NetJets has elected to adopt an age-70 limit for its fractional-share (Part 91K) pilots and has removed these older crewmembers from its schedule, according to a note from the NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (NJASAP) legal department. The move affects fewer than 100 pilots, and they were no longer on the NetJets schedule as of January 10, according to a lawsuit filed by a group of pilots seeking to overturn the age cap.
NetJets gave notice to its pilots and NJASAP on Jan. 10, 2023, that it intended to implement the age-70 limit. That notification came after Congress’ omnibus spending bill was adopted in December 2022.
The bill included language that allows Part 91K and 135 operators that logged at least 75,000 annual jet operations in 2019 or any subsequent year to implement an age-70 ceiling. This is not mandatory for these operators, but once they elect to adopt the age ceiling, it becomes permanent and they can’t reverse the decision.
According to the notice to members from NJASAP’s legal team, an arbitrator recently issued a draft decision regarding a grievance that the union had filed after NetJets notified pilots of the age cap. NetJets denied the original grievance, and NJASAP and NetJets agreed to arbitration. The arbitrator’s decision was to deny the grievance, with no finding of any violation in implementing the age-70 retirement ceiling, according to the notice. In fact, NJASAP supported the age cap when it first was proposed in 2018.
The eight NetJets pilots who filed the lawsuit against NetJets were seeking “a preliminary injunction to keep the age cap from taking effect Jan. 10, 2024,” according to the lawsuit. However, the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas Dallas Division rejected their arguments and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
“Because the court concludes that the pilots failed to establish that any of their claims is likely to succeed on the merits, and this case does not warrant the exceptionally rare preliminary injunction under the [Railway Labor Act], the court denies the motion for preliminary injunction.”