Age 60 informal poll

[Andy]

Funny you should ask about the Sun'n Fun video. Who do you think the questioner was? Do you think it might have been UndauntedFlyer? And that video was just the start of the FAA getting into high gear to do what is the right thing. And right now they are full speed ahead to end the age discrimination and the discrimination against Americans. This change will be the best thing to happen to the pilot group in years.

So that the rest of the readers understand what we're talking about, I'll post the link, beating Klako to the punch:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8530235634119565043&q=age+60&hl=en

If that was you, you did a good job of ticking off Administrator Blakey. But hey, whatever works for you.
I must say that your comment above about this video being the start of the FAA getting into 'high gear' had me ROTFLMAO. You really need to check your ego at the door.

I would suggest that you listen to the video one more time, specifically listening to the length of time that Administrator Blakey said that it would take for a rulemaking change.
The FAA is not going to hastily change the rule just because ICAO makes the change. If there had been a push within the FAA to change the rule, they would have done so by now.

You are a funny man. I was ROTFLMAO over your statement on the video that retiring age 60 pilots are going on foodstamps and welfare. Trust me, that comment will not play into the public's sympathy. You're better off sticking to the age discrimination thing.

Regarding UAL, the fact that they are in a rush to recall lots of pilots is a sure sign to me that they think the age 60 rule will change.

Sure, keep dreaming. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that I think that Capt Hank Krakowski (UAL VP Flt Ops) and the flight ops manpower planners have a better grasp on the likelihood of age 60 passing than you do.

United has exactly zero aircraft on order, so there's very little growth. They've stated publically that they will increase ASMs by ~1% due to quicker turn times. With 7000 pilots on property, that equates to another 70 for 1% growth.

This change will benefit the profession in the long run.

Any changes to the age 60 rule will result in long term losses for the entire pilot profession. For those under the age of 50, they will end up working more years for a smaller amount of total compensation. For the 50-55 crowd, it's a wash. For the 55-59 crowd, they make out like bandits - collecting paychecks at payscales which will in the future be referred to as the 'good old days.'

Airline management will lower payscales and B fund contributions if this change ever gets passed. Make book on it.
I fail to see how such a change is good for the profession if we're on foodstamps (to steal a quote from you on the video) while actively employed. This change will end up creating a new lower compensation level for all pilots. You can call it the new B scale.

I won't even get into the safety issues involved.

 

[Andy]

There are more working airline pilots today than there have ever been in history and there will be more next year.

OMG, you DO need to retire. Let's talk a bit of simple math here. Comparing pre-911 to today.
United pre-911 >10,000 pilots on property. Today ~7000 pilots on property. That's 3000 less pilots
I don't have exact numbers for the rest, but let's extrapolate for a moment:
American ~3000 on furlough; ~1000 have retired since 911 = 4000 less pilots
USAirways ~1800 on furlough; ~700 have retired since 911 = 2500 less pilots
Independence air out of business, ~1500 less pilots

We're at 11,000 less pilots and I haven't even mentioned Delta or Northwest.

Post a link to prove that there are more airline pilots employed today than any other time in history and DON'T quote Kit Darby.

 

[General Lee]

OMG, you DO need to retire. Let's talk a bit of simple math here. Comparing pre-911 to today.
United pre-911 >10,000 pilots on property. Today ~7000 pilots on property. That's 3000 less pilots
I don't have exact numbers for the rest, but let's extrapolate for a moment:
American ~3000 on furlough; ~1000 have retired since 911 = 4000 less pilots
USAirways ~1800 on furlough; ~700 have retired since 911 = 2500 less pilots
Independence air out of business, ~1500 less pilots

We're at 11,000 less pilots and I haven't even mentioned Delta or Northwest.

Post a link to prove that there are more airline pilots employed today than any other time in history and DON'T quote Kit Darby.

They don't get it Andy. The reason ICAO made the move in Europe was to help out with a severe pilot shortage on that continent. The LCCs are growing very fast and the legacy carriers over there are not doing bad at all. So, they pressured ICAO for change. We don't have that problem over here. Regardless, it is dangerous and will lead to problems.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

OMG, you DO need to retire. Let's talk a bit of simple math here. Comparing pre-911 to today.
United pre-911 >10,000 pilots on property. Today ~7000 pilots on property. That's 3000 less pilots
I don't have exact numbers for the rest, but let's extrapolate for a moment:
American ~3000 on furlough; ~1000 have retired since 911 = 4000 less pilots
USAirways ~1800 on furlough; ~700 have retired since 911 = 2500 less pilots
Independence air out of business, ~1500 less pilots

We're at 11,000 less pilots and I haven't even mentioned Delta or Northwest.

Post a link to prove that there are more airline pilots employed today than any other time in history and DON'T quote Kit Darby.

