APAAD regrouping to challenge age 60

[Freight Dog]

The argument is that 65 is EQUALLY as safe as 60. And to deny an incremental change because of the existance of the absurd extreme is ridiculous. Raising the age by 5 years with adequate oversight is not the same as acquiescing to the demands of those who want to fly to 100.

Prove it! Please answer why does the rule "discriminate" against FO's being under 60? What happens if at my airline stagnation rules to the point I hit 60 being an FO? Does that mean *I* have to retire at 60? Wait another minute... if I'm senior enough to get the best damn schedule there is... but some geriatric captain wants those pairings too... am I sh*t out of luck as an FO?

Let's take it a step further. How do you test cognitive and mental skills and how often?

For every 1 guy that is perfectly fit and his cognitive and mental skills are sharp enough to go on at 60, there are 8 or 9 that should have gone out earlier.

60 is a nice round number. If I had my way, I'd make it mandatory retirement at 55 just like Cathay Pacific.

Leave safety items alone.

You APAAD bozos need to fight for pension legislation. The CEO's and the management are laughing all the way to the bank already with our pensions. Now you want to send them to the bank with more of our money including our defined contribution plans.... APAAD is doing the management's dirty work for them. Nice going......

 

[Mach 80]

Ex-Astronaut Gibson Suits Up
For Posts at Rocket-Ship Firm

By ANDY PASZTOR
December 14, 2006; Page B3

Former astronaut and high-performance aircraft racer Robert "Hoot" Gibson is the latest aviator smitten with the promise of space tourism, becoming chief operating officer and head test pilot for a fledgling California rocketship maker.
Benson Space Co. hopes to gain some cachet by hiring Mr. Gibson, who gained prominence as the first Space Shuttle commander to dock with the Russian Space Station Mir and also ran the astronaut office for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Poway, Calif., start-up company hopes to use a 1980s-vintage vehicle design, adopted from NASA, to take passengers on heart-jolting rides out of the atmosphere perhaps within two years.
Mr. Gibson's move, expected to be announced as soon as today, illustrates the growing attraction of the fledgling space-tourism industry for some mainstream aerospace engineers and investors. "You've got to be able to launch quite a few folks to make money," said Mr. Gibson, adding that space tourism has the potential to become "a really big developing market."
Mr. Gibson's decades of space experience and a string of notorious cockpit exploits (his hobby is racing high-performance planes, and two years ago he set a pair of world speed records in a single-pilot private jet) will likely give Benson Space a boost in the emerging space-tourism industry.
The closely held firm, created just a few months ago, is engaged in an uphill fight to overtake a more-established and better funded space-tourism effort directed by renowned aviation inventor Burt Rutan. Mr. Rutan and British billionaire Sir Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., were the first to announce specific plans to open up space for tourists.
The 60-year-old Mr. Gibson, who retired from his job as a pilot for Southwest Airlines in October, said he began advising Benson Space founder Jim Benson about a year ago on a proposal to build a commercially operated cargo spacecraft for NASA. When Mr. Benson's team lost that competition, the entrepreneur opted to push ahead with a passenger version and persuaded Mr. Gibson to help manage the project.
Mr. Gibson's responsibilities will include overseeing construction of a prototype vehicle-dubbed the Dream Chaser -- that closely resembles the Space Shuttle. It will be built by another company affiliated with Mr. Benson.
Once test flights commence, Mr. Benson predicted, "Hoot will be able to fly as much as he wants and we can afford."
Despite his new commercially oriented role, Mr. Gibson can't forsake his adventurous nature. Already, he is talking about plans to set world altitude records for a ground-launched aircraft powered by a rocket. As early as the winter of 2008, Mr. Gibson said, he hopes to pilot the Dream Chaser to at least 104 miles above Earth.
In 1990, Mr. Gibson was grounded from astronaut flying activities for a year after his aircraft collided with a stunt plane at an air show, and he landed safely. He was punished for participating in the show in violation of NASA rules, not because the other aircraft crashed into a cornfield and killed its pilot.
Abandoning NASA's vision of a space capsule floating to the ground with a parachute, Mr. Gibson is working on a vehicle able to blast off without needing a separate rocket and then return gradually to land at an airstrip like an airplane. To make it economically feasible, rocket motors will be designed for fast turnaround, including replacement in about 15 minutes.
Deflecting questions about doing risky flight maneuvers and powerless glides at his age, Mr. Gibson said with a chuckle that his father continued working as a test pilot for the Federal Aviation Administration after turning 70.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Wow! A 60-year old, former airline pilot can find employment?

