Don't put it off, your job is on the line.

[Bill Nelson]

Congress only has 9 more work days before they recess. they will vote on this before they go. Don't put it off, you are getting screwed by crooked politicians in Congress and your Union. ACT NOW! (make sure the title of your email tells them to remove S65 from HR5576 in case they don't read the whole email)

The House passed HR 5576, an appropriations bill for the DOT, HUD, and District of Columbia. It did not contain any provisions to change the age 60 rule in it.
HR 5576 then went to the Senate appropriations committee for amendments prior to being voted on. While there, the entire text of S. 65 was added in Section 114 under Administrative Provisions -- Offfice of the Secrety of Transportation (link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...sismU9:e379863: ) . This amendment is a back door way of getting legislation passed.
There is a way to have it removed, but it will require a Senator to object (a point of order can be made) to it once it is reported to the Senate. The bill has been reported to the Senate and is on the calendar under General Order Number 535. If the point of order is sustained (it should be, since this is a legislative rider on an appropriations bill), the bill will go back to the Committee on Appropriations. This is based on the Rules of the Senate, Rule XVI, paragraph 2. Link: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule16.php

In order to stop the change from slipping in through the back door, it will require an effort on your part to write, fax, or e-mail (in order of preference) your Senators to express your opinion. Since there is more resistance to the change among the Democratic party, I'd recommend writing Democratic Senators outside of you home state if you have the time.
Here is a link to all Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm
If you click on Web Form, it will usually take you to an e-mail form to send. If you click on the Senator's name, you will find mailing addresses and fax numbers.

On the Democrat side, I'd recommend concentrating firepower on Sens Inouye, Lautenberg, Rockefeller, Cantwell, Dorgan, and Pryor. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...&r_n=sr225.109 &item=&sel=TOC_17092&

If anyone recommends any other Senator to target, please post.

If you're looking for support from ALPA, I found this on the ALPA webboard (posted by an America West pilot):

“DW showed up in Phoenix yesterday. He was in town to talk "DELTA" with Doug Parker (Oops, I'd better not start THAT rumor...think December 4). And as luck would have it, our MEC just happened to be having a "special" meeting yesterday, followed by a "regular" meeting today. Duane showed up and gave his campaign stump speech, explaining why the Reps should vote him a third term.
But Duane, aren't you going to turn 60 during your term? ... paraphrasing one of the questions.
Never one to be without an answer, Duane replied (again paraphrasing): Well, Age 60 is going to change by the end of the year. It is Stevens' rider that will be attached to the next FAA appropriations bill and will be buried in 24,000 pages of spending.
But will it pass? Will it be Age 62, intially? Will ALPA oppose it? What about the polls? What about the "children?"
DW: It will pass and it will be age 65. ALPA doesn't always pay attention to the polls (although ALPA certainly "pays" for them).


It looks like they're trying to stuff this through the back door of Congress and 'ol Duane Woerth is looking to stay in office for an additional five years. If you are opposed to the change, get out there and write to the Senate.

 

[Ben Franklin]

link no good.

Can someone provide a link to the exact text of the pending legislation?
(specifically showing the age 65 language)


Sincerely,

B. Franklin

 

[Andy]

link no good.

Can someone provide a link to the exact text of the pending legislation?
(specifically showing the age 65 language)


Sincerely,

B. Franklin

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:4:./temp/~c109P2ohuT:e379863:


If that doesn't work, you can go to thomas.loc.gov and enter bill number hr 5576 in the 'Search bill text'; make sure to change it to bill number.
Click on version 4 of the bill, H.R.5576.RS
Scroll all the way down to ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION and click on the link. It's there under section 114.

I tried them out, and it looks like the first link works along with the other one labeled 'administrative provisions ...'

 

[Bill Nelson]

H.R.5576

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007 (Reported in Senate)

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

...........

