth is, the main thing I don’t understand is why in the world anyone wants to work under such a system. Nor do I understand why pilots have for decades been telling me why it is needed, then–from the other side of their mouths–telling me why it is so awful.
By the way, I never said that a retired pilot could get a flying job overseas at age 60 with “commensurate pay.” In fact, my argument from the gitgo was that adding more jobs for the over-60 pilots elsewhere would have a tendency to lower pay.
I agree with you on the pensions 100%. That is sinful, immoral, and evil. Course the guvmoint has done the same thing with so-called Social Security, only more so. They just haven’t had to admit it yet.
Last month I heard a speaker from Southwest explain that they are looking at their business and the entire industry, and that “everything at Southwest is on the table.” Now there’s something I don’t know if enough people understand. The market really does control, and Southwest is determined to do whatever is necessary–slashing traditions, adding services and cutting costs even further–to make a profit in this market.
Thanks so much for writing,
Ralph Hood
24 July 2006
Mr. Duane Woerth
President, Air Line Pilots Association
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Mr. Woerth,
For more than 10 years, I have been writing in opposition to the Age 60 rule and its negative impact on members of our profession. I am 56 years old now and I am confident that the Rule will soon fail both for financial reasons and as an act of absolute age discrimination. When I think of the millions of workers who suffered for decades under this kind of discrimination I am horrified at ALPA’s ongoing attempts to perpetuate it. From a distance, the union’s action might appear as simple buffoonery; but close up, it is social evil. In fact, it is fair to ask: Whose side are you really on?
I find ALPA’s position on the Age 60 rule so repugnant that I have resigned from the Association. Yet, every day that goes by, wherein, competent pilots are forced to leave their jobs because of ALPA’s neglect brings further disgust. That a union would authorize the firing of its members solely on the basis of age is a prime example of why the labor movement in this country has collapsed—blindness to principle. Even the Age 60 “survey,” which you peddle as support for ALPA’s position, was shameful. It misled pilots into believing that retirement at age 65 would be mandatory rather than OPTIONAL, and that the FAA would require more stringent medical exams. These fabrications rest squarely on your shoulders. Your double standard is still mystifying: You authorize flying to 65 in Canada, but you continue to block it for American pilots!
If ALPA does not publicly reverse its position on Age 60 and immediately protect the interests of U.S. citizens, I will continue to illuminate and support alternatives to ALPA membership. I will not be alone. The pilots whom you are currently disenfranchising will be doing the exact same thing in word and in deed, and their numbers are rapidly rising. You, Mr. Woerth, and your executive board are principal contributors to public antipathy and union failure. To carry on as you have is to be a unionist in name only.
Twenty-three years ago, my friends and I started our two-year strike at Continental Airlines. We fought against the very same incompetence and corruption that is now reflected in ALPA’s behavior. It is grossly unjust. If you cannot get on the right side of this issue, please step aside at once. Let someone who stands on principle protect the jobs of our most experienced aviators and the reputation of our profession.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Lavender
FedEx Pilot
The “Age 60 Rule” is a regulation in search of a problem. There was no indication it was needed in the fifties and certainly not now. The FAA theorizes that there may be a problem, but has not demonstrated so. Of course real world experience knows better.
If it were unsafe then one would assume that foreign airlines would not be allowed into this country with pilots over 60.
Since 1959 FAA Administrators have been tasked with defending this political favor to C.R. Smith (American Airlines) to the detriment of public safety.
Ralph, as a 57 yr old VERY senior United Airlines 777 captain, reading these comments reminds me, as always, how few people understand the peculuarities of the airline pilot profession and the effects of the seniority system. The only thing that amazes me more is the incredible avarice of the young pilots who have gained control of ALPA, especially at UAL. First they blythely give away our pensions for a bond payoff that they structured to benefit younger guys while disadvantaging those about to retire, then they set up blocks to any attempts to raise the retirement age to allow their own seniority advancement to continue. They know that eventually the age will be raised, in time for them of course, and they don’t care what happens to pilots retired before hand who must try to exist at the PBGC max yearly pension of $28K, having had almost no time to plan for such a huge reduction in pension.
