Age 60 Rule Chronology

Early 1950’s Several airlines unilaterally established mandatory pilot retirements at age 60. ALPA objected, but enhanced retirement programs were then taking precedence in its contract negotiations, so did not actively resist the issue.

1956-58 Pilots at three carriers (Western, TWA & American) challenged the mandatory retirement issue through the labor grievance machinery. All three were decided in the pilot’s favor. TWA and American had defended on contractual grounds. Western defended exclusively on the safety issue, which was decisively rejected by the arbitrator.

1956 In response to a general breakdown of the air traffic control system, leading to several dramatic mid-air collisions, near misses, etc., the Congress authorized (and funded) a full review of the airman medical certification standards. The Civil Aviation Administration assigned the review to the non -profit Flight Safety Foundation and requested a separate, expedited examination of the standards applying to air traffic controllers.

1957 Congress created and funded the Airways Modernization Board to manage the restructuring of the airways traffic control system. Then President Eisenhower appointed Gen. Elwood Quesada, his war-time commander of the European Theater’s Tactical Air Forces as Chairman.

1958 Congress totally reorganized the CAA. Assigning economic regulation to the CAB, and creating the FAA to manage the air traffic systems and overall safety responsibilities. Eisenhower appointed Quesada as the FAA’s first Administrator.

1958 Two Flight Safety Foundation (medical) reports (the first on air traffic controllers, the second on pilots) were released. The first recommended a specific retirement age for air traffic controllers. The second, after considering impact of the newly introduced jet transport aircraft, specifically recommended no change to the pilot medical certification standards.

1958 TWA and Western acceded to the labor arbitrations, reinstating their over age 60 pilots. American refused. On December 20, the pilots at American went out on strike (over both contract renewal and the retirement issues). The airline capitulated to the pilot’s demands on Jan. 10, 1959, including acceptance of the arbitrator’s ruling on reinstating the over age 60 pilots.

Feb.5, 1959 C.R. Smith, Chairman of American (and a personal friend of Gen. Quesada) addressed a personal plea (that, by its typographical errors [FOIA] he seems to have prepared himself), to Gen. Quesada, acknowledging his loss on the age 60 retirement issue, and seeking an FAA regulation to solve his labor problem.

Mar. 1959 FAA initiates a complete revision of airman medical certification standards in response to the recommendations of the Flight Safety Foundation reports. No concern for any aspect of pilot aging is included.

April 17, 1959 FAA Administrator Quesada in a letter to the Reverend Theodore Hesburg: President of Notre Dame University; "There exists at present no sound scientific evidence that airline piloting, or any other aeronautical activity, becomes critical at any given age."

June 1959 FAA initiates the regulatory process in response to the request by C.R. Smith for a mandatory age 60 pilot retirement. Although the stated arguments were medical in nature, no mention of, or reference to, the Flight Safety Foundation reports, or the concurrent revision of the medical certification standards was acknowledged.

Sect. 602 of the Federal Aviation Act 49 USC 1422(b) Ref. Certificate denials: Appeals were intentionally included in the Federal Aviation Act mandating that the burden of proof was to rest upon the Administrator, not the appellant.

Sept. 1959 Revision of medical certification standards completed and promulgated.

Dec. 1959 Promulgation of the Age 60 Rule.

Jan. 1960 Federal District Court refuses to enjoin enforcement of the Age 60 Rule with a ruling that begins by lauding Gen. Quesada’s wartime exploits, cites a Washington Post editorial, and quotes an after dinner speech by socialite-philanthropist Harry F. Guggenheim (with Quesada in attendance). ALPA v Quesada, 182 F.Supp. 595 (S.D., N.Y., 1960)

Jan. 1961 Gen Elwood Quesada retires from the FAA and is immediately elected to American Airlines Board of Directors.

1961-62 FAA initiates the Georgetown Clinical Research Institutes Studies, advertised as a "long-term" (planned 30 year) search for objective criteria with which to replace the arbitrary Age 60 Rule. However, the protocol seems to have been patterned on the 1958 Flight Safety Foundation report on air traffic controllers, not pilots, and enrolled primarily air traffic controllers as subjects, not pilots.

1965 FAA suddenly terminates the Georgetown study during an investigation by the House Government Operations Committee. The Committee found the FAA’s study to have collected no usable data during its five years of operation, and no system or capability to analyze data if it had any. Total cost is reported to have been $2.5 million (in 1960 dollars).

