Age 60/65 Compromise

[jetjockey#1]

There is growing support within the pilot unions to change the “Age 60 Rule". The following unions and pilot employee groups have gone on record that they support a change the Age 60 Rule:

US AIRWAYS
IBT Teamsters Airline Division
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION (Independent)
JET BLUE (Independent)
AMERICAN TRANS AIR/ATA (ALPA Master Executive Council)
AMERICA WEST MEC (ALPA Master Executive Council)
SPIRIT (ALPA Master Executive Council)
CONTINENTAL (ALPA Local Executive Councils of Houston and Newark)

The only two organized labor unions that remain officially oppose a change to the “Age 60 Rule”, are ALPA and APA. Even though ALPA's official position is that they are still against it, there are growing sentiments within the rank and file of ALPA for changing the "Age 60 Rule”.

ALPA no longer has any credibility in telling Congress that the "Age 60 Rule" must not change. This is because the Airline Pilots Association's (ALPA) signed Canadian air carrier “Jazz” to a contract allowing pilots to fly to age 65. ALPA represents Jazz and has approved a contract that set pensions at age 60 and allows flight to age 65. Additionally, ALPA's Ex-President Duane Woerth publicly stated that he would sign any ALPA over age 60 contract for a United States carrier if the Age 60 Rule were to be changed in the United States.

CAL is not in favor of changing the age 60 rule. What you probably mean is, The MINORITY, some of whom happen to be part of the MEC, for now, are in favor. However, the MAJORITY of CAL pilots do not want to change the age 60 rule, just like ALPA, remember that survey which resulted in almost 7 out 10 pilots being oposed to any change of the rule. I guess the ALPA MECs you are talking about are the 3 out of 10.

For the record at AWA, the 15 or so buddies that I have there are passionately opposed to any change of the rule.

The MAJORITY of airline pilots have spoken very loud and clear:

7 out 10 ALPA members don't want to change the rule. Leave it alone, and bring the thousands of furloughs back to their jobs, and providing for their families.

 

[Atccfi]

You're right in that it probably will change...but more than likely, not before you turn 60. Happy birthday!

HA HA HA HA !!! Now that was funny!!!!:laugh:

 

[Andy]

Absolutely not! How can you justify higher standard for medical certification for those under 60? The majority of us don't want to fly to 65, yet you suggest that we should help their cause and potentially shorten our own careers with tighter medical standards!?

A Pandora's Box will be opened upon passage of a rule change. If you object to changing medical standards, then I recommend that you oppose any change in retirement age.

 

[Andy]

Klako/OV1D (airlinepilotcentral), you never fail to amuse me. You are truly out of your league when discussing this topic.

Unfortunately, Andy has no authority to broker compromise. I will bet that S.65 will pass in it’s current form, attached to the appropriations Bill, H.R. 5576.

One more time, very slowly – I LIKE THE STATUS QUO. I have no desire to push for a change. I was merely offering a possible solution for all of you cretins who wish to change the age 60 rule.
Now, how much are you willing to bet? I will bet you up to $15,000. We can meet in Las Vegas and sign a contract with a lawyer present and deposit the money in escrow. You obviously lack brains; do you also lack a pair of gonads?

When the U.S. Congress is back in session, it will be busy with Appropriations Bills until the end of this year. Time is running out for bills S.65 and H.R.65 that would amend the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule” extending the retirement age for airline pilots to age 65. It now looks unlikely that these “Age 60 Rule” bills, standing alone will be passed by this 109th Congress

When Congress gets back in session? The House will likely adjourn (well) before Thanksgiving; they will be busy with the reshuffling of committees. The Senate will pass a few CRs (continuing resolutions) and will likely also adjourn before Thanksgiving – same reason. Well, confirmation of the new SecDef will keep the Senate in session for a couple of extra days, but I still say that they’re likely to adjourn prior to Thanksgiving. There are nine appropriations bills that have yet to be passed – fuggetaboutit, they’re not going to pass before the 110th meets.
Stand alone bills? ROTFLMAO! S 65/HR 65 have been dead as standalone bills for a while – HR 65 never left subcommittee. What’s that tell you as to the importance that Congress places on this legislation?

If we all did some research, we would find that similar legislation is almost always attached to appropriations bills. There is a general agreement that appropriators should not "legislate" as that is the job of the legislators. However, it is very common especially in the present legislative environment that the Congress now finds itself in that the only Congressional business having a chance of being completed this late in the game are attached to appropriations bills. Certainly this is not the preferred way of “skinning the cat” but I do not think that you can find an appropriations bill in the last 20 years of appropriation bills that did not pass without some policy legislation attached to it.

