Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AA767AV8TOR said:There are holes all over this Age 65 argument. It is nothing more than abrogation of seniority rights against the junior pilots. It’s a money and job grab.
If this POS passes, then it's to the back of the bus!! It’s the only fair way since we were all hired under AGE 60 RETIREMENT!!
AA767AV8TOR
New from our APA Prez:
In the air beyond age 60?
By RALPH HUNTER
Special to the Star-Telegram
jbDC9 said:68? How can you say that? That's age discrimination!! It ain't fair, I'm gonna sue!!! Seriously, as soon as you pick a number like 65 or 68, you're gonna have the 64 or 67 yr olds whining about discrimination.
filejw said:Anybody else think this is a silly argument? After November foreign carriers will be flying into US airspace with pilots over sixty including some US citizens.The writing is on the wall it won't be long after that and we will have the same rules.
pilotyip said:repeat of an old thread, but it fits here. Age 60 was forced on the pilots back in 1958. ALPA was still fighting to get it repealed up until about 1970. This rule had nothing to do with safety; it was a deal between two W.W.II USAF Generals, AAL's C.R. Smith and Pete Quesada (sp.?) the first head of the FAA. It was to get rid of high paid pilots at the top of AAL the seniority list. It was done in the name of safety, because who can be against safety. It is like motherhood and patriotism
UndauntedFlyer said:Andy: With answers like this do you think anyone will believe anything you write now. Then why not quit now if the age-60 rule changes, or at 55, or 59 1/2 or 62 or 65? What is so magical about age 60. Please answer this question please. Thank you.
UndauntedFlyer said:Here we go again, experienced Hero Pilot from ALOHA forced to retire. Must make room for new pilots. Can they equal this captain?
http://starbulletin.com/2006/08/27/business/story02.html
Klako said:A person’s age must not be the sole determination of one’s ability to safely perform the duties of an airline pilot.
Again with the broken record, or beating a dead horse if you prefer; yet again you mention "The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed..."Klako said:Yes, that is what we have now. The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed of his job just to placate junior pilots who smell blood every time a senior pilot nears age 60.
jbDC9 said:Again with the broken record, or beating a dead horse if you prefer; yet again you mention "The senior more experienced pilot is unjustly robbed..."
Klako, please, would you enlighten us as to how that "senior more experienced pilot" came to be in that position?? Or are you going to just ignore that tidy little fact like you always do and keep you head buried in the sand, hoping that it's not true? Perhaps you actually think that the 50+ yr old senior guys were born as graybeard captains and never needed the Age 60 rule to move up the list?
catIIIc said:That fact is always conviently left out of the arguments made by guys like Klako and Undaunted. They just don't seem to grasp that they have benefited their entire career by this rule and now that it is there turn it is unfair.
UndauntedFlyer said:1. The rest of the civilized world will standardize 65 as the upper limit when the ICAO rule takes effect. Member states in ICAO can choose to disregard the 65 limit and impose something lower, but they will not be able to deny other member states from operating in the non-compliant member's airspace. So unless the US changes we will have virtually every other nation operating in our airspace with pilots in command up to age 65 as long as the other pilot is under 60. This is age discrimination in it purest form. In private industry, this activity has been struck down by the EEOC on 17 consecutive occasions.
UndauntedFlyer said:2. The cost savings to the federal government are enormous. We have a brand new study (7/18/06) prepared by Mr. Darryl Jenkins that details nearly $1 billion per year net revenue positive to the Treasury from the combined effects of keeping pilots on tax roles and off federally subsidized programs like PBGC, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Mr. Jenkins is highly credentialed and recognized in DC in this arena. He authored the Handbook of Airline Economics and has consulted to the FAA, DOT, and NTSB.
UndauntedFlyer said:3. Safety is no longer a deterrent.
UndauntedFlyer said:
1. The rest of the civilized world will standardize 65 as the upper limit when the ICAO rule takes effect. Member states in ICAO can choose to disregard the 65 limit and impose something lower, but they will not be able to deny other member states from operating in the non-compliant member's airspace. So unless the US changes we will have virtually every other nation operating in our airspace with pilots in command up to age 65 as long as the other pilot is under 60. This is age discrimination in it purest form. In private industry, this activity has been struck down by the EEOC on 17 consecutive occasions.
2. The cost savings to the federal government are enormous. We have a brand new study (7/18/06) prepared by Mr. Darryl Jenkins that details nearly $1 billion per year net revenue positive to the Treasury from the combined effects of keeping pilots on tax roles and off federally subsidized programs like PBGC, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Mr. Jenkins is highly credentialed and recognized in DC in this arena. He authored the Handbook of Airline Economics and has consulted to the FAA, DOT, and NTSB.
