The Age 60 Rule was instituted in 1959. It was the result of a sweetheart deal between American Airlines’ chairman and the first FAA Administrator. No medical studies were done. No hearings were held. No input was accepted. With a stroke of a pen, the Age 60 Rule became law. Shortly thereafter, the FAA administrator was appointed to the American Airlines Board of Directors.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) fought the Age 60 Rule for approximately twenty years. The rule did, after all, force healthy and competent pilots from their jobs. This was something the union simply had to oppose. After twenty futile years, however, ALPA did an abrupt about face.

With a younger group moving into union positions of leadership, ALPA’s Master Executive Council voted to change its policy. Henceforth, ALPA would support the rule. ALPA institutionalized the proposition that younger pilots should enjoy an uninterrupted progression through the co-pilot ranks and into a Captain’s seat, with its attendent prestige and monetary rewards.

In doing so, ALPA also institutionalized age discrimination. ALPA sanctioned the removal of a senior pilot due to age alone, regardless of health or competency. Younger pilots would see their advancement continue unimpeded.

A few years later, ALPA was able to attain a re-write to the IRA tax code (415(b)(9)(A)(ii). In a nutshell, pilots would no longer be penalized in their pension benefits because they retired earlier than the Social Security age of 65. The code now recognizes that pilots should not be penalized for being mandated to retire at the age of 60. [Note: Airline pilots do not receive Social Security benefits at an earlier age due to their mandatory retirement. Social Security is only available at age 62 at a reduced benefit or at age 65 at full benefit.]

With job progression now a "right" and with pensions protected, the rule was cemented in place.

There has never been peace over the issue, however. Not all pilots have had stable careers at airlines with large pension plans. Many pilots were victims of post-deregulation bankruptcies. These pilots lost everything and had to start over. For them, regardless of their airline, they can never attain full pension benefits. Many will never reach Captain. Other pilots work for airlines that do not have pension plans. Many newer carriers have defined contribution plans, with profit sharing and 401(k) accounts. These pilots would like to continue flying past the age of 60.

Some pilots simply enjoy their professions and wish to continue.

Thus efforts to amend or repeal the rule continue, most recently seen in legislation such as S. 361 and HR. 448.

It is difficult to reconcile the issue of discrimination. This country has evolved in its thinking and recognizes that removing someone from his or her profession based solely on age is, indeed, age discrimination. The EEOC does not countenance it. Law does not countenance it. The possible fallout to the "right" of job progression is simply something that will happen when such discrimination is ended. Keep in mind that any pilot who experiences any possible "delay" in progression will have the opportunity to make it up (and then some) by flying beyond the age of 60 under the amended rule.

The tax issue can be addressed. PAAD has proposed changes to section 415 that would address the needs and fears of senior airline pilots with regard to their pension plans. It is quite simple and reduces six lines of tax code to two. This change does not result in more liberal tax sheltered pension benefits.

Why should this be done? Very simply, we do not want to see the Age 60 Rule change and have pilots essentially forced to fly to age 65 to receive their full pensions. It is in no one’s best interest to keep a pilot in the cockpit who does not want to be there or who must "push" himself to be there.

Lastly, most pilots have (we think) a justified fear that the FAA will take the opportunity to target pilots under the age of 60 for more stringent medical testing, so-called dynamic testing. This is something that is not needed. Present medical testing and standards have served us well for decades. A change in standards for those under sixty, as the result of a rule change allowing flying over sixty is not warranted. It most definitely would be seen by all pilots as intrusive and punitive.

Summary: If we can see the Age 60 Rule for what it is, age discrimination, then it is easy to move on to the solution. Ending age discrimination is a benefit to society with attendent benefits in keeping experienced pilots in the cockpit. If we amend the tax code and reign in the often-intrusive FAA, we can change with rule without damaging pilots now in the cockpit.

It seems simple. But it has taken 40 years to get to this point.

Paul Emens, Chairman