Did some research? Similar legislation almost always attached to appropriations bills? OK, I’ll call you on this. Provide links. Otherwise, you’re just another Cliff Claven trying to BS everyone. You’re wrong. This is a purely legislative amendment; it has nothing to do with appropriations.

Extending the retirement age for airline pilots to age 65 is a provision that is germane in terms of jurisdiction and saves the federal government lots of money and thus is likely to pass the “sniff test”. However, it could possibly be objected by a Senator with pockets stuffed with ALPA and APA money motivating him/her to demand a point of order under Senate Rule 16. If a such a Senator makes a point of order on Rule 16, then it would have to then get 51 Senators voting against the point of order to keep the provision in the bill. Since most will agree that there are at lest 60 and possibly 70 Senators who have said that they would vote in favor of S.65, the point of order would very likely be put down. The Senate Rule 16 would likely not even happen because again the experts would agree that the appropriators and the authorizers did agree in conference that it should stay attached to H.R.5576. So the provision would probably not be subject to such a point of order vote. The real motivation going around among Senators, is that going to age 65 for airline pilots could save the government billions a year and thus the appropriation vehicles may be the only flights departing on time before the end of the 109th Congress.

Germane? You’re a monosyllabic Neanderthal; where did you find and plagiarize this document? FWIW, it’s a riddled with errors.
Ah, Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Sweet; at least you know the correct number of the rule. However, if you had taken the time to read more about points of order, you would have known that Senators cannot make a point of order against any amendment until that bill has been introduced to the Senate floor. And I think that it’s safe assume that you have absolutely no idea how points of order work for appropriations bills. You may want to read the Byrd Amendment (I know; there are a lot of Byrd Amendments) in reference to appropriations bills. The Byrd (appropriations) Amendment requires a 60% majority to override a point of order.

Now, PULEEZE find at least one ‘expert’ who states that Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of Order does not apply. If you actually think that HR 5576 will make it to the floor of the Senate, not have a point of order raised over the S 65 attachment – or overridden, get passed with S 65 attached, and finally make it through reconciliation between the House and Senate version of HR 5576 before you reach age 60 this December, I’m going to break some bad news to you. You possess an intellectual capacity greater than two standard deviations below the mean. Heroin addicts possess a greater grasp of reality than you exhibit with this post.

The Bottom line for Andy, NO COMPROMISE!

Thanks, I offered this up to those who are pushing for a change. I’m not. I like the status quo.

BREAKING NEWS: The age 60 rule doesn’t even register inside of the beltway. A vagrant’s flatulation registers higher on the Richter scale of Washington DC politics.

 

[walden]

Just a quick aside: Klarko said on his website that the age of 60 is "obituary". I believe he meant "arbitrary", but the irony is just too good to let it pass.

 

[Andy]

Please share you B-day so we can all watch with interest you being pulled from the cockpit kicking and screaming. Again you think expansion alone put you in the left seat? That shows you are lacking in a mental capacity to retain your command. You should be drug tested and early retired ASAP.b

Klako (OV1D on airlinepilotforums) was born in Dec 1946. I haven't found a specific date within Dec. Perhaps a Horizon pilot can answer that question; Klako works at Horizon.

 

[MRYFLYER]

Klako (OV1D on airlinepilotforums) was born in Dec 1946. I haven't found a specific date within Dec. Perhaps a Horizon pilot can answer that question; Klako works at Horizon.

A guy at Horizon wants to work beyond 60? A drug test must be forthcoming for probably cause. I am sure Horizon is a great place to work but isn't that a multileg day operation in the challenging weather of the Pac NW? Get me a young guy and keep the codgers somewhere else. That flying is challenging enough and we don't need someon over 60 doing it.

 

[dashtrash]

The first half of December is all you need to know. He has a right to privacy. It's a shame that he chose to alienate himself from his fellow pilots in the final days of his career. Let him go.

 

[Phaedrus]

His ramblings sure aren't very private. He's posted his drivel all over the internet to include his private information. I wish the best for him after he retires.

 

[EWR_FO]

There is growing support within the pilot unions to change the “Age 60 Rule". The following unions and pilot employee groups have gone on record that they support a change the Age 60 Rule:


CONTINENTAL (ALPA Local Executive Councils of Houston and Newark)

Not sure what your source is, but that is a lie.