AGE 65 now LAW!!!

[Mooneymite]

Performance, not age.

And it starts. You guys are a bunch of idiots. Society needs limits because people like you don't know when to quit. Since this is an "age discrimination", let's discuss dissolving the age requirement to drive, vote, fly, drink, be elected president, etc. ......

The rest of your comment was motivated by your greed, but this first part touches on something that will have to be dealt with: how do we know when "it's time to go"?

Age, by itself, is obviously not the determinant. Performance is.

There are already several performance checks that all pilots (regardless of age) are subjected to:

Sim checks.
Line checks.
FAA physicals.
I.O.E's.

The problem is that in the past, these were more "Pro Forma" than functional. We can all tell stories about the FAA designated docs who are blinder and deafer than the pilots they are supposedly checking. We have all seen pilots pass Sim checks that were abortions from begining to end. We have all see pilots fresh off their IOE's who couldn't locate the cockpit.

These mechanisms for quality control are already in place, but they need to become meaningful and now that the age 60 rule isn't in place, they probably will. The downside is that if you are a sub-performer, you might find yourself "gone" way before age 60.

To arbitrarily choose an age to force ALL pilots to retire is capricious and discriminatory; it doesn't get at the root of the problem. One age does not fit all.

Yes! There is a point at which we need to stop flying; there is a point at which we need to stop driving; there is a point at which we need to start wearing Depends, but performance is the criterion, not age.

Let's move on from the dark ages of the "age 60 rule" and refine how we define and check pilot performance. The age 60 rule short circuited this process and kept it from evolving all these years. Now we must catch up and develop modern metrics to evalutate PERFORMANCE.

 

[jetexas]

Age 65 is just another example of the gov't 'regulated' airline industry.

-Allowing pensions to be dissolved and passed on to the taxpayers. Changing the retirement age due largely to this travesty. (where are the mgmt cuts?)

-Artificially trumping supply and demand to keep airlines in business.

-Allowing foreign interests to start airlines here.

..Uncle Sam, just keep helping those ticket prices stay low so we can all earn less for 5 more years.

If anything, this should definitely give ammo for better pay for FO's in coming contracts.

 

[Jonny Sacko]

Please Write Your Alpa Reps To Recall Prater. If It Is Not Brought Up At The Next Local Meeting, Bring Up A No Confidence Vote And Remove Them. Thank You!

 

[-FlyAuburn-]

InFO - President Today Signed Age 65 Into Law
Notice Number: NOTC1079

Subject: ​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]President Today Signed Age 65 Into Law, Affecting Pilots Under Part 121 [/FONT]

Purpose:​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This InFO announces the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" (the Act), effective immediately, December 13, 2007, and highlights key provisions of the Act. [/FONT]

Background:​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]In November, 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) revised the maximum age for certain pilots in international operations from age 60 to age 65. Until 12/13/07, the United States, an ICAO member state, limited its pilots operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 to age 60. Now those pilots may continue until age 65, as specified in the Act. [/FONT]

Discussion:​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Key provisions of the Act include the following:

. As of 12/13/07, part 121, § 121.383(c), specifying age 60, ceases to be effective.
. A pilot age 60+ acting as pilot in command (PIC) in international operations must be paired with a pilot under age 60 (consistent with the current ICAO requirement).
. In domestic operations both pilots may be age 60+.
. It permits the continued employment of a pilot who reaches age 60 on or after 12/13/07.
. It permits the employment as a new-hire a pilot who reached age 60 before 12/13/07.
. A pilot age 60+ will not be subjected to different, greater, or more frequent medical exams.
. Any pilot age 60+ must hold a first-class medical certificate, renewable on a 6-month cycle.
. Any air carrier employing pilots age 60+ must adjust its training program to ensure such pilots' skill and judgment continue at acceptable levels.
. Any pilot age 60+ must undergo a line check at 6-month intervals.
. For a pilot age 60+ acting as second in command (SIC), a regularly scheduled simulator evaluation may substitute for a required line check.
​

[/FONT]

Recommended Action:​

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Directors of safety, directors of operations, chief pilots, trainers, and pilots under part 121 should be aware of the Act and should collaborate immediately in implementing its provisions.

The exact language of the Act can be downloaded at the following public Web site:​

[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman] http://thomas.loc.gov [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]. In the "Search Bill Text" box click on "Bill Number," enter "HR 4343" and click Search. [/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]An InFO contains valuable information for operators that should help them meet certain administrative, regulatory, or operational requirements with relatively low urgency or impact on safety. [/FONT] ​

For more information on this and other InFO's please go to the following URL:​

[/FONT]

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif]You have received this notice from FAASafety.gov because you have selected "General Information" in your preferences on your FAASafety.gov account. Click here to log in and edit your preferences on FAASafety.gov.[/FONT]

 

[Spooky 2]

The rest of your comment was motivated by your greed, but this first part touches on something that will have to be dealt with: how do we know when "it's time to go"?

Age, by itself, is obviously not the determinant. Performance is.

There are already several performance checks that all pilots (regardless of age) are subjected to:

Sim checks.
Line checks.
FAA physicals.
I.O.E's.

The problem is that in the past, these were more "Pro Forma" than functional. We can all tell stories about the FAA designated docs who are blinder and deafer than the pilots they are supposedly checking. We have all seen pilots pass Sim checks that were abortions from begining to end. We have all see pilots fresh off their IOE's who couldn't locate the cockpit.

These mechanisms for quality control are already in place, but they need to become meaningful and now that the age 60 rule isn't in place, they probably will. The downside is that if you are a sub-performer, you might find yourself "gone" way before age 60.