For anyone in the general public to believe that a retired 60 yr old pilot can go out and find a 747/777 job at commensurate salary and conditions is ludicrous. While Singapore airlines will hire a pilot up to 57 yrs old and allows flying until age 63, the pay there is $150 Singapore dollars/yr–about $125 US dollars, far less than standard because it’s obviously an entry level wage, and the working conditions are far below par as well. Only developing country carriers even hire captains off the street; at all MAJOR, reputable U.S. OR foreign carriers it’s virtually unheard of because they have no need. I can’t believe the number of people who think that if you quit one airline as a 7X7 pilot, you can just go over to another airline and start at the same position. You start at the BOTTOM, plain and simple, no matter what your prior experience!
The combinations of 9/11, the Bush administration, greedy junior ALPA leadership, etc , have created a perfect storm of financial devastation for retiring pilots.
On Nov. 23, 2006, foreign air carrier captains will start flying in U.S. airspace over age 60. Period. It’s already set in stone. And ALPA has continued to block our own citizens from having that same right in their own country. Our Congress could care less. The bills to raise our retirement age (S-65 and H-65) have stalled in both chambers. The public, amid all the immigration debate, mid-east tension, Irag war, etc, is generally clueless. On top of that, this very same ALPA has instituted a contract at Air Canada’s Jazz Airlines that allows their ALPA represented pilots to continue flying past age 60. The hypocracy and avarice of ALPA is at a level of hisotric proportion. Senior pilot “anger”? Hardly. Try pilot “fury”!!!
While, until the last 3 yrs, I had supported ALPA my whole 32+ yr carrier at UAL, I am graphically reminded why virtually every U.S industry that is heavily unionised is now in deep trouble, and why public opinion of unions is at an all time low.
RW–
Good points, and your points will indeed work to partially offset the downward pressure on pilot pay. Still, some of those over-60 pilots will put themselves on the market, and that increase in supply will put a downward pressure on pilot pay. If a schlock or startup foreign airline hires them, that will take jobs from some other pilots and that will, like it or not, put a downward pressure on pilot pay. Indeed, the foreign pilots who merely remain on the job past 60 will exert a downard pressure on pilot pay. Bear in mind that I got these ideas from an e-mail to me reporting on pilot anger–not my anger–about the new ICAO decision, congress’ decision not to change the U.S.A. age limit, and ALPA’s decision not to fight for a new limit here. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I am but reporting on the opinions of other pilots.
Thanks for writing.
Ralph Hood
Ralph,Iwould think most established reputible foreign carriers would have some sort of seniority system and would not be hiring post 60 pilots for senior positions.I have a hard time seeing British Airways needing any 60 yr. old 747 captains.The large forein airlines
i am aware of that have been hirind (Emerates and Singapore) have age limits in the mid to upper fourties. I realize there are non-skeds of freight lines that might want to hire retirees but I consider that A different story.The other question is training costs for a max. 5 yr. employee. R.W.
Thanks for writing, R.W.
Good questions all. What makes me think those things? The laws of supply of demand. If foreign copanies can use over-60 pilots that means an increase in the supply of pilots. There will be more pilots in the market. An increase in supply tends to cause a downward pressure on price.
Thanks for writing,
Ralph Hood
Ralph,What makes you think that foreign air carriers are dying to hire old americsn pilots.Considering the number of heavily accented voices coming from regional aircraft I believe they are developing a strong farm system.
additionally it appears the foreign carriers are doing fine without our retirees. As far as downward pressure on pilot salaries is concerned there already seems to be a never ending supply of junior birdmen and women willing to work for poverity wages to keep the regional flightdecks full.