S. 65 and H.R. 1125 still alive (age 65)

[XJTAv8r]

Could this change happen sooner than the 18-24 months previously mentioned?

At its May meeting, ALPA’s Executive Board will consider a resolution from the Executive Council to modify the union’s Age 60 policy if it decides that such efforts are in the best interest of ALPA pilots.

The resolution comes on the heels of the FAA’s announcement that it will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65. The proposed rule would parallel the ICAO standard—either pilot or copilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crew member is under age 60.

Since the announcement, ALPA’s president, Capt. John Prater, established the ALPA Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel to study the long-range effects of potential changes to the FAA Age 60 Rule and to identify issues connected to possible changes to pilot mandatory retirement age.

The Panel presented its preliminary report to the Council on April 24 which included issues that need to be addressed in legislation to change the Age 60 Rule. Currently, Congress is considering legislation—S. 65 and H.R. 1125—that would raise the upper age limit to 65 in multi-crew operations as long as the other required pilot is under 60; sunset the current FAA Age 60 Rule 30 days after the effective date which is the date of enactment; require the Secretary of Transportation within 30 days after the effective date to modify the regulation making it consistent with the statutory change; and establish that it would not be a basis for a claim of re-employment or seniority under any labor agreement.

ALPA expects that attempts will be made to attach or include S. 65 and H.R. 1125 in each chamber's version of the 2007 FAA reauthorization bills which the committees of jurisdiction are scheduling to debate and vote on in May or June.

The Blue Ribbon Panel concluded that provisions in both bills do not sufficiently address ALPA’s issues. Those issues include:

• 
  [*]appropriate language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the rule,
  [*]appropriate language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule,
  [*]assurances that FAA normal retirement age language in certain defined benefit plans would not cause a cutback in accrued benefits
  [*]opposition to any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing,
  [*]any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to medical pilot records, and
  [*]support of FAA Air Surgeon Fred Tilton’s recommendation to require a first class medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60, and
  [*]appropriate language , modeled on Akaka bill, which requires the PBGC to calculate pilot pension benefits as though they worked to the more traditional retirement age of 65.

ALPA continues to collect information on this critical topic. For your opinion to be heard, eligible members MUST take the ALPA Age 60 Blue Ribbon Panel Survey. Although the survey results will not be the only factor the Board considers, it is an important aspect of the Board’s deliberation regarding the FAA Age 60 pilot retirement regulation.

More than 14,500 ALPA pilots have registered their opinions on the FAA Age 60 pilot retirement regulation via ALPA’s online survey. As of April 30, the top-10 pilot groups with the highest percentage of submissions are America West, FedEx, Northwest, ASTAR, Continental, Delta, United, Alaska, Hawaiian, and Atlas Air. The web-based survey began earlier this month and will remain open until May 10. Please log onto Crewroom.alpa.org to access the survey.

 

[sandman2122]

As one of the 14,500 pilots who registered, I said DON'T change the current age 60 rule.

 

[shroomwell]

The way I read it was:

"Thanks for taking the survey, but we are going to go ahead and make the decision ourselves without considering what the majority wants. Thanks for continuing to pay your dues, and have good day."

 

[Flopgut]

The way I read it was:

"Thanks for taking the survey, but we are going to go ahead and make the decision ourselves without considering what the majority wants. Thanks for continuing to pay your dues, and have good day."

I read it the same way! Hope we're wrong.

 

[PCL_128]

Remember, the decision hasn't been made yet. The Executive Board will be the one to make this decision. The EB is made up of the MEC Chairmen from every ALPA carrier. So, if you're like me and don't want ALPA's policy to change, then you need to talk with your reps (especially your MEC Chair) and tell them how opposed you are to this rule change. If you have an LEC or MEC meeting before the EB meets, then bring a resolution. Get involved!!! Don't let your reps make this decision without your input.

 

[Dizel8]

"The Executive Board will be the one to make this decision."

And here I thought it was supposed to be the members!

 

[PCL_128]

And here I thought it was supposed to be the members!

Ever heard of representative democracy? It's worked pretty well for this country for a few hundred years. Works pretty good for unions too. You just need to get involved and let your reps know what you think. When only 14,500 members out of 60,000 even bother to respond, the reps are left to think that the majority of the membership doesn't care, and then they are free to make the decision themselves. If the membership gave a clear signal (say 50,000 members responding to the survey with a strong majority opposed to a change) then the EB would certainly follow the direction of the membership. As it stands right now, it's hard to argue that the membership has given any clear direction at all on this issue.