• SEC. 114. AGE OF PILOTS. (a) Modification of FAA's Age-60 Rule- Within 30 days after the effective date of action taken by the International Civil Aviation Organization to amend Annex 1 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation to modify the international standard and recommended practice for Member State curtailment of pilot privileges by reason of age, as agreed and recommended by Air Navigation Commission at the 10th meeting of its 167th session, following its review of the recommendations of the Flight Crew Licensing and Training Panel Working Group A's report AN-WP/7982, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify section 121.383(c) of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations (14 CFR 121.383(c)) to be consistent with the amended standard or recommended practice--

• • (1) to provide that a pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under 10 part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until having attained 65 years of age on the condition that such pilot may so serve only--

• • • (A) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and

• • • (B) when another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations has not yet attained 60 years of age; and

• • (2) to eliminate the prohibition against an air carrier engaged in such operations from using the services of a pilot who has attained 60 years of age.

• (b) APPLICABILITY- The modification of the Federal Aviation Administration regulations under subsection (a) shall not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, made by any pilot seeking reemployment by such air carrier following the pilot's previous termination or cessation of employment as required by section 121.323(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as that section was in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

• (c) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Rule- Within 24 months after the date on which the Secretary of Transportation modifies the Federal Aviation Administration regulations under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure concerning the effect, if any, of the modification on aviation safety.

• SEC. 115. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in this section does not apply to negotiations between the agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on `below-market' rates for these items or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.

Federal Highway Administration


LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

• Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $378,504,000, shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration together with advances and reimbursements received by the Federal Highway Administration.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS


(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)


(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

• None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for which are in excess of $39,086,464,683 for Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal year 2007: Provided, That within the $39,086,464,683 obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs, not more than $429,800,000 shall be available for the implementation or execution of programs for transportation research (chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code; sections 111, 5505, and 5506 of title 49, United States Code; and title 5 of Public Law 109-59) for fiscal year 2007: Provided further, That this limitation on transportation research programs shall not apply to any funds authorized by section 110 of title 23, U.S.C., and allocated to these programs, or to any authority previously made available for obligation: Provided further, That the funds authorized pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 110 for the motor carrier safety grant program, and the obligation limitation associated with such funds provided under this heading, shall be transferred to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Provided further, That the Secretary may, as authorized by section 605(b) of title 23, United States Code, collect and spend fees to cover the costs of services of expert firms, including counsel, in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments and all or a portion of the costs to the Federal Government of servicing such credit instruments: Provided further, That such fees are available until expended to pay for such costs: Provided further, That such amounts are in addition to administrative expenses that are also available for such purpose, and are not subject to any obligation limitation or the limitation on administrative expenses under section 608 of title 23, United States Code.

 

[Ben Franklin]

thanks...

my letters have been sent.

Sincerely,

B. Franklin

 

[Andy]

Here's the e-mail that I sent:

Senator ,
I have a great deal of concern over S. 65, To Amend Age Restriction of Pilots. I have looked at many safety studies and have seen a direct correlation between accident rates and age among professional pilots. A pilot in his/her 20s is prone to accidents due to lack of experience. That moderates from a decreasing trend to a flat trend until the mid-50s, where the accident rate begins increasing again. The graph is U shaped, and the pilots in the 56-59 age group reach an accident rate nearly identical to those of the 30-33 age group. I urge you to read the FAA report that I have included a link to: (http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/medical/age60/media/age60_3.pdf). Please note the graph on page 24.
As we age, our physical and cognitive abilities decrease. It is hard for us to look at ourselves in the mirror and admit it, but it is an indisputable scientific fact. Some of us age more gracefully than others, but as we mature, we all experience decreasing physical and cognitive abilities. Pilots are not immune to this fact, and the data from the FAA report (cited above) is indicative that the lines between increased experience and decreasing abilities crosses, on average, at the age of 55. In fact, I would speculate that pilot sick leave takes a large upward turn starting at age 55, an indication that the physical and cognitive demands of the job start taking their toll around that age.
Some will argue that we should simply increase our testing standards to eliminate those pilots no longer fit to fly. However, according to testimony by the Federal Air Surgeon, tests for physical and cognitive abilities are not readily available at a reasonable cost.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that we are living longer, healthier lives and it makes sense to increase the retirement age of pilots. But are we really? While the quantity of life (average lifespan) has increased, has the quality of life in our seniors improved? I would argue that the average lifespan has increased due to medical advances which prolong life, but fail to address the quality of life. We have seen statistics where the percentage of smokers has steadily decreased over the last forty years. But match that up with our obesity rate over the last forty years. The negative health effects of obesity are much less apparent to the naked eye, effects that strike viciously with no warning.
I have heard some say that the age 60 rule is discriminatory. The age 60 rule was recommended to the FAA by a medical board back in the 1950s. They based their decision on scientific reports available to them at that time. Upon review of the FAA’s 2003 report, it appears that they should have chosen age 55 as a safer retirement age. Unless there is a greater reason to change the age rule than safety, I would suggest that if any change were made, it should be changed to 55. At least there is scientific data to justify that retirement age.
Is there a pressing need to change the current retirement age, in effect lowering our safety standards? There is no current shortage of pilots; in fact, many major airlines (American, United, Delta, Northwest, US Airways) have pilots laid off; the number is in excess of 7500. That is more than ten percent of the professional pilot population. So there is certainly no shortage of highly qualified pilots available. Do we really need to rush forth and change a system that is not broken?
I have read that S. 65 has been attached to the DOT’s appropriations bill, as section 114. This provision was not included in The appropriations bill is now on the Senate calendar under general order number 535. I urge you to remove section 114 from the appropriations bill.
If it is safe for pilots over the age of 60 to fly, then why does S 65 require one of the pilots to be under the age of 60?

Very Respectfully,
Andy


I've sent it as e-mail to all Democratic Senators. I will polish it, and then send it out as a fax and snail mail to some key Senators, including my home state's Senators.

 

[pipe]

Bump!

 

[Dizel8]

"B) when another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations has not yet attained 60 years of age; and"

Why this restriction? It either is safe to fly over 60, or it isn't!

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

I agree, amd call your senators and point this out to them

 

[PunchTheClown]

You actually think that your senators will listen? All they care about is keeping their jobs and lining their pockets. They will do whats best for them, not whats best for you/us.

 

[coogebeachhotel]

Age 60 rule should be taken away!

 

[pilotyip]

Remember, those who believe the law should be changed to age 65 should also contact or write their senator.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

I don't want to fly past 60...

 

[embpic1]

I don't want to fly past 60...

Then quit at 60. As for me I would like the option to continue to 65.

 

[Ben Franklin]

Then quit at 60. As for me I would like the option to continue to 65.

Then go fly corporate.



Sincerely,

B. Franklin

 

[FoxHunter]

Then go fly corporate.



Sincerely,

B. Franklin

Silly Boy, you must know that is not really an option. The chance of a good corporate job for an experienced airline pilot is remote, at best. No, I think I'll keep my present job.:beer:

 

[Deuce130]

I wouldn't waste your time, energy, or paper writing anyone. Bottom line is that if Fred Smith and the CEOs of Delta, UPS, American, United, etc etc want the rule changed, then it will be changed. If not, then it won't. Congress is not worried about us, only about the financial bottom line of those who donate the most money to political campaigns for re-election. If Fred will lose money on the deal, it will stay 60. If he stands to benefit, it will be 62 or 65. Watch and see.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I wouldn't waste your time, energy, or paper writing anyone. Bottom line is that if Fred Smith and the CEOs of Delta, UPS, American, United, etc etc want the rule changed, then it will be changed. If not, then it won't. Congress is not worried about us, only about the financial bottom line of those who donate the most money to political campaigns for re-election. If Fred will lose money on the deal, it will stay 60. If he stands to benefit, it will be 62 or 65. Watch and see.

Self defeating? Why try?

 

[CCDiscoB]

Then go fly corporate.

I agree with FoxHunter, getting a corporate job is harder than getting an airline job. Getting one when you're 60 would be close to impossible. Even after you purchase your own GV type rating.

