Fox News and age 60

[Caveman]

I never saw the pro-65 guys cry when they moved to the left seat from the right seat, and also watched the captains move to the FE seat when we had them. Why didn't they stand up back then? I don't know, go ask them because your scenario doesn't apply to me. I'm an anti age 60 guy and I'm still an FO.

Is it discriminatory? The Constitution has age discrimination in it--minimum age for a President is 35. Should we change the Constitution? The age 6o rule isn't a part of the Constitution. It's a regulation and subject to change. You like the rule as is. I don't. I want it changed and I'm using an administrative and a legislative process to try and change it. That's the way things are done in America. Don't like? Then make your case through the same process as to why it should remain as is. You're going to lose. The law is squarely on the side of antiage discrimation. Remember, the age 60 rule is just that, a rule and it doesn't trump law. The LAW says you can't discriminate because of age and finally the rule is in the spotlight. It will be changed eventually because it simply can not withstand the scrutiny and the simple test of whether or not it's arbitrary and discriminatory. What about retirement ages for policemen and firemen? Should we raise those? How old do you want the fireman carrying your family out of a burning building? As long as they can do the job I don't care how old they are.

Do we have to follow everything ICAO says? Why do they say not to allow 2 over age 60 pilots in the cockpit at the same time? Those countries that allow it are very short on pilots, and we are not. There will probably be an accident, and it will be changed. Saudi Arabia allows it, but they also allow public stoning. Should we? If and when Saudi Arabia ever starts stoning people in the United States you'll have a point. Until then your argument isn't valid. We're talking about an activity that's taking place within our boundries and is codified by international treaty.



Bye Bye--General Lee

......

 

[XJTAv8r]

The age will be raised this year IF the text of S 65 remains buried in the transportation appropriations bill. If it is removed, age 60 will remain in effect until at least 2009 and it will be a dead issue for the 110th congress.
The more people write to congressmen on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the more likely that it will be removed. We'll know after the omnibus appropriations bill is passed and published. I'm looking for a late February timeframe.

I also think that Sen Tim Johnson's medical condition will not help the pro-change crowd.

So has S65 (Freedom to Fly Act?) already be reburied into the new 2007 Transportation Appropriations Bill? Will e-mailing these Senators do any good, or will postal mail go much further? Thanks.

 

[gutshotdraw]

I'll match my track record on forecasts and the details this issue with anyone.

The age will be raised this year IF the text of S 65 remains buried in the transportation appropriations bill. If it is removed, age 60 will remain in effect until at least 2009 and it will be a dead issue for the 110th congress.
The more people write to congressmen on the Senate Appropriations Committee, the more likely that it will be removed. We'll know after the omnibus appropriations bill is passed and published. I'm looking for a late February timeframe.

I also think that Sen Tim Johnson's medical condition will not help the pro-change crowd.

Andy, you are assuming the only way Age 65 will happen is legislatively. The way I read some of the Administrator's latest comments is that it will come via NPRM. Right or wrong, I have a gut feeling the FAA will issue the Notice and open the public comment period. Then, hooo boy! Let the fun begin.

As long as we're talking hypocrisy, I guess airline passengers are more important than corporate jet passengers since you have to jump out of a Part 121 cockpit at 60 but you can run around in a Part 91K BBJ until you croak at 92. So maybe the Adminstrator has this up her sleeve: the mandatory retirement age FOR ALL COMMERCIAL FLYING including corporate 91, 91K and 135 will now be 65. Hmmmmmmm. Naw, never happen.

 

[Andy]

So has S65 (Freedom to Fly Act?) already be reburied into the new 2007 Transportation Appropriations Bill? Will e-mailing these Senators do any good, or will postal mail go much further? Thanks.

There is no new FY07 transportation appropriations bill yet. All of the appropriations bills should have been passed in the last session of congress; now, they will likely jam through all of them in one omnibus appropropriations bill (nine were not passed).
Keep in mind that Washington is a zoo right now and everything's in turmoil. With that in mind, the new appropriations committees will rush to get the bills completed and will almost certainly use the old appropriations bills which did not get voted on as templates for the new bills. In this case, I expect them to use HR 5576.RS as the template.
I expect an omnibus appropriations bill to be completed and voted on before the end of February.
As far as the best method to correspond, I e-mailed, faxed, and sent snail mail. I can't say which one is best. It's whichever one gets the attention of a senate staffer who is responsible for transportation appropriations issues to the senator. The goal here is to get visibility on the issue. Fortunately, congress finds it distasteful to include legislative amendments in appropriations bills.

 

[Andy]

Andy, you are assuming the only way Age 65 will happen is legislatively. The way I read some of the Administrator's latest comments is that it will come via NPRM. Right or wrong, I have a gut feeling the FAA will issue the Notice and open the public comment period. Then, hooo boy! Let the fun begin.

BS. Show me those comments. I've read articles where reporters made speculations, but I've never seen ANYTHING in print from the FAA stating that they are moving toward changing it.

The FAA posted the ARC report without an accompanying press release. They're letting the issue die.

 

[FoxHunter]

The Dogs,

This is a wrong assumption that pilots will still be able to continue to retire at 60 without any penalty. Managements make more money (read less training cycles) by having everyone go to the mandatory retirement age, whatever that age may wind up being. Here at AA, leaving at 55 and zero months is a 34.04% penalty.

It’s very rare at AA for someone to leave before 60 because of the massive penalty. The penalty starts at age 50 and goes to 59 years, 11 months. If the age is changed to 65, most likely the penalty will shift up five years to cover the last 10 years of our careers. Managements want the ability to plan for all pilots going the full way in their careers. This is done by enacting early out penalties. Managements also win big in the pension wars simply because if the age goes to 65, we will not have as many years spent in retirement.

Another consideration of an age 65 retirement will be additional downward pressure on our wages. The historically high wages we used to earn was based on our going out at 60. They didn’t pay us the wages because we are a bunch of nice guys. Age 65 will bring continued stagnation to our wages.

Don’t forget to factor in forcing us to spend another five years in an already unstable industry. What do you think the probability of another terrorist hit in the next 5 – 15 years? What will that do to our retirements and/or seniority progression?

The final straw of Age 65 will be the massive divisiveness caused between the haves/have nots. The only true winners are the pilots at the top of the heap. Many junior pilots will find themselves having to work the additional five years simply to make back the money lost in the first place. Just the dollars lost from compounding interest in our retirement funds will be astronomical. Pilot left out on the street another 3-5 years will never make up the difference. No unity in the ranks translates to bad contracts.

From most of us, working to 65 will net very little additional financial gains. The pilots at the top stand to gain over a $1,000,000 windfall by staying in their seats an additional five years. Ever wonder why all the guys pushing for this are in their late 50’s? There is a reason for this.

The only remotely fair solution to Age 65 is if a pilot wants to fly past 65, when they reach age 60, they go to the end of the seniority list.

AA767AV8TOR

Well I guess you had better start working on your contract. At FedEx early out takes a hit at 3% a year. Age 55 takes a 15% reduction. FWIW the last contract at Flying Tigers had no reduction starting at age 50 if the pilot ha 25 years service.

 

[fartknocker]

Well I guess you had better start working on your contract. At FedEx early out takes a hit at 3% a year. Age 55 takes a 15% reduction. FWIW the last contract at Flying Tigers had no reduction starting at age 50 if the pilot ha 25 years service.

I believe the point he was trying to make is that the penalty may now be applied when we retire at age 60 instead of 55. It's still 5 more years we will be REQUIRED to work if we want to retire with no penalties applied. :crying:

 

[TheDogsBollocks]

The Dogs,

This is a wrong assumption that pilots will still be able to continue to retire at 60 without any penalty. Managements make more money (read less training cycles) by having everyone go to the mandatory retirement age, whatever that age may wind up being. Here at AA, leaving at 55 and zero months is a 34.04% penalty.

It’s very rare at AA for someone to leave before 60 because of the massive penalty. The penalty starts at age 50 and goes to 59 years, 11 months. If the age is changed to 65, most likely the penalty will shift up five years to cover the last 10 years of our careers. Managements want the ability to plan for all pilots going the full way in their careers. This is done by enacting early out penalties. Managements also win big in the pension wars simply because if the age goes to 65, we will not have as many years spent in retirement.

Another consideration of an age 65 retirement will be additional downward pressure on our wages. The historically high wages we used to earn was based on our going out at 60. They didn’t pay us the wages because we are a bunch of nice guys. Age 65 will bring continued stagnation to our wages.

Don’t forget to factor in forcing us to spend another five years in an already unstable industry. What do you think the probability of another terrorist hit in the next 5 – 15 years? What will that do to our retirements and/or seniority progression?

