Fox News and age 60

[XJTAv8r]

I don't see how ALPA can support keeping age 60 with a straight face since they also represent Air Canada Jazz and Air Transat who have contracts that go to age 65--and those ALPA members can now fly in US Airspace at 60 or above yet dues paying members of ALPA who fly for US carriers cannot.
I read in the posts about how all of you will be irreperably harmed by raising the retirement age--how you all want to retire at age 60 or before--you all must really hate aviation and hate your jobs.

To put it simply, a rule change will provide a tremendous financial windfall (5 more years at the top of the pay scale) to those who are approaching age 60 at tremendous expense to those who are not approaching age 60 (higher LTD and insurance costs, diluted pay rates on future contracts, stagnant seniority movement, etc.) It's quite a bit more "greedy" to want 5 more years at the top pay scale at the expense of your younger co-workers than to want to maintain the status quo.

 

[BiffF15]

In my humble opinon I think it doesn't matter about winfalls, expectations, hopes or aspirations. It will be boiled down to whether or not 60 is age discrimination. Once that occurs the outcome will be what I think is obvious.

 

[banger]

I have also heard all the arguements, and would like to see it stay at 60 for the sole reason I don't want to work beyond that. However I think it will come down to age discrimination and nothing else. While it may be dead for now I also think it will come up again and again until it matches ICAO.

Well you may have other reasons but if you just don't want to work past age 60 then don't. Would having the option be bad for you?

 

[BiffF15]

Banger,
I would hope to have the option to not work past 60, both financially and lifestyle wise. It's my opinon as well that it will depend on your contract at the time you pass the 60 mark. Or in other words what gets negotiated between now and then regardless of the "mandatory" retirement age.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

In my humble opinon I think it doesn't matter about winfalls, expectations, hopes or aspirations. It will be boiled down to whether or not 60 is age discrimination. Once that occurs the outcome will be what I think is obvious.

This issue has been addressed many times on this MB. With Age 65, all ICAO would do is replace one discriminatory age with another. So tell me, by rising the age to 65, what age discrimination has been solved? Why not go to 55?

The real motive behind the Age 65 group is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Once the age is increased, this crowd will still keep fighting to get a full repeal of any retirement age. The real aim is to hold on to their jobs as long as possible without a care in the world about the negative ramifications it will bring to the industry. It will never end.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[BiffF15]

AA,
You are probably correct about the "nose under the tent". However, you missed the point of what it will come down to (age discrimination) not why (financial gains of senior pilots). The day in court is inbound, and financial gains will probably be brought up to cloud the issue however in the end it will be based soley on age discrimination.

 

[Andy]

The day in court is inbound, and financial gains will probably be brought up to cloud the issue however in the end it will be based soley on age discrimination.

The day in court has already passed.

 

[BiffF15]

The day in court has already passed.

Andy, the "day in court" is a metaphor. If it's over why are we still talking about it? I'm not debating the right or wrong of the change, just why I think it will change.

 

[Andy]

Andy, the "day in court" is a metaphor. If it's over why are we still talking about it? I'm not debating the right or wrong of the change, just why I think it will change.

There are three possible avenues for change - judicial, legislative, and regulatory.
The judicial side is no longer an option; it has been ruled that age 60 is not age discrimination. You stated that you thought that the rule would change due to it being discriminatory.
Two paths remain for change. Legislatively, there's a possibility that the text of S 65 will remain embedded in the transportation appropriations bill. I am making every effort to have it stripped from the bill. I anticipate success.
On the regulatory side, the FAA is very unlikely to rush into a change. The fact that the ARC report was released with no accompanying press release tells me that the FAA just wants to bury the issue.

While this is a huge issue to pilots, the American public has little, if any, concern on this issue.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I have emailed everyone on the senate appropriations committee.

It was very easy with Andy's compiled list. Andy could you please paste the list with the senate link on this thread.

 

[dooork]

Something needs to change. If you are for keeping 60..then you need to be supporting a change in social security rules and any other rule or benefit that someone who is say 70 gets. If you want the age to increase to 65...then you need to support the company not changing pension law.

 

[Andy]

I have emailed everyone on the senate appropriations committee.

It was very easy with Andy's compiled list. Andy could you please paste the list with the senate link on this thread.

There is one last hurdle to overcome to keep age 60 in place for the next couple of years (I make no predictions past that). When the 109th Congress adjourned, they didn’t complete their task of funding the government for FY07; they passed a temporary Continuing Resolution to fund the effected agencies and left nine appropriations bills as unfinished business. One of those appropriations bills, HR 5576, funded the Department of Transportation. The text of S 65 (changing pilot retirement age to 65) was inserted during subcommittee markup of HR 5576 in the 109th Congress. While HR 5576 is dead, the Appropriations subcommittee will likely use HR 5576 as a template for the final appropriations bill.

