The extensive reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration that Congress passed this week signifies a victory for organized labor, despite an ongoing litigation over retirement policies by pilots. Remarkably, the aviation package facilitated by lawmakers omits a two-year increase to the obligatory retirement age for commercial pilots. A coalition of unions, spearheaded by the Air Line Pilots Association, effectively pushed back against a bipartisan provision supported by some pilots and regional airlines that aimed to increase the pool of available pilots by raising the cutoff to 67 from 65.
A previous version of the legislation that successfully passed the House included the age increase. However, the final bipartisan settlement left out this provision, a decision that remained unamended on the Senate floor despite a last-minute attempt to push for a vote on the issue by House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.).
Unions countered the proposed change, citing potential disruptions to settled collective bargaining agreements and increased safety concerns as potential fallout. However, this position has created a schism with older pilots who have made legal allegations against the union, claiming they have been victims of targeted age discrimination.
Despite the legal dispute, the possibility of reopening collective bargaining agreements attracted a broad coalition, leading AFL-CIO President Liz Schuler to express a unified stance against the retirement age change in a conversation with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer ahead of its consideration on the Senate floor last week.
The retirement cutoff for commercial airline pilots has remained at 65 since 2007, a change ratified by President George W. Bush. This aligns with the standard set by the International Civil Aviation Organization—the United Nations agency that prescribes guidelines for international aviation law.
Unions and Democratic lawmakers argue that US policy should align with the international standard given that the ICAO’s 65 limit would still prevent older pilots from flying abroad. A shift in the retirement age could throw into chaos the system that allows pilots to bid for flights based on seniority, resulting in older pilots securing international routes that they are technically disqualified from flying, as pointed out in a Democrat-backed Aprilletter.
Meanwhile, a legal battle persists outside of Congress. Let Experienced Pilots Fly Inc, an organization of older pilots, has filed a lawsuit against the ALPA in an Illinois federal court in January. The group claims a violation of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act while alleging intentional age discrimination.
According to Michael C. Duff, an employment law professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, it would be hard to make a case for a breach of fair representation since, by precedent, it would need to fulfill criteria – irrational, intentional, severe, and divorced from legitimate union intentions – as defined by Supreme Court rulings in ALPA v. O’Neill in 1991 and Amalgamated Assn. of St. Employees v. Lockridge in 1971.
An attorney for the pilot group declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit, and in a statement to Bloomberg, ALPA labeled the lawsuit a baseless complaint.
ALPA responded stating, “This is 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.”