Age 60 informal poll

[UndauntedFlyer]

$182/hr plus 15% into the B/C fund = $199/hr in wages.

I may just quit at the end of January if we don't get a raise.

The UPS and FedEx pilots make a lot more but at least we get the 60-year old flight attendants on the trips to HNL. Now if your over 60 it's probably not that bad.

Maybe I'll stay.:beer:

 

[Andy]

$182/hr plus 15% into the B/C fund = $199/hr in wages.

Math in public; not recommended. :0
$182 + 15% ($27) = $209/hr.

 

[Andy]

I may just quit at the end of January if we don't get a raise.

Raise or no raise, the law isn't going to change. You WILL be retiring at the end of January.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

I may just quit at the end of January if we don't get a raise.

The UPS and FedEx pilots make a lot more but at least we get the 60-year old flight attendants on the trips to HNL. Now if your over 60 it's probably not that bad.

Maybe I'll stay.:beer:

RETIRE! Then maybe your son will have a shot at a job! Ever think about that?

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Raise or no raise, the law isn't going to change. You WILL be retiring at the end of January.

I believe you'll be very surprised in just a few weeks. In fact, there will be many surprises.

Have you forgotten that the FAA Administrator and the Sec. of Transportation are Republicans who were appointed by a Republican? No matter what the results of the next election, that won't chanage. And you saw the age 60/65 letter to the Administrator signed by 12 of the most powerful Republican Senators, right? And have you read the ARC comments? Do you think that any of this is a factor in the outcome, no matter HR.65/S.65? And besides, do you really think any Democratic Senator wants to oppose this change so as to hear all this again at 10 times the level next year? I don't really think so.

Andy: With all due respect, change is in the air. You're still invited to my 60th.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

http://www.aero-news.net/images/contenticons/update.gif FAA Rulemaking Committee Ponders Age 60 Rule

Fri, 03 Nov '06
ICAO Change Goes Into Effect This Month

[URL]http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/politics/2006/FAA-logo-new-1006a_tn.jpg[/URL]Pressure to change the age-60 rule continues to mount... as an FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) met for the second time recently to discuss the possibility of changing it. But does that mean those hoping to change the rule will succeed?
Since 1959, pilots flying for commercial carriers have to retire at age 60. But opposition to the rule has increased in recent years. Later this month, a change to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rules will force the FAA to allow foreign pilots up to the age of 65 to fly commercially in the US, as long as another pilot in the cockpit is younger than 60.
That change comes after a study of 3000 pilots found the risk of medical incapacitation for those over 60 is negligible.
Even pilot's unions -- historically status quo stalwarts -- might be cracking. With bankruptcy courts killing airline pension plans, those extra five years of work are looking better all the time.
"Clearly this is an issue that has wide-ranging implications for both airlines and the pilot community," said Air Line Pilots Association President Duane Woerth, who along with Air Transport Association President and CEO James C. May serves as co-chair of the committee.
As Aero-News reported, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey agreed to convene the ARC in September, after 30 airline veterans began an intense lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill. Shortly after that, 12 senators sent Blakey a letter showing their support for repealing the Age 60 rule.
"As cosponsors of S.65 (one of two bills, one Senate and one House, currently before Congress on the issue -- Ed.) we have worked tirelessly this session to provide the FAA with legislative guidance that would afford US pilots the same right that you will be required to give foreign pilots this fall," the lawmakers wrote. "We are hopeful that Congress will pass this legislation prior to adjourning sine die (on indefinite hold) this year."
In related news, this week in Germany three Lufthansa pilots brought suit against their airline seeking to change the rule in that country, saying the Age 60 rule is a form of discrimination.
But those in the US seeking to change the rule fear their efforts might be in vain... as eight of the 14 voting members on the rule-making committee are said to oppose changing the rule.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

This is APA Communications Director Gregg Overman with the APA Information Hotline for Thursday, November 2.


APA BOARD OF DIRECTORS FALL MEETING: The APA Board of Directors resumed its regularly scheduled fall meeting at 1 p.m. today in Fort Worth.

Also today, Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman First Officer Keith Champion updated the Board on the Aviation Rulemaking Committee that the FAA has convened on the issue of age 60 retirement. First Officer Champion is participating in this ARC on the union’s behalf, along with representatives from a range of other stakeholders, including other unions and various carriers. The question before the ARC is whether the United States should adopt the newly established International Civil Aviation Organization standard of age 65 retirement, and if so how to implement the higher retirement age. First Officer Champion noted that APA may ask the membership to participate in a legislative alert-type process later this month to reinforce our institutional support for maintaining age 60 retirement as our nation’s standard.


Tomorrow’s APA News Digest will feature step-by-step information on how to participate in the public comment period that the FAA has convened on the issue through November 15. In addition, First Officer Champion reminded the Board that an amendment that calls for raising pilot retirement age is currently attached to a Senate appropriations bill. APA has expressed to Congress our view that this complex issue should not be decided as part of the appropriations process and that the ARC should present its report prior to any action by Congress.