It will be up to the 110th Congress to pass those appropriations bills and they’re likely to do so in one omnibus appropriations bill. After the bills leave committee, Senators will only have a yes or no vote; they’ll be unable to remove any offensive parts of the bill. Therefore, it’s very important to target key Democratic Senators on the Appropriations Committee to have the text of S 65 stripped from the Transportation Appropriations Bill.

I’ll break it down into three groups of Senators where your efforts will get the most bang for the buck. The first group is THE KEY group; if you are only going to contact one group, hit the ones on the Appropriations Committee. Note that many names are on multiple lists.

First are the Senators on the Appropriations Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation (this is where any changes to the bill will be made). They have not been finalized, but this is the latest information from Sen. Reid’s (D-NV; Senate Majority Leader) website. The key targets here are:
Sen. Byrd (D-VW) *
Sen. Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) *
Sen. Harkin (D-IA) *
Sen. Mikulsi (D-MD) *
Sen. Kohl (D-WI) *
Sen. Murray (D-WA) *
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) *
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Durbin (D-IL) *
Sen. Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen Reed (D-RI)
Sen Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE)
* indicates member of Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Second, several Senators received contributions from ALPA and APA PAC. They are: (note that the first six were in key races)
Sen. Brown (D-OH), $10K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Cardin (D-MD), $5K ALPA
Sen. Casey (D-PA), $5K ALPA
Sen. McCaskill (D-MO), $5K ALPA
Sen. Menendez (D-NJ), $10K ALPA
Sen. Webb (D-VA), $5K ALPA
Sen. Akaka (D-HI), $7.5K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Baucus (D-MT), $2.5K ALPA
Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), $10K ALPA
Sen. Byrd (D-WV), $10K ALPA, $4K APA
Sen. Carper (D-DE), $5K ALPA
Sen. Clinton (D-NY), $5K APA
Sen. Conrad (D-ND), $7.5K ALPA
Sen. Durbin (D-IL), $5K ALPA
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), $7.5K ALPA
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), $7.5K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ), $5K ALPA
Sen. Murray (D-WA), $5K ALPA
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), $10K ALPA
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), $2.5K ALPA
Sen. Sanders (I-VT), $10K ALPA
Sen. Stabenow (D-MI), $7.5K ALPA

Third, are the Democrats on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. They are:
Sen. Inouye (D-HI), Committee Chair
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), Aviation Subcommittee Chair
Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND)
Sen. Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Sen. Pryor (D-AR)
Sen. Carper (D-DE)
Sen. McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN)

As far as the content of any letter/e-mail/fax/phone call to the Senators’ offices, I recommend hitting on the following points:
1) In the 109th Congress, a legislative amendment to change pilot retirement age to 65 was added to HR 5576, an appropriations bill. Since changing pilot retirement age is a legislative action, it’s inappropriate to leave this legislative amendment in an appropriations bill.
2) On 4 Jan 2007, Sen Inhofe introduced a legislative bill, the Freedom to Fly Act, with the exact same content as is contained in the appropriations amendment. This is a subject that should be debated in the light of day, not buried deep within an appropriations bill.
3) Include something in the subject line indicating that you are writing in reference to the Transportation Appropriations Bill so that your correspondence can be directed to the proper Senate staffer.

Congress does not like to use appropriations bills for legislation, and even Senators in favor of an age change will have problems with a legislative amendment attached to an appropriations bill.

Here is a link with information to contact these Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

 

[Andy]

Template

For those that asked for a template, here it is. Feel free to disseminate widely and modify as necessary.


Senator ,

The 109th Congress adjourned prior to enacting into public law several Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations bills. Among those was HR 5576, the Appropriations Bill that included funding for the Department of Transportation. Contained within HR 5576 was a legislative amendment increasing airline pilot retirement age to sixty five.
While I realize that HR 5576 died with the end of the 109th Congress, I know that you will be very busy and that HR 5576 is likely to be used as a template for a new transportation appropriations bill that will become public law. For that reason, I request that you ensure that any appropriations bill passed by the 110th Congress be stripped of this legislative provision since it is inappropriate to use appropriations bills for legislative matters.
The item that I am referring to was contained in HR 5576.RS under Title I, Department of Transportation, Administrative Provisions—Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Section 114.
On 4 January 2007, Senator Inhofe sponsored S. 65, the Freedom to Fly Act, which increases airline pilot retirement age to 65, accomplishing the exact same thing as the amendment to HR 5576. This is a legislative issue, not an appropriations issue, and I request that you ensure that the issue receives proper consideration on the Senate floor rather than buried deep within an appropriations bill. Please ensure that this legislation is removed from the FY07 transportation appropriations bill.

 

[pilotyip]

As Adam Smith stated in "Wealth of Nations" everyone will pursue their own self interest. You can sure see it here.