To arbitrarily choose an age to force ALL pilots to retire is capricious and discriminatory; it doesn't get at the root of the problem. One age does not fit all.

Yes! There is a point at which we need to stop flying; there is a point at which we need to stop driving; there is a point at which we need to start wearing Depends, but performance is the criterion, not age.

Let's move on from the dark ages of the "age 60 rule" and refine how we define and check pilot performance. The age 60 rule short circuited this process and kept it from evolving all these years. Now we must catch up and develop modern metrics to evalutate PERFORMANCE.

I agree totally. We should establish the same standards as say, the Japanese have done for expat crews joining their operations. How about for starters, a hand flown circling approach with the tolerances of +20' minus zero. That's a no BS standard the we could apply right here, tomorrow for all ATP, type ratings. No second chances. As it turns out a lot of guys have busted this standard, both old and young.

 

[Mooneymite]

Managing change.

Please Write Your Alpa Reps To Recall Prater. If It Is Not Brought Up At The Next Local Meeting, Bring Up A No Confidence Vote And Remove Them. Thank You!

Huh?

Recall Prater?

You would have preferred Prater to support a discriminatory law?

The Age 60 rule was going to be changed whether Prater fought it or managed it.

It was a "third rail issue" for him. No way to please everyone. He took the high road on a difficult trip. The man should be congratulated, not recalled.

Sorry that you feel the way you do about age 60. However, don't let your personal hurt get in the way of objective evaluation.

 

[PCL_128]

You would have preferred Prater to support a discriminatory law?

Age 60 wasn't discriminatory, as the Supreme Court already ruled, but that's really irrelevant. What is relevant is that the President of the Association should follow the direction that he receives from the membership. The membership told him that they didn't want ALPA's policy changed, so he shouldn't have gone against the will of the membership.

 

[Mooneymite]

Wisdom and majority rule.

........ The membership told him that they didn't want ALPA's policy changed, so he shouldn't have gone against the will of the membership.

Fortunately, ALPA doesn't work that way. We elect people that we think have good sense and they act in our best interest.

If ALPA were strictly "majoirty rule" as you seem to think, we wouldn't need an ALPA president at all. We could just set policy by electronic poll and some mindless minion would carry out the will of the majority.

In this case, Prater did the right, as well as, the prudent thing. The majority can always be counted on to serve the interests of the majority...that's the basis for bad laws. That's the reason we are fortunate to live in a republic, not a democracy.

Performance, not age, should determine when a pilot must retire. Prater has the wisdom to know this.

 

[Lear70]

Fortunately, ALPA doesn't work that way. We elect people that we think have good sense and they act in our best interest.

Ummm... last I checked, ALPA wasn't a Republic. ALPA is designed to work as directed by the majority of the membership. Specifically, each LEC/MEC is directed by their membership by polls and/or resolutions. Those LEC/MEC chairs then are "SUPPOSED" to direct policy in Herndon.

The ALPA president isn't supposed to venture out IN DIRECT VIOLATION of the membership's direction. Here, he did a straw poll, then ignored it and acted as directed by the Executive Council, who also didn't act as directed by their individual pilots.

If ALPA were strictly "majoirty rule" as you seem to think, we wouldn't need an ALPA president at all. We could just set policy by electronic poll and some mindless minion would carry out the will of the majority.

Hardly. The job of ALPA president is to promote safety, assist in negotiating CBA's, and represent the membership's interest on Capitol Hill. Period. It's that last part in which there is a problem. The pilots spoke and he went off on his own plan, backed by most of the MEC/LEC chairs and vice-chairs who are also nearing retirement. The needs of the few evidently outweighed the needs of the many.

In this case, Prater did the right, as well as, the prudent thing. The majority can always be counted on to serve the interests of the majority...that's the basis for bad laws. That's the reason we are fortunate to live in a republic, not a democracy.

Performance, not age, should determine when a pilot must retire. Prater has the wisdom to know this.

Like I said before, I agree on the age 65 increase, but Prater's self-serving interests and the interests of the other near-age-60 MEC and LEC leaders have been clearly evident in his actions on this issue and there's going to be some fallout from it.

One of the things that lead to Allen Philpot's removal as NPA president was the age 65 support without polling the entire membership or having a transparent polling process whereby the "majority" they claimed were polled was not clearly an unbiased, truly random sample. I predict a similar fallout for Prater from many of the regional carriers, as well as many MEC / LEC leaders at Legacy carriers who supported it as well without polling their membership on such an important issue, even though there's no way to close the barn door on this one.

If you are an elected leader and you don't act on behalf of the majority of your constituents, you're not going to be the elected leader for very long, or you're going to undermine support at its base level.

In this case, what you have is Prater shouting for people to get millitant, then he cuts their legs out from under them by helping promote legislation that will financially damage the majority of the people he's trying to drum support from.

Not very smart when looking at the long-term plan. F/O's tend to make up about 60% of your voting demographic. Turn them off and you just killed any real support you need. And people wonder why we can't get more than a 40-60% voter turnout for elections...

 

[PCL_128]

Fortunately, ALPA doesn't work that way. We elect people that we think have good sense and they act in our best interest.

As a former ALPA rep, I think I'm far more familiar with how ALPA works than your are. ALPA can't poll the membership on every single issue before taking action, but when they do poll the membership, they need to follow the membership's guidance.

Prater has the wisdom to know this.

Prater is an incompetent buffoon that never should have been elected in the first place. He got into office by playing some dirty politics at the BOD meeting last year and trading votes with another MEC.