The final straw of Age 65 will be the massive divisiveness caused between the haves/have nots. The only true winners are the pilots at the top of the heap. Many junior pilots will find themselves having to work the additional five years simply to make back the money lost in the first place. Just the dollars lost from compounding interest in our retirement funds will be astronomical. Pilot left out on the street another 3-5 years will never make up the difference. No unity in the ranks translates to bad contracts.

From most of us, working to 65 will net very little additional financial gains. The pilots at the top stand to gain over a $1,000,000 windfall by staying in their seats an additional five years. Ever wonder why all the guys pushing for this are in their late 50’s? There is a reason for this.

The only remotely fair solution to Age 65 is if a pilot wants to fly past 65, when they reach age 60, they go to the end of the seniority list.

AA767AV8TOR

A very thoughtful post, as for myself if I got hired by a major tomorrow I would be up for a 17yr career at the current retirement age. Whilst I make no claim to be pertinent to all the "politics" of the profession I do acknowledge that when applied logically there is no real reason for cap the retirement age at 60-from a medical standpoint.

As I expected and received are the posts from the pro age 60 crowd stating their positions from a political point of view and those points are certainly valid. However, I do know full well if I get that major airline job that a raise in the retirement age will probably be coming.

I also know that this will affect my seniority progression,upgrade,pay, retirement and other working conditions. Hopefully, although this is probably wishful thinking is, that if such a change is implemented the nuts and bones of this change can be mitigated to make it a painless as possible for all affected.

 

[furloughed dude]

Caveman,

So you are 48 and recently got hired with a carrier that has absolutely no retirement benefits (oh, yeah that 3% 401k matching). It doesn't surprise me that you want to keep working.

Again, this is coming from someone that has a lower-end career. Am I supposed to be sympathetic towards you? Save whatever you can and expect to retire at 60.

If these other guys would have taken care of themselves financially, this wouldn't be a problem. Anyone that gambled and trusted management would take care of their pension probably needs to retire anyway. At least they have PBGC.

 

[airfogey]

I for one wanted to fly for an airline prior to 1980 when ALPA changed its stance--primarily they threw in the towel cause everybody had a decent pension--thats not the case now--in the next downturn those who currently still have an a plan may lose them since most majors right now do not--I predict the only two "airlines" to have defined benefit pensions eventually will be FedEX and UPS--primarily because they are not airlines--they are shipping companies that happpen to have a lot of airplanes.
I don't see how ALPA can support keeping age 60 with a straight face since they also represent Air Canada Jazz and Air Transat who have contracts that go to age 65--and those ALPA members can now fly in US Airspace at 60 or above yet dues paying members of ALPA who fly for US carriers cannot.
I read in the posts about how all of you will be irreperably harmed by raising the retirement age--how you all want to retire at age 60 or before--you all must really hate aviation and hate your jobs.
BTW the FAA now lets controllers work to age 61--yet they still have to be under 30 to be hired.
If it truly had any safety aspect than the FAA would not let any pilot fly anything bigger than a light sport aircraft after age 60--if it truly had anything to do would safety the government would give airline pilots full social security, full medicare and a full PBGC pension at a minimum because of our years of faithful service in such a dangerous and stressful profession.
The genie that has made the "profession" not what it used to be was let out of the bottle by Jimmy Carter and Alfred Kahn in 1978. If the only reason you got into aviation is for the "benefits" of the career than you truly aren't a professional aviator in my book.

Standing proudly with Pakistan, Columbia , and France to protect the travelling public.

 

[XJTAv8r]

I don't see how ALPA can support keeping age 60 with a straight face since they also represent Air Canada Jazz and Air Transat who have contracts that go to age 65--and those ALPA members can now fly in US Airspace at 60 or above yet dues paying members of ALPA who fly for US carriers cannot.
I read in the posts about how all of you will be irreperably harmed by raising the retirement age--how you all want to retire at age 60 or before--you all must really hate aviation and hate your jobs.

To put it simply, a rule change will provide a tremendous financial windfall (5 more years at the top of the pay scale) to those who are approaching age 60 at tremendous expense to those who are not approaching age 60 (higher LTD and insurance costs, diluted pay rates on future contracts, stagnant seniority movement, etc.) It's quite a bit more "greedy" to want 5 more years at the top pay scale at the expense of your younger co-workers than to want to maintain the status quo.

 

[BiffF15]

In my humble opinon I think it doesn't matter about winfalls, expectations, hopes or aspirations. It will be boiled down to whether or not 60 is age discrimination. Once that occurs the outcome will be what I think is obvious.

