Age 60 Question (No Flame Bait) Recent Developments??

[airbus_jas]

Anybody with direct knowledge, have any info about the latest age 60 rumblings with FAA administrator, Marion Blakely?

The other thread ongoing here:

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=91916

mentions only legislative action.

I know this movement has been mired in subcommittee after subcommittee, never making it to the house or senate floor, for at least the last five years. After dieing when congress recessed last month, I thought that was it for a while.

However this week, as referenced by an earlier thread here, there were several news reports that Blakely herself, was going to make an announcement soon. The news reports implied, she was going to come out and make a decision on her own. That seemed far fetched to me.

After talking to an ALPA buddy of mine, he is under the impression that a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) is what Marion will be announcing. Not an actual congressional change in the law, as is implied in the other thread.

Anybody have any CREDIBLE information? Not a pro/con thread. Just information please. Just like the name of this web board "Flight Info".

Thanks folks.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Andy is the expert on the subject, especially as relates legislative efforts within the Senate. Neverthless, I have a similar hunch that an NPRM will be issued and the public comment period will be opened. That DOES NOT mean a change to age 65 would become the new FAA regulation. By issuing the NPRM and inviting public comment, the Adminstrator will have political cover to justify whatever decision is made.

 

[Bill Nelson]

They opened up public comment last year. It was worthless to them. it was full of comments from wives who couldn't imagine these old farts around the house all the time. Of course they wanted the rule changed.

She doesn't have have the balls to do something as reckless to public safety as changing the rule. She doesn't want to shoulder the responsiblility. She will likely say there isn't enough evidence to ammend the rule.

It will likely not pass legislative muster either. There isn't enough support for change.

 

[gutshotdraw]

She doesn't have have the balls

For her husband's sake, I hope she doesn't, either.....:blush:

 

[Andy]

Andy is the expert on the subject, especially as relates legislative efforts within the Senate.

Thanks; I am obviously biased, but I try to not shoot straight on the issue.

There are three possible avenues for change: judicial, legislative, and regulatory.

Judicial: Been pursued multiple times; the judicial system has refused to change the rule.

Legislative: With the 110th Congress, it's much less likely to change. Sens Inouye and Rockefeller oppose a change; they are Chairman of the Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee. They have the power to let S 65 die in subcommittee.
The one opportunity for it to pass is if it remains attached to the transportation appropriations bill.

Regulatory: The FAA can change the rule. I've read about the rumors of Administrator Blakey announcing an NPRM on age60rule.com. Yesterday, they said that she would announce it at a press conference at the National Press Club on 19 Jan. There was nothing on the Press Club's schedule for that date. Today, age60rule.com stated that the NPRM will occur on 30 Jan.
This isn't the first time that one of these sites have posted rumors of the FAA changing the rule.

I don't expect Blakey to make any announcement; I think that she will just let the issue die a quiet death. This is based on a number of things, not the least of which was a press conference by her last spring.

However, if there is an NPRM, it is very likely that the age 60 rule will change. I just don't see the FAA going to that length and then not changing the rule.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Thanks; I am obviously biased, but I try to not shoot straight on the issue.

You try NOT to? I always found your stuff to be honest and straight forward so I can only assume your fingers need a rest....

As to the info, your assessment is largely correct. I think the legislative angle may be dead for now given the leanings of the new majority party. The judicial avenue is dead and buried and has been for quite some time. The real question mark is Blakey. I just can't help but feel the snowball is beginning to roll downhill and Blakey is just trying to keep from getting bowled over by it. The political reality of having airline pilots from other countries running around the U.S. past the age of 60 but not U.S. pilots is very tough to defend. I think the Administrator is beginning to feel the pressure.

 

[Andy]

You try NOT to? I always found your stuff to be honest and straight forward so I can only assume your fingers need a rest....

DOH! I hate typos. I don't care who you are, that there's funny stuff. :laugh:


As far as Blakey, that is truly a question mark. There are a lot of resons why I could see her maintaining the status quo, but do not know what pressures she faces with the ICAO change. I also don't know what the effect will be of the shift in power in Washington. If she were to do it, I would have expected her to announce an NPRM and make the change last year to coincide with ICAO.
The fact that the rumored announcement has slid to the right makes me think that it will die a quiet death.
There are people in the FAA on both sides of the issue. Like so many rumors, I think that after the third person passes on the story, it's distorted to the point where you can't be sure one way or the other. And I think that's what happened in this case. It could go either way.

