Age 60 informal poll

[FoxHunter]

No offense Lucky, but you don't change to QFE departing a foreign airport. You change to QFE (where those operations are still in place) when arriving and cleared below the lowest transition level/transition layer.
I understand your contention however. I personally have never missed an altimeter changeover...

Just a sign of his inexperience.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

My error

I wrote QFE instead of QNE.

QNE is 29.92, while QFE is height above airport verse QNH being height above sea level.

No offense taken but I do fail to see how this shows my lack of experience Fox Hunter as I have landed in QFE meters ops in Russia as well as QNH meters ops in China.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

SWA is the problem!

"There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue," as qouted from the Paul Emens APAAD letter.

SWA is the problem behind age 65. Three of the four in favor of change are directly related to SWA. APAAD was started by 35 SWA activists trying to pad their pockets for themselves. SWAPA is spending large amounts of union funds without a vote from its pilot group on the issue. And SWA management is trying to keep old loyal friends.

Were does the average SWA line pilot stand on the issue?

 

[pipe]

"There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue," as qouted from the Paul Emens APAAD letter.

SWA is the problem behind age 65. Three of the four in favor of change are directly related to SWA. APAAD was started by 35 SWA activists trying to pad their pockets for themselves. SWAPA is spending large amounts of union funds without a vote from its pilot group on the issue. And SWA management is trying to keep old loyal friends.

Were does the average SWA line pilot stand on the issue?

The ARC vote was 6 against, 4 in favor. If you break the voting groups down by membership numbers it is a massive landslide against change.

Why in the he!! was the ARC vote "rigged" like the senate? How about an accurate representation next time. Not to mention that the SWA pilot group is actually opposed. Maybe they were squawking 7500 during the vote.

PIPE

 

[SuperFLUF]

Update from the instigators

WHERE ARE WE ON 60 RIGHT NOW?

The 60 ARC is over. It was delivered to the FAA Administrator on November 29th.
Was it definitive? Absolutely not.

The ARC report contains a Pro and Con side, an Appendix that lists some (not all) supporting data, and an Executive Summary of the ARC. The Executive Summary is not definitive and contains point-counterpoint from the Pro-Con groups. Rather than directing any single course of action, it lays out the opposing sides of the issue. It identifies (but does not solve) a number of implementation issues. These issues obviously would impact some airlines or pilot groups more (or less) than others.

A pseudo vote was taken. It came down to six against change (the four ALPA reps [Delta, Fed Ex, ALPA, ExpressJet], as well as the APA and American Airlines reps). There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue. The rest were neutral.

The only agreed upon recommendation was that any change needed to be ‘prospective’ to preclude those already retired from coming back and attempting to reclaim seniority.

The FAA Administrator is not bound by any vote of the ARC. Its biased makeup certainly takes out of play any ‘vote’ results and, in any case, 6-4 is not a landslide.

Here’s where we stand:

The Administrator can stand pat or initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re 60/65. It seems she might do the NPRM. This is good – and bad. Good in that we are finally getting some action on the rule. Bad in that we had an NPRM back in the mid ‘90s and the FAA punted on change due to politics & an NPRM is not a sure thing; bad because an NPRM take a long time (1 ½ to 2 years); and bad because Democrats in Congress may back away from legislation and allow the FAA to ‘handle’ the issue.

In Congress the Republicans have not just punted, they dropped the ball entirely. The Democrats certainly didn’t help matters.

Unlike 2001 and 2003, we never got a vote on S. 65. This was due primarily to the partisan and poisonous atmosphere on the Hill in an election year. Republican leadership demanded that we guarantee 60 votes to block any Democrat filibuster. We couldn’t do that. Democrat leadership didn’t give assurances that they would let any vote go forward without a fight on behalf of ALPA, better known in Democrat offices as “The Union.”

Even though we knew we had 60+ votes, more support and co sponsors than we have ever had before, we got no vote.

