Age 65 on fast track

[Andy]

S 1300, the FAA Authorization Bill, has emerged from committee and been reported to the Senate with the text of S 65 attached to it.
Long story short, it appears that the age will change to 65 within 30 days after enactment of S 1300.

To verify this, you need to go to thomas.loc.gov. On that website, you'll see a box in the center where you can search bill text. Type in S 1300 and switch from word/phrase to bill number.
Once you have S 1300, scroll down to section 706. Here's the text of section 706:
SEC. 706. 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 section shall take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

 

[jonjuan]

But I thought it was going to be 2-3 years before it went through?

 

[HalinTexas]

But I thought it was going to be 2-3 years before it went through?

For the FAA, but not for Congress. And a Democratic Congress at that!

 

[Andy]

But I thought it was going to be 2-3 years before it went through?

That would be the case with the NPRM. With this language now attached to the FAA Authorization Bill, it will go into effect 30 days after enactment of the FAA Authorization Bill. I am assuming that the text of this will not be stripped from the FAA Authorization Bill AND that the FAA Authorization Bill passes before the 110th Congress adjourns (all bills not passed prior to adjournment die when Congress adjourns). Don't get your hopes up on the bill dying; the 110th won't adjourn until ~Dec 2008.

 

[flatspin7]

• (b) Sunset of Age-60 Rule-

• (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).

At least there is a line in there preventing anyone from coming back. I had come to terms with age 60 changing but I was worried about a situation where people who have already retired or training center folks trying to get back on the line.

 

[Beetle007]

(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).

It doesn't prevent a pilot from getting his old seniority number. The union and company could still allow a pilot to come back with their old seniority number. Airline politics would most likely prevent this, but I wouldn't say this bill prevents it.

It appears this bill would allow an over 60 flight engineer to go back to the left seat. Does Fed Ex, UPS, or any other airline still have many over age 60 Flight Engineers.

 

[Andy]

It appears this bill would allow an over 60 flight engineer to go back to the left seat. Does Fed Ex, UPS, or any other airline still have many over age 60 Flight Engineers.

No, because the flight engineer position is not a pilot position. It states that if you reach age 60 and take a job other than pilot, you do not have automatic right to return to a pilot position.


shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority ...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 ...

 

[flatspin7]

In my limiting ability to comprehend congressional legalese but I read it saying if you are over 60 on the effective date your done.

Then will come the lawsuits.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

FAA reviews Oberstar Report

Up to 10% of all medicals issued may have false information!

Oberstar will be looking into the paperwork medical if this age issue changes.

After the medical standards change and the reporting standards start ketching all the liars, the total number booted out of the cockpit will be far greater than those not retiring.

Also the FAA reauthorization bill is going to be highly controversial with its funding based on a user fee system. I am not so sure S1300 will ever pass.



AW&ST

The FAA is now reviewing the House Transportation Committee report that urges the agency develop a process to identify pilots who falsify medical data for fear of being denied an Airman Medical Certificate.
When the FAA failed to act on recommendations in a Jan 2005 Transportation Inspector General (IG) report, Committee Chairman Rep. James Oberstart (D-Minn) launched an investigation, with findings issued Mar 27. The IG found "egregious" cases of pilots who concealed disqualifying medical conditions and the taking of medications for them when applying for the certificate. The IG recommeded the FAA work with disability benefits providers to develop a strategy allowing for spot checks to identify offending pilots and for the FAA to punish non-compliance.
The IG report says that in a sampling of 40,000 pilots in northern CA, 3,200 held valid medical certificates while collecting disability benefits--45 were prosecuted, but the IG says hundreds more would have been detected if "resources had not been constrained."
None of the pilots who were prosecuted were flying for passerger airlines, says an FAA official, who added that the 40,000 sampled were among a total 650,000-pilot population. "The FAA worked very closely with the Transportation Dept. IG on those CA cases where pilots were receiving disability or other benefits while stating that they were fit to fly,"she adds. Specifically, the agency's deputy flight surgeon in Los Angleles spent"80% of his time for two years" in support of the DOT IG investigation.
The FAA insists that it "has not seen data to support the notion that falsification of airman medical certification applications is rampant," as the IG's and Oberstarts committee reports support. "The FAA will carefully review Rep Oberstart's report, but there are serious issues with the government's access to medical records and the Privacy Act."

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Then will come the lawsuits.

It is going to be a sue fest.

 

[Fly4hire]

I suggest you look in the definition section of your contract. At NWA (we have ropes) "pilot" includes Capt, FO, IRC, and SO

 

[XJTAv8r]

That would be the case with the NPRM. With this language now attached to the FAA Authorization Bill, it will go into effect 30 days after enactment of the FAA Authorization Bill. I am assuming that the text of this will not be stripped from the FAA Authorization Bill AND that the FAA Authorization Bill passes before the 110th Congress adjourns (all bills not passed prior to adjournment die when Congress adjourns). Don't get your hopes up on the bill dying; the 110th won't adjourn until ~Dec 2008.

Here's a suggested template for anyone who wants to write their local Senators in Washington: (feel free to edit)

Dear Senator:

The current FAA Authorization Bill, S1300, has emerged from committee containing a provision (SEC. 706) to change the FAA’s mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. The FAA is currently studying this issue through its Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) process and was eventually going to make an educated judgment whether to change the rule within the next one to two years. It is essential and proper that the NPRM process be allowed to proceed without being circumnavigated by this “fast track” piece of legislation. This will allow time for safety studies and public comment, instead of pushing the political and financial agendas of what is primarily a group of airline pilots who are nearing age 60 and want to quickly extend their most profitable earnings years. This is a Federal Aviation Regulation issue, not a Congressional issue and I request that you ensure that the issue receives proper consideration through the FAA’s NPRM rather than buried deep within an authorization bill. Thank you for your time.


Andy,
Since this has left committee, would you suggest writing anyone else besides your 2 state Senators?

 

[Andy]

Also the FAA reauthorization bill is going to be highly controversial with its funding based on a user fee system. I am not so sure S1300 will ever pass.

Yeah, I didn't bother mentioning that because I do not want to give anyone the hope that the FAA Authorization Bill will die. I'm hoping that it does and was aware of the user fees; that alone will jam this bill in Congress for a while. However, we're fighting a much harder uphill battle with ALPA working behind the scenes in favor of 65.

 

[Andy]

Andy,
Since this has left committee, would you suggest writing anyone else besides your 2 state Senators?

Yes, the FAA Authorization Bill has to be married up with its counterpart in the House. IF the text of S 65 (HR 1225) is not included in the House version, this would eventually have to be reconciled between the House and Senate versions. So, the target audience in the house would be the House members of the House Subcommittee on Aviation. Here's a link: http://transportation.house.gov/aviation/index.shtml

 

[XJTAv8r]

Here's the contact info. for those who want to write their Senators about this proposed bill:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

[Hawker800]

Foreign carriers doing it in US airspace. Hard not to justify. Doesn't the FAA Authorization have to be in place by 10/1/07? It is coming. Anyway when all the young folks reach age 60, they might be glad this happened. User fees. The airlines are pushing this big time. They just might accept age 65 to get the fees. They would love to put General Aviation out of business.
If that does happen, where do the age 60 guys go if the age does not change.

 

[Beetle007]

In my limiting ability to comprehend congressional legalese but I read it saying if you are over 60 on the effective date your done.

Then will come the lawsuits.

You are not done.This congressional legislation is different than the FAA version. It would allow any pilots over the age of 60 to continue as a pilot (regardless of when they turned 60). For example, If I am age 62 when they pass this legislation, I could seek employment at any airline as a pilot(opposite of the FAA version).

If I am already employeed as a pilot, I can continue as a pilot until I reach the age of 65. I consider flight engineers to be a pilot, and most collective bargaining agreements do also. So a 62 year old flight engineer could move back to the left seat. It all depends on the legal definition (and the definition of your pilot contracts) of a pilot.

My guess, is that any pilot on the seniority list (regardless of if they are a flight engineer, sim instructor, etc) the day this goes into effect can continue as a pilot until the age of 65.

 

[Andy]

Doesn't the FAA Authorization have to be in place by 10/1/07?

No. The FAA can continue to be funded by CR (continuing resolution).

 

[Andy]

You are not done.This congressional legislation is different than the FAA version. It would allow any pilots over the age of 60 to continue as a pilot (regardless of when they turned 60). For example, If I am age 62 when they pass this legislation, I could seek employment at any airline as a pilot(opposite of the FAA version).

If I am already employeed as a pilot, I can continue as a pilot until I reach the age of 65. I consider flight engineers to be a pilot, and most collective bargaining agreements do also. So a 62 year old flight engineer could move back to the left seat. It all depends on the legal definition (and the definition of your pilot contracts) of a pilot.

My guess, is that any pilot on the seniority list (regardless of if they are a flight engineer, sim instructor, etc) the day this goes into effect can continue as a pilot until the age of 65.

Bad info in your post, Beetle.

1) Congressional legislation states clearly that if you're over 60 when this goes into effect, you're done. You cannot come back. It could be challenged in court, but will fail since the judicial branch will not override the legislative branch on this issue.
2) A flight engineer is NOT a pilot. A flight engineer is a flight crewmember. Read the title of part 63 of the FARs and then check out subpart B.

 

[FoxHunter]

Bad info in your post, Beetle.

1) Congressional legislation states clearly that if you're over 60 when this goes into effect, you're done. You cannot come back. It could be challenged in court, but will fail since the judicial branch will not override the legislative branch on this issue.
2) A flight engineer is NOT a pilot. A flight engineer is a flight crewmember. Read the title of part 63 of the FARs and then check out subpart B.

A S/O is a pilot at any other ALPA carrier that has them.

It also appears that the Senators disagree with your view. Then how should the know? Could be that is the insight you get when you write the legislation in question!


http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007 Inhofe et al to Blakey.pdf