 

[SkiFishFly]

. The judicial avenue is dead and buried and has been for quite some time.

I don't think the judicial is dead and buried. There has been a significant change to the situation.
The FAA is now allowing non-citizens to work as pilots on US soil past age 60 but it is prohibiting US citizens from performing the same job based soley on the age of the US citizen.

 

[Andy]

The real question mark is Blakey. I just can't help but feel the snowball is beginning to roll downhill and Blakey is just trying to keep from getting bowled over by it. The political reality of having airline pilots from other countries running around the U.S. past the age of 60 but not U.S. pilots is very tough to defend. I think the Administrator is beginning to feel the pressure.

I'll eat crow on this one. Based on information that I've been able to gather, there is indeed a move afoot within the FAA to have a NPRM come out later this spring addressing a change to age 60. Of course the process will be lengthy; I wouldn't expect any change to take effect for at least a year after the NPRM is announced; likely longer.

I'll repeat this: IF a NPRM comes out, it's not a question of whether or not age 60 will change - it's more a matter of what form the change will be.

 

[gutshotdraw]

I'll eat crow on this one. Based on information that I've been able to gather, there is indeed a move afoot within the FAA to have a NPRM come out later this spring addressing a change to age 60. Of course the process will be lengthy; I wouldn't expect any change to take effect for at least a year after the NPRM is announced; likely longer.

I'll repeat this: IF a NPRM comes out, it's not a question of whether or not age 60 will change - it's more a matter of what form the change will be.

I've eaten crow plenty and a little Hui Fong hot sauce makes it go down a LOT better. I'll send you some....:beer:

As you say, there are people on both sides within the FAA and the aviation community at large. But it just seems to me the momentum is with the pro-change crowd. Even 5 years ago, the issue was a complete non-starter. Today, the drumbeat grows louder. In the aviation community, on the message boards, in the halls of Congress, and now, frequently, in the press.

As with everything, the devil will be in the details: Implementation immediately or phased in; retroactive to a certain age above 60 or not; elegibility of over 60 F/E's (ROPEs) still on the property e.g. NWA; a new age limit on other forms of commercial flying (91K, 135) or not; new medical certification standards based on aging; etc.

I just don't want to be the poor sap that has to sort through the THOUSANDS of public comments that will hit the FAA doorstep if an NPRM is issued.

 

[FoxHunter]

I don't think the judicial is dead and buried. There has been a significant change to the situation.
The FAA is now allowing non-citizens to work as pilots on US soil past age 60 but it is prohibiting US citizens from performing the same job based soley on the age of the US citizen.

Andy, I'm sure you have read this from the PPF web site but to educate those that have not to the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled on the age 60 issue. The Court of Appeals ruled against the pilots and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case so the Appeals Court Ruling stood.

If the FAA changes the rule on its own it will leave open a lot of questions that the Courts may have to decide. One of the biggest questions is the status of pilots that have been forced to retire at age 60 that are still under the age of 65. The Bills from the last 109th and 110th Congress address that issue and give legal protection. The Bills also require the FAA to change the rule in 30 days. Once Congress speaks and the President signs the law there is no long drawn out process.