Our legislation was attached to the Transportation Appropriations bill. That gave us hope that we would move forward with that money bill. Although this bill should have been voted on by the end of September it was not (money bills are supposed to be passed by September 30th). Congressional decisions were made with regard to the upcoming elections. They did not work to our advantage. We had every expectation that the Approps money bill would be voted on after the election or rolled into an ‘omnibus’ bill (the various money bills lumped together) and voted on as part of the greater whole. November came and went (so did Congress). No money bills were voted on.

Then came a lightning strike: Some members decided they would not support any money bills because they were loaded with pork (in all fairness, the pork extended to both sides of the congressional aisle). The Republicans thus are on the verge of punting almost a half-trillion dollars worth of spending bills to the Democrats in ’07. That has the added effect of keeping the Democrats occupied for a bit with spending bills, rather than other issues some Republicans are not in favor of.

To keep the government running, Congress is poised to pass a “Continuing Resolution”, wherein spending would continue at ’06 rates through a pre-determined date in ’07. That gives Congress time to re-craft, and vote on, the various money bills.

For us, the effect is that S.65 drops into oblivion, as legislation does not carry over into the next session of Congress.

We may still get lucky. Another lightning bolt may strike from the sky. Something may happen as Congress returns this week. Deals may be struck and posturing left behind in favor of accomplishments. Transp Approps may be passed. However, word from most sources is that the chances of that are very slim.

Early ’07 will see us back on the Hill, attempting to revive S. 65 and H.R. 65. We will look for sponsors and co-sponsors. Congress has to pass its money bills. We will attempt to have our legislation attached to pending money bills. We will meet with the new committee chairs and their staffs to solicit support.

We had some excellent progress on the Democrat side of the aisle. We will try to capitalize on that.

We had success in our grasp and partisan politics knocked our train off the tracks. It is incredibly unfair (unlucky?) to be so close and to have partisanship involved in something that is so non-partisan… yet that is exactly what happened.

We do, however, have the greatest weapon of all: ICAO and its Age 65 standard. Neither the Administrator nor Congress can be comfortable with or allow United States pilots to be second-class citizens in our own country.

We will keep pushing. We will succeed.

Paul Emens
Co-Founder, APAAD

 

[Freight Dog]

Dontcha love it when the minority tries to impose its will on the majority?

 

[FNG_that's me]

Dontcha love it when the minority tries to impose its will on the majority?

Agreed....How could the Greatest Generation give birth to the most selfish, divicive, and devious one.

 

[DObyDEFAULT]

retire @ 60 -- go lay down!!!

 

[airdog757]

I don't really have time right now to vent and state some facts surrounding the issue but I will say.......................NO F*ng way.............PERIOD. comprende?
PS... how about a move to make 55 the mandatory no.#
I wonder why nobody grings up the ATC mandatoty age of 58................Bueller Bueller ??

 

[Phaedrus]

airdog: the ATC mandatory age has been brought up several times. Bueller?

 

[airdog757]

Several times where...here, Capital hill, The press?...everytime I mention it to others, nobody has been aware of it!
Thank you sir may I have another.

 

[Phaedrus]

Not quite every time...most are aware of it here. After all, this is the "Night of the Living Thread". A veritable zombie thread that refuses to die.

everytime I mention it to others, nobody has been aware of it!

 

[luckytohaveajob]

arc report

Arc committee report unedited.

http://www.faa.gov/media/Final_Age_60_ARC_Report_11_29_2006.pdf

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Freedom to Fly Act

FREEDOM TO FLY ACT-TO END AGE DISCRIMINATION FOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOTS
Senator James Inhofe
January 4, 2007

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule—a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years.

Our bipartisan bill called the “Freedom to Fly Act” would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60.

Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age—a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace.

This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent.

Mr. President, we cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America’s most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags “Welcome to our airspace.”

Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not asking for a handout.

They are just saying to the FAA; “Give me the same right you granted our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us continue to fly, to work, to continue to contribute to the tax rolls for an additional 5 years.” We join them and echo their sentiments to Administrator Blakey. Mr. President, as far as we are concerned, that is the least we can do for America’s pilots, who are considered the best and the safest pilots in the world.

Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last year.

The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The Aerospace Medical Association says that “There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.” Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree.