 

[filejw]

And lets remember that ALPA is just one factor in this issue.As I read the info ALPA has sent out I think they realize what an up hill battle this is.Way more people/organizations are saying yes to 65 than ALPA saying no.

 

[filejw]

And lets remember that ALPA is just one factor in this issue.As I read the info ALPA has sent out I think they realize what an up hill battle this is.Way more people/organizations are saying yes to 65 than ALPA saying no.

 

[Andy]

prater continues to push for a change in ALPA policy and has been acting behind the scenes with politicians to make this change happen as soon as possible.
Representative democracy? Yeah, my a$$ it's a representative democracy. prater is going to take the polling data and twist it to make it seem like the majority of ALPA wants to help push for a change.
I wasn't happy with the way that the poll was written and can see how they'll manipulate the results. It's definitely NOT an unbiased poll.

Congress had taken a laissez faire attitude toward the change and planned on leaving it to the FAA. Now all of a sudden there is talk of this change being fast tracked and buried in the DOT's appropriations bill. It is inappropriate for legislation to be included in appropriations bills and is not the normal procedure for getting legislation through Congress.
The ONLY way that this is happening is because some of ALPA national is lobbying Congress behind closed doors in favor of the change. If ALPA had continued to oppose any change, this would not be happening.

Yeah, I'll be calling my ALPA reps. Every freaking one of them. What a bunch of crap!

 

[Andy]

And lets remember that ALPA is just one factor in this issue.As I read the info ALPA has sent out I think they realize what an up hill battle this is.Way more people/organizations are saying yes to 65 than ALPA saying no.

PLEASE! The push for a change has been a group of pilots who want to fly past 60 but are unwilling to leave the 121 world.
There isn't a huge groundswell for the change.

 

[Andy]

Could this change happen sooner than the 18-24 months previously mentioned?

Yes; if prater gets his way, the change will be buried in the DOT's appropriations bill.

 

[Dizel8]

Ever heard of representative democracy? It's worked pretty well for this country for a few hundred years. Works pretty good for unions too. You just need to get involved and let your reps know what you think. When only 14,500 members out of 60,000 even bother to respond, the reps are left to think that the majority of the membership doesn't care, and then they are free to make the decision themselves. If the membership gave a clear signal (say 50,000 members responding to the survey with a strong majority opposed to a change) then the EB would certainly follow the direction of the membership. As it stands right now, it's hard to argue that the membership has given any clear direction at all on this issue.

If only 10 percent of the members decided to voice their opinion and 6% percent was against, then ALPA should say no. Those that decide not to voice their opinion does not count, since ALPA Nat'l would have no idea of whether they were for or against. For ALPA to say yes under such circumstances would be pure conjecture.

Even if age 65 is a foregone conclusion by the FAA, that does not prevent ALPA, should their membership show themselves to be against, to most strenously offer their objections. I am sure they would get company from plenty of pilots from carriers who has other unions or none at all.

 

[Dizel8]

Way more people/organizations are saying yes to 65 than ALPA saying no.

Highly doubtful!

 

[PCL_128]

If only 10 percent of the members decided to voice their opinion and 6% percent was against, then ALPA should say no. Those that decide not to voice their opinion does not count, since ALPA Nat'l would have no idea of whether they were for or against. For ALPA to say yes under such circumstances would be pure conjecture.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir, here! I'm on your side with this issue. I've already notified the rest of the PCL MEC that I'll be submitting a resolution for a vote at our MEC meeting next week that demands the status quo on Age-60.

However, I can't really argue that the membership is adamantly opposed to this change if the members won't back me up by doing something as simple as taking a 5-minute online poll.

 

[Dizel8]

However, I can't really argue that the membership is adamantly opposed to this change if the members won't back me up by doing something as simple as taking a 5-minute online poll.

Actually you can, unless the polls show the majority for age 65!

 

[Dumb Pilot]

I've already notified the rest of the PCL MEC that I'll be submitting a resolution for a vote at our MEC meeting next week that demands the status quo on Age-60.

Oh if you are going to demand it, I'm sure they will get right on it.

 

[PCL_128]

Actually you can, unless the polls show the majority for age 65!

Yeah, I can certainly argue it (and I will), but that argument carries very little weight when the members won't get involved and voice their disapproval. If I could point to figures that show 85% of the members participated and 65% were opposed to a change, then my argument would carry much more weight. This is the same principal as PAC participation. The more people that participate in a given PAC, the more attention that interest group will get. The reality is simply that 30% participation and results of 55/45% against don't exactly indicate a mandate.

 

[PCL_128]

Oh if you are going to demand it, I'm sure they will get right on it.

You'll make a lot more progress if you at least try rather than sitting on your ass and acting cynical.