Doesn't Kit Darby have all the answers? He says there are more if we consider all the Regionals. I do believe that. Just consider that for an airline that used to have 3 flight a day from ORD to say BNA and back, now there are 6 regional flights that replaced the 3. That's the way it is for most all the smaller connecting cities. And just look at the airports, RJ's everywhere. And you don't believe Kit Darby when he says there are more airline pilots than ever? I have no reason not to believe that.

 

[Andy]

POST A SOURCE, UndauntedFlyer!

Doesn't Kit Darby have all the answers? He says there are more if we consider all the Regionals. I do believe that. Just consider that for an airline that used to have 3 flight a day from ORD to say BNA and back, now there are 6 regional flights that replaced the 3. That's the way it is for most all the smaller connecting cities. And just look at the airports, RJ's everywhere. And you don't believe Kit Darby when he says there are more airline pilots than ever? I have no reason not to believe that.

No, Kit is clueless. If that's your 'source,' post his numbers. I need a good laugh.
Counting all professional pilot jobs, I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are now more jobs than prior to 9/11.

I think that this was just another made up 'fact' by you. And as always, when called on any of your made up 'facts,' you fail to answer the question. Where's the link?
You use a meaningless measurement, the frequency of flights on the ORD-BNA route for one airline. Where's the link?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

No, Kit is clueless. If that's your 'source,' post his numbers. I need a good laugh.
Counting all professional pilot jobs, I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are now more jobs than prior to 9/11.

I think that this was just another made up 'fact' by you. And as always, when called on any of your made up 'facts,' you fail to answer the question. Where's the link?
You use a meaningless measurement, the frequency of flights on the ORD-BNA route for one airline. Where's the link?

What makes you think there are not more Regional jobs created post 9/11 than the Majors lost? Where is your link if you have all the answers.

Where to you think all the jobs at the majors went? Of course they went to the Regionals, that is obvious to anyone.

Not long ago the papers carried a story that read that there are more people traveling by air than ever before, so doesn't that support Kit Darby's numbers that you say are a joke?

But in any event, it all makes no difference because this thread deals with the age 60 issue. I say it will pass, and you say it won't. You have your reasons as to why it won't and I have my reasons. I have been posting evidence of strong support for changing the rule, and you have been posting your opinion on the political future of the issue for the near term. So my question is: Just when will the law change? Or does even one person out there feel that it will never change?

 

[Andy]

What makes you think there are not more Regional jobs created post 9/11 than the Majors lost? Where is your link if you have all the answers.

Where's the link? You made the initial statement. I called BS. As usual, you have no evidence to back it up.
Thank you for proving to everyone that you just made that stuff up.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Jet Blue tell FAA that they fully supports age 60 change

Here is an interesting link:

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424642_web.pdf

 

[Freight Dog]

Undaunted... why don't you answer Andy's questions?

 

[Andy]

But in any event, it all makes no difference because this thread deals with the age 60 issue. I say it will pass, and you say it won't. You have your reasons as to why it won't and I have my reasons. I have been posting evidence of strong support for changing the rule, and you have been posting your opinion on the political future of the issue for the near term.

Al, you seem to question the importance of politics in this issue. Here’s a post from another board:

Here's some interesting news regarding the dreaded age 60 legislation from CAL ALPA's Congressional Liason via the ACP in EWR:

I have gotten some new information about the age 65 legislation from Mike Coffield who is our Congressional Liaison and very knowledgeable of the inner workings of Congress. There has been much speculation that on Nov 23rd that Congress would approve the age 65 legislation. I was one of those who was under that impression. But according to Mike, the amendment is only attached to the Senate bill which is attached to the Transportation Funding Legislation. It is not a part of the House version of the bill. If it passes the Senate, it would have to go back to committee for a compromise bill which could eliminate the age 65 legislation or even rewrite the whole bill. His feeling is that if it passes that it would not be until about the summer of 2007 before it will be in place. The FAA has already established an ARC (Rule Change Committee) to determine if the rule is to be changed exactly how it would be worded. It is very unusual for this committee to meet before being directed by Congress which has led many (including myself) to believe that they were shooting for a Nov 23 implementation date. The significance of Nov 23 is that is when ICAO starts allowing age 65 pilots to fly worldwide, including flying into the US. There has been some pressure on Congress to give our pilots the same right. However the ARC which is attempting to put together the new ruling (if it comes to pass) has not been making much progress, in fact there have been heated discussions and they are not even remotely close to any agreement.
Then there is the political side of the Issue. If the Republicans can keep control of the House, Mike feels that the legislation will pass and be implemented next summer. If the Democrats win control of the House, then all the Committee Chairs will change and this legislation will be pushed back and probably tabled to a later date, perhaps some time next year. So as you can see, there is more uncertainty to the passage of this bill than was originally thought. I will keep you posted as more information becomes available.



The only conclusion that I can draw from this post is that when the Democrats win the House, the subject dies for the 109th Congress. And my guess is that this piece of legislation will not leave subcommittee in the 110th Congress.