When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much lower—at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at over 77 years. The FAA’s own data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation “a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.”

Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments.

I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in their bill. The FAA recently convened and Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the Administrator is considering a change in the rule now.

We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to work at least until Age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over the age of 60 this fall.

Mr., President, I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation and help us keep America’s most experienced pilots in the air.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

After reading the ARC report, it is evident they dicussed many of the same issues we have in this thread.

I looks like Ike, Emens, Carr, and Russo threw up the same opinions without citing any need for a Safety Risk Assessment that is standard practice in creating regulation.

Without any facts to support the ICAO ADOPT position, their arguments are pure speculation and fantasy. Dream on.

I especially liked the part about the ICAO FCLTP stating they did not have the abilities to study the issue and instead just produced a suvey they gave inconclusive evidence supporting the ADOPT position.

Inconclusive evidence is far from the proper risk assessment the DO NOT ADOPT position said was required for such as change to be considered.

It will also be a lot of fun to see Ike, Emens, and Carr's position get refuted by their own pilots later this month after the SWAPA Age 60 vote unless the last 2500 pilots at SWA want to be FOs, Lances, or junior captains working weekends and holidays for another five years.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Direct operting costs for airlines will be increased

It was also great to read that the ARC committee concluded direct operating costs of the ADOPT position would be higher.

Salary and Benefit Costs
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]If the new ICAO standard were adopted, some air carriers could be faced with pilots having higher aggregate seniority and therefore higher average wage rates. This would increase the direct operating costs of the air carrier as well as its pension plan expenses. Older airlines with high-longevity employees would be at a competitive disadvantage to younger airlines with newly-hired employees. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The new standard also could require air carriers to have higher reserve pilot manning requirements to resolve 60/65 split conflicts that could occur and cover the increased number of sick days used as a pilot ages, which could result in higher costs to the air carrier. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]There could be increased costs from extending disability benefits beyond 60 years of age, depending on the circumstances between airlines and pilot groups. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]It has been industry experience with pilots who are over 60 years of age who continue as flight engineers that their use of sick leave increases dramatically. The ARC acknowledges there could be reasons other than medical that could drive that increased usage. [/FONT]​

 

[pipe]

FREEDOM TO FLY ACT-TO END AGE DISCRIMINATION FOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE PILOTS
Senator James Inhofe
January 4, 2007

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today, as an experienced pilot over age 60 WHO KNOWINGLY FLEW A MALFUNCTIONING AIRCRAFT TO A BOTCHED LANDING ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO, along with my colleagues, Senator Stevens, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, to once again introduce a bill that will help end age discrimination among commercial airline pilots. Our bill will abolish the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) arcane Age 60 Rule—a regulation that has unjustly forced the retirement of airline pilots the day they turn 60 for more than 45 years.

Our bipartisan bill called the “Freedom to Fly Act” would replace the dated FAA rule with a new international standard adopted this past November by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) which allows pilots to fly to 65 as long as the copilot is under 60.

Since the adoption of the ICAO standard in November of this year, foreign pilots have been flying and working in U.S. Airspace under this new standard up to 65 years of age—a privilege the FAA has not been willing to grant to American pilots flying the same aircraft in the same airspace.

This bill may seem familiar; I have introduced similar legislation in the past two Congresses and I am dedicated to ensuring its passage this year. And it has never been more urgent.

Mr. President, we cannot continue to allow our FAA to force the retirement of America’s most experienced commercial pilots at the ripe young age of 60 while they say to their counterparts flying for foreign flags “Welcome to our airspace.”

Many of these great American pilots are veterans who have served our country and the flying public for decades. Many of them have suffered wage concessions and lost their pensions as the airline industry has faced hard times and bankruptcies. But these American pilots are not asking for a handout.

They are just saying to the FAA; “Give me the same right you granted our foreign counterparts with the stroke of a pen this November. Let us continue to fly, to work, to continue to contribute to the tax rolls for an additional 5 years.” We join them and echo their sentiments to Administrator Blakey. Mr. President, as far as we are concerned, that is the least we can do for America’s pilots, who are considered the best and the safest pilots in the world.

