AGE 65 rule appears to have been voted down.

[K. Marx]

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

I am guessing there will be no confirmation. ALPA did not even mention anything about a vote this week on this issue. I hope it is true, but my guess is it is just more BS.

 

[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 crap.

 

[GoABX]

Bad news for the other 50% who started late, or want to fly till they die, or didn't save, or lost a pension, or whatever.
quote]

Sorry for those that are collecting another retirement, selfish, stupid, or unlucky.

Would those that say this is a moral or discrimination issue be quite so passionate about it if it was grandfathered in starting in 10 years. Would they scream so loud if it effected everyone but them?

 

[PHXFLYR]

So are you saying that I am safe the day before my 60th birthday and then poof.........that's it. All of the sudden I am relegated to the schoolhouse overnight just because of my age. I just don't think its fair and never have.

Honestly I just don't wanna go home and spend more time with my wife. We all have our reasoning.

She told me she didn't want to spend any more time with you,either!


PHXFLYR

 

[PCL_128]

So are you saying that I am safe the day before my 60th birthday and then poof.........that's it.

Nope, not anymore than someone's saying you are magically a safer driver the day you turn 16, more competent to be an ATP the instant you turn 23, or a more responsible drinker the moment you turn 21. There are many arbitrary age limits that keep society safer overall, and the courts have consistently upheld them. Sixty is an arbitrary age, but so is 65, so what's the difference? Any age that is set will be arbitrary.

 

[mobie]

Just saw a posting from BWIA and the max normal age for employ is 28. Think that would work here again, it at one time was 32.

 

[canyonblue]

How about sharing with us your knowledge of how age 60 came to be in the first place?

It was a favor to AA Capo CR Smith from FAA chump Quesada, who was stuck on an age requirement he wanted put in the contract. From a Union standpoint you should hate it, from an F/O standpoint you should love it.

 

[SWA/FO]

The SWAPA web site has nothing on this.... I don't think it has been voted on. Nothing gets by SWAPA....

 

[chase]

Congress is not currently in session & doesn't return until around 17 January. As for the FAA reauthorization bill, this doesn't come up I believe until late 2007. There will be hearings on the overall issue & Age 60 may be included in that bill if it hasn't been brought up & passed previously.

The current discussions relating to Age 60 are in regards to the ICAO proposal that comes before Congress in Nov 2006 if I have my dates are correct. Age 60 is just one small part of that discussion. I think most congressmen are still enjoying the holidays & not working. I could be wrong but very little goes on in DC this time of Jan (or anytime depending on your point of view !

 

[737 Pylt]

I think most congressmen are still enjoying the holidays & not working. I could be wrong but very little goes on in DC this time of Jan (or anytime depending on your point of view !

Gotta love congress!
How come nobody in the press brings up the fact how these overpaid, underworked (part time job) people are compensated, yet pilots salaries are always in the news!?!?
737

 

[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