Delay of the Age 65 Rule

[Bally]

My union is spending lots of money and having a bunch of Washington blitzes pushing the age 65 change. Since the FAA announced they support the change and need to work the issue which they say will take 18 - 24 months, is there anything that can be done to fight against the change at this point, or at a minimum delay the change as long as possible. Anyone know of a formal group opposing the change?

Does calling my Congreassman accomplish anything? Or is congress simply waiting for the FAA to do their thing and then they will approve the change? Could congress approve the change through legislation before the FAA does all their study?

p.s. I already know that I am a bad person for not supprting the change so you do not need to rag about how selfish I am.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Well...you can write to your congressman...but no doubt you won't be the first that has written to him and he has probably already been briefed by the FAA on this issue...and you know how those washington types stick together.

If you do write your congressman, don't bring up the old, tired "unsafe" arguement. There have been airline pilots over age 60 flying in US airspace since last November....in addition, your congressman has probably been briefed by the FAA on this already. As you probably already know, if you write to him and tell him how "unsafe" this age change will be....he will pick up the phone and call the FAA...and you know what they are going to tell him.

Tell him the truth...tell him how this will hurt your earnings by delaying your upgrade....keep your fellow pilots on furlough ( hurts the unemployment numbers), etc.

Personally, I'd like to see this decision delayed for another 12 years and 8 months...then, let the age 65 happen...that would work out perfect for me...

Good luck....

 

[PCL_128]

Anyone know of a formal group opposing the change?

It used to be ALPA, but then Darth Prater came along and $*%&ed that all up. Now, I don't think any group has organized to officially oppose the change.

Could congress approve the change through legislation before the FAA does all their study?

It could happen, but it seems unlikely at this point. Congress views it as an FAA regulatory matter, and they've got lots more important things to worry about. It could always be tacked onto another bill at the last minute, though. The biggest problem that congress has to deal with is legislation to prevent litigation over this whole thing when it's done. That's why the FAA hasn't issued the NPRM yet. They need a law on the books to protect the FAA, the airlines, and the unions against litigation after the rule changes. Until congress takes care of that, the actual rule change will be delayed. Thankfully.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

After the captain briefs you and asks if you have any questions, you tell him you have a do not resistate policy. Since he wants to take the chance of dying in flight you will let him.

And if he asks you sign any age waiver petition say yes and rip it up in front of him destroying the other signatures he has just collected.

 

[El Pobre]

APA (American's Union) has continued to oppose it. Just think...they actually listened to thier membership.

ALPA Sux!

 

[furloughed dude]

Tejas,

Not sure why you wouldn't use the "tired" old safety arguement. I don't think anyone ever said that once you turn sixty that you would immediately crash a jet. I don't think you can say that 7 months has in any way discredited the safety arguement. But most of us that are honest with ourselves know that our skills deteriorate with age. Also, if it isn't a safety arguement, why do they require another pilot to be under the age of 60. Seems like a safety issue to me.

Automation of aircraft has certainly eased the workload and increased the situational awareness of pilots. But the contract gutting of the past few years has also made the job alot more difficult with shorter layovers, more productivity, and less time off.

Unfortunately we will be hearing about age 70 in a few years. The same old arguements will be heard once again. Where does it end?

 

[Bally]

As far as the safety thing goes, there is a big difference flying for an LCC and a long haug legacy carrier.

I am relatively young and am pretty tired after flying a 737 on a four day trip sometimes flying seven legs a day with an 11.5 hour duty day. This is much different flying than the guys flying the heavey's one leg to Japan.

Great comment that if the age 60 thing has nothing to do with safety, why do they want the second pilot to be under 60?

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Call your conressman and explain why a qualified and healthy pilot should be "fired" so that your pay may advance at a quicker pace.

 

[walkthasky]

:erm: "...that would work out perfect for me..."

I really think thats what this is all about, no ???

