Age 65. Which airline hiring plans will be affected?

[coogebeachhotel]

Curious as the to the effect of the 65 rule which was just passed by congress:erm: .

Which airline will be most affected by the rule? Will any stop hiring?

How many will stay up to 65? I think at 60 I am done. Not too much time left at that point.

 

[Rebel]

I'm assuming that the older, more established legacy carriers will suffer the most (from slowdowns in hiring and career progression).
The newer startups, such as Airtran and JetBlue, won't be that affected (relatively speaking).
Bottom line, I guess I would rather be junior at a new airline than an older one.

 

[Draginass]

I can't wait for all the law suites to start brought on by the 60-65 already retired crowd that wants their jobs back, of course, at their former seniority, seat, and pay. You know it's coming.

 

[PCL_128]

The legacies will be most affected, of course. At AirTran we only had 73 pilots hitting age-60 retirement in the next five years anyway. Our hiring and advancement is almost all from growth, so a change in the retirement age won't affect newhires hardly at all. At airlines like NWA and UAL, however, all seniority progression will come from retirements. UAL has no new orders, and NWA's orders are all offset by the retirements of older -9s. That means the guys at the bottom of the list will be there for a very long time.

 

[Falconjet]

It hasn't passed "Congress" yet. Each house has approved a version of a bill that would change the age. Those 2 bills still have to be reconciled in committee and the new, full, complete bill voted on by Congress. Then they can send the bill to the President, who has threatened to veto it anyway.

Still a long way to go before the rule changes, but it is likely coming.

What will be the impact where? Great question. It won't be pretty anywhere, and the mere supposition that the law will change has shut down hiring at FedEx completely, likely for a couple of years.

Thanks old farts.

FJ

 

[PCL_128]

I can't wait for all the law suites to start brought on by the 60-65 already retired crowd that wants their jobs back, of course, at their former seniority, seat, and pay. You know it's coming.

It can't. The bill was amended at ALPA's request to ensure that no such litigation would be possible.

From the bill, as amended by S.2845:

(2) PROTECTION FOR COMPLIANCE.--An action taken in conformance with this section, taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior to the date of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect before such date of enactment), may not serve as a basis for liability or relief in a proceeding,brought under any employment law or regulation, before any court or agency of the United States or of any State or locality.

 

[Falconjet]

Bill hasn't even passed yet. Nobody knows what the final language will be until it is passed. And it certainly won't preclude lawsuits just because it says that, wait until the 9th circuit judges get a chance to weigh in on the suits that are sure to come.

FJ

 

[PCL_128]

Bill hasn't even passed yet. Nobody knows what the final language will be until it is passed.

The House already passed this bill by a wide margin. There were certainly amendments made by the Senate, including the age-65 amendment, that will have to be approved by the House again, but I couldn't find any amendments listed that could be considered controversial by the house. I expect that the House will quickly vote on this bill to get it out of the way. Some of the more controversial elements that the President objected to previously are not present, such as the amendment to force the FAA to negotiate with NATCA for a new contract. This thing is almost wrapped up, unfortunately.

 

[thor2j]

I wouldn't bet on it. Yes it's coming, but it may take longer then you think.

 

[RollinOnMy22sYo]

the slowdown at SWA probably has more to do with this than with any rumored buyout or merger.

 

[sean67]

It hasn't passed "Congress" yet. Each house has approved a version of a bill that would change the age. Those 2 bills still have to be reconciled in committee and the new, full, complete bill voted on by Congress. Then they can send the bill to the President, who has threatened to veto it anyway.

Still a long way to go before the rule changes, but it is likely coming.

What will be the impact where? Great question. It won't be pretty anywhere, and the mere supposition that the law will change has shut down hiring at FedEx completely, likely for a couple of years.

Thanks old farts.

FJ

Does this still have to go thru the FAA process that was supposed to take 1 yr? In any case, hopefully the bill will get vetoed.

 

[race#53]

the slowdown at SWA probably has more to do with this than with any rumored buyout or merger.

SW only had about 150 retire this year and not all will
be saved by the new rule so i doubt it has much affect on hiring.
i sound a little like Boyd there!

 

[Falconjet]

No. This bill, if approved, would circumvent the NPRM process, which would have likely taken at least a year.

IF this bill passes as proposed, it will go into effect 30 days after the President signs it.

So PCL, you seem to be saying that you know how the final bill will read. Must be nice to have such powers.

FJ

 

[PCL_128]

So PCL, you seem to be saying that you know how the final bill will read. Must be nice to have such powers.

Anything can happen in politics, but I think the safe bet is on the language for Age-65 remaining virtually unchanged by the House and the bill going to the President before the end of the month.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Bill hasn't even passed yet. Nobody knows what the final language will be until it is passed. And it certainly won't preclude lawsuits just because it says that, wait until the 9th circuit judges get a chance to weigh in on the suits that are sure to come.

FJ

I'm guessing this will most likely end up in the DC circuit.

 

[Falconjet]

The lawsuits will be filed in any federal jurisdiction that the plaintiff's lawyers think they have the greatest chances of success in.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RS21750
February 27, 2004
The Presidential Veto and
Congressional Procedure
Mitchel A. Sollenberger
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division



Action by both the House and the Senate is required to override.5 A two-thirds
majority vote by Members present (provided there is a quorum) is required to override a
presidential veto. When one house fails to override, the other house will not attempt to
override, even if the votes are present to succeed. Action by the Senate or the House of
Representatives on a veto may be taken at any time during a Congress in which the veto
is received.