 

[Dumb Pilot]

You will be as cynical as me after 25 years. How do I know? because I was just like you many, many years ago. Now I like sitting on my ass and being cynical

 

[Andy]

The reality is simply that 30% participation and results of 55/45% against don't exactly indicate a mandate.

Those results are good enough for a contract to be signed.
However, I'd be surprised if there were less than 50% participation and 60/40 opposed to a change. But the poll is biased in favor of age 65, so some of the results of the poll will be used to make a case for changing ALPA policy.

The phone poll is complete; what were the results from that?

 

[PCL_128]

However, I'd be surprised if there were less than 50% participation

I think you're going to be very surprised, then.

But the poll is biased in favor of age 65, so some of the results of the poll will be used to make a case for changing ALPA policy.

The BRP designed the poll, and one of the BRP members is a regular poster on this forum. I'll let him respond to that in detail. Suffice it to say that as opposed as I am to a change, I still don't believe there was any bias cooked into the polling questions.

The phone poll is complete; what were the results from that?

They haven't been released yet, but the EC was briefed on them by the BRP.

 

[Andy]

The BRP designed the poll, and one of the BRP members is a regular poster on this forum. I'll let him respond to that in detail. Suffice it to say that as opposed as I am to a change, I still don't believe there was any bias cooked into the polling questions.

The BRP isn't exactly representative of the membership; they look pretty long in the tooth. I'd be curious to know where the BRP stands on any change - my bet is that it's something along the lines of 5-2 in favor of changing to age 65.


PCL128, thanks for the responses. My anger is not directed toward you; I am just frustrated by the abuse of power at ALPA national.

 

[PCL_128]

The BRP isn't exactly representative of the membership; they look pretty long in the tooth. I'd be curious to know where the BRP stands on any change - my bet is that it's something along the lines of 5-2 in favor of changing to age 65.

If Neal S. says that there was no intentional bias in the questions, then I believe him. He's never done anything to harm his credibility. If he wasn't on the panel, then I might be a little more skeptical.

PCL128, thanks for the responses. My anger is not directed toward you; I am just frustrated by the abuse of power at ALPA national.

No problem. I understand the frustration.

 

[whymeworry?]

Fact is, MOST of the surveys are coming from the older pilots (from a friend of mine at ALPA Nat'l). The younger in our group are either uninformed about this survey or apethetic. They will only have themselves to blame if the survey #s comes out in favor of age 65.

This group of pro-age 65ers are being predictably selfish about this issue.... they don't want to hear the safety arguement, nor do they care about their union brothers and sisters who are still on the street or facing years of stagnancy. They only care about keeping their rich lifestyles in tact. This issue is NOT about age-discrimination, this is NOT about a so-called pilot-shortage, this is NOT about keeping in step with ICAO.... This is about economics... the economics of the pilots who insist on changing the rule.

Am I wrong here? Fine, then why don't they fly as F/O if they want to fly past 60?

If the younger pilots want their voices heard, they'd better get their surveys in before the cutoff.

 

[Freight Dog]

I just saw Prater's message and when he started talking about Age 60, I wanted to hurl. If you can't see that he's basically sold us out in favor of raising the age to 65, you gotta be blind...

 

[Dumb Pilot]

World politics of open skies and the increased demand of crews in the next decade will move this forward. There is no stoping it

 

[whymeworry?]

I just saw Prater's message and when he started talking about Age 60, I wanted to hurl. If you can't see that he's basically sold us out in favor of raising the age to 65, you gotta be blind...

Prater will do what the board tells him to do. The board will do what the membership say to do. It's that simple.

 

[Flopgut]

PCL 128: Do you want participation, just for the sake of participation? Or do you want to see the union do what the membership wants? It's pretty clear that communications are jammed on this (the second poll is about to get short circuited, no one at national will communicates directly) and we've got a rogue union president. I don't think you're considering (or maybe haven't seen) how other unions work/function. This IS NOT how it's done.

 

[BoilerUP]

I've done the BRP Poll, I've talked to my reps, and I sent an email directly to Capt. Prater. The response I got from a Mr. John Mazor at ALPA Communications included, among other things, this line:

"Barring any change in the official ALPA policy, the Association will oppose any NPRM proposal to change the Age 60 rule."

I can only say I hope so...but I do fear 65 is a foregone conclusion. If the politicians in Washington want it, its gonna happen. Surprisingly enough, the only thing that might be standing in its way is the powerful airline lobby.

At the point the US government finally farks us younger pilots, the only thing to hope for, nay demand from ALPA, is fair representation and consideration of the younger segment of ALPA members so that older ALPA members do not receive a massive career windfall.