WHERE ARE WE ON 60 RIGHT NOW?
The 60 ARC is over. It was delivered to the FAA Administrator on November 29th.
Was it definitive? Absolutely not.
The ARC report contains a Pro and Con side, an Appendix that lists some (not all) supporting data, and an Executive Summary of the ARC. The Executive Summary is not definitive and contains point-counterpoint from the Pro-Con groups. Rather than directing any single course of action, it lays out the opposing sides of the issue. It identifies (but does not solve) a number of implementation issues. These issues obviously would impact some airlines or pilot groups more (or less) than others.
A pseudo vote was taken. It came down to six against change (the four ALPA reps [Delta, Fed Ex, ALPA, ExpressJet], as well as the APA and American Airlines reps). There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue. The rest were neutral.
The only agreed upon recommendation was that any change needed to be ‘prospective’ to preclude those already retired from coming back and attempting to reclaim seniority.
The FAA Administrator is not bound by any vote of the ARC. Its biased makeup certainly takes out of play any ‘vote’ results and, in any case, 6-4 is not a landslide.
Here’s where we stand:
The Administrator can stand pat or initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re 60/65. It seems she might do the NPRM. This is good – and bad. Good in that we are finally getting some action on the rule. Bad in that we had an NPRM back in the mid ‘90s and the FAA punted on change due to politics & an NPRM is not a sure thing; bad because an NPRM take a long time (1 ½ to 2 years); and bad because Democrats in Congress may back away from legislation and allow the FAA to ‘handle’ the issue.
In Congress the Republicans have not just punted, they dropped the ball entirely. The Democrats certainly didn’t help matters.
Unlike 2001 and 2003, we never got a vote on S. 65. This was due primarily to the partisan and poisonous atmosphere on the Hill in an election year. Republican leadership demanded that we guarantee 60 votes to block any Democrat filibuster. We couldn’t do that. Democrat leadership didn’t give assurances that they would let any vote go forward without a fight on behalf of ALPA, better known in Democrat offices as “The Union.”
Even though we knew we had 60+ votes, more support and co sponsors than we have ever had before, we got no vote.
Our legislation was attached to the Transportation Appropriations bill. That gave us hope that we would move forward with that money bill. Although this bill should have been voted on by the end of September it was not (money bills are supposed to be passed by September 30th). Congressional decisions were made with regard to the upcoming elections. They did not work to our advantage. We had every expectation that the Approps money bill would be voted on after the election or rolled into an ‘omnibus’ bill (the various money bills lumped together) and voted on as part of the greater whole. November came and went (so did Congress). No money bills were voted on.
Then came a lightning strike: Some members decided they would not support any money bills because they were loaded with pork (in all fairness, the pork extended to both sides of the congressional aisle). The Republicans thus are on the verge of punting almost a half-trillion dollars worth of spending bills to the Democrats in ’07. That has the added effect of keeping the Democrats occupied for a bit with spending bills, rather than other issues some Republicans are not in favor of.
To keep the government running, Congress is poised to pass a “Continuing Resolution”, wherein spending would continue at ’06 rates through a pre-determined date in ’07. That gives Congress time to re-craft, and vote on, the various money bills.
For us, the effect is that S.65 drops into oblivion, as legislation does not carry over into the next session of Congress.
We may still get lucky. Another lightning bolt may strike from the sky. Something may happen as Congress returns this week. Deals may be struck and posturing left behind in favor of accomplishments. Transp Approps may be passed. However, word from most sources is that the chances of that are very slim.
Early ’07 will see us back on the Hill, attempting to revive S. 65 and H.R. 65. We will look for sponsors and co-sponsors. Congress has to pass its money bills. We will attempt to have our legislation attached to pending money bills. We will meet with the new committee chairs and their staffs to solicit support.
We had some excellent progress on the Democrat side of the aisle. We will try to capitalize on that.
We had success in our grasp and partisan politics knocked our train off the tracks. It is incredibly unfair (unlucky?) to be so close and to have partisanship involved in something that is so non-partisan… yet that is exactly what happened.
We do, however, have the greatest weapon of all: ICAO and its Age 65 standard. Neither the Administrator nor Congress can be comfortable with or allow United States pilots to be second-class citizens in our own country.
We will keep pushing. We will succeed.
Paul Emens
Co-Founder, APAAD
The 60 ARC is over. It was delivered to the FAA Administrator on November 29th.
Was it definitive? Absolutely not.
The ARC report contains a Pro and Con side, an Appendix that lists some (not all) supporting data, and an Executive Summary of the ARC. The Executive Summary is not definitive and contains point-counterpoint from the Pro-Con groups. Rather than directing any single course of action, it lays out the opposing sides of the issue. It identifies (but does not solve) a number of implementation issues. These issues obviously would impact some airlines or pilot groups more (or less) than others.
A pseudo vote was taken. It came down to six against change (the four ALPA reps [Delta, Fed Ex, ALPA, ExpressJet], as well as the APA and American Airlines reps). There were four in favor of change, those being APAAD, SWAPA, SWA and JetBlue. The rest were neutral.
The only agreed upon recommendation was that any change needed to be ‘prospective’ to preclude those already retired from coming back and attempting to reclaim seniority.
The FAA Administrator is not bound by any vote of the ARC. Its biased makeup certainly takes out of play any ‘vote’ results and, in any case, 6-4 is not a landslide.
Here’s where we stand:
The Administrator can stand pat or initiate a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking re 60/65. It seems she might do the NPRM. This is good – and bad. Good in that we are finally getting some action on the rule. Bad in that we had an NPRM back in the mid ‘90s and the FAA punted on change due to politics & an NPRM is not a sure thing; bad because an NPRM take a long time (1 ½ to 2 years); and bad because Democrats in Congress may back away from legislation and allow the FAA to ‘handle’ the issue.
In Congress the Republicans have not just punted, they dropped the ball entirely. The Democrats certainly didn’t help matters.
Unlike 2001 and 2003, we never got a vote on S. 65. This was due primarily to the partisan and poisonous atmosphere on the Hill in an election year. Republican leadership demanded that we guarantee 60 votes to block any Democrat filibuster. We couldn’t do that. Democrat leadership didn’t give assurances that they would let any vote go forward without a fight on behalf of ALPA, better known in Democrat offices as “The Union.”
Even though we knew we had 60+ votes, more support and co sponsors than we have ever had before, we got no vote.
Our legislation was attached to the Transportation Appropriations bill. That gave us hope that we would move forward with that money bill. Although this bill should have been voted on by the end of September it was not (money bills are supposed to be passed by September 30th). Congressional decisions were made with regard to the upcoming elections. They did not work to our advantage. We had every expectation that the Approps money bill would be voted on after the election or rolled into an ‘omnibus’ bill (the various money bills lumped together) and voted on as part of the greater whole. November came and went (so did Congress). No money bills were voted on.
Then came a lightning strike: Some members decided they would not support any money bills because they were loaded with pork (in all fairness, the pork extended to both sides of the congressional aisle). The Republicans thus are on the verge of punting almost a half-trillion dollars worth of spending bills to the Democrats in ’07. That has the added effect of keeping the Democrats occupied for a bit with spending bills, rather than other issues some Republicans are not in favor of.
To keep the government running, Congress is poised to pass a “Continuing Resolution”, wherein spending would continue at ’06 rates through a pre-determined date in ’07. That gives Congress time to re-craft, and vote on, the various money bills.
For us, the effect is that S.65 drops into oblivion, as legislation does not carry over into the next session of Congress.
We may still get lucky. Another lightning bolt may strike from the sky. Something may happen as Congress returns this week. Deals may be struck and posturing left behind in favor of accomplishments. Transp Approps may be passed. However, word from most sources is that the chances of that are very slim.
Early ’07 will see us back on the Hill, attempting to revive S. 65 and H.R. 65. We will look for sponsors and co-sponsors. Congress has to pass its money bills. We will attempt to have our legislation attached to pending money bills. We will meet with the new committee chairs and their staffs to solicit support.
We had some excellent progress on the Democrat side of the aisle. We will try to capitalize on that.
We had success in our grasp and partisan politics knocked our train off the tracks. It is incredibly unfair (unlucky?) to be so close and to have partisanship involved in something that is so non-partisan… yet that is exactly what happened.
We do, however, have the greatest weapon of all: ICAO and its Age 65 standard. Neither the Administrator nor Congress can be comfortable with or allow United States pilots to be second-class citizens in our own country.
We will keep pushing. We will succeed.
Paul Emens
Co-Founder, APAAD
:beer: :smash: :bawling: :crying: 
uke: :uzi: )