 

[SWAlifter]

Foxhunter,

Shouldn't be too hard for you to find a new job after 60. This is from the Chicago Tribune last month. Have you not been heavily recruited yet? Get your app in!


GREAT RECORD. TIP-TOP HEALTH. TOO OLD.

By Jon Hilkevitch and John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporters

August 22, 2006

"...Hinnenkamp, who weighed offers from at least two carriers, is among a growing number of some of the nation's best-trained fliers joining such foreign carriers as Britain's Virgin Atlantic and Air India. Those airlines and many others are recruiting heavily in the United States in advance of a significant change in international regulations."

Now I have to get back to e-mailing the rest of Senators to stop this S. 65 Scam.

 

[TheBaron]

Age 60 rule should be taken away!

I agree, with both your point...and your avatar!

 

[FoxHunter]

Foxhunter,

Shouldn't be too hard for you to find a new job after 60. This is from the Chicago Tribune last month. Have you not been heavily recruited yet? Get your app in!


GREAT RECORD. TIP-TOP HEALTH. TOO OLD.

By Jon Hilkevitch and John Schmeltzer
Tribune staff reporters

August 22, 2006

"...Hinnenkamp, who weighed offers from at least two carriers, is among a growing number of some of the nation's best-trained fliers joining such foreign carriers as Britain's Virgin Atlantic and Air India. Those airlines and many others are recruiting heavily in the United States in advance of a significant change in international regulations."

Now I have to get back to e-mailing the rest of Senators to stop this S. 65 Scam.

Remember to use the proper postage.:laugh:

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

S.65 is nothing more than an abrogation of seniority rights. This poorly thought out bill will benefit a few while harming many. Now they are trying to backdoor it through the Senate. This is a can of worms and will create class warfare between the senior and junior pilots.

Some issues to consider here:

1)How will S. 65 affect our negotiated retirements?
2)How will S. 65 affect our medicals? How many will end up taking an early retirement (with the penalty) due to not hacking the new medical standards?
3)How will S.65 affect our seniority rights and bidding when only one pilot above age 60 is permitted into the cockpit?
4)Are we willing to challenge the class action lawsuits that will most assuredly occur from those recently retired in the Age 60 – 65 age bracket? If they win, where will they go in our seniority list?
5)Is APA/ALPA willing to take the correct action and put those pilots in the over 60 category at the end of our seniority list so that one group of pilots does not receive an undeserved windfall at the expense of the junior pilots. After all, all of us were hired under the age 60 rule.
6)How is having to retire at age 65 not age discrimination too??
7)How adversely will S.65 affect the junior pilot’s seniority progression?

The windfall to those pilots able to hold on to their wide-body Captain’s seats an additional five years is enormous – upwards of $1,000,000. Where do you think the money is coming from??

Though there is some benefit to working an additional five years and not dipping into one’s retirement money at the end of the career, there will be major financial harm caused in the near term to those pilots who are forced to remain furloughed and/or stagnated at the lower rates of pay.

This will be particularly acute if our APA negotiators are not able to secure higher pay rates. Imagine being caught in the junior pay grades an additional five years while the pay rates lose ground to inflation every year.

With our negative growth rate, this will be especially painful to the junior AA pilots especially if AMR is successful in its quest to increase productivity.

Contrary to some on this board, S.65 IS NOT A DONE DEAL!! If this POS passes, the junior guys still have some weapons in our tool chest to protect our careers – namely not letting these pilots steal your rightful seniority.

We must not comprise safety just so some selfish pilots can cram their pockets with the junior’s pilot’s money.

Please write your Senator!!!

AA767AV8TOR

 

[Tejas-Jet]

I don't want to fly past 60...

And there is nothing that says you have to....

Tejas

 

[JohnDoe]

3)How will S.65 affect our seniority rights and bidding when only one pilot above age 60 is permitted into the cockpit?

