ALPA's stand on the Age 60 Rule has always been based on economic, not safety, considerations. Between 1959 and 1979, ALPA vigorously fought the FAA in court, attempting to keep its older pilots employed. When ALPA's membership changed in the late 1970's as young flight engineers joined the ranks, the union's position changed from advocating career longevity to promoting career advancement, resulting in an about-face on the Rule. This economic focus is hardly surprising in light of the fact that the Age 60 Rule itself was based on economic, not safety, interests. The Rule was the direct result of the collusion between the CEO of American Airlines and the first Administrator of the FAA. C. R. Smith believed that younger pilots would be cheaper (not safer) to train, and thus wanted older pilots out of his work force at age 60. Elwood Quesada acquiesced. The Rule was not based on any data, science, or literature showing that airline pilots were any less safe, less capable, or less healthy at age 60. The Age 60 Rule persists, a triumph of ritual over reason, despite yet another FAA study showing the safety of over-60 pilots. This recent work documented that among ATPs with a Class 1 medical certificate, pilots aged 60-63 were as safe as pilots in any other age group, even while flying in riskier operations. If safety was really the issue, there wouldn't be an Age 60 Rule.
Robin Wilkening, MD, MPH
web designs by RESCO Solutions
©2000 RESCO
Solutions. All rights reserve