Introduction
The productivity of employees is a crucial topic in human resource management. Several bodies have had to come up with pieces of legislations to help in specifying the retirement age of certain categories of employees. These pieces of legislations have been subjected to debate by experts of labor laws. An example of such legislations is the Fair Treatment of the Experienced Pilots Act, which is also known as the Age 65 Law. This piece of legislation provided the retirement age and specification for American pilots in the US civil aviation industry (Daly, 2011). This paper explores this piece of legislation. It explores the background and factors that necessitated the enactment of this legislation, as well as its pros and cons. The paper relates the Act to the older age 60 rule.
Background of the Age 65 Law
The controversy surrounding the US aviation industry has smoldered for many years. This crisis began when the Federal Aviation Administration set the retirement age of pilots in the country at 60 years. This was in contrast to the Act of the major aviation body in the world – The International Civil Aviation Organization. This legislation applies to commercial pilots in the US. The legislation was signed into law by the US president after being passed by the US Congress. This Act was signed on December 3rd 2007 and took effect from the same date. It was recorded as Public Law 110-135 (US Congress, 2007).
The Act is clearly explained in relation to the retirement age restrictions of commercial pilots in the country. However, it raises some concerns. Nonetheless, these concerns are addressed by the FAA. The FAA came up with a platform to help in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions in the Act. Prior to this new legislation, the Federal Aviation Administration was using the Age 60 Rule that set the retirement age of the pilots in the country at 60 years. This was not in line with the International Civil Aviation retirement age limit of pilots. A large number of pilots were forced to retire at the age 60 years (US Congress, 2007).
The Act has several provisions that help to explain legislation. The first provision in the Act was the seizure of functioning of the Age 60 Act from the day this new Act was signed into law. A pilot over 60 years old, and who is acting as a pilot in command must have a co–pilot who is under 60 years of age. This is only applicable to internationals operations. This supports the prevailing requirements of the International Civil Aviation. Both pilots in domestic operations may be over 60 years old. The Act also permitted the continued employment of pilots who attained the age of 60 after the enactment date of this legislation. It further permitted the re- employment of pilots who reached 60 years before the coming into force of this law. Pilots who are over 60 years of age are not to be subjects of greater, different, or frequent medical examination (Frolik & Whitton, 2010).
The law requires pilots who are over the age of 60 years to be in possession first-class medical certificates that must be renewed after every 6 months. The air carriers employing pilots who are over 60 years old must adjust their training programs. This will ensure that the judgment and skills of the aged pilots are kept at acceptable levels. Under this law, pilots who are above 60 years old are compelled to undergo a line check after every 6 months. Also, pilots who are over 60 years and who are acting as second in command pilots can use a regulatory scheduled simulation in evolution. This may substitute the required line check (AvStop, 2012).
Positive and negative pointers to the legislation
The many controversies surrounding this piece of legislation are derived from certain provisions in the Act raising the question of whether there was good will in this legislation. There are very many restrictions on pilots who are over the age of 60 years. This means that the under 60 age is still favored in the US aviation industry. One concern of this new Act is that it does not clearly rule out on the pilots who are still under 60 years, and were forced to retire because of the Age 60 Rule. It leaves their fate to be determined by the airline companies that the concerned pilots were working for before. Also, the compensation mechanisms for such pilots are not clear in this legislation. The Act leaves the fate of these pilots in the hands of the Airline companies. This legislation has been termed as not being retroactive. According to the opinions of many experts of labor, the law could have made it mandatory for the airlines to re-hire the retired pilots (US Congress, 2007).
Health condition is one of the most important considerations of pilots. Therefore, age is an important factor for the pilots. The ICAO aviation legislation, which is the basis of the Age 65 Act, allows pilots flying within the country to be flown by pilots who are over 60 years of age. If age is a factor of health, then the organization could have restricted the over 65 pilots to fly even the local flights (Shilling, 2009).
Overall, this new legislation has implications when it is applied to the overall aviation and labor industry in the United States. The legislation allows for the aged pilots serving airline companies who had not received their benefits to recoup the losses they made. Pilots who were forced to retire before the enactment of this legislation were barred from accessing numerous retirement benefits. This resulted from the rule that was made by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The Corporation cut the retirement benefits for laborers who retired before attaining 65 years. This legislation may also act as an eye opener to many other industries with labor complaints concerning the retirees’ benefits and compensations. It may necessitate a review of the labor legislation, and this will drive positive improvement in compensation acts for employees (Department Of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 2009).
