skywdriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2005
- Posts
- 230
Someone was kind enough in a previous post to draft a letter to be sent to Congress in regards to the new legislation S 1300 that if signed into law would take effect within 30 days. I added a couple of things to it, and am providing a link to locate your congressman. It only takes a small amount of effort to make a call and/or put a letter into the mail. If this thing goes through, the only people that are really going to have a choice on when they retire are the people in the left seat at whatever airline they decided to stay at. All the guys wanting to move to another airline, or the guys at the majors in the right seat are going to be forced into working the extra years just to maintain their current career earnings expectations. There is a good post a month back with some numbers reflecting that. If you don't want this thing to happen, or at least if you want it to really be considered properly instead of expediting it through Congress so a small percentage can make more money despite the fact that they got into the left seat in the place of others that had retired before them, time to do something about it. And it appears that an ALPA vote against it wasn't enough to make the statement.
Here is the link:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/
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. In addition, regarding the argument of safety there are several key points worth noting. First, there is a provision in the bill that would prevent two pilots both over the age of 60 from working together in the flight deck. Doesn’t this very clause admit that there is some safety concern in changing the rule? How can you assure the general public that this legislative change is safe and at the same time prohibit two “safe” pilots from working together? Secondly, it is a widely accepted fact that enjoying a career as a professional pilot comes with many associated health risks; some of which include exposure to radiation for long periods of time at altitude, exposure to harmful UV rays, and constant disruption of natural circadian rhythms. Is it unfortunate that there has been little specific research on the ultimate effect of these hazards. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that with age, there is an exponential increase in the resulting negative health effects. With that in mind, I feel that at this point in time, there is a potential safety issue not only for the public, but also for the pilots. Once again, emphasis should be placed on the importance of allowing for a thorough process of information gathering rather than expediting the process for the benefit of a very minute percentage of the population. I strongly believe that a legislative change of this magnitude, that will certainly affect millions of Americans, should not be wrapped up in an Authorization Bill.
Thank you for your time.
Here is the link:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/
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. In addition, regarding the argument of safety there are several key points worth noting. First, there is a provision in the bill that would prevent two pilots both over the age of 60 from working together in the flight deck. Doesn’t this very clause admit that there is some safety concern in changing the rule? How can you assure the general public that this legislative change is safe and at the same time prohibit two “safe” pilots from working together? Secondly, it is a widely accepted fact that enjoying a career as a professional pilot comes with many associated health risks; some of which include exposure to radiation for long periods of time at altitude, exposure to harmful UV rays, and constant disruption of natural circadian rhythms. Is it unfortunate that there has been little specific research on the ultimate effect of these hazards. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that with age, there is an exponential increase in the resulting negative health effects. With that in mind, I feel that at this point in time, there is a potential safety issue not only for the public, but also for the pilots. Once again, emphasis should be placed on the importance of allowing for a thorough process of information gathering rather than expediting the process for the benefit of a very minute percentage of the population. I strongly believe that a legislative change of this magnitude, that will certainly affect millions of Americans, should not be wrapped up in an Authorization Bill.
Thank you for your time.
