Provision Bars Retired Pilots From Returning With
Seniority
When Congress last year
finally got around to addressing the plight of healthy, qualified
pilots being forced to retire at age 60, the so-called Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots
Act made it past both Houses and President Bush in
just three days. Now, 3,000 older pilots who are still without jobs
say the word "fair" has no place in the name of the law.
In a concession to the Air Line Pilots Association, the law was
drafted to discourage pilots already forced to retire, but not yet
65, from returning to the airline workforce. While it did not
prohibit airlines from hiring them back, it stipulated that they
would have to return stripped of their seniority.
Given the drastic cut in wages that would result, and the drop
to the bottom of schedule, route and vacation bidding, that made
the proposition a non-starter for pilots who in some cases had
spent decades working their way to the top of their profession.
A recent report in the Kansas City Star cited the cases of two
of the roughly 3,000 pilots facing this situation. Bud Speace of
Lenexa, KS has considered a pilot job in Kazakhstan, working a
six-weeks-on, two-weeks-off schedule for Air Astana. He was forced
into retirement from his job at America West when he hit age 60,
and is critical of the union that was only too happy to take his
dues for years, then yielded to pressure from younger members
hungry for the advancement opportunity his vacant job would
represent.
"Unfortunately," he says, "our worst fears came to pass. ALPA
threw us under the bus."
Jim Hathcoat of Olathe
was forced out of his job at Frontier Airlines. He tells the paper
he prefers to stay closer to home, so he’s scouting openings
with executive aircraft charters. He commented on the inconsistency
between US and international rules as his forced retirement grew
near.
"International pilots up to age 65 could fly through US space,
but we couldn’t," Hathcoat said. "That didn’t make
sense."
Both men are particularly bothered by a clause in the
legislation which apparently escaped scrutiny in Congress -- which
was anxious to recess for the December holidays when it passed the
bill. It bars pilots in their situation from seeking redress in
court. Both believe that provision is unconstitutional, and they're
not alone.
Lew Tetlow is a founder and president of the Senior Pilots
Coalition, which formed last year to push the FAA to up the
mandatory retirement age to 65. Tetlow complains, "I just
don’t see how Congress can do that."
Tetlow, who lives in New Hampshire, was forced to retire in May
of last year from US Airways. He tells the paper he now spends 100
percent of his workdays leading efforts to get the new law thrown
out.
The FAA had supported the exclusion of already-retired pilots,
which served to save the airlines the costs of providing recurrent
training to bring 60-something pilots back from layoff, only to
work for a maximum of five more years.
Hathcoat notes the result of the Fair Treatment for Experienced
Pilots Act has been to force hardship on many of the people it was
supposed to help. He tells the Star, "We can’t get our old
jobs back, can’t draw reduced Social Security benefits for
another three years or full benefits until 66. Now, how crazy is
that?"