Age 60 legislation is moving fast as of today

[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.

 

[dooork]

Since you've failed to grasp the relatively simple concept of supply curve shift, I've supplied a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

Refer to: Supply curve shifts. Unfortunately, the text has an error; instead of reading S0 to S1, the text in the paragraph should read S1 to S2.
Pilots are the widgets. Quantity of pilots increases; price of pilots decreases. Econ 101 for dummies.

Too complex for you? That proves once again that you can't teach a geriatric dog new tricks.

But....pilots are dynamic widgets!

 

[dooork]

I'm not sure I can contradict you any more than you did yourself, in your own post?! (is your mom, also you aunt?)

This issue CAN NOT be good for collective bargaining because a majority of pilots oppose it. If it's forced upon us it will divide us in a very awkward way. Supply and demand is not even half the equation. Our unity and the political climate is far more important. You have NO concept of unity and you would just as soon squander political advandage as long as YOU get paid. Being a captain wouldn't change my opinion. I want to see raises and overall increase for ALL airline pilots. I want to see a workforce of well paid airline professionals with fat retirements and happy families that don't have to worry. That is not the case now and I'm sick of it.

Retiring at maximum age limit should be the easiest thing a pilot has to deal with. If age 60 can't be respected then age 65 won't either. We will fight this forever and never see an honest pay raise, only a steady decrease as pilots like you take for themselves. I realize this current group has had to deal with a lot, but that has always been the case. Don't forget, I have that T shirt (so to speak). A majority of them got to do this at top pay for a long time. By and large, they enjoyed raises, top pay, and tasted overall increase. They watched others retire at 60 and they knew they were to retire at 60. But MORE importantly, they saw some get their retirements, and they saw some LOSE their retirements. They didn't plan accordingly.

Again pilots are dynamic widgets!! If the majority of pilots are against this than the majority will rule....even if it does get passed. The majority will rule at the contract table.

 

[dooork]

Andy seems to be applying academics to airline management!!!!
Lets see.....when times are bad they (manag) wants you to work for less.
When times are good they (manag) wants you to work for less.

Explain that F#cking curve!

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

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.

Mach 80,

For most other professions, you are absolutely correct. Flying an aircraft above FL300 for an additional five years for 80 – 90 hours a month and the risk in additional radiation exposure is an unknown hazard at this point.

Age 65 will be a big deal depending on whether the particular airline is shrinking or growing.

Moreover, if we find age 65 is a terrible idea, unlike collective bargaining that changes every five years, we will be stuck with this rule for a very long time. Look at the history of the airlines, growth doesn’t last forever.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[LarryinTN]

Refer to: Supply curve shifts. Unfortunately, the text has an error; instead of reading S0 to S1, the text in the paragraph should read S1 to S2.

It's wiki. You can fix the error yourself.

 

[LarryinTN]

It may hurt for awhile but it also prolongs your career. What's wrong with that?

It shortens your retirement.

 

[Joe Schmo]

A big thanks to the Senior Pilots of this country for once again giving something back to the freshmen of the industry.

 

[Freight Dog]

For every one pilot who is perfectly capable in terms of cognitive and mental skills to keep going past 60, there are 4-5 that should have retired at 55.

 

[Andy]

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.

If that were the case, the sources that I have spoken to would be aware of this '104' rule. Washington is not a place where something such as that could be kept a secret for very long.

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.

That's a different story than you stated:

No NPRM, it is moving fast with a 104 rule attached.

Are you now implying that this would go through the legislative branch with some sort of age restriction on it? That's a horse of a different color. And do you really think that the committee chairs will allow this to get out of committee?
If you had stated that this would be a legislative measure, I would have told you that it's DOA. My sources tell me that any legislative action will fail in the 110th. An NPRM, on the other hand, IS a real possibility.
I question the reliability of your source.

As for spending my horsepower on legislative efforts, I'm already there. I am plenty busy on this issue in other ways than merely posting on this board. I have tried to energize as many people as possible who oppose this change and have directed them where to expend their efforts for best results. It's a game of constant defense; the pro-change crowd has the luxury of running an offensive game. They may eventually win, but not without maximum resistance on my part. I'm not going to sit idly by while a few further destroy this profession.

 

[Andy]

It's wiki. You can fix the error yourself.

Done. Thanks for the tip.