Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Age 60/65 Compromise

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Pro change crowds needs to modify age 65 position

Andy outlined one of many solutions that are possible. But key to Andy's position that must never be decreased is the PIC must be under age 60.

Aviation is about safety. And the safety all US aircraft must not be decreased by the desires of a minority of unique individuals that are more fit than the norm above 60 year old pilots. Yes there are some standout pilots who have the abilities to fly past 60 but the group as a whole does not while maintaining current levels of safety. And the experience of an above 60 year old pilot does not exceed that of a 10 plus year qualified 40-50 year old.

If any age 60 change must occur, I am still opposed to any change, it must be as an SIC. And a phased in approach with studies along the way must also be key to any change.

Just say no to age 60 and keep it as it is because once this can of worms is opened the medical standards and going to make none of this worth it to anyone. Management is going to win another victory decreasing our wages, retirement, and benefits because of the greed of a few not out for the group but themselves to the exclusion of all others.

Just say no to age 60 change.
 
9 trillion dollars in debt isn't damage anough?

Word!

Right now hundreds of CEO's are wringing their tight little fists over the spectre of Democrats blocking anymore tax cuts for them...and giving them to us, the middle class.

Thank goodness Paris Hilton wont' have to pay taxes!

Thankee, "W"!
 
3) Increase medical standards and enforcement of those standards for all pilots, not just over 60 pilots.

Absolutely not! How can you justify higher standard for medical certification for those under 60? The majority of us don't want to fly to 65, yet you suggest that we should help their cause and potentially shorten our own careers with tighter medical standards!?
 
No Compromise

Unfortunately, Andy has no authority to broker compromise. I will bet that S.65 will pass in it’s current form, attached to the appropriations Bill, H.R. 5576.

When the U.S. Congress is back in session, it will be busy with Appropriations Bills until the end of this year. Time is running out for bills S.65 and H.R.65 that would amend the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule” extending the retirement age for airline pilots to age 65. It now looks unlikely that these “Age 60 Rule” bills, standing alone will be passed by this 109th Congress. The stand alone Senate Bill S.65 has been on the Senate General Orders Calendar since 30 March 2006, awaiting a chance to be voted upon. We know that there at least 60 Senators would vote in favor of this bill if only it could only come to a vote, but it probably wont, thanks to the "Do-Nothing 109th Congress. Because S.65 by itself now has little hope of being passed before the end of the 109th Congress, this bill amending the "Age 60" rule has thus been attached to an Appropriations Bill as a vehicle to pass it along with essential bills which are needed to fund the Federal Government.

The House of Representatives passed H.R.5576 on 14 June 2006 by 406 Yea Votes and 22 Nay Votes (Roll no. 286). Then on 26 July 2006 Bill H.R.5576(RS) as Reported in Senate would make appropriations and direct administrative provisions for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. Bill H.R.5576(RS) was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute with Senate Report Number 109-293. The latest major action on H.R 5576 occurred on 26 August 2006 when it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders Calendar No. 535. One of the amendments that the Senate Appropriations Committee made to Bill H.R.5576(RS) was the inclusion of an Administrative Provision for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Sec. 114, requiring the FAA to extend it's current age 60 retirement rule for airline pilots to age 65. The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved Section 114 and so it remains attached to the appropriations bill Bill H.R.5576(RS). No opposition to Section 114 has surfaced. So now the entire amended bill Bill H.R.5576(RS) goes to the full Senate floor for a vote. There is a good chance that the amended Appropriations Bill H.R.5576(RS) will be passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bush before the end of the year 2006 and along with it the FAA’s Administrative Provision, Section 114, extending the mandatory retirement age of Part 121 pilots to age 65.


This is what says SEC 114 says: AGE OF PILOTS. (a) Modification of FAA's Age-60 Rule- Within 30 days after the effective date of action taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization to amend Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation to modify the international standard and recommended practice for Member State curtailment of pilot privileges by reason of age, as agreed and recommended by Air Navigation Commission at the 10th meeting of its 167th session, following its review of the recommendations of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel Working Group A's report AN-WP/7982, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations (14 CFR 121.383(c)) to be consistent with the amended standard or recommended practice--
(1) to provide that a pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under 10 part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until having attained 65 years of age on the condition that such pilot may so serve only--
(A) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and
(B) when another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations has not yet attained 60 years of age; and
(2) to eliminate the prohibition against an air carrier engaged in such operations from using the services of a pilot who has attained 60 years of age.
(b) APPLICABILITY- The modification of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations under subsection (a) shall not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, made by any pilot seeking reemployment by such air carrier following the pilot's previous termination or cessation of employment as required by section 121.323(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as that section was in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Rule- Within 24 months after the date on which the Secretary of Transportation modifies the Federal Aviation Administration regulations under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concerning the effect, if any, of the modification on aviation safety.

When passed by Congress, the FAA’s Section 114 of Bill H.R.5576(RS) would override any rule change protocol that the FAA would normally follow to change the current Part 121, Section 121.383(c) and make it law. The new law for FAR Part 121 pilots extending their mandatory retirement from age 60 to age 65 would become effective within 30 days after the date of action taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). The ICAO is expected to make that change effective on 23 November 2006. United States airline pilots could then be allowed to fly up to age 65 before the end of this year, 2006.

