Unions Notch Congress Win to Keep Pilots’ Retirement Age at 65

The wide-ranging reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration passed by Congress this week marks a win on Capitol Hill for organized labor, even as pilots sue over retirement policies in court.

The years-long aviation package brokered by lawmakers notably doesn’t include a two-year increase to the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots. A coalition of unions, led by the Air Line Pilots Association, staved off a bipartisan provision endorsed by some pilots and regional airlines seeking to expand the pool of available pilots by raising the cutoff to 67 from 65.

An earlier iteration of the legislation that passed the House included the age hike, but the final bipartisan compromise excluded the provision. Neither chamber allowed amendment consideration on the floor despite a last-minute push by House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) for a vote on a measure to raise the retirement age in the Senate, the chamber where dozens of amendments were filed.

Unions opposed the change, arguing it could have wrought havoc by creating uncertainty over settled collective bargaining agreements and increasing safety concerns. But the Air Line Pilots Association’s stance put it at odds with older pilots who are suing the union over what they say has been targeted age discrimination.

Pilots pushing for the higher retirement change refute the union’s arguments that it would cause contract issues or that flying another two years would impact safety, and they said they will continue to seek legislative solutions.

“We are disappointed by the way this was manipulated,” said Barry Kendrick, a pilot and president of the Let Experienced Pilots Fly Inc., the main pilot group advocating for the increase. “There are so many pilots that are certainly capable that are now out of a job at the stroke of midnight on their birthday, they’re denied from their Social Security full benefits, and they were the highest paying dues members that were overlooked, overshadowed and excluded from fair representation by their respective union.”

But despite their opposition, the specter of reopening collective bargaining agreements rallied a broad coalition, prompting AFL-CIO President Liz Schuler to call Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to express a unified front against the retirement age change ahead of its consideration on the Senate floor last week.

“Any time you’re going to try to insert language without proper safety regulation, or study, or without any coordination with our international flying partners, it’s a bad idea,” said Greg Regan, president of the Transportation Trades Department at the AFL-CIO.

“And when you add to the fact that it would have been extremely disruptive for existing collective bargaining agreements, it was a no-brainer for all of us to stand firm on this issue,” he said.

Bargaining Agreements

Commercial airline pilots have faced a mandatory retirement cutoff of 65 since President George W. Bush signed legislation in 2007 raising the cap from 60. The FAA issued a rule cementing the change in 2009. The current age is consistent with standards by the International Civil Aviation Organization—the United Nations agency that sets guidelines for international aviation law.

US policy should be aligned with the international standard given the ICAO’s 65 limit would still block older pilots from flying abroad, unions and Democratic lawmakers have argued. The pilots’ collective bargaining agreements allow them to bid and be paid for flights based on seniority, and a change to the age could result in older pilots bidding successfully for international routes that they can’t actually fly, they said.

That could eventually result in the union and management having to renegotiate their agreements, Democrats said in an April letter.

The international standard would restrict the ability of pilots to bid for flights based on seniority alone, creating “chaos” by making that provision of the bargaining agreements unenforceable, said Michael C. Duff, an employment law professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law.

“That 66-year-old pilot right now can’t avail himself or herself of the collective bargaining agreement and the rule, and then what they wind up doing is a bump to a less lucrative route, so now they lose status,” he said.

Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), who led the push for the age hike, argued the scenario would affect a very small percentage of the commercial pilot population that fly international. Older pilots advocating for the change said they would’ve been able to continue flying domestic.

‘Intentional Discrimination’

But even if the matter is settled for now in Congress, a legal battle continues. Let Experienced Pilots Fly Inc filed a lawsuit against the ALPA in an Illinois federal court in January, alleging breach of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act. Older pilots have been the target of “intentional age discrimination,” the group alleged.

Under the RLA, workers have a right to be represented by their union in good faith without discrimination, they said in the complaint, and ALPA has acted with “animosity” and “hostility” against older pilots, favoring the interests of its junior members. The association requested that ALPA forfeit any right to comment or oppose legislation to raise the mandatory retirement age, and that the union retracts any “false and misleading” statements regarding the issue.

According to Duff, the group has a “weak claim,” because it’s difficult to prove a breach in the duty to fair representation, said Duff, who for years worked as an airport ramp worker before law school.

Supreme Court precedent says the union must engage in discrimination that is “irrational” and “intentional, severe, and unrelated to legitimate union objectives,” according to the decisions in ALPA v. O’Neill in 1991 and Amalgamated Assn. of St. Employees v. Lockridge in 1971, he said.

“Safety is a legitimate union objective, maintaining the integrity of the scheduling system is legitimate. You can disagree, you can you can say ‘This is not the right way to go, they’re wrong,’” he said. “But it’s pretty hard to argue that whatever the conduct is that it’s ‘intentional, severe, and unrelated to legitimate union objectives.’”

In a statement to Bloomberg, ALPA called the lawsuit a “completely meritless complaint” that was “brought by self-proclaimed pilot representatives who failed to achieve their objectives in ALPA’s internal governance process and instead turned to the courts.”

An attorney for the pilot group declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit.