Age 65 2007

[pipe]

Start writing boys and girls - I did.



Dear Senator Inouye-
As both an Air Force Reserve pilot and a commercial airline pilot, I am writing in opposition to Senator Inhofe's 4 January introduction of a proposal to raise the retirement age for US commercial airline pilots to 65.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, you are in a position to block this ill-conceived legislation.
There are two factors in play here:
1. Discrimination is not the issue. Almost every facet of aviation regulation has age limits assigned to it. There is a minimum age to fly solo, a minimum age to instruct, a minimum age to fly commercially, a minimum age for transport flying, etc., etc. Heck there are even age limits to drive a car, be a Senator, or be elected President. None of this is discriminatory, it is simply a fact of life that limits must be set. The age 60 limit is a tried and proven safety measure whose effectiveness can be borne out by looking at accident statistics in cars, airplanes, etc. Accident rates rise after 60.
2. This is simply a financial "grab" by a group of older pilots. These pilots themselves benefited by the retirement of their predecessors at age 60. Where were they then? They certainly were not beating down the doors of Congress to change the rule. Their complaints of lost pensions, SSA rules, and corporate bankruptcies have affected all of us - even those who are not approaching 60. Why then, should we penalize younger pilots and airlines in the interest of trying to "make whole" a very small group of pilots?
Your support in stopping this ill-conceived measure is greatly appreciated.




Cut, paste, improve, expound. Just do SOMETHING!!! We know that more of us are opposed than for the change. DO NOT BE LAZY. WRITE!!!!!!!

PIPE

 

[Andy]

Go back and read what the reporter for the WSJ wrote on December 11, 2006. He said the FAA has now already decided to change the rule Congress or not. They would like Congress to take the lead on the issue because they know that legal freight train running down the track is going to hurt the FAA, airline companies, and the pilot unions. If you read between the lines on the release about the legislation it will offer some protection to those parties.

You should also note that the legistation is being offered by both Republicans and Democrats. Almost one year ago a Legislative Assistant for a Senate Democrat made a comment that S.65 should have been introduced by a Democrat. Fixing problems with discrimination has always been a Democrat issue never Republican.

Those out there that expect the Democrats to block the change are in for a reality check.

Post a link to the WSJ article. The FAA has not stated that in public, so either you misinterpreted the article or the writer took journalistic liberties. Either way, the FAA has much larger issues to concern itself with than changing age 60.

If you think that the Democrats are going to change this, you are in for a reality check. If you look at the graphs in the link below, you'll see why it was stated that it would be best to be sponsored by a Dem. It's because bills sponsored by the minority party are much less likely to be enacted.

More than 90% of bills die in committee. Just like this one. End of story. http://www.congressionalbills.org/trends.html

 

[Andy]

Cut, paste, improve, expound. Just do SOMETHING!!! We know that more of us are opposed than for the change. DO NOT BE LAZY. WRITE!!!!!!!

PIPE

Pipe,
I'll PM my list of FIers here with the best Sens to target once a certain Senate committee gets finalized. It's the last critical target until 2009.

 

[SkiFishFly]

I hope to be in a position to choose to "retire" at age 60. I do not agree with forced retirement at age 60.
I certainly do not agree with allowing foreign carriers to fly into, over and out of the US with over 60 pilots when our pilots are not afforded the same priviledges.
I don't have an answer as to why 65 is not also "age discrimination".
I certainly would support a more thorough medical for those past age 60 - purely in the interest of ensuring safety.

I find it ironic how some argue that the old guys are just "greedy" and standing in the way of the upgrade they have "earned". It seems to me that these folks are also motivated by financial considerations - getting that Captain pay as quick as possible.

 

[pipe]

I hope to be in a position to choose to "retire" at age 60. I do not agree with forced retirement at age 60.
I certainly do not agree with allowing foreign carriers to fly into, over and out of the US with over 60 pilots when our pilots are not afforded the same priviledges.
I don't have an answer as to why 65 is not also "age discrimination".
I certainly would support a more thorough medical for those past age 60 - purely in the interest of ensuring safety.

I find it ironic how some argue that the old guys are just "greedy" and standing in the way of the upgrade they have "earned". It seems to me that these folks are also motivated by financial considerations - getting that Captain pay as quick as possible.

We are motivated by the financial aspects as well as the safety aspects. At least we will admit that.

As far as discrimination, I would like the same opportunity they had. Seems pretty non-discriminatory to my pea-brain.

PIPE

 

[SkiFishFly]

We are motivated by the financial aspects as well as the safety aspects. At least we will admit that.

As far as discrimination, I would like the same opportunity they had. Seems pretty non-discriminatory to my pea-brain.

PIPE

I would like the same opportunity as my Canadian/ICAO brothers have...

 

[pipe]

I would like the same opportunity as my Canadian/ICAO brothers have...

Then move.

Nothing in our constitution guarantees you anything relative to other countries. Do you also want the right to be a murderous warlord, running a dictatorship? I believe you'll find some ICAO coutries that fit that description.

PIPE

 

[FoxHunter]

Post a link to the WSJ article. The FAA has not stated that in public, so either you misinterpreted the article or the writer took journalistic liberties. Either way, the FAA has much larger issues to concern itself with than changing age 60.

FAA Set to Raise
Retirement Age
For Pilots to 65

By ANDY PASZTOR
December 11, 2006; Page A3

The Federal Aviation Administration, moving away from its longstanding policy that airline pilots must retire at age 60, wants to let them work in the cockpit as many as five years longer, according to industry and government officials.
The agency's emerging support for raising the mandatory retirement age to 65 comes as foreign airlines and regulators are adopting similar changes. If left unchanged, the current rules over the next decade will require thousands of passenger and cargo commercial pilots -- some projections total more than 30,0000 aviators -- to retire at age 60, regardless of their health, according to industry officials.
QUESTION OF THE DAY

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...2003210049.gif • Vote: What should be the mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial jet pilots?