1968 Congress passes the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Secretary of Labor (administrator of the ADEA) declares the Age 60 Rule to be a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)

1969-70 Relying on extremely favorable aging data of military pilots, flight test pilots, and air carrier pilots collected at the Lovelace Foundation, Albuquerque, N.M., in a study on normal human aging funded by the Nat’l. Institutes of Health (NIH), several pilots initiate petitions for exemptions to the Age 60 Rule.

1972 As the action initiated above approaches the hearings and court stages, FAA "loses" the entire Age 60 "docket".

1974 O’Donnell v Shaffer, 491 F.2d 59 is decided for the Agency by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of the "record" on which the rule was promulgated. However, no acknowledgment of the missing docket appears.

1978-79 Four challenges against the Rule are decided in four different circuit courts. Starr v FAA, 589 F.2d 307 (7th Cir., 1978). Rombough v FAA, 594 F.2d 893 (2nd Cir. 1979), Keating v FAA, 610 F. 2d 611 (9th Cir., 1979), Gray v FAA, 594 F.2d 793 (10th Cir., 1979) Decided on a "substantial evidence" basis, presumably relying on the complete "record" on which the rule had been founded, none acknowledge the missing docket.

1979 Congress amends the ADEA, creating the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), for administration.

1979 The Aviation Subcommittee recommends overturning the Age 60 Rule by legislation. The recommendation makes it to the floor of the House, but intense lobbying by ALPA (with massive organized labor assistance°), waters it down to a "study" by the NIH and the National Institute on Aging (NIA).

1981 EEOC rescinds the Department of Labor declaration of the Age 60 Rule as a BFOQ.

1981 The NIA/NIH study finds no medical basis for the Rule, but recommends keeping it in place temporarily, with the FAA agreeing to grant waivers to selected pilots to determine the feasibility of raising or eliminating the Rule.

1981 In its response to the NIH/NIA recommendation, FAA proposes inclusion of Flight Engineers under the Age 60 Rule. This totally unrelated proposal was initiated at the request of United Airlines, then losing a court effort to force mandatory retirement of its Flight Engineers at age 60. (This is a repeat of the C.R. Smith/American Airlines appeal to Gen. Quesada in 1959.)

1984 FAA reneges. The Directors of the NIA and NIH criticize the FAA for its refusal to follow the panel’s recommendations. The Director of the NIA, after consultation with the NIH, formally rescinds the earlier panel’s recommendation to retain the rule temporarily, and declares (in Congressional testimony) that the agency policy is that medical science can adequately identify disability and protect public safety.

Nov. 24, 1984 Letter to Dr. Stan Mohler from Dr. Frank Austin, Federal Air Surgeon; "There is no medical basis for the Age 60 Rule." "I believe this and Admiral Engen (FAA Administrator) believes this." "It’s an economic issue."

1984-present EEOC embarks on a successful, long term effort to erase the non-airline industry’s reliance on the Age 60 Rule as a BFOQ for non-air carrier piloting.

1988 Aman v FAA, 856 F.2d 946 (7th Cir., 1988) The Seventh Circuit remands a pilot group petition for further findings on the issue of whether an older pilot’s greater experience overcomes any immeasurable decrement of aging.

Feb. 15, 1989 Dr. George Kidera, original member of panel promulgating the (letter) Age 60 Rule: "Granting qualified pilots over the age of 60 exemptions from the provisions of 14CFR 121.383(c), will not compromise safety."

1989 GAO: By 1980, 365 airmen were recertified for alcoholism with an 18% relapse rate. Fact Sheet By 1983, there were 409 alcohol recertifications, with 40 issued after 1 relapse and 3 after the 2nd relapse.

1990 Baker v FAA, 917 F.2d 318 (7th Cir., 1990) FAA relies on a 1983 statistical study examining age, experience and accidents to deny the inference of the Aman remand. In its presentation to the court, the FAA concealed the fact that the author of this study was an accountant, not a statistician, the report had been severely criticized throughout the scientific community when submitted, had been rejected by the FAA’s own office of Aviation Safety, under whose authority and direction the study had been conducted, and had never been published.

Quote from Petitioners Brief.

