AGE 65 rule appears to have been voted down.

[lostplnetairman]

The reauthorization bill was voted on in 2003. This is old news. Chase is correct.

HR Diva

 

[hr2eternity]

confirmation

Does anyone have any confirmation about this?

I got a letter from my senator saying this jewel was voted down in the senate last month. Is that confirmation?

 

[hr2eternity]

Write you Senator

If you could post a link to this or post conformation, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks,
737

Go on Thomas Law or write your Senator.

 

[hr2eternity]

Hi Brownie

hr2eternity
i don't know where u got ur info but i just got off the phone with my senator and he said to let u know, u r full of shoot.

I got my information from Senator Feinstein of California who wrote me a letter stating it had been voted down. Look my email up on the inside.ipa website and I'll forward you a copy of it.

100% IPA

TH

 

[brownie]

hr2eternity
thanx 4 reply, but u have no email under ipa, plus under thomas law it says the bill was introduced 1/4/05 which makes it a yr old and there is no decision either, so i don't know how accurate ur info can be.
1000 team ipa

 

[Andy Neill]

I got a letter from my senator saying this jewel was voted down in the senate last month. Is that confirmation?

No, it's not. Confirmation is a vote number or bill number showing its current status as defeated - not an email from your senator who says it was voted down.

Thomas shows S 65 as having been brought out of committee with a favorable report as amended (still can't find a public source on the wording of the amendment).

I SUSPECT that one of S 65's co-sponsors tacked an age-changing amendment on an appropriations bill and it (the amendment) was voted down. That doesn't mean S65 is dead. Obviously if it doesn't get passed this year, then it's back to square one.

One of my senators has added his name to the list of co-sponsors.

 

[Jeepman]

Andy,

Do you or does anyone else know of a website where we can go to track this issue?

 

[Andy Neill]

Andy,

Do you or does anyone else know of a website where we can go to track this issue?

The site I use (which isn't the greatest for up to the minute tracking) is
http://thomas.loc.gov/

The bill number is S.65 (I believe the House has aversion to in HR 65).

That doesn't cover all the floor actions on ammendments, etc., but you can search the Congressional Record on that site if you like reading a lot.

 

[hr2eternity]

I think you're right

I SUSPECT that one of S 65's co-sponsors tacked an age-changing amendment on an appropriations bill and it (the amendment) was voted down. That doesn't mean S65 is dead. Obviously if it doesn't get passed this year, then it's back to square one.

I'll give you the direct quote from the letter dated December 7th 05. (not an email but a real letter) Senator Feinstein sent me.

"This matter recently came before the Senate for a vote, as an ammendment to the FAA reauthorization bill. The ammendment, which would have raised the mandatory retirement age to 65, was defeated by a 44-52 Vote.
I decided to vote against the ammendment only after careful consideration." (furhter discussion follows)

 

[lostplnetairman]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00223

As I said, this is old news. The vote she is referring to took place in 2003.

HR Diva

 

[Andy Neill]

I'll give you the direct quote from the letter dated December 7th 05. (not an email but a real letter) Senator Feinstein sent me.

I'll take that to mean that you do NOT have a vote number or a bill number that was defeated. You are not implying that S.65 was defeated, are you?

 

[hr2eternity]

not implying anything

I'll take that to mean that you do NOT have a vote number or a bill number that was defeated. You are not implying that S.65 was defeated, are you?

I'm not implying anything except what I got in the letter. For the other guy: I received a letter in late 2005 that says voted on recently (read direct quote above). I took that to mean late fall 2005--not the 2003 vote you're referring to. Does recently mean 2003? Maybe you're right and that's what she's referring to.

Sorry I even brought it up.

 

[lostplnetairman]

I'm no guy!

But what you got was a canned letter in the sense that she described her vote on the topic and never bothered to update the "recently" part. There has been no vote on the FAA reauthorization since 2003 and I remember this amendment. ALPA got to all the democrats and pitched unionism.

HR Diva

 

[NoJoy]

The irony of some pilots in favor of extending the 121 retirement age, is that when they were originally hired, they new when the retirement age was going to be. And they new that in order for them to increase their quality of life, it would be dependant on either future growth or future retirements. I would think that the same pilots who wanted to fly as long as they could hold a medical new they could do so flying 135. Whats all the fuss about now?

 

[lostplnetairman]

Re the fuss: I'm not a pilot--just married to one (and not one who is borderline retirement age). But I would guess that perhaps 9/11 changed some expectations regarding future growth and retirement plans. Imagine if you were at US Airways for 13 years. You lost your pension and your job. You now had to start over as an FO for a regional to keep flying... I could be wrong, because I'm just

HR Diva

 

[Flopgut]

Re the fuss: I'm not a pilot--just married to one (and not one who is borderline retirement age). But I would guess that perhaps 9/11 changed some expectations regarding future growth and retirement plans. Imagine if you were at US Airways for 13 years. You lost your pension and your job. You now had to start over as an FO for a regional to keep flying... I could be wrong, because I'm just

HR Diva

Please allow me to expand upon your hypothetical situation because that is exactly what happened in my family. What you do, when your 53 and your airline goes out of business, is you get your butt in gear and go to work! You fly FAR 135 or 91 or you get another job. Terrible things have happened to airline pilot's careers before and no one gave a crap, why start now? Look, if these people are so darn bright that we need to change federal law for their unique benefit, then we should ask ourselves if the world may be better if their awesome talents were redistributed into other areas of the workforce.

The untimely loss of my father's job was the most significant event my family ever withstood. However, we are all better for it now. They should recieve no better treatment than we did.

 

[lostplnetairman]

Just a slight correction...no one is asking to change federal law. Mr. Smith was not successful in 1959 in getting a federal law passed to force his pilots to retire. So he appealed to his WWII buddy at the FAA to issue a FAR.

But we digress. The point of this thread was that the OP received a letter from a senator that led him to believe that something recent had happened. It had not. Therefore, there is no point in returning to the same discussion regarding the merits of the proposal--we all know each other's views and are not going to change them. It isn't our views that matter--it's the view's of those with the power to do something about it that matter.

HR Diva

 

[Flopgut]

Just a slight correction...no one is asking to change federal law. Mr. Smith was not successful in 1959 in getting a federal law passed to force his pilots to retire. So he appealed to his WWII buddy at the FAA to issue a FAR.

But we digress. The point of this thread was that the OP received a letter from a senator that led him to believe that something recent had happened. It had not. Therefore, there is no point in returning to the same discussion regarding the merits of the proposal--we all know each other's views and are not going to change them. It isn't our views that matter--it's the view's of those with the power to do something about it that matter.

HR Diva

I know the point of the thread and the status of the proposed legislation. I am not too confused about that.

I wanted to remind you that I actually lived your theorhetical scenario and can relate to you exactly how to handle it. I know you are abundantly cautious with regard to age discrimination, but in this case the rule only excludes pilots from a very small percentage of total industry employment opportunities out of an abundance of caution for safety.

BTW, if not federal law, what is an FAR?

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

The irony of some pilots in favor of extending the 121 retirement age, is that when they were originally hired, they new when the retirement age was going to be. And they new that in order for them to increase their quality of life, it would be dependant on either future growth or future retirements. I would think that the same pilots who wanted to fly as long as they could hold a medical new they could do so flying 135. Whats all the fuss about now?

A hot issue. Kinda harsh to want to flush the 59ish guys down the toilet. I know its been done for years but that has never been a good reason for anything to continue. Lots of forces at work, not just cognitive ability. Money will trump that one. And there is no difficulty pairing an over 60 with under 60. In fact it would be ridiculously easy to check.

I do see the problem with cognitive ability. One way to do this right is to include a realistic PC with perhaps a special examiner. Not hard to do. This has just boiled down to who gets the spoils, young or old. For the record I am under 40.

“…Pension underfunding is neither an accident nor the result of forces beyond a company’s control…The tragedy is that it was the result of perfectly legal activity under our system of flawed pension funding rules and inadequate premium structure…

“…From 2000 onward, when the true funded status of each of [United’s] pension plans was deteriorating, the company: put no cash into the plan; never made a deficit reduction contribution; never provided any notices of underfunding to participants; and almost never paid a variable rate premium. United was largely exempt from these rules because it could claim the pilots’ plan was ‘fully funded’ on a current liability basis. This rosy picture stands in sharp contrast with what we know to be the true status of United’s pilots’ plan – an aggregate shortfall of almost $3 billion and a funded ratio of only 50%...

“…Companies that sponsor pension plans have a responsibility to live up to the promises they have made to their workers and retirees. Yet under current law, financially troubled companies have shortchanged their pension promises by nearly $100 billion, putting workers, responsible companies and taxpayers at risk…”

“…while these airlines [Braniff, Pan Am, Eastern, TWA, US Airways and United] will account for 38 percent of claims, they have paid only 2.6 percent of total premiums in the history of the insurance fund…”

“…the insurance fund must, under current law, be covered by higher premiums. Not only will healthy companies be subsidizing weak companies with underfunded plans, they may also face the prospect of having to compete against a rival firm that has shifted a significant portion of its ongoing labor costs onto the government…” [Mr. Bradley D. Belt, Exec Dir, PBGC]

 

[FlyBoeingJets]

BTW,

Does any Purple or Brown type know the funded status of THEIR pension plans? That is a critical piece of information on whether age 60 is for you or not.

And yes, I do think this ties in with the thread...as a side note.

Sorry, no info on the legislation. But I am being assured it will pass, perhaps as an age 62 limit.

 

[Flopgut]

BTW,

Sorry, no info on the legislation. But I am being assured it will pass, perhaps as an age 62 limit.

I am being told by our CALALPA legislative affairs person that it will get close this time but is still 50/50. It will get close (or perhaps change partially like you mention) based mostly on how hard you SWA types have been pushing it. The tipping point will be forces from the EU. Now, I realize you already know everything I just said, however according to this person the real threat will come from what is tied to the age change: Foriegn ownership. According to him, they won't necessarily be interested in the ones in distress. They will want, and have the money to buy, the good airlines.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Hey,
"Senate Committee Approves Revising Age 60 Rule
A new Senate bill (S.65) would permit pilots to fly until age 65 with certain restrictions, reversing the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) long-standing “age 60 rule” that requires commercial pilots to leave the cockpit at age 60. Co-sponsored by Sen. Conrad Burns (R- Mont) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the bill has been approved by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. In the House, a companion bill (H.R. 65) has been introduced by Rep. James Gibbons (R-Nevada).
The legislation would permit a pilot older than age 60 to continue to operate “multi-crew aircraft” as long as the crewman receives regular physical exams and flies with a co-pilot younger than age 60. Pilots who have been forced to retire at age 60 could be rehired. However, those employees could not sue to get their jobs back, and could not impose their prior seniority. The legislation also would mandate a report within two years addressing the safety effects, if any, of older pilots in the cockpit. The proposed change to FAA rules reflect standard practice in the global community, according to Stevens. Nearly 75 percent of 112 nations permit pilots to fly until their 65th birthday, he observed.
Proponents of the bill assert that the current age rule is discriminatory and unsupported by current medical evidence. Supporters include Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways, pilots at those carriers, and other major airlines. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Allied Pilots Association (APA) oppose the legislation.
The controversial age cap was established in 1959. At that time, the agency based its rule on medical evidence that men over age 60 were more likely to suffer sudden incapacitation by heart attacks or strokes. Previous attempts to overturn the rule have failed, both in the courts and in Congress. In 1998 the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court ruling that held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not limit the FAA’s authority to issue the age 60 rule (Professional Pilots Fed’n v. FAA, 74 FEP Cases 345)."

PBR

 

[JethroF15]

BTW,

Does any Purple or Brown type know the funded status of THEIR pension plans? That is a critical piece of information on whether age 60 is for you or not.

And yes, I do think this ties in with the thread...as a side note.

Sorry, no info on the legislation. But I am being assured it will pass, perhaps as an age 62 limit.

Every year FedEx sends out a summary of the pilot's pension fund. I think I got the last one at the end of Nov or early Dec. Funded at 100%.

 

[regionaltard]

Look, if these people are so darn bright that we need to change federal law for their unique benefit, then we should ask ourselves if the world may be better if their awesome talents were redistributed into other areas of the workforce.

The untimely loss of my father's job was the most significant event my family ever withstood. However, we are all better for it now. They should recieve no better treatment than we did.

And what of the fact that federal law was changed to their unique detriment by the industry's "wholly owned" Congress some years back?

 

[Andy]

And what of the fact that federal law was changed to their unique detriment by the industry's "wholly owned" Congress some years back?

The mandatory age 60 retirement law was enacted in 1959. It is now 2006. 2006 - 1959 = 47. The change was enacted 47 years ago (give or take a few months). Any pilot that's turning 60 in 2006 was 13 when the law was enacted. When the law changed, no pilot flying part 121 today was even old enough to have a private pilot license. The oldest ones were just barely hitting puberty. Your previous post is specious.

 

[FlyinScotsman]

My personal opinion is vote it down. However, that's only b/c of my personal situation and own selfish desires. I was lucky to get hired young at a (currently) stable airline that still has a pension.

However, for all the young guys out there, I think this WILL be changed before any of us hit age 60. All these baby boomer types keep saying 40 is the new 30, and 60 is the new 50 and all that junk. Soon 80 will be the new 60 or something like that. People are actually staying healthier longer, and if the Age 60 rule truly is a safety issue, then it'll eventually be changed.

The only impediment I can see is the management at airlines. They hold the real power with Congress, not us. If they want it changed, it'll be changed. If they don't want to pay a 62 yr old a ton of cash to fly til he's 65 (maybe paired with another Capt making the same rate), they'll tell Congress and the rule won't get changed.

I see it from both sides. I personally don't want it changed, but this is America...if someone CAN and WANTS to work they should be allowed to.

It will change it is just a matter of when, I personally don't want it to change for basically the same reasons as Magnum, but on the other hand it is going to happen despite what I think. So might as well get it over with and get on with life.

 

[regionaltard]

The mandatory age 60 retirement law was enacted in 1959. It is now 2006. 2006 - 1959 = 47. The change was enacted 47 years ago (give or take a few months). Any pilot that's turning 60 in 2006 was 13 when the law was enacted. When the law changed, no pilot flying part 121 today was even old enough to have a private pilot license. The oldest ones were just barely hitting puberty. Your previous post is specious.

Did the irony of a furloughed pilot raising the issue of specious arguments around the age 60 issue escape you? The only thing that's changed since the rule's inception is that airline executives wanting to lop off the top of the payscale have been replaced by pilots who bought their first airline job saying "get out of my seat." This rule has always been about special interests, not science, and any argument in favor of it is specious by definition.

Pensions have been a high priority for pilots due to the arbitrary and premature end of their peak earning days. Those who have beeen forced to retire at the same time their pensions were being looted are in fact uniquely disadvantaged by the rule. When they were born is irrelevant.

 

[SuperFLUF]

............ The legislation also would mandate a report within two years addressing the safety effects, if any, of older pilots in the cockpit. ................The controversial age cap was established in 1959. At that time, the agency based its rule on medical evidence that men over age 60 were more likely to suffer sudden incapacitation by heart attacks or strokes. .............

This part of the bill is Bull$h!t. If there is the possibility of an effect on safety then you study it BEFORE you change the laws. Not after. How assinine is that?

How about we just stop doing ETOPs pre-departure checks and two years down the road see how it has effected safety? Same premise.

Either it effects safety or it doesn't. If it might effect safety then do a two year study on the "Nearly 75 percent of 112 nations permit pilots to fly until their 65th birthday" group and see what the potential effects on safety are BEFORE ennacting a rule change that might effect safety.

Personally I doubt it will have any effect on safety (positive or negative) but this is just typical of the CRAP that comes out of DC.

 

[SuperFLUF]

Does anyone know if age 65 will come up again in the future, or are they finally going to stick a fork in this once and for all?

No it will not go away. If this bill does not pass (good chance it will pass) then it will come back again & again & again until it does.

Aside from those who gambled on a promise from a public corporation for their retirement (and didn't bother to educate themselves about how much was really "guaranteed" by the PBGC) and now need to get retirement money from somewhere, there will always be those who's life is the job. Without the job they have no life. They probably have no real plans or dreams for retirement so they'll happily work till they expire. (and the longer you work at this job, the earlier it will happen)

Just as I did not plan on getting more than the PBGC min. guarantee from my pension, I have been planning on those who did not plan taking away 5 years of my left seat earnings and thus reducing my retirement funds when I retire at 60 or sooner so I can go enjoy life without a job to tie me down.

My recommendation is to plan on it too. If this does pass, eventually they will raise it to 67, 69, 70, or no limit. (just till the Santa Claus AME gets scared)
If it doesn't pass, then plan on a similar bill passing eventually. Sooner rather than later.

 

[Andy]

Pensions have been a high priority for pilots due to the arbitrary and premature end of their peak earning days. Those who have beeen forced to retire at the same time their pensions were being looted are in fact uniquely disadvantaged by the rule. When they were born is irrelevant.

So are you saying that the law is entirely arbitrary? As a person ages, their skills do not diminish to any measurable degree? And that'd be why we see so many athletes in their 40s playing professional sports.
Does everyone's skills diminish equally? NO! That's why there are a FEW professional athletes in their 40s. (For yucks, compile a full list of starters in professional sports over the age of 40). While for some 60 is too young to retire, there are many pilots out there who have not yet reached 60 whose skills are approaching marginal. I've flown enough to have come across more than a couple who should be retired prior to 60. 60 has always been the compromise retirement age.