Good question. An under-age 60 pilot can hold a certain schedule, but is forced into another 'cause they have to "accompany" an over-60? I see a scheduling nightmare.

2)How will S. 65 affect our medicals? How many will end up taking an early retirement (with the penalty) due to not hacking the new medical standards?

Count on the FAA coming up with some onerous new exams for all. I would bet money some of those age 65 proponents will find themselves on the street due to them.

4)Are we willing to challenge the class action lawsuits that will most assuredly occur from those recently retired in the Age 60 – 65 age bracket? If they win, where will they go in our seniority list?

Not a chance. And they will go right back to where they were.

5)Is APA/ALPA willing to take the correct action and put those pilots in the over 60 category at the end of our seniority list so that one group of pilots does not receive an undeserved windfall at the expense of the junior pilots. After all, all of us were hired under the age 60 rule.

HA HA! Not a chance. The same ones in charge now pushing for this are the same ones who will make the decision.

6)How is having to retire at age 65 not age discrimination too??

It is! But most people ignore that. If they truely want to tow the "age-discrimination" banner, then there should be no limit. (none for the ATP either, but nobody worries about that one).

7)How adversely will S.65 affect the junior pilot’s seniority progression?

That should be pretty self-evident. 5 years of fewer new-hires, recalls, and upgrades. Not to mention losing a position to the over-60 crowd that returns to their previous position. Don't think it can happen? Just wait for the lawsuits to fly.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

2)How will S. 65 affect our medicals? How many will end up taking an early retirement (with the penalty) due to not hacking the new medical standards?

Contrary to some on this board, S.65 IS NOT A DONE DEAL!! If this POS passes, the junior guys still have some weapons in our tool chest to protect our careers – namely not letting these pilots steal your rightful seniority.

I have already written to my Senators....office visit tomorrow...

Question....what new medical standards? What will change? As it is now, you have many pilots over the age of 60 getting 1st class physicals all the time....what will be different for them?

Question #2...What exactly is the weapon in your tool chest that you plan to use if this POS passes?

Tejas

 

[SkiFishFly]

Then quit at 60. As for me I would like the option to continue to 65.

I'm with you. I would like to be able to make the choice myself - assuming my health remains sufficient to pass a medical.
I intend to be in a position where I don't have to work by the time I'm 60 but, why should I be told I have to go home at 60 (especially if some euro-snob frenchie boy is allowed to keep flying over/into my country until he is 65).

 

[SkiFishFly]

Contrary to some on this board, S.65 IS NOT A DONE DEAL!! If this POS passes, the junior guys still have some weapons in our tool chest to protect our careers – namely not letting these pilots steal your rightful seniority.

We must not comprise safety just so some selfish pilots can cram their pockets with the junior’s pilot’s money.

Please write your Senator!!!

AA767AV8TOR

Wow. You come across as just a little selfish with this statement.

 

[Benhuntn]

Okay so if you are over 55 you call in sick more often... BS. Two 2.5 yrs of flying with SWA and not "1" SICK DAY! I want to fly past 60. I am not sure just how far past 60 but at least far enough to put 1 million dollars in my 401K, pay off my yacht and my second home in Tahiti. If you boys and girls out there ( and it is hard to tell you apart ) don't want age 60, fine quit when your bank acct. is full but don't stop me from being greedy just because it will cost you an extra yr as an FO or junior Capt.

I have really read about all the whinning I can stand from you cry babies. Get over it! This is America the land of the free. I have a right to work if you don't like it move to France...oh wait they will have age 60 in Nov. Move to Singapore....no they will have age 60 in Nov. I got just quit flying and move to Canada and shovel snow.

 

[JohnDoe]

Hello pot, this is the kettle calling.....

I have really read about all the whinning I can stand from you cry babies. Get over it! This is America the land of the free.

You're right, it is the "land of the free" and people have the right to whine all they want. Don't like it? Don't read it. You have that right in the "land of the free."

I find it ironic that you are shouting about the "land of the free" yet bashing people for expressing their displeasure with something our elected officials are trying to do that would adversely affect them.