3. Safety is no longer a deterrent. If safety were a concern based on age 60:
A. Why did ALPA negotiate and sign off on the Air Canada Jazz contract allowing pilots in command to work to 65? Take a look at their route structure sometime.
B. Why has ALPA been silent about the fact that co-pilots on foreign carriers have been operating in our airspace for years over the age of 60? Why isn't ALPA protesting right now to the FAA and DOT about foreign carriers with over-60 captains using our airspace beginning this fall?
C. Why did ALPA fight the age-60 rule as discriminatory for the first 20 years of its existence?
D. Why have virtually all the member states to ICAO adopted the rule? Are they not concerned about safety? Case in point: Japan went to 63 many years ago and studied their own pilots in the post-60 population. After 15,000 man years of data collected on that group with no perceivable compromise to safety, they adopted 65.
E. Why haven't the collective corporate managements of US based carriers disavowed and terminated all their code-sharing agreements with their foreign partners who employ pilots over the age of 60? Why would the IATA support such a change if it were unsafe?
4. There is strong support from unions. The Teamsters representing over 7000 pilots at 14 carriers have testified before the Senate Commerce Committee urging Congress pass both S.65 and HR.65. SWAPA representing all the Southwest pilots with strong endorsement all the way to Herb Kelleher have been fighting for this change for years. Jet Blue pilots and management have formed a coalition team to carry the same message to Congress. We have strong letters of endorsement from both the AARP and the Seniors Coalition.
5. Raising medical standards for all pilots or older pilots is not an issue. Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Frederick Tilton has said he sees no need to change medical certification standards based on the potential change to the upper age limit. Our standards are already compatible with most ICAO member states.
So there you have it.
I bought a round of MiaTai's in HNL just the day before yesterday. I gave blood once too.Andy said:[/color][/size][/font]
Can you name a single selfless act that you've done in the last ten years to better society where you gained no personal benefit? I don't think that you can ... it's just not in your nature.
But FAA instrument procedures are substantially different than ICAO instrument procedures. Are we in violation there since we don't use the ICAO standard in our country. There is an exemption to BATA. I don't think we are in violation of the treaty because we have a lower age.UndauntedFlyer said:The BATA (Bilateral Air Transport Agreement) is signed by each individual nation, hence the actual document is a form where you fill-in-the-blank for the date, the country (Canada, Venezuela, etc.) and the acting authority at the end signs for and in behalf of the Government of the United States of America.
Since ICAO is a treaty, and thereby falls under Article VI of the Constitution, the legal argument as far as BATA is thus -
If the ICAO adopts pilot flying as age 60+, yet one of the member states (USA) does not allow its' member represented subjects (US registered airlines) to also allow age 60+ pilots to operate under the terms of BATA with each individual signatory to the agreement, then the United States government is in de facto violation of Treaty, and under rules of ICAO, has 30 days in which to notify each member state of the violation and begin resolution process.
The layman's argument is that if you are a member of ICAO, you can't pick and choose which provisions of the treaty you can abide, just as you can't pick and choose which parts of BATA you can abide. If you're a ICAO member, and particularly, if you've signed the BATA with the United States (which all ICAO members have who operate to the US), then either EVERYBODY flies past age 60, or NOBODY flies past age 60.
A successful argument can also be made that this also violates the NAFTA provisions because it allows unfair advantage to other nations in air commerce - their pilots (foreign pilots) can keep flying past age 60, whereas US pilots must, by federal mandate, retire and the US airlines (in theory) need to screen, select, hire, train, and certify their replacements...this allows an economic advantage to the other airlines from outside the USA who do not have to meet this standard.
The executive branch (DOT and FAA) have also stated in their policies the age 60 as being a safety issue. Due to the written statements (implied warranty) of safe operating practices within the United States, they are also in violation of their own rules if they allow US citizens to board any commercial aircraft within the United States (regardless of the carrier) with a pilot in excess of age 60 in command.
There are also other trade agreements in place besides NAFTA, along the lines of what the US State Dept. qualifies as MFN status (Most Favored Nation), of which virtually all of Europe and Asia (amazingly, even China!) currently hold.
UndauntedFlyer said:Get a life; you will probably be a captain some day too.
We have been patient. You have had your turn (in your case for 37 years). Now it's time to let others have the same opportunity you have had.UndauntedFlyer said:Just be patient. Your day will come if you can only wait your turn.
It's not the whole rest of the world. Secondly, why does the ICAO rule (and the proposed FAA law) require that one person up front has to be under 60. I have not heard a good argument for that that doesn't mention safety.UndauntedFlyer said:Please relax and stop making such ridiculous arguments over an over as if you know more than the whole rest of the world about the safety of flying past age-60.