Most nations have abolished mandatory age 60 retirement rules. Many countries, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have no upper age limit at all and consider an age-based retirement rule discriminatory. Sadly though, the United States was one of only four member countries of ICAO, along with Pakistan, Colombia, and France, to dissent to the ICAO decision to increase the retirement age to 65 last year.

The Age 60 Rule has no basis in science or safety and never has. The Aerospace Medical Association says that “There is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.” Similarly, the American Association of Retired Persons, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Seniors Coalition, and the National Institute of Aging of NIH all agree that the Age 60 Rule is simply age discrimination and should end. My colleagues and I agree.

When the rule was implemented in 1960 life expectancies were much lower—at just over 69 and a half years. Today they are much higher at over 77 years. The FAA’s own data shows that pilots over age 60 are as safe as, and in some cases safer than, their younger counterparts. In the process of adopting the new international standard, ICAO studied more than 3,000 over-60 pilots from 64 nations, totaling at least 15,000 pilot-years of flying experience and found the risk of medical incapacitation “a risk so low that it can be safely disregarded.”

Furthermore, a recent economic study shows that allowing pilots to fly to age 65 would save almost $1 billion per year in added Social Security, Medicare, and tax payments and delayed Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) payments.

I am encouraged by the progress that has been made. In the 109th Congress, the Senate Commerce Committee reported the modified bill with the ICAO standard favorably and the Senate Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee included a version of S. 65 in their bill. The FAA recently convened and Aviation Rulemaking Committee to study the issue of forced retirement. We have yet to see that report but it is our understanding the report was persuasive enough that the Administrator is considering a change in the rule now.

We are encouraged by that, but we also know that legislation will be needed to direct the FAA to pursue these changes in a timely manner and in a way that will protect companies and their unions from new lawsuits that might arise as a result of the changes. Our bill accomplishes that. Whether the FAA decides to change the rule on its own or not, Congress needs to do the right thing and pass S. 65 to fully ensure that our own American pilots have the same rights and privileges to work at least until Age 65 that were accorded to foreign pilots over the age of 60 this fall.

Mr., President, I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this important legislation and help us keep America’s most experienced pilots in the air.

Cheers-

PIPE

 

[Black Hawk]

Change it to 65.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Age 60 is not age discrimination

For those claiming discrimination, the courts fail to agree. Plus new court cases will be brought by those wronged by the ADOPT position that have not been heard so far. AND NEW MEDICAL STANDARDS WILL BE APPLIED EFFECTING THOSE THAT WOULD NOT CURRENTLY BE EFFECTED.

Sounds like a deal killer to me.


Depending on the reasons articulated by the FAA if they changed the Age 60 Rule to age 65, there may be problems/issues created under ADEA that have not been previously realized; and

Use of a maximum age, just like a minimum age, is a safe and proven methodology for ensuring that only healthy and competent individuals.
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]
[/FONT]The courts have consistently abstained from taking any action that would undermine the FAA’s Age 60 Rule. Nevertheless, changing the age limit to a
year greater than 60 will likely do little, if anything, to abate the ongoing court challenges to the FAA’s maximum pilot age rule; and
[FONT=Wingdings,Wingdings]
[/FONT]Elimination of any maximum pilot age, which is the expressed goal of the age discrimination opponents, will almost assuredly result in more stringent health and cognitive abilities testing, which will adversely impact pilots of all ages, not just those approaching retirement age.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

The true champions of the piloting profession

XJT pilots need to stand up and be counted on this issue. XJT is 2500 strong who will be directly discriminated against by an ADOPT position. XJT pilots need to write their home state senators and congressmen in opposition to changing age 60. XJT could be a solid unified force.​

The Do Not Adopt the ICAO Standard Working Group position is endorsed by the following ARC members: ​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Jim Kaiser, American Airlines, Inc.
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Keith Champion, Allied Pilots Association (American)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]John Lux, ALPA (Federal Express)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Terry McVenes, ALPA International
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Bill Dressler, ALPA (Express Jet)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]■ [/FONT]Konstantinos "Dino" Atsalis, ALPA (Delta)