Age 60 legislation is moving fast as of today

[elcid]

Not all SWAPA members support the repeal. Stand by for the vote results. I think it will be surprising how many vote no.

That being said, it's no black and white issue. If I were 59, totally healthy and capable and wanted to keep flying I'd think age 60 was a crock. I'm voting NO because I think the young guys take a hit for the benefit of the older, often richer guys. But c'mon. This isn't as clear cut as many of you make it. I don't think any of you really know what the outcome will be either way. There are too many variables and too many things we can't predict about the future, the economy, wars, technology, fuel prices, automation, etc, etc.

 

[Captain Overs]

It may hurt for awhile but it also prolongs your career. What's wrong with that? Maybe you went to your airline because of promises of fast upgrades?

 

[Andy]

Thanks Dr. Friedman, only one flaw in your otherwise self-described flawless logic - Pilots are hired or retained to fly aircraft and operate under relatively long-term CBA's, thus decreasing the elasticity of demand. If you were dealing with widgets and Econ 101 for dummies, you'd be right on. Alas, not today. And you are confusing short and long-term supply and demand. Also, this has a greater impact on those looking to get hired rather than on current employees, as carriers can weigh the short-term cost/benefit of carrying a slight overage versus furloughing or running short and junior manning. I suppose that Econ degree I got from that hick school in west Philadelphia does come in handy every now and then.

OMG! You're now suggesting that there's an inelastic demand for pilots due to long term CBAs.
An example of a good with inelastic demand is cigarettes. Pilots can be hired and furloughed during a CBA; no one in their right mind would ever equate pilot employment with inelastic demand. The demand for pilots is extremely elastic; CBAs have very little effect on pilot demand.
Do yourself a favor and read a bit; grasp the concepts before you make a total fool of yourself. But that would require work on your part; you prefer to make things up ala Cliff Claven (still waiting for an explanation on your fantasy growth numbers).

You claim to have an econ degree? To be blunt, I don't believe you. No one with an econ degree could be that inept in these topics.

 

[Andy]

But c'mon. This isn't as clear cut as many of you make it. I don't think any of you really know what the outcome will be either way. There are too many variables and too many things we can't predict about the future, the economy, wars, technology, fuel prices, automation, etc, etc.

Yes, there are many variables. However, keeping all other factors constant, you can forecast the economic impact of a change in the age 60 rule. Since the effect of a rule change will have the same impact on the supply demand model regardless of any other changes, it can be shown that a change will result in decreased pilot wages. If there is explosive growth, wages will be lower than they would have been without a rule change. If there is contraction, concessions will be deeper than they would have been without a rule change.

 

[Peanut gallery]

I asked that specific question

In a world where we are being beaten over the head by the fact that the number 60 is arbitrary, how on earth did they come up with the magic number of 104?

I was told that this arbitrary number had to be attached to the legislation to get support in the political realm.

on another side note, heavy crewing issues were not discussed in front of the person I know on the commitee. He thinks they were addressed but was not present for that discussion.

 

[Flopgut]

Peanut: Do they intend age 65 to be an upper limit, or older?

 

[Peanut gallery]

Clearly you are emotionally charged on this issue

BS. You are yanking everyone's chain on this '104 rule.'
Let's start from the beginning. You claim to be a legal consultant. A legal consultant would know that this is a regulatory change, NOT a legislative change. Legislative changes occur from the legislative branch - you know, Congress - any lawyer would know that. Any legislative effort is DOA for the 110th Congress.
As for bypassing the NPRM, that's highly unlikely. Name one FAA regulation that has changed/been enacted in the last 20 years that bypassed the NPRM process. You claim to be a lawyer; find it.

As for the age changing, I will admit that it is now very highly likely that pilot retirement age will change, but it will go through the entire regulatory process, including a NPRM, prior to enactment. That will allow Blakey to announce the NPRM and then resign at the end her term in August 2007 prior to enactment. Blakey's successor, appointed by W, will be the one to see it through to completion.

My source within ALPA (ALPA's govt lobbyist) has informed me that Blakey will be announcing a NPRM, and Ralph Hunter (APA president) has confirmed that information in a message to APA pilots. Expect the process to take 18-24 months prior to implementation.

This '104' rule doesn't pass any sanity check, as has already been pointed out by 777TX's CAL 777 pairing dilemma.

This is a pure flamebait thread.

You can believe what you want, I am simply here to say what is going on after talking to someone on the commitee.

I am not an attorney and never said I was. I have a side business testifying in mostly administrative actions in the defense of Pilots and 121/135 companies. I also assist in compliance issues for certification and expansion of 121/135 operations. If you want to start a 121/135 or add ETOPS, MNPS, Cat 2 or 3, or any geographical areas to your ops specs then that is what I can do quickly.

I do however run into quite a few people in this game that are involved in other things. The age 60 thing while quite controversial as we can see from this thread, is one of the activities that I have heard allot about since one of those people I happen to be working with on this weeks case has been invovled as a consultant from the beginning. I can only tell you what he says.

As far the legal issues an NPRM can be bypassed any time by the legislative branch. Administrative law takes a back seat to any legislation coming from the legislative branch. This issue has the horsepower to go all the way unless opposed in the legislative session. If I were you I would focus my energies on that rather than going into your flame bait mentallity.