 

[Fly4hire]

A relatively obscure portion of the ICAO 65 standard that has not received any press (surprise) is that there are no EEOC/Age discrimination statutes in other countries as here.

Other ICAO participants may still limit mandatory retirement to less than the 65 standard (BA is still 58), and in fact there are only 2 airlines - Finnair and El Al that use over 60 pilots.

The Prater Prattle that swarms of over 60 pilots from ICAO country airlines are flying into the US is pure BS.

ICAO also has higher medical standards that ALPA does not want to see passed.

I would be fine with the REAL ICAO standard for age 65, not the cherry picked one.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

The second pilot must be under 60 to ensure the safety of the flight.

Tejas Jet works for a regional flying little commuter hoops and doesn't know the first thing about safety. Tejas compromises safety for schedule daily so he has little regard for running the safest organization. But I don't blame Tejas personally as he is just doing what his company preaches which is exactly what he has to do. His companies business model has not lead the industry in any safety practices and its accident record does not reflect the damage it has done to air travel as a whole by chance much more than design.

Deregulation and the LCC business model is responsible for this lack of safety as the TOP priority.

Air travel has never made a long term profit and never will. It a short term game with the only winner those smart enough to get in and out before they get burned.

Air travel must be government regulated and subsidized to stand the test of time just as it has been during the last 104 years. But the governments as of late have also lost the need to create the safest organizations possible out of comprise and general lack of concern due to recent policy changes.

The US government now requires its officials to ride on private charters. It has eliminated its need of the air carriers for its most important needs concerning the transporting of its officials and dignitaries.

I would be very interested to learn about anyone with any information concerning the transporting of US government officials. I am sure there are requirements for the pilots to be under age 60.

The government doesn't use our social security system and they sure don't travel with the common people's systems either.

 

[FoxHunter]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Ten new cosponsors since Friday, 50+ in June alone.:beer:

 

[Deuce130]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Ten new cosponsors since Friday, 50+ in June alone.:beer:

I don't care if all 535 members of congress sponsor this bill - it could still be years before anything happens. Congress has much bigger issues on its hands than the plight of a few age 60+ pilots. And since when has congress ever moved quickly? Their definition of quick, decisive action is a period of years. Far too long to benefit anyone around age 60 right now. If it makes you feel any better Foxhunter, then take solace in the fact that the hard work of you and the rest of the geezers will benefit all the much younger guys right now (whether they want it or not, which I certainly don't). Anyone turning 60 this year will more than likely never have a front row seat to a VASI ever again. You specifically may, just may, luck out by going to the back seat then returning to the front, but I seriously doubt it. All of your hoping and praying will be for naught, I'm afraid.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Tejas,

But most of us that are honest with ourselves know that our skills deteriorate with age. Also, if it isn't a safety arguement, why do they require another pilot to be under the age of 60. Seems like a safety issue to me.--->Yes I'll agree that some skills do deteriorate...I can't play football anymore...and limit myself to just softball ( slow pitch) now instead of hardball that I did years ago. I still can't understand the "other pilot under 60" thing...sorry, I really can't explain it. I guess the best place to go with this is to Prater at his next road show meeting. There is one coming up...right?

Automation of aircraft has certainly eased the workload and increased the situational awareness of pilots. But the contract gutting of the past few years has also made the job alot more difficult with shorter layovers, more productivity, and less time off.--->Well, at "my house", our trips are either AM's or PM's. I fly AM's...get to the hotel around 2-3 or 4PM...crank up the next morning. I don't have the shorter layovers that you speak of.

My line this month has me with 16 days off. 2 day trips and 3 days sprinkled around.

 

[DiamondZ]

Call your conressman and explain why a qualified and healthy pilot should be "fired" so that your pay may advance at a quicker pace.

NO WAY will junior pay advance quicker. As a matter of fact it will stagnate therefore the argument should go

'....pay may advance like the qualified and healthy pilot's pace, not stagnate 5 yrs.'