The decision whether to change pilot retirement rests with the FAA Administrator or the U.S. Congress. Both have the authority to stipulate a change—the FAA by modifying the regulation, and Congress through legislation.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

The ICAO report gives you the answer you don't seek!:beer:

Moreover, there is still today, as stated by AsMA, insufficient medical evidence to support any restrictions based on age alone. In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant for the following reason: For the individual pilot engaged in multi-crew operations, it is today generally accepted that a medical incapacitation risk of one percent per annum (“The 1% Rule”) is fully compatible with the desired flight safety level for airline operations. This risk level corresponds to one medical incapacitation per 100 years or approximately one million hours. Male pilots from Scandinavia, United Kingdom and NorthAmerica are lilely to approach this risk level when they are around 65, female pilots three to four years later. The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]— [/FONT]1012 or one million [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]x [/FONT]one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.

Foxhunter,

That paragraph was written for a reason and one reason only – to protect everyone’s butts in case of an age 60+ pilot that is involved in an accident or incident from a crippling avalanche of lawsuits.

 

[tomgoodman]

Improving the odds

The risk of two older pilots becoming medically incapacitated at the same time, during the same one-hour flight, is thus one per trillion hours (1 trillion [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]— [/FONT]1012 or one million [FONT=Helvetica, sans-serif]x [/FONT]one million), a risk so low that it can safely he disregarded.

Hmmm....In that case, why not schedule one sick pilot on each flight, statistically forcing the other one to remain healthy?

 

[jbDC9]

Now days I really don't think that pilots will be able to save enough money to retire unless they work to age 65. Just work the numbers. It's really simple to see that it can not be done at todays pay rates unless your spouse works and makes more money that you do. Age 65 is a must.

Here's a gem from a month ago that I missed. Hey Bozo, you're flapping your yap about ending "discrimination" against pilots and yer fellow Americans... yet here you mention "age 65 is a must".

So tell us Einstein, why is 65 okay and not discriminatory? Why not 67 or 70? I mean, if you put any fixed number on it, it's discrimination, right??

Actually, this post you made is the closest you've come yet to ackowledging that the whole debate is about the cash and not discrimination... but you still hide behind the "discrimination" label. Nice.

 

[FoxHunter]

Foxhunter,

That paragraph was written for a reason and one reason only – to protect everyone’s butts in case of an age 60+ pilot that is involved in an accident or incident from a crippling avalanche of lawsuits.

No, it was written because it was the finding of the studies. You just can't accept the fact that experience results in a better outcome. You will find that incidents/accidents are the lowest among those close to age 60.

 

[FoxHunter]

Here's a gem from a month ago that I missed. Hey Bozo, you're flapping your yap about ending "discrimination" against pilots and yer fellow Americans... yet here you mention "age 65 is a must".

So tell us Einstein, why is 65 okay and not discriminatory? Why not 67 or 70? I mean, if you put any fixed number on it, it's discrimination, right??

Actually, this post you made is the closest you've come yet to ackowledging that the whole debate is about the cash and not discrimination... but you still hide behind the "discrimination" label. Nice.

The fact is that 99% of the reason age 60 has not changed has been the raising of the "safety" flag. ALPA/APA/FAA have all used it. It is like the argument that for "safety" jet aircraft had to have three pilots in the cockpit. The result was that multi-thousand PFEs were replaced with new hire pilots with 200 hours total time. Safety or a jobs issue? The 737 when introduced was certified as a two man airplane but ALPA forced a three man cockpit, resulting in one long bitter strike at Wien Alaska. Was the three man 737 a safety or jobs protection issue? What is the make up of 737 cockpit crew today?

When you remove the safety issue you will find little support in the political arena. Yes, age 65 is another hard number, but it is an improvement. There is also a good chance after a few years with the age 65 limit that also will either increase or be eliminated.

 

[Flopgut]

The 737 was certified 2 pilot while the Super 80 was initially 3 pilots. ALPA wanted to spare the larger DAL pilot group the dirty work, so they stuck Frontier with the task of holding the line on 3rd pilot. Frontier did not hold the line and it fell to Wien Alaska. Frontier pilots felt it unrealistic to hold the line for 3 pilots on a two pilot aircraft when DAL was going to fly the certified 3 pilot S80 with two. The FAL MEC was placed in trusteeship as a resut of this.

That's all ancient history, really. But, NO ONE can deny we'd be better off with three pilot flightdecks! It has proved to be of incredible safety importance. Some things we should not change, age 60 retirement might be one as well.

 

[Cyclone]

Age 60

It isn't a perfect rule. Propose something better. ICAO proposal is worse. If age wasn't an issue, the ICAO proposal wouldn't include the if over 60 then under 60 requirement. Age is an issue.