Who knew?

 

[Bringupthebird]

Prove it! Please answer why does the rule "discriminate" against FO's being under 60? What happens if at my airline stagnation rules to the point I hit 60 being an FO? Does that mean *I* have to retire at 60? Wait another minute... if I'm senior enough to get the best dang schedule there is... but some geriatric captain wants those pairings too... am I sh*t out of luck as an FO?

I think what you're alluding to is a captain that bids back to FO. That's something you have to take up with your airline as policy. Many airlines won't allow it. Those that do - well that's the nature of seniority.

Let's take it a step further. How do you test cognitive and mental skills and how often?

Well the FAA came up with and seems satisfied with it's medical standards. Why should we assume they won't come up with a psych test that satisfies them as well?

For every 1 guy that is perfectly fit and his cognitive and mental skills are sharp enough to go on at 60, there are 8 or 9 that should have gone out earlier.

To quote you - "PROVE IT". But why should that 1 (or 1000 or 10,000) guys be denied his rights and priviledges based on the potential of someone else to fail a test that hasn't even been developed yet????

You APAAD bozos need to fight for pension legislation

.

Sure, everyone should be. Why must it be "either-or" rather than "both-and"? Maybe those who support discrimination should collectively bargain with their airlines for more apartheid provisions in their own contracts. I can just imagine what you'd hear coming out of a bullhorn at one of those rallies: "What do we want?- To take away our fellow pilot's ability to pursue their chosen career by forcing retirement on fully capable people. When do we want it? - NOW!!"

Arbitrary redistribution of wealth. When has it ever worked?

 

[XJTAv8r]

All legislation from the 109th is dead; clean slate for the 110th.
That said, the 110th will take the appropriations bills from the 109th and run them back through subcommittees (those subcommittees are now controlled by Dems) before rolling everything into one big omnibus appropriations bill. It's a dicey call; the Dems need 60 votes to pass an omnibus bill.
As for the Transportation appropriations bill, it's highly likely that the age 65 text would be stripped out; Congress does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT, like including legislative actions in appropriations bills. If the Dems go the omnibus route, they will make the omnibus bill as unoffensive as possible.

The subcommittee that allowed S 65 to be attached to the transportation appropriations bill will no longer have Conrad Burns or Mike DeWine on it. Christopher Bond (R-MO) will no longer be the Chairperson; it will be Patty Murray (D-WA). The membership will now be a majority of Dems; Ted Stevens (aka Sen Bridge to Nowhere) who sits on the subcommittee will have a HARD time keeping the text of S 65 in the appropriations bill.

Here's a fairly good newsletter by a pro-change guy:
http://www.ppf.org/newslet.htm

The CR merely keeps the federal govt funded. It doesn't give life to the appropriations bills from the 109th. But those bills will be used as templates for the now Dem controlled subcommittees.

Andy,

What do you think of this off of the APAAD.org website?

Subject: Correction/Enhancement to Status of 60/65 for '07

We're in the saddle for '07. Same game as when we closed out the year.
UPDATE: December 11, 2006

There seems to be some confusion regarding where we stand re next year and the Age 60 issue. Perhaps I failed to draw the ‘fine’ lines around the arcane rules of Congress. When Congress adjourned on Saturday morning, our original bill, S. 65 effectively came to an end; however, since an almost identical provision was added in July to the Senate Transportation Treasury Housing and Urban Development Appropriations (TTHUD) Bill, our legislative effort to change the Age 60 rule is very much alive.
So, a little enhancement is in order:
·Most of the appropriations bills, including TTHUD were not passed prior to adjournment.
·A temporary funding bill known as a “Continuing Resolution” was passed and will now expire on 15 February 2007.
·The TTHUD Bill MUST and WILL BE PASSED in some form early next year.
·We expect and believe that our provision will be included in the TTHUD bill as Congress resumes consideration of the 2007 appropriations bills next year.
·Although S.65 essentially no longer exists, the language similar to S.65 is a part of the 2007 TTHUD bill (Part 114; see language below).
SEC. 114. AGE OF PILOTS. (a) Modification of FAA's Age-60 Rule- Within 30 days after the effective date of action taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization to amend Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation to modify the international standard and recommended practice for Member State curtailment of pilot privileges by reason of age, as agreed and recommended by Air Navigation Commission at the 10th meeting of its 167th session, following its review of the recommendations of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel Working Group A's report AN-WP/7982, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations (14 CFR 121.383(c)) to be consistent with the amended standard or recommended practice—