ALPA President Henry Duffy: It has never been my belief that professional expertise diminishes at age 60: on the contrary, our senior members possess a wealth of knowledge, aviation history, and insight that have been developed through their years of experience, which are irreplaceable.

1993 FAA releases Hilton Study (also known as the CAMI study) [Civil AeroMedical Institute]. Study finds "no hint of an increase in accident rates as pilots near age 60" and concludes that the retirement age may safely be raised. FAA holds Public Meeting to gather comments on Hilton Study and the Age 60 Rule. Scheduled for a half day, meeting continues for two days, with 83% of speakers against the Age 60 Rule. Foreign airlines with waivers to the Rule attend. Professional Pilots Federation (PPF), formed in 1991 to eliminate the Rule, files a petition with the FAA to amend or eliminate the rule. Another petition asks for equal status for U.S. pilots given foreign aircrews flying into the United States, i.e., one pilot (not PIC) may be over age 60 if the other is below age 60.

May 1995 Australian Chief Justice Wilcox: "Given the time and effort expended in America examining the age 60 rule, it is remarkable to say so, but it seems to me that none of the cited studies supports any conclusion about the relationship between that rule and aircraft safety." Australia drops Age 60 Rule.

Dec. 1995 FAA issues "Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements" imposing an Age 60 Rule on pilots operating 10-30 seat aircraft. (formerly exempted) FAA also issued a "Disposition of Comments and Notice of Agency Decisions on the Age 60 Rule", announcing no action at this time. All petitions and individual exemption requests were denied on December 28.

Dec. 1995 PPF files for a review of the FAA’s action in the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Jan. 1996 PPF files an age discrimination case against Fedex in Memphis, TN, on behalf of one of its members forcibly terminated for reaching age 60.

Jan. 1996 European Union (12 nations) officially changes to age 65 retirement for airline pilots.

June 1996 The House Appropriations Committee introduces an amendment giving the NTSB authority to study the necessity of the Age 60 Rule. ALPA rallies its forces and the amendment is dropped by a vote of 247 to 159.

July 1997 D.C. Court of Appeals denies PPF petition for review by 2-1 decision. Dissenting Judge Patricia Wald states: "More importantly, the Age 60 Rule stands as an instance of government-mandated age discrimination for a particular group of employees."

Aug. 1997 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rules in favor of Fedex, following quickly in lockstep with the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Aug. 1997 PPF files for Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, in D.C. Court of Appeals. In an unusual turn, the Court ordered the FAA to respond to our request for Rehearing. FAA responds (Oct.) with a rehash of arguments used in original filing.

Nov. 1997 Request for rehearing/en banc denied.

Dec. 1997 Filing date for Supreme Court certiorari (Request for Hearing) of Coup v. FedEx.

Feb. 1998 Filing date for Supreme Court certiorari of PPF v. FAA.

Mar. 1998 Supreme Court denies certiorari (hearing) of Coupe case.

May 1998 Supreme Court denies certiorari of PPF v. FAA

June 1998 Filing date for "request for rehearing" of PPF v. FAA, to Supreme Court.

July 1998 Request for rehearing denied.

July 1998 New legal action tactics being finalized.

Nov 1998 Bell, Boyd and Lloyd engaged for new legal action.

July 2000 After refusal by the FAA to grant exemptions to 69 petitioners, PPF files for review with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue presented is whether, given the safety record of experienced senior pilots, an individual age 60 pilot qualified in all areas of physiological and cognitive function identified by the FAA in granting exemptions to medically disqualified pilots under age 60, provides a level of safety equal to that under the FAA;s age 60 rule.

August 2001 The Court of Appeals defers to the FAA, and our appeal is denied. PPF decides not to request certiori.

October 2001 A new legal action is formulated, based on a point of administrative law that requires the court to defer to the agency (FAA) unless fraud or abuse of power is charged.

Dec 2001 An attorney is hired and the wheels are placed into motion for another legal action based on FAA Fraud and Deceit.

June 2002 A Petition for Exemption is filed with the FAA, requesting exemptions for 10 PPF members, based on the FAA's long and continuing efforts to deceive Congress, the public and the courts in order to justify the age 60 rule. Exhibits show proof of the intentional doctoring of studies, misinformation given to Congress and the courts, and documents from within the FAA describing the Rule as not a safety issue, but economic.

Organizations, Government Agencies and Airlines
who have testified, written and/or otherwise
supported changing the Age 60 Rule.