After repeatedly opposing similar efforts to change the rules, some U.S. airlines and pilots groups are beginning to soften their stances. Retaining larger numbers of senior pilots could help some airlines keep a lid on pension expenses and reduce training costs as younger pilots fill in behind retirees, while pension cutbacks at some carriers make working longer more important to some pilots. The 60-year age limit was a compromise between unions and airlines in the 1950s over economics and hasn't been changed since.
According to people familiar with the situation, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey is crafting the new position slowly but steadily. Before spelling it out publicly, she is expected to gauge the willingness of incoming Democratic leaders in Congress to take the lead in advocating such moves. Input from the White House and Department of Transportation could affect the agency's actions. Bills calling for the policy shift failed to pick up enough traction this year. A spokeswoman for Ms. Blakey said the industry can "expect a decision relatively soon."
Finalizing new regulations could take 18 months or more, but FAA lawyers are mulling over whether to apply the new standard to currently retired pilots between 60 and 65, according to one person familiar with the process. Seniority rules could make it extremely difficult to make any change retroactive.
The FAA's apparent change of heart is influenced by the current tight market globally for pilots as well as the lack of recent scientific data demonstrating any clear-cut erosion of safety from extending the careers of pilots, according to one person familiar with the matter. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded the 60-year age limit is discriminatory.
Keeping the age limit at 60 is becoming more difficult to defend, following a move by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency that sets nonbinding global safety standards, to raise retirement ages at airlines world-wide.
ICAO said last month airline pilots could safely stay behind the controls until they turn 65, as long as the other pilot in the same cockpit is younger than 60. Even before that, a few foreign carriers were flying into and out of U.S. airports with copilots older than age 60.
Proponents of change see pressure building. "If Congress fails to act in the next three months, the FAA will be prepared to go to rulemaking" anyway, said Gary Cottingham, a retired US Airways Group Inc. pilot spearheading a group called Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination.
An FAA-sponsored study group set up to clarify safety and economic issues didn't make specific recommendations in a recent report.
A spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association, the pilots union that has opposed changes on safety grounds, said "changing the age is a lot more complex than most [people] would realize, especially when it comes to scheduling crews" for long-distance or international flying.
The union recognizes political momentum is building for change. A spokesman said "regardless of what the FAA does, our pilots will have to find their own way of dealing with" the issue.
Already, union leaders have negotiated labor contracts with at least two Canadian carriers explicitly allowing pilots to stay past the age of 60. And pilot age hasn't been a factor in any of the high-profile jetliner crashes in recent years.
Robert "Hoot" Gibson, a former astronaut who was forced to retire from Southwest Airlines Co. in October, said today's situation is "ludicrous" because "it isn't based on medical evidence." He said retirement should hinge on the specific health of pilots, who are required to pass an FAA-sanctioned medical exam every six months in order to remain on flight duty.
To defuse safety worries, one possible compromise may be to mandate "more-extensive physicals and an increased level of scrutiny" as soon as pilots turn 60, according to Richard Healing, an aviation consultant and former member of the National Transportation Safety Board. "It needs to be done right" to reassure critics, he said.
Advocates of the age 65 rule, including Mr. Gibson, are pleased senior agency officials are starting out with a more-neutral position, rather than dismissing the idea outright as they did in the past. "For the first time, the FAA has said it is neutral" on the topic, Mr. Gibson said.
Earlier this year, Jim Ballough, director of the FAA's flight standards office, signaled the more-flexible approach when he told an international industry conference in Portland, Oregon, that agency officials were "discussing the issue internally" and "looking at our options."
The debate coincides with other efforts to revise traditional pilot scheduling and training rules globally. U.S. and foreign airlines, for instance, are mulling ways to have pilots fly longer-than-normal shifts on ultralong-range international trips. And ICAO is pushing new standards requiring less actual flight time before copilots can receive a license.
To keep the retirement issue in the limelight, Mr. Cottingham and his advocacy organization for 60 and older pilots are contemplating asking the FAA to approve a bunch of exemptions for particular aviators. In an interview last week, Mr. Cottingham said such waivers were granted routinely to pilots of regional aircraft in the late 1990s, and his group plans to start asking the FAA chief for similar exemptions for soon-to-be retirees.
Low-fare domestic carriers Southwest and JetBlue Airways have told the FAA they are eager to start implementing a rule change to help pilots over 60. But legacy carriers with international routes so far have been reluctant to buck their pilot unions by openly supporting such a shift.
Indicating a strategy for the coming fight, a spokesman for ALPA, which recently elected a new president, said "having Congress take the lead and avoid a full-scale rulemaking procedure" by the FAA would "have negative ramifications down the road."
Write to Andy Pasztor at [email protected]

 

[walkthasky]

Discrimination...hahahah! I still have not seen one valid point as to why this rule should change other than they (soon to be retired) get to make up for "unforseen circumstances". Its political B.S. and everyone who is behind these guys will be paying for there retirement.

And there is no safety issue at all.....BUT, the guy in the right seat can't be over 60..hmmmm

Oh, and since this will change then i will have to support the guys coming back who have retired, its only fair! Funny how the guys who are to retire do not want that..hmm.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Then move.

Nothing in our constitution guarantees you anything relative to other countries. Do you also want the right to be a murderous warlord, running a dictatorship? I believe you'll find some ICAO coutries that fit that description.

PIPE

It is pretty clear that if a government entity/agency prohibits a US citizen from doing something based on age but then that same agency allows a non-citizen to perform the same service within the US ( gov does not apply the same prohibition to a non-citizen) - this is discrimination.
If Congress or the FAA does not apply a fix, then someone will bring a discrimination lawsuit and will most likely win.