 

[banger]

I have also heard all the arguements, and would like to see it stay at 60 for the sole reason I don't want to work beyond that. However I think it will come down to age discrimination and nothing else. While it may be dead for now I also think it will come up again and again until it matches ICAO.

Well you may have other reasons but if you just don't want to work past age 60 then don't. Would having the option be bad for you?

 

[BiffF15]

Banger,
I would hope to have the option to not work past 60, both financially and lifestyle wise. It's my opinon as well that it will depend on your contract at the time you pass the 60 mark. Or in other words what gets negotiated between now and then regardless of the "mandatory" retirement age.

 

[AA767AV8TOR]

In my humble opinon I think it doesn't matter about winfalls, expectations, hopes or aspirations. It will be boiled down to whether or not 60 is age discrimination. Once that occurs the outcome will be what I think is obvious.

This issue has been addressed many times on this MB. With Age 65, all ICAO would do is replace one discriminatory age with another. So tell me, by rising the age to 65, what age discrimination has been solved? Why not go to 55?

The real motive behind the Age 65 group is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. Once the age is increased, this crowd will still keep fighting to get a full repeal of any retirement age. The real aim is to hold on to their jobs as long as possible without a care in the world about the negative ramifications it will bring to the industry. It will never end.

AA767AV8TOR

 

[BiffF15]

AA,
You are probably correct about the "nose under the tent". However, you missed the point of what it will come down to (age discrimination) not why (financial gains of senior pilots). The day in court is inbound, and financial gains will probably be brought up to cloud the issue however in the end it will be based soley on age discrimination.

 

[Andy]

The day in court is inbound, and financial gains will probably be brought up to cloud the issue however in the end it will be based soley on age discrimination.

The day in court has already passed.

 

[BiffF15]

The day in court has already passed.

Andy, the "day in court" is a metaphor. If it's over why are we still talking about it? I'm not debating the right or wrong of the change, just why I think it will change.

 

[Andy]

Andy, the "day in court" is a metaphor. If it's over why are we still talking about it? I'm not debating the right or wrong of the change, just why I think it will change.

There are three possible avenues for change - judicial, legislative, and regulatory.
The judicial side is no longer an option; it has been ruled that age 60 is not age discrimination. You stated that you thought that the rule would change due to it being discriminatory.
Two paths remain for change. Legislatively, there's a possibility that the text of S 65 will remain embedded in the transportation appropriations bill. I am making every effort to have it stripped from the bill. I anticipate success.
On the regulatory side, the FAA is very unlikely to rush into a change. The fact that the ARC report was released with no accompanying press release tells me that the FAA just wants to bury the issue.

While this is a huge issue to pilots, the American public has little, if any, concern on this issue.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

I have emailed everyone on the senate appropriations committee.

It was very easy with Andy's compiled list. Andy could you please paste the list with the senate link on this thread.

 

[dooork]

Something needs to change. If you are for keeping 60..then you need to be supporting a change in social security rules and any other rule or benefit that someone who is say 70 gets. If you want the age to increase to 65...then you need to support the company not changing pension law.

 

[Andy]

I have emailed everyone on the senate appropriations committee.

It was very easy with Andy's compiled list. Andy could you please paste the list with the senate link on this thread.

There is one last hurdle to overcome to keep age 60 in place for the next couple of years (I make no predictions past that). When the 109th Congress adjourned, they didn’t complete their task of funding the government for FY07; they passed a temporary Continuing Resolution to fund the effected agencies and left nine appropriations bills as unfinished business. One of those appropriations bills, HR 5576, funded the Department of Transportation. The text of S 65 (changing pilot retirement age to 65) was inserted during subcommittee markup of HR 5576 in the 109th Congress. While HR 5576 is dead, the Appropriations subcommittee will likely use HR 5576 as a template for the final appropriations bill.

It will be up to the 110th Congress to pass those appropriations bills and they’re likely to do so in one omnibus appropriations bill. After the bills leave committee, Senators will only have a yes or no vote; they’ll be unable to remove any offensive parts of the bill. Therefore, it’s very important to target key Democratic Senators on the Appropriations Committee to have the text of S 65 stripped from the Transportation Appropriations Bill.

I’ll break it down into three groups of Senators where your efforts will get the most bang for the buck. The first group is THE KEY group; if you are only going to contact one group, hit the ones on the Appropriations Committee. Note that many names are on multiple lists.

