:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/PQWZI75NEZGYJMRHWWZJ6UGYVA.JPG)
Regarding Capt. Jason Ambrosi’s op-ed “Raising the retirement age for pilots puts America’s aviation safety at risk” (July 25): Shame on Ambrosi for his misrepresentation of facts regarding the mandatory retirement age of airline pilots.
He is correct in that flying has never been safer than it is today, but what escapes him is that the unprecedented safety record he cites was achieved after 2007, when the maximum age for airline pilots was increased from 60 to 65 years, a change that the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) also opposed for identical reasons.
Ambrosi cites a 1979 crash in Chicago as supporting evidence, yet the National Transportation Safety Board attributed this tragedy to maintenance malpractice, not the experienced pilots onboard. Indeed, he chooses to ignore the seminal airline accident that precipitated a wholesale restructuring of pilot duty and rest limits: the 2009 crash of a commuter plane outside Buffalo, New York, in which the leading cause was a lack of competence by an inexperienced flight crew.
Yet, Ambrosi does not cite a single accident in the airline industry in which an increased pilot age was determined to be a factor — because there are none!
Likewise, he does not bring any meaningful statistical evidence that shows a pilot, fully qualified and competent to fly at age 64 and 11 months, should suddenly be incapable of doing so the following month. If he were to cite facts, he’d note that the overwhelming causes of pilot incapacitation events are foodborne illnesses and laser strikes. The rigorous training requirements and medical screenings that the ALPA helped create are working. What renders those requirements ineffective after age 65?
Finally, Ambrosi states that pilots older than 65 cannot fly outside of the U.S., yet other nations have raised the age or have plans to do so. But this is outside of ALPA’s purview. ALPA’s sole job is to represent its membership fairly and equally. In this instance, it is failing to do so.
I applaud ALPA’s stance on maintaining pilot training and experience requirements and a full crew complement on the flight deck at all times.
However, Ambrosi’s assertion that pilots older than 64 are inherently incompetent and dangerous is riddled with age-based prejudice and scant evidence. It does a disservice to the most experienced and distinguished pilots now serving in the industry — pilots the flying public needs today more than ever.
— William Shivell, San Diego, California
Industry’s pilot shortage
The recent op-ed by Jason Ambrosi makes no sense. Ambrosi cites no evidence in support of his proposition. Indeed, what Ambrosi cites contradicts his thesis: specifically, Federal Aviation Administration reviews of “accidents that were, in part, the result of pilot inexperience and inadequate training.” Yet older pilots by definition would seem to have greater experience and more training, not less.
As improving health care and demographics dictate that the population of the country is on average getting older, Americans today lead longer, healthier lives, with many of us working into our 70s, if not beyond. And with smaller younger generations coming up behind the baby boomers and the military, which has historically been a feeder source and training ground for pilots, shrinking in size over the past 50 years, the country’s constantly troubled airline industry is already experiencing pilot shortages. To continue to thrive, the country needs experienced, well-trained pilots to stay in the job longer, not bail out earlier.
As a union leader, Ambrosi understandably has a vested interest in seeing that his union’s members may retire with full benefits earlier, rather than later, in life. But let’s not confuse the financial self-interest of labor union members with the issue of public safety or service to the public.
— David L. Applegate, Huntley
Proposal for pilots a good idea
In his op-ed, Jason Ambrosi states he is against raising the retirement age of pilots. He cites no research on why he believes more experienced pilots 65 and older would be unsafe.
The American population is living longer and working longer. Why should pilots be different? Older pilots are responsible, experienced pilots.
More pilots, especially more experienced pilots, would help airlines improve on-time service. It doesn’t take scientific research to understand that.
Readers should urge politicians to vote for raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots.
— Dan Morton, Buffalo Grove
Edgewater plan for migrants
While I don’t blame the Edgewater residents questioning their tax dollars going from their use to the use of housing migrants in the Broadway Armory, I have to question their sincerity (“Edgewater residents raise alarm over shelter plans,” July 28).
How many of those residents proudly thumped their chests over Chicago being a sanctuary city, never really believing they’d actually have to provide sanctuary?
How many voted Democrat and will continue to vote Democrat in 2024? How many of those Edgewater residents refuse to hold President Joe Biden accountable for creating the humanitarian and ecological crisis at the southern border?
— Bruce R. Hovanec, Chicago
Immigrants a part of our history
Chicago Tribune Opinion
What’s with all the Edgewater residents shown in the newspaper who are all anxious over the prospect of the neighborhood receiving a share of the immigrants who’ve ended up in Chicago? The only known non-Indigenous Chicago settler was Jean Baptiste Point DuSable, a person of mixed race who came here from the Caribbean, a fur trader in those days of discovery. Everyone else not a Native American came from beyond our borders. All the faces in the foreground in the Tribune photo indicate those residents’ predecessors arrived from Europe or Russia.
The fact of the matter is that our great Southwest, including Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and the southern half of California, was part of Mexico until a treaty made it part of the U.S., which is why so many cities in California bear a Spanish name, for example. So why all the fuss in Edgewater? Just because the newcomers speak Spanish instead of some European dialect?
Lean our nation’s history. Spanish speakers in uniform have bled and died on our communal behalf since at least as early as World War I. Get real, people! Wake up and act like you know the reality of our nation and its history. Spanish speakers already make up part of our City Council and run or help carry out the mission of some of our city bureaus, our Fire Department and our Police Department. They also pay taxes.
These critics’ abysmal ignorance is showing.
— Ted Z. Manuel, Chicago
Join the conversation in our Letters to the Editor Facebook group.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.