The younger pilots who have joined and those who are waiting to join the industry are disadvantaged by the new legislation. For the unemployed pilots, they might have to wait for a little longer as the serving period of the current pilots who are nearing retirement age was extended by the law. Also, the law will tamper with the appraisal and reward systems in the aviation industry. The young employees who had expectations of climbing up the ranks have been forced to hold their expectation for at least five years. The law will bring a lot of stagnations in the aviation industry. This has been noted by many aviation experts in the country (Department Of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 2009).
For every piece of legislation that is enacted, there are costs and benefits that can accrue to it. This is also true to the Age 65 Rule. Airline companies have been forced to incur real costs if this law is to be fully effected. These costs will be witnessed in the offering of additional training of the re-hired employees and compensation or transfer of payments. The benefit of this legislation is that the problem of pilot shortage will be put to rest (Mann, 2007).
Many questions have also been raised in respect to the motivation behind the formulation of this legislation by the US. Some see it as a forced effort to see that the US adheres to the International Aviation standards set by the ICAO. The law did not focus on all specificities of pilots in the US. The law does not clearly stipulate the working age specifications of the specialized pilots. Amendments to this legislation are still being made by the FAA. The FAA is the chief body overseeing the interpretation and enforcement of the legislation. This means that the Act lacked the completeness aspect (AvStop, 2012).
This legislation is also a positive pointer in the labor laws. Experience in the aviation industry, which is a technical industry, is a very crucial factor that has close relations to age. Experienced pilots have been able to do peculiar things in the industry such as the miraculous landing on Hudson River by Sullenberger. Sullenberger managed to do this at the age of 58. He was forced to retire two years after this because of the Age 60 Rule that was in force at that time. His landing on the river is attributed to his long time experience in flights and work within the industry (Campbell, 2009). This supports the Age 65 rule. At this age, the aging pilots are more experienced and thus can serve as the best pilots in the industry unless they have serious mental conditions. It implies that laws need to be more proactive and should be based on realities and practical examples like the case of Sullenberger among many others. The 65 year age limit legislation is still seen to be insufficient since age cannot be the basis on which the airline companies should base while relieving their pilots (Airbus, 2007).
There are good safety records that have been kept by the air carriers belonging to the US. This has led to increased demand for pilots that have been trained by the FAA. The FAA has strict Practical Test Standards for its pilots who are deemed to have superb skills. These pilots are highly demanded in many countries around the world. The Age 65 legislation is supportive of the increase in the number of pilots to meet the demand (Duggar, Smith & Harrison, 2010).
Conclusion
The Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act was passed by the US Congress and enacted into legislation in December, 2007. The legislation was seen as a sigh of relief and a settlement to the long-term conflict in the US aviation sector. Prior to this legislation, the FAA, which is the main body in the US aviation industry, was using the Age 60 Rule. This rule did not respect the age limit standards set in the ICAO legislation on the age of pilots. Many experts in the industry have applauded the Act despite the diverse arguments that have been witnessed.
References
Airbus. (2007). Global Market Forecast: The Future of Flying 2006-2025. Web.
AvStop. (2012). Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act (The Age 65 Law). Web.
Campbell, N. (2009). Pilot Sullenberger’s Hudson River Landing Should End Age Discrimination Against Pilots: Mandatory Retirement Laws Bar Experienced Pilots– Ability, Not Age, Life & Death Difference. Web.
Daly, J.L. (2011). Human resource management in the public sector: Policies and practices. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Department Of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. (2009). Rules and Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 74(134).
Duggar, J.W, Smith, B.J. & Harrison, J. (2010). International supply and demand for U. S. trained commercial airline pilots. Web.
Frolik, L.A., & Whitton, L.S. (2010). Everyday law for seniors. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Mann, R. (2007). President Makes It’s Official: Age 65 Is Now The Law: Older Pilots Rejoice; Younger Pilots Stew. Web.
Shilling, D. (2009). The complete guide to human resources and the law. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
US Congress. (2008). Public Law 110–135—Dec. 13, 2007: Fair Treatment For Experienced Pilots Act. Web.