All the Age 60 rule opponents, or most of them bellyache about "age discrimination"

ICAO proposal is age discrimination.

Propose something better or live with what we have.

 

[Freight Dog]

Cyclone, they'll be bellyaching in 5 years about how 65 is not good enough anymore either, how it is discriminatory and stuff. Don't worry!

It's all about them anyway.

 

[FoxHunter]

It isn't a perfect rule. Propose something better. ICAO proposal is worse. If age wasn't an issue, the ICAO proposal wouldn't include the if over 60 then under 60 requirement. Age is an issue.

All the Age 60 rule opponents, or most of them bellyache about "age discrimination"

ICAO proposal is age discrimination.

Propose something better or live with what we have.

ICAO found;

"In the JAA countries, the upper age limit of 60 has been maintained for pilots in single-crew operations, but since 1 July 1999, the JAA regulations have allowed airline pilots to continue flying until age 65 with limitation to multi-crew operations and with the proviso that no other member of the flight crew is older than 59. However, the Secretariat is aware that this proviso was not based on medical grounds but rather the result of a compromise between the different parties. Although recommended by IATA, the Secretariat does not consider this proviso safety relevant"

 

[Freight Dog]

So Fox, what you're saying is that ICAO rule is discriminatory too.

Man, we should just let you around til you drop dead - whether it's on short final or your own bed... max pay to the last day, right?

 

[FoxHunter]

So Fox, what you're saying is that ICAO rule is discriminatory too.

Man, we should just let you around til you drop dead - whether it's on short final or your own bed... max pay to the last day, right?

Son, you're a sad case.

 

[Andy]

Compromise

Propose something better or live with what we have.

Just to be clear about this, I am in favor of no change to the current rule. However, I proposed the following compromise on the UAL board:

>Implementation of this change as currently written is a no-go. It does not have the necessary support within ALPA, the FAA, or Capital Hill.
In order to garner additional support, the pro-change crowd needs to amend the language of such a change to something more palatable. I'd propose the following:
1) All over 60 pilots retain their seniority within the company.
2) All over 60 pilots are restricted from acting as PIC.
3) The FAA medical standards need to be increased for all, not just those over 60.
4) Allow the initial change to go from 60 to 62, the minimum retirement age. After that, have the age increase in 6 month increments every calendar year. This would eliminate most of the lawsuits by those who would be excluded from the change.
5) The maximum age would rise to full retirement age - let's not kid ourselves; the pro-change crowd has no intention of stopping at 65. For those wondering what the full retirement age is, here's a link: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retirechartred.htm For most of us, this would mean 67.
6) Restrict all over 60 pilots from flying more than 75 hours/mo.

I can sympathize with those that find themselves in a poor financial position when they reach age 60, but I expect them to come to the table with reasonable proposals rather than a grab for everything. It reminds me of the tension during the aborted UAL-USAir merge attempt where USAir pilots were screaming for DOH.<

I also wrote the following:

>Changing age 60 is a negative sum game for pilots. It is not a zero sum game because the change will open the door for airline management to lower wages. One of the reasons why pilots' compensation packages are as high as they are is due to the fact that we are out of a job at age 60. And you can bet that management will be all over our wages if this passes.
You refuse to acknowledge that this change, as proposed, would be a windfall for those pilots in the 55-59 age group. At the same time, most pilots will end up stagnating for several years in their current seat. For furloughees, it just adds additional time on the street or returning to be a junior reserve pilot. At a lower wage scale for the rest of their careers.

While I would personally suffer under my proposal from the last page (since all over 60 pilots would be senior to me in the right seat), I considered it to be an extremely generous offer. But it appears that your ego is so large that you cannot fathom moving back to the right seat.
I expected as much from someone who boldly offered everyone to celebrate his 60th birthday in Honolulu and then fly back to ORD as the PIC. You wrote this when there were more than 500 pilots on furlough at United who had yet to be offered a recall class.<

Safety issues aside, changing the rule will have a negative impact on all but the oldest pilots' careers. If anyone here thinks that our wages have bottomed out, just get this change passed and watch what happens to pilot wages.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Here's a gem from a month ago that I missed. Hey Bozo, you're flapping your yap about ending "discrimination" against pilots and yer fellow Americans... yet here you mention "age 65 is a must".

So tell us Einstein, why is 65 okay and not discriminatory? Why not 67 or 70? I mean, if you put any fixed number on it, it's discrimination, right??

Actually, this post you made is the closest you've come yet to ackowledging that the whole debate is about the cash and not discrimination... but you still hide behind the "discrimination" label. Nice.

There really should be no age limit but age 65 is a start.

Check this out: http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/424637_web.pdf

LAST PARAGRAPH - "IN CONCLUSION, THE CIVIL AVIATION MEDICAL ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS THE ICAO POSITION AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE FAA ABANDON THE AGE 60 RULE." ​