(1) to provide that a pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under 10 part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until having attained 65 years of age on the condition that such pilot may so serve only--
(A) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and
(B) when another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations has not yet attained 60 years of age; and
(2) to eliminate the prohibition against an air carrier engaged in such operations from using the services of a pilot who has attained 60 years of age.
(b) APPLICABILITY- The modification of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations under subsection (a) shall not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, made by any pilot seeking reemployment by such air carrier following the pilot's previous termination or cessation of employment as required by section 121.323(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as that section was in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Rule- Within 24 months after the date on which the Secretary of Transportation modifies the Federal Aviation Administration regulations under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concerning the effect, if any, of the modification on aviation safety.
·The current legislative process has not ended—It has merely been extended by a few months.
·Our job is to keep that language in the TTHUD bill; the work to do so has already begun.
Paul Emens, Founder/Government Liaison
Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination
Captain, Southwest Airlines
[email protected]
410-991-8381

 

[luckytohaveajob]

As long as the H.65 in the House does not get out of committee this will be be stripped out of any Senate bill prior to a vote.

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Andy]

Andy,

What do you think of this off of the APAAD.org website?

I read that before I posted the link; I probably should have elaborated on the comment.
The author is incorrectly assuming that CRs keep appropriations bills alive across sessions of congress. He is wrong.
The Dem controlled senate will use HR 5576 as a template for the transportation appropriation bill, but it will go back to the transportation subcommittee in the senate appropriations committee. The transportation subcommittee of the senate appropriations committee will now be presided over by a Dem and they will have a majority of seats on the new subcommittee. Note that both Santorum and Burns were members of the transportation subcommittee on the senate appropriations committee.
I don't see the new version of HR 5576 (it will be renamed; HR 5576 is dead) making it out of subcommittee with the text of S 65 attached.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Andy,

Plus, the House would need to have a similiar version on their side as well? If the house did not vote it out of committee it would not be in a House appropriations bill either? Is that correct?

 

[Andy]

Andy,

Plus, the House would need to have a similiar version on their side as well? If the house did not vote it out of committee it would not be in a House appropriations bill either? Is that correct?

Kind of, but not quite.
HR 65 had a companion bill, S 65. S 65 was put on the general calendar; HR 65 died in subcommittee. Had S 65 passed in the Senate, it would need HR 65 to be voted on in the House. After that, it would require any differences to be reconciled.

For HR 5576 as reported to the Senate, the text of S 65 was buried in it by the transportation subcommittee of the Senate appropriations committee. Had HR 5576 passed as a standalone bill with S 65 attached (a longshot), it would have had to be reconciled between the senate version of HR 5576 and the house version of HR 5576. During reconciliation of bills, anything goes and I wouldn't want to handicap it. ... all depends on what kind of horse trading goes on between legislators. And it's all behnind closed doors.

In an omnibus appropriations bill, the Senate can only vote thumbs up or down to all of the appropriations bills rolled together into one big bill. They cannot have portions of any bill removed. An omnibus bill requires 60 votes to pass.

I'm in the process of writing an article for airlinepilotcentral.com addressing the entire process.

 

[XJTAv8r]

I read that before I posted the link; I probably should have elaborated on the comment.
The author is incorrectly assuming that CRs keep appropriations bills alive across sessions of congress. He is wrong.
The Dem controlled senate will use HR 5576 as a template for the transportation appropriation bill, but it will go back to the transportation subcommittee in the senate appropriations committee. The transportation subcommittee of the senate appropriations committee will now be presided over by a Dem and they will have a majority of seats on the new subcommittee. Note that both Santorum and Burns were members of the transportation subcommittee on the senate appropriations committee.
I don't see the new version of HR 5576 (it will be renamed; HR 5576 is dead) making it out of subcommittee with the text of S 65 attached.

We expect and believe that our provision will be included in the TTHUD bill as Congress resumes consideration of the 2007 appropriations bills next year.

Andy,

How likely do you think that the age change provision will be added to the new Senate Transportation Treasury Housing and Urban Development Appropriations (TTHUD) Bill next year like the APAAD expects?