Delay of the Age 65 Rule

[Bally]

My union is spending lots of money and having a bunch of Washington blitzes pushing the age 65 change. Since the FAA announced they support the change and need to work the issue which they say will take 18 - 24 months, is there anything that can be done to fight against the change at this point, or at a minimum delay the change as long as possible. Anyone know of a formal group opposing the change?

Does calling my Congreassman accomplish anything? Or is congress simply waiting for the FAA to do their thing and then they will approve the change? Could congress approve the change through legislation before the FAA does all their study?

p.s. I already know that I am a bad person for not supprting the change so you do not need to rag about how selfish I am.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Well...you can write to your congressman...but no doubt you won't be the first that has written to him and he has probably already been briefed by the FAA on this issue...and you know how those washington types stick together.

If you do write your congressman, don't bring up the old, tired "unsafe" arguement. There have been airline pilots over age 60 flying in US airspace since last November....in addition, your congressman has probably been briefed by the FAA on this already. As you probably already know, if you write to him and tell him how "unsafe" this age change will be....he will pick up the phone and call the FAA...and you know what they are going to tell him.

Tell him the truth...tell him how this will hurt your earnings by delaying your upgrade....keep your fellow pilots on furlough ( hurts the unemployment numbers), etc.

Personally, I'd like to see this decision delayed for another 12 years and 8 months...then, let the age 65 happen...that would work out perfect for me...

Good luck....

 

[PCL_128]

Anyone know of a formal group opposing the change?

It used to be ALPA, but then Darth Prater came along and $*%&ed that all up. Now, I don't think any group has organized to officially oppose the change.

Could congress approve the change through legislation before the FAA does all their study?

It could happen, but it seems unlikely at this point. Congress views it as an FAA regulatory matter, and they've got lots more important things to worry about. It could always be tacked onto another bill at the last minute, though. The biggest problem that congress has to deal with is legislation to prevent litigation over this whole thing when it's done. That's why the FAA hasn't issued the NPRM yet. They need a law on the books to protect the FAA, the airlines, and the unions against litigation after the rule changes. Until congress takes care of that, the actual rule change will be delayed. Thankfully.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

After the captain briefs you and asks if you have any questions, you tell him you have a do not resistate policy. Since he wants to take the chance of dying in flight you will let him.

And if he asks you sign any age waiver petition say yes and rip it up in front of him destroying the other signatures he has just collected.

 

[El Pobre]

APA (American's Union) has continued to oppose it. Just think...they actually listened to thier membership.

ALPA Sux!

 

[furloughed dude]

Tejas,

Not sure why you wouldn't use the "tired" old safety arguement. I don't think anyone ever said that once you turn sixty that you would immediately crash a jet. I don't think you can say that 7 months has in any way discredited the safety arguement. But most of us that are honest with ourselves know that our skills deteriorate with age. Also, if it isn't a safety arguement, why do they require another pilot to be under the age of 60. Seems like a safety issue to me.

Automation of aircraft has certainly eased the workload and increased the situational awareness of pilots. But the contract gutting of the past few years has also made the job alot more difficult with shorter layovers, more productivity, and less time off.

Unfortunately we will be hearing about age 70 in a few years. The same old arguements will be heard once again. Where does it end?

 

[Bally]

As far as the safety thing goes, there is a big difference flying for an LCC and a long haug legacy carrier.

I am relatively young and am pretty tired after flying a 737 on a four day trip sometimes flying seven legs a day with an 11.5 hour duty day. This is much different flying than the guys flying the heavey's one leg to Japan.

Great comment that if the age 60 thing has nothing to do with safety, why do they want the second pilot to be under 60?

 

[Chest Rockwell]

Call your conressman and explain why a qualified and healthy pilot should be "fired" so that your pay may advance at a quicker pace.

 

[walkthasky]

:erm: "...that would work out perfect for me..."

I really think thats what this is all about, no ???

 

[Fly4hire]

A relatively obscure portion of the ICAO 65 standard that has not received any press (surprise) is that there are no EEOC/Age discrimination statutes in other countries as here.

Other ICAO participants may still limit mandatory retirement to less than the 65 standard (BA is still 58), and in fact there are only 2 airlines - Finnair and El Al that use over 60 pilots.

The Prater Prattle that swarms of over 60 pilots from ICAO country airlines are flying into the US is pure BS.

ICAO also has higher medical standards that ALPA does not want to see passed.

I would be fine with the REAL ICAO standard for age 65, not the cherry picked one.