Table 1 shows that, since the beginning of the federal government in 1789, 35 of 43
Presidents have exercised their veto authority on a total of 2,550 occasions. Of that
number, 1,484, or 58%, have been returned vetoes — that is, the rejected legislation was
returned to the congressional house of origin, while it was in session, with a presidential
message of explanation — and 1,066, or 42%, were pocket vetoed, or rejected while
Congress was adjourned. Some 7.1%, or 106, of the 1,484 regular vetoes have been
overridden by Congress.

 

[Falconjet]

Read that carefully. Since 1789 only 7.1% of vetoed bills have been overridden by Congress.

Still a long way to go.

Oh yeah, FU Diiiiiicklicker.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

That 30 day clock just put the dagger into somebody's heart.

Too bad.

FJ

 

[FoxHunter]

No. This bill, if approved, would circumvent the NPRM process, which would have likely taken at least a year.

IF this bill passes as proposed, it will go into effect 30 days after the President signs it.

So PCL, you seem to be saying that you know how the final bill will read. Must be nice to have such powers.

FJ

No, it goes into effect the day the President signs it.

 

[PCL_128]

No, it goes into effect the day the President signs it.

I don't think that's correct. I believe the bill has a 30-day clock that starts after the President signs it into law. I'm too lazy to go read the bill again to make sure, though.

 

[FoxHunter]

I don't think that's correct. I believe the bill has a 30-day clock that starts after the President signs it into law. I'm too lazy to go read the bill again to make sure, though.

http://commerce.senate.gov [FONT=GDMHP I+ Palatino LT Std]PRESS RELEASE [/FONT]

Senate Approves Stevens-Inouye Provision to Allow Commercial Pilots to Fly Past Age 60 ​

Similar Provision Was Approved by Commerce Committee as Part of FAA Reauthorization Bill​

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Senate today approved a provision sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Vice Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to allow commercial airline pilots to fly until age 65. The measure was added to the Transportation Appropriations bill which passed by a vote of 88 to 7. A similar provision was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 16, 2007 as part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. The FAA announced earlier this year that it would begin a rulemaking process to raise the retirement age of commercial pilots to age 65. Since 1960, FAA regulations have specified that commercial airline pilots must retire upon reaching 60 years of age.

“Alaska and the nation are losing a number of experienced pilots every day due to the outdated FAA Age 60 rule,” said Senator Stevens. “It is important we change the rule as soon as possible to make sure our most senior and seasoned pilots remain in the system.”
Senator Stevens’ provision would specifically:

• raise airline pilot retirement age to 65;
• sunset the age 60 rule and require the FAA to implement the new retirement standard immediately upon enactment;
• allow both pilot and co-pilot to be up to 65 years old for domestic operations;
• subject international flights to the international standard that the pilot can be over 60 if the co-pilot is 60 or under;
• allow companies and unions to work out compliance issues regarding pensions and benefits; and
• require GAO to issue a report on the impact of this provision on aviation safety within 24 months.

The amendment has the same language as the House version of the FAA reauthization Bill. This Senate Bill was passed 88-7 but the age change amendment was passed by Unanimous Consent. The original Senate Bill did have a 30 day clock, as does S.1300 and S.65. Since the language in today's Senate Bill actuall originated in the House version of the FAA reauthorization Bill there is probably a 99.999% chance of the language remaining as the bill is reconciled.

 

[Flopgut]

If you are at a legacy, contact your NC...now. The vast majority of us DO NOT want this change and this will be a matter of collective bargaining. fiscal analysis of this will reveal that we need to balance out the proceeds of this change in the 5 year interim.

Make it appropriately bad for them, and they'll retire.

 

[PCL_128]

Non-member FoxHunter, I realize that, but I believe the bill itself isn't enacted until 30 days after signing.

 

[instructordude]

Delta is hiring on growth with new airplanes on order.

 

[General Lee]

As far as Delta goes, we are currently hiring for expansion reasons. Before we went BK we lost 2300 pilots for their lump sums, so that took away a lot of older pilots. Still, when we stop hiring eventually, that last guy might be on reserve for years. After we finish getting the newer airplanes and ridding oursleves of older ones, the wheels will stop and people will sit idle for an extra 5 years thanks to these guys who want to keep flying after 60, even though they benefitted throughout their whole careers by the age 60 rule.

I do see some slow downs in hiring dat CAL, Fedex/UPS, and Southwest. USair also has a bunch of older pilots on the East side, so that will slow things over there too. What about those old FEs at Fedex and UPS? Can they go back to the left seat if there is a new bid?

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[jdec141]

Non-member FoxHunter, I realize that, but I believe the bill itself isn't enacted until 30 days after signing.

Get your facts straight. He's a dues paying alpa member. I don't agree with him but he is a member.

 

[FoxHunter]

Non-member FoxHunter, I realize that, but I believe the bill itself isn't enacted until 30 days after signing.

Non-member of what? The Bill is scheduled to be effective October 1, 2007 or the Departments are not funded.

 

[PCL_128]

Get your facts straight. He's a dues paying alpa member. I don't agree with him but he is a member.

Now he is, but how long did he sit on the non-members roster? Quite a while if memory serves. And I don't think he had to pay back-dues either, since FedEx wasn't an agency shop until the new contract. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[instructordude]

Now he is, but how long did he sit on the non-members roster? Quite a while if memory serves. And I don't think he had to pay back-dues either, since FedEx wasn't an agency shop until the new contract. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Did you fly the 1900 at Colgan?