FROM PPF

May 1995 Australian Chief Justice Wilcox: "Given the time and effort expended in America examining the age 60 rule, it is remarkable to say so, but it seems to me that none of the cited studies supports any conclusion about the relationship between that rule and aircraft safety." Australia drops Age 60 Rule.
Dec. 1995 FAA issues "Commuter Operations and General Certification and Operations Requirements" imposing an Age 60 Rule on pilots operating 10-30 seat aircraft. (formerly exempted) FAA also issued a "Disposition of Comments and Notice of Agency Decisions on the Age 60 Rule", announcing no action at this time. All petitions and individual exemption requests were denied on December 28.
Dec. 1995 PPF files for a review of the FAA's action in the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Jan. 1996 PPF files an age discrimination case against Fedex in Memphis, TN, on behalf of one of its members forcibly terminated for reaching age 60.
Jan. 1996 European Union (12 nations) officially changes to age 65 retirement for airline pilots.
June 1996 The House Appropriations Committee introduces an amendment giving the NTSB authority to study the necessity of the Age 60 Rule. ALPA rallies its forces and the amendment is dropped by a vote of 247 to 159.
July 1997 D.C. Court of Appeals denies PPF petition for review by 2-1 decision. Dissenting Judge Patricia Wald states: "More importantly, the Age 60 Rule stands as an instance of government-mandated age discrimination for a particular group of employees."
Aug. 1997 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rules in favor of Fedex, following quickly in lockstep with the decision of the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Aug. 1997 PPF files for Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc, in D.C. Court of Appeals. In an unusual turn, the Court ordered the FAA to respond to our request for Rehearing. FAA responds (Oct.) with a rehash of arguments used in original filing.
Nov. 1997 Request for rehearing/en banc denied.
Dec. 1997 Filing date for Supreme Court certiorari (Request for Hearing) of Coup v. FedEx.
Feb. 1998 Filing date for Supreme Court certiorari of PPF v. FAA.
Mar. 1998 Supreme Court denies certiorari (hearing) of Coupe case.
May 1998 Supreme Court denies certiorari of PPF v. FAA
June 1998 Filing date for "request for rehearing" of PPF v. FAA, to Supreme Court.
July 1998 Request for rehearing denied.
July 1998 New legal action tactics being finalized.
Nov 1998 Bell, Boyd and Lloyd engaged for new legal action.
July 2000 After refusal by the FAA to grant exemptions to 69 petitioners, PPF files for review with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue presented is whether, given the safety record of experienced senior pilots, an individual age 60 pilot qualified in all areas of physiological and cognitive function identified by the FAA in granting exemptions to medically disqualified pilots under age 60, provides a level of safety equal to that under the FAA;s age 60 rule.
Oct 2000 The Civil Aviation Medicine Association, an organization of FAA approved medical examiners states that: The consensus of the Association is that mandatory retirement for an airline pilot who has reached the age of 60 is without medical basis.
August 2001 The Court of Appeals defers to the FAA, and our appeal is denied. PPF decides not to request certiori.
October 2001 A new legal action is formulated, based on a point of administrative law that requires the court to defer to the agency (FAA) unless fraud or abuse of power is charged.
Dec 2001 An attorney is hired and the wheels are placed into motion for another legal action based on FAA Fraud and Deceit.
June 2002 A Petition for Exemption is filed with the FAA, requesting exemptions for 10 PPF members, based on the FAA's long and continuing efforts to deceive Congress, the public and the courts in order to justify the age 60 rule. Exhibits show proof of the intentional doctoring of studies, misinformation given to Congress and the courts, and documents from within the FAA describing the Rule as not a safety issue, but economic.
Oct. 2003 FAA rejects the Petition of 12 (amended) pilots for exemptions claiming their facts are redundant and they are attempting to change the Age 60 Rule rather than be granted exemptions.
Oct. 2003 Filed Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Aviation Administration with the D.C. Court of Appeals, Washington, D.C. Filed Counter-Statement of the case to the FAA, as required.
Jan. 2004 The prestigious AeroSpace Medical Association issues a position paper concluding; "Upon review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone."
Mar. 2004 Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) filed by the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association stating that "The Agency improperly based its decision on an erroneous construction of the data contained in the agency's Civil AeroMedical Institute's Pilot Age and Accident Rate Report 4". And that one Petitioner, "a SWAPA member, has provided the agency with the results of medical testing that proves his age does not justify application of the age 60 Rule to him".
Sept. 2004 D.C. Court of Appeals denies Petition stating that Petitioners failed to include specific information required by 14 C.F.R. - 11.61 ("You must include the following information in your petition for an exemption...The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek the exemption....") It would logically seem that if the Petitioners are accusing the FAA of Fraud and Abuse of Power, and offering proof that the FAA doctored the books to make it appear as if the Rule is a safety rule when it isn't, then supplying reasons why exemptions would affect safety is surrendering to the very basics of the fraud Petitioners are alleging.
Nov. 2004 Petitioners filed for Rehearing En Banc, a review by ALL members of the D.C. Court of Appeals.
Dec. 2004 Petition for Rehearing En Banc denied.
Jan. 2005 Preparations requesting hearing by the Supreme Court (certiori) underway. Petition must be filed by March 14, 2005.