First are the Senators on the Appropriations Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation (this is where any changes to the bill will be made). They have not been finalized, but this is the latest information from Sen. Reid’s (D-NV; Senate Majority Leader) website. The key targets here are:
Sen. Byrd (D-VW) *
Sen. Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. Leahy (D-VT) *
Sen. Harkin (D-IA) *
Sen. Mikulsi (D-MD) *
Sen. Kohl (D-WI) *
Sen. Murray (D-WA) *
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND) *
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Durbin (D-IL) *
Sen. Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen Reed (D-RI)
Sen Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE)
* indicates member of Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Second, several Senators received contributions from ALPA and APA PAC. They are: (note that the first six were in key races)
Sen. Brown (D-OH), $10K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Cardin (D-MD), $5K ALPA
Sen. Casey (D-PA), $5K ALPA
Sen. McCaskill (D-MO), $5K ALPA
Sen. Menendez (D-NJ), $10K ALPA
Sen. Webb (D-VA), $5K ALPA
Sen. Akaka (D-HI), $7.5K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Baucus (D-MT), $2.5K ALPA
Sen. Bingaman (D-NM), $10K ALPA
Sen. Byrd (D-WV), $10K ALPA, $4K APA
Sen. Carper (D-DE), $5K ALPA
Sen. Clinton (D-NY), $5K APA
Sen. Conrad (D-ND), $7.5K ALPA
Sen. Durbin (D-IL), $5K ALPA
Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), $7.5K ALPA
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), $7.5K ALPA, $5K APA
Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ), $5K ALPA
Sen. Murray (D-WA), $5K ALPA
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), $10K ALPA
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), $2.5K ALPA
Sen. Sanders (I-VT), $10K ALPA
Sen. Stabenow (D-MI), $7.5K ALPA

Third, are the Democrats on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. They are:
Sen. Inouye (D-HI), Committee Chair
Sen. Rockefeller (D-WV), Aviation Subcommittee Chair
Sen. Kerry (D-MA)
Sen. Dorgan (D-ND)
Sen. Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Sen. Pryor (D-AR)
Sen. Carper (D-DE)
Sen. McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN)

As far as the content of any letter/e-mail/fax/phone call to the Senators’ offices, I recommend hitting on the following points:
1) In the 109th Congress, a legislative amendment to change pilot retirement age to 65 was added to HR 5576, an appropriations bill. Since changing pilot retirement age is a legislative action, it’s inappropriate to leave this legislative amendment in an appropriations bill.
2) On 4 Jan 2007, Sen Inhofe introduced a legislative bill, the Freedom to Fly Act, with the exact same content as is contained in the appropriations amendment. This is a subject that should be debated in the light of day, not buried deep within an appropriations bill.
3) Include something in the subject line indicating that you are writing in reference to the Transportation Appropriations Bill so that your correspondence can be directed to the proper Senate staffer.

Congress does not like to use appropriations bills for legislation, and even Senators in favor of an age change will have problems with a legislative amendment attached to an appropriations bill.

Here is a link with information to contact these Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

 

[Andy]

Template

For those that asked for a template, here it is. Feel free to disseminate widely and modify as necessary.


Senator ,

The 109th Congress adjourned prior to enacting into public law several Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations bills. Among those was HR 5576, the Appropriations Bill that included funding for the Department of Transportation. Contained within HR 5576 was a legislative amendment increasing airline pilot retirement age to sixty five.
While I realize that HR 5576 died with the end of the 109th Congress, I know that you will be very busy and that HR 5576 is likely to be used as a template for a new transportation appropriations bill that will become public law. For that reason, I request that you ensure that any appropriations bill passed by the 110th Congress be stripped of this legislative provision since it is inappropriate to use appropriations bills for legislative matters.
The item that I am referring to was contained in HR 5576.RS under Title I, Department of Transportation, Administrative Provisions—Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Section 114.
On 4 January 2007, Senator Inhofe sponsored S. 65, the Freedom to Fly Act, which increases airline pilot retirement age to 65, accomplishing the exact same thing as the amendment to HR 5576. This is a legislative issue, not an appropriations issue, and I request that you ensure that the issue receives proper consideration on the Senate floor rather than buried deep within an appropriations bill. Please ensure that this legislation is removed from the FY07 transportation appropriations bill.

 

[pilotyip]

As Adam Smith stated in "Wealth of Nations" everyone will pursue their own self interest. You can sure see it here.