 

[Peanut gallery]

Also asked that one

Peanut: Do they intend age 65 to be an upper limit, or older?

Sorry should have looked around at the thread, yes it is my understanding that 65 was picked because of ICAO rules and the bridge to when people can start recieving retirement benefits.

 

[Flopgut]

Peanut: Thanks. With a total age cap, anything older than 65 would be extrodinarily difficult.

BTW, Andy's posts on FlightInfo are a distant second to his other efforts on this issue. He's kept many of us informed and made sure we have correct contact info for the right people.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

You can believe what you want, I am simply here to say what is going on after talking to someone on the commitee.

I am not an attorney and never said I was. I have a side business testifying in mostly administrative actions in the defense of Pilots and 121/135 companies. I also assist in compliance issues for certification and expansion of 121/135 operations. If you want to start a 121/135 or add ETOPS, MNPS, Cat 2 or 3, or any geographical areas to your ops specs then that is what I can do quickly.

I do however run into quite a few people in this game that are involved in other things. The age 60 thing while quite controversial as we can see from this thread, is one of the activities that I have heard allot about since one of those people I happen to be working with on this weeks case has been invovled as a consultant from the beginning. I can only tell you what he says.

As far the legal issues an NPRM can be bypassed any time by the legislative branch. Administrative law takes a back seat to any legislation coming from the legislative branch. This issue has the horsepower to go all the way unless opposed in the legislative session. If I were you I would focus my energies on that rather than going into your flame bait mentallity.

It does appear that this Rule 104 is completely bogus. The only rule discussed is the Over/Under rule where if one pilot “at the controls” is over 60, the other pilot must be under 60.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[777TX]

Hey Peanut-

I appreciate the updates. BTW, I did not doubt your word when I pointed out the impracticality of the "104 rule". This would not be the first time a law was passed which was not thoroughly thought through as to consequences.

Sorry your thread of just letting us know what is going on has been hijacked by some and become another debate on the merits of the change-as if there hasn't been enough of that here. Nature of the beast.

BTW-here is the text of the current S65-the only current change I know of are the addition of more cosponsors.


S 65 IS
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 65
To modify the age-60 standard for certain pilots and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 4, 2007


Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To modify the age-60 standard for certain pilots and for other purposes.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Freedom to Fly Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FAA'S AGE-60 STANDARD.

• (a) In General- 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 part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--

• • (1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and

• • (2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

• (b) Sunset of Age-60 Rule-

• • (1) IN GENERAL- On and after the effective date described in subsection (e), section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations shall have no further force or effect.

• • (2) REGULATIONS- Not later than 30 days after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Secretary of Transportation shall take such action as may be necessary to implement paragraph (1) and to modify the regulations relating to pilot privileges by reason of age.

• (c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a 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, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).

• (d) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Standard- Not later than 24 months after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives concerning the effect on aviation safety, if any, of the modification of the age standard contained in subsection (a).

• (e) Effective Date- This Act shall take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

END

 

[Mach 80]

Most pilots don't live too long after retirement for many reasons. /quote]

Actually that's a very common urban legend with no real truth to it.

Also most studies show that working longer actually increases longevity. Retirement is a huge life style change thst most aren't ready for and in many ways is a stressful change. Worklife offers comraderie not seen in retirement and continues the routine a person is accustomed to. Many pilot marriages find it somewhat stressful when all of a sudden they find themselves together 7 days a week. Many guys thought it would be a dream to putter around the house and play golf 7 days a week but they actually get quite bored with it all.

This age 60 thing isn't going to be as big a deal as many of you think. Additionaly I predict most will work till 62 or 63 and then call it a day.

 

[dooork]

Bwaaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa! Don't worry, airline management will make it so we are forced to work till 65. At UPS, the penalty for retiring 5 years early is huge. I am sure over time it will be that way when you retire at 60. I am sure airline management is creaming in their pants at the thought of how they can use this 65 thing to their advantage. They just can't wait till we step on our weenies.....AGAIN!

I hope to be set by 40....hope is the key word. Good luck with the 55 thing bro.

Why would management want to keep the senior most captains a day longer than when the captain wants to retire?

 

[dooork]

Oh, really? You have volumes of accident data on airline pilots in their 50's and 60's and all signs point to rapidly increasing accident rates for these pilots especially as they approach their 60th birthday? If it's that blatanly obvious, then why are they being allowed anywhere near an airplane after they're 35? And are passengers of 135 fractional jets deserving of any less protection from the FAA than airline passengers? Whose keeping the grey menace at bay. You alone? Compare apples to apples and not GA stats to airline stats; you make yourself look foolish by doing any less.






If you learned that in college, you ought to get your money back. By the way how is ERAU's econ course? There will be a slight decrease in the demand for pilots caused by SOME pilots electing to continue beyond 60. This will be offset by the growth in pilot hiring (as much as you may want to deny that). The only thing that will cause pilot wages to decline further is cabotage that will allow foreign carriers to operate with foreign crews on domestic US routes at much lower pay scales. Keep your boogeymen straight.



Nothing in this paragraph makes any sense, so I can't even begin to comment.

Long story short: Eliminating Age 60 provides opportunity for All at a small cost to some. If you need further protection, negotiate it into your next contract.

What he said!

 

[warbirdfinder]

I believe if you did deeper, you'll find that the longer one works, the shorter his longevity, regardless of profession.