 

[Andy]

Andy, I'm sure you have read this from the PPF web site but to educate those that have not to the fact that the Supreme Court never ruled on the age 60 issue. The Court of Appeals ruled against the pilots and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case so the Appeals Court Ruling stood.

Fox, just so everyone can understand. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case is tantamount to them ruling against it. They only hear cases that they believe have merit ... ie the case was considered meritless by the Supreme Court.

At this point, the immediate possibility for change is via the regulatory route. I found out today that Blakey will be stepping down. She will likely announce a NPRM before departing and then leaving it to the new Administrator. That's what I anticipate occurring. I had not foreseen her stepping down.

 

[GoABX]

I am against the change, but if it does go in effect we should mitigate the damage.

===================================================

To: Marion Blakey JAN12,2007

SUBJ: Age 65 Suggestion


Recommend making the effective date for the rule change: 1/1/11

This is a contentious issue, but this compromise would give a little to both
sides. The pro-change group gets their decision, while the junior pilots get
some short term relief. Additionally, this solution will give airline
management time to create policy to cope with the multiple layers of
consequences. Finally, the benefit to the FAA is the political firestorm is put
off for 4 years and when the change date arrives it will come and go with little fanfare.

 

[FoxHunter]

Fox, just so everyone can understand. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case is tantamount to them ruling against it. They only hear cases that they believe have merit ... ie the case was considered meritless by the Supreme Court.

At this point, the immediate possibility for change is via the regulatory route. I found out today that Blakey will be stepping down. She will likely announce a NPRM before departing and then leaving it to the new Administrator. That's what I anticipate occurring. I had not foreseen her stepping down.

Just so everyone can understand that if the FAA changes the rule without any change in the law by Congress the rest of the issues are an open question. How many UAL, USAIR, DAL, NWA guys that are between age 60 and 65 will try to reclaim their seniority? How is seniority addressed in each individual ALPA/APA contract? Does you contract say you will be removed from the seniority list when you turn age 60? How does the EEOC look at the issue? There are questions and that is the reason the WSJ reported that the FAA would prefer that it be changed by Congress not regulation.

There may be a great deal of regret by the anti change side if Congress does not act. The rule will change, just a matter of how.

 

[FoxHunter]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070109/ap_on_go_ot/old_pilots_1 :beer:

 

[lostplnetairman]

Fox, just so everyone can understand. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case is tantamount to them ruling against it. They only hear cases that they believe have merit ... ie the case was considered meritless by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and grants cert to less than 100. They tend to hear cases in which they can overturn the last decision. They also try to decide on the least important Constitutional reason so as to make the least amount of waves. They look at cases in which the appeals courts disagree and there needs to be a final decision because living with the lack of uniformity from one circuit to another is difficult. They also favor cases in which there are conflicting decisions from two State Supreme Courts or if a State Supreme Court conflicts with a Federal Appeals Court or if a State Supreme Court or Federal Appeals Court makes a decision that conflicts with important Supreme Court decisions.

The cases are, for the most part, reviewed by the clerk pool. A clerk then makes a recommendation and the Justices have the final say. It is easier for a relatively inexperienced clerk to recommend denial over a grant.

The denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari signifies only that the Court has chosen not to accept the case for review and does not express the Court’s view of the merits of the case.

HRDiva

 

[robert_fla]

The one opportunity for it to pass is if it remains attached to the transportation appropriations bill.

Didn't that bill die at the end of last year?

 

[Andy]

The one opportunity for it to pass is if it remains attached to the transportation appropriations bill.

Didn't that bill die at the end of last year?

Yes; however, if they decide to pass a transportation appropriations bill, they will use it as a template for whatever they pass this year. I've now been told it's likely that the Senate will CR (continuing resolution) it and 8 other appropriations bills through the end of FY07.

With the possibility of Administrator Blakey announcing a NPRM, it is very likely that such action would result in a change to age 60. I've been told that Administrator Blakey will be resigning as Administrator and will announce the NPRM prior to stepping down. It will then fall on the new administrator, who will almost certainly change the rule. I had not anticipated Administrator Blakey resigning from her position and now see this as an extremely likely outcome which will result in a change of the age 60 rule.