Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Capt Prater: Here is your sign!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Falconjet

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Posts
1,586
Age 60: APA President Meets with FAA Administrator in Washington, D.C.

APA President Captain Ralph Hunter, Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman First Officer Keith Champion and APA's Washington, D.C. consultants Susan Williams and Linda Dorfee-Flaherty met with FAA Administrator Marion Blakey and Deputy Administrator Nick Sabatini this past Monday. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss the FAA's recently announced intention to issue a Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to raise the airline pilot retirement to age 65 to match a newly issued ICAO standard.

During the hour-long meeting, Captain Hunter pressed Ms. Blakey on APA's safety concerns associated with any increase in the retirement age. Ms. Blakey stated her belief that no valid safety argument exists for maintaining the current retirement age and indicated that no additional safety analysis or studies are planned as part of the NPRM process. Ms. Blakey and Mr. Sabatini indicated the NPRM will be issued by the end of the year and that the entire process will likely take 18-24 months to complete.

Neither Ms. Blakey nor Mr. Sabatini ruled out preemptive legislative action by Congress to change the mandatory retirement age, although they clearly indicated their desire for the NPRM process to run its course. In addition to the "everybody is living longer" argument, Ms. Blakey said the desire for the FAA to harmonize with the ICAO standard was driving the rule change at this time.

Ms. Blakey expressed some sympathy for those pilots who would be forced to retire while the NPRM worked its way through the process. When asked about the FAA's position on granting individual pilot waivers in the meantime, Ms. Blakey said that any waivers would have to be supported by compelling reasons from the respective airlines in order to receive consideration. She did not rule out granting waivers supported by the respective carrier and further volunteered that one airline had already filed a supporting application for waivers on behalf of its pilots.

APA's position on the age 60 rule remains unchanged. It is a time-tested safety rule, and the Association particularly objects to the FAA's uncharacteristic dismissal of any safety implications related to a change to the mandatory retirement age. Given that the ICAO guidelines call for at least one pilot on the flight deck to be under age 60, it is apparent that there is still some question in the regulators' minds as to how old is too old. Both APA and ALPA are currently performing their own in-house analyses on the increased mortality rates for pilots over 60. These figures -- along with data from other existing studies -- will be used to support APA's position that maintaining an equivalent level of aviation safety demands positive supporting data and not just wishful thinking. Otherwise, the FAA will simply be conducting a massive safety experiment on the traveling public.

The news APA received from its meeting with the administrator is obviously troubling, and it appears that the Association will face an increased challenge to maintain the level of safety inherent in the current mandatory retirement standards. The APA Board of Directors will have an opportunity to discuss the Association's next step in its effort to defend the age 60 rule at the strategy meeting beginning on Sunday, March 4.

end of article.

FJ says:

If Capt Prater wants to know how he should be representing ALPA members in the age 60 issue here is a fine example.

He and his cronies ought to be jumping on desks in Washington doing everything in their power to ensure that the will of the majority of ALPA members is known and that it is against any change in this area.

Simply throwing up his hands with a blue ribbon panel on how to implement any changes will not cut it.

Captain Prater you need to step up and represent the majority of your dues paying members.

FJ
 
FJ, I feel your pain but this horse is out of the barn. Hitch up your drawers and plan accordingly.
 
What about the many that have lost their pensions? What are you going to do about it? Many are in their 50's with little time to make up the difference. ALPA gave them away, but has no plans to get them back. This is the biggest reason by far to raise the retirement age.
 
Cry me a river where was your savings plan when you were making 200K? you were a fool and spent like one. Now I am suppose to stay at 1800 a month so that you can make up for your foolish way. There are consequences for every thing that we do. You never saved for retirement now you are suppose to get a special privilege while the rest of the industry suffers for you stupidity?
 
FJ, I feel your pain but this horse is out of the barn. Hitch up your drawers and plan accordingly.

Sounds remarkably like Captain Prater's response.

I have a plan I am not worried about me. I am disappointed with the leadership of my union. That leadership is not responsive to the will of the majority and is only looking out for his own interests.

The old lay back and enjoy it since it is inevitable is not the response I would expect from the leader of our union. Evidently he (and many of those on this board) have surrendered and are willing to take it up the tailpipe quietly.

I am not one of those people, nor do I support a "leader" who does.

It will be interesting to see how long Capt Prater can avoid a recall if he continues to ignore the mandate set forth by the majority of ALPA's membership.

FJ
 
What about the many that have lost their pensions? What are you going to do about it? Many are in their 50's with little time to make up the difference. ALPA gave them away, but has no plans to get them back. This is the biggest reason by far to raise the retirement age.

I think you have ALPA confused with bankruptcy court. That is where the pensions were trashed.
 
Maybe the UAL/DAL pensions were tossed by the BK judge, but the USAir pension was given away by the MEC....no vote, no warning, no #$%#.

This moaning and groaning by the young/junior over these pensions and that the older guys are greedy is fruitless. These guys got a screwing that you hopefully never will. To say it is greed is not reality. I have flown with many a Captain that was a mult-millionaire. Are they greedy for flying? They just love their job.

Over age 60 flying is coming to America. Get used to it.

A350
 
Last edited:
Sounds like part of a grander plan:

Uniformity of regulations = easier to impliment "open skies".
 
Cry me a river where was your savings plan when you were making 200K? you were a fool and spent like one. Now I am suppose to stay at 1800 a month so that you can make up for your foolish way. There are consequences for every thing that we do. You never saved for retirement now you are suppose to get a special privilege while the rest of the industry suffers for you stupidity?



Come on "fly boy"..
You sound like someone who is uneducated or easy to rush to a conclusion.

A LOT of those senior guys were making great money... and probably saving a small portion based on their expectations of having their RETIREMENT.
They didn't have to save a huge portion of their income. They had a company paid and promised retirement plan.
Of course, promises are not guarantees.

I suggest you not rush to blame or judge people so carelessly.
Maybe as you get older and WISER, you may see how foolish you appear now.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top