If we all did some research, we would find that similar legislation is almost always attached to appropriations bills. There is a general agreement that appropriators should not "legislate" as that is the job of the legislators. However, it is very common especially in the present legislative environment that the Congress now finds itself in that the only Congressional business having a chance of being completed this late in the game are attached to appropriations bills. Certainly this is not the preferred way of “skinning the cat” but I do not think that you can find an appropriations bill in the last 20 years of appropriation bills that did not pass without some policy legislation attached to it.

Extending the retirement age for airline pilots to age 65 is a provision that is germane in terms of jurisdiction and saves the federal government lots of money and thus is likely to pass the “sniff test”. However, it could possibly be objected by a Senator with pockets stuffed with ALPA and APA money motivating him/her to demand a point of order under Senate Rule 16. If a such a Senator makes a point of order on Rule 16, then it would have to then get 51 Senators voting against the point of order to keep the provision in the bill. Since most will agree that there are at lest 60 and possibly 70 Senators who have said that they would vote in favor of S.65, the point of order would very likely be put down. The Senate Rule 16 would likely not even happen because again the experts would agree that the appropriators and the authorizers did agree in conference that it should stay attached to H.R.5576. So the provision would probably not be subject to such a point of order vote. The real motivation going around among Senators, is that going to age 65 for airline pilots could save the government billions a year and thus the appropriation vehicles may be the only flights departing on time before the end of the 109th Congress.

The Bottom line for Andy, NO COMPROMISE!
 
The labor unions with the most muscle in DC are opposed to the change.


There is growing support within the pilot unions to change the “Age 60 Rule". The following unions and pilot employee groups have gone on record that they support a change the Age 60 Rule:

US AIRWAYS
IBT Teamsters Airline Division
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES PILOTS ASSOCIATION (Independent)
JET BLUE (Independent)
AMERICAN TRANS AIR/ATA (ALPA Master Executive Council)
AMERICA WEST MEC (ALPA Master Executive Council)
SPIRIT (ALPA Master Executive Council)
CONTINENTAL (ALPA Local Executive Councils of Houston and Newark)

The only two organized labor unions that remain officially oppose a change to the “Age 60 Rule”, are ALPA and APA. Even though ALPA's official position is that they are still against it, there are growing sentiments within the rank and file of ALPA for changing the "Age 60 Rule”.

ALPA no longer has any credibility in telling Congress that the "Age 60 Rule" must not change. This is because the Airline Pilots Association's (ALPA) signed Canadian air carrier “Jazz” to a contract allowing pilots to fly to age 65. ALPA represents Jazz and has approved a contract that set pensions at age 60 and allows flight to age 65. Additionally, ALPA's Ex-President Duane Woerth publicly stated that he would sign any ALPA over age 60 contract for a United States carrier if the Age 60 Rule were to be changed in the United States.
 
If you really want to fly past 60 then you should not mind flying as F/O. RIGHT?????? You moved up due to 60, now it is time to move out. I am approaching 60 in the next few years and do not want the change. If you want to keep flying there are plenty of gigs to get your willies with.
 
Medical standards will increase

Absolutely not! How can you justify higher standard for medical certification for those under 60? The majority of us don't want to fly to 65, yet you suggest that we should help their cause and potentially shorten our own careers with tighter medical standards!?

The politicians creating the age 60 change have already stated that it will be based on STRICT medical standards. Reference S.65 co-sponsor, James Inhofe's MSNBC comments calling for STRICT medical standards as a basis for airline pilots.

ICAO age 65 is based on strict medical standards that are not currently found in part 67 of the FAR's.

If ICAO age standards are to be applied so must ICAO medical standards. And that is not being lost on the politicians making the decisions.

Nothing is going to change for free or for the betterment of your career if a politician is involved.

Keep age 60 and keep the paper work 1st class medical. Change age 60 and get ready for a real medical with higher initial standards, greater age related standards, and comparison charting to the baseline medical first taken for trending standards.

LTD is going to be unaffordable and the medical is going to be the ultimate career limiting mechanisim.
 
If you really want to fly past 60 then you should not mind flying as F/O. RIGHT?????? You moved up due to 60, now it is time to move out. I am approaching 60 in the next few years and do not want the change. If you want to keep flying there are plenty of gigs to get your willies with.

I earned my left seat and no one has the right to take that away from me. I earned my up-grade to Captain as a result of company expansion and not as a result of even one pilot being forced to retire.

I love my current job and if you really believe that I should be forced out just so some junior pilot can get promoted earlier, I will say to you, GO TO H%#& !

If you have no interest in flying past age 60, then I believe that you are in the wrong profession, get out now.
 
Are you fit enough?

MRFLYER may just be realistic enough to know he won't be able to cut the new medical standards.

Klako, do you think you will be able to pass a medical after new standards are applied? And higher standards will be applied contrary to your anticipated no they won't line?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top