From Apaad We Won!!

[Freight Dog]

Nice. Take bonafide and effective safety programs and distort them for personal gain. Even if this would work the way you hope, what's to stop the older pilots from doing the same in retaliation?

If you do attempt this it will be readily transparent to your safety team that indiscriminate ASAP reports are being filed and my guess is the only one feeling any negative results will be you.

Only a caveman (pun somewhat intended) cannot understand that aging has an adverse effect on one's mental and cognitive performance. That performance significantly degrades in one's 50's, let alone 60's.

Are you suggesting not reporting unsafe situations?

My personal experience is that for every 1 pilot that could clearly press on above 60, we had 4 or 5 that were falling behind the power curve as they were approaching 60. 5 more years? Sure... as long as they're safe and don't age me prematurely by scaring the daylights out of me.

 

[4got2flare]

I follow this with great interest since it will affect my life in the foreseeable future.
The approaching age 60 guys say it is age discrimination even though you don't see them fighting at all to bring the over 60's (who were senior to them) back on property. The younger groups see a stagnation of the industry since the about to retire will now camp in the CA seat that through natural progression should have moved to them. The old in their letters/petitions argue that with a younger generation of pilots coming into the system that the safety of every man, woman, and child is dependent on them continuing to work. Yet for decades a new breed of pilot has followed in the footsteps of those before and safety has increased.

If the argument is pushed that this is in fact age discrimination then all pilots of any age at any company should be welcomed back with open arms. The APAAD should make this there goal. “90 and able to hold a medical, you get your seat back sir. Our apologies.” This is not the case. The APAAD argue age for themselves but none before. There goal is yet again “I got mine, Screw you!”
Everyone in this industry knows that seniority is everything. Your SKD, Vacation, Aircraft, Pay, Lifestyle is all based on seniority. For one group to plead discrimination and safety, just to keep flying when it is about money in embarrassing. Don’t think this is the case. Then all Unions should argue that we need to have the most experienced pilots in Cockpit at all times, yet the Captain cannot be over 60. They can fly forever if they are in any other seat, as long as they can hold a medical. You cannot be forced to retire for age at all. Progression to the left seat will continue for all pilots and then the (as argued) most experienced pilots will still be there to hold all those 15 year longevity inexperienced new captain hands when things get tough.
Better yet, since there is a segment in the industry that does need the experience of these seasoned Captains we should establish a flow to the Captains seats of the Regional carriers who are having a hard time finding pilots with more than 500 hours. Then the argument of safety will stand merit. Teach these 300-1000 hour pilots how to fly their shinny new jets that keep flowing from Brazil and Canada.

So which is it? Safety? Age Discrimination? Money?
If it is a safety argument then you should be fine going back to the right seat and allow the natural career advancement of pilots to continue. Remember both sides of the aircraft have controls.
If it is age discrimination then you should fight for all, regardless of age to be placed back in front of you. Since you have slowed the career expectations of younger generations in the name of doing what is right. Then you should fight for those who were senior to you regardless of what impact it might have on your future career.
My bet is money…..

 

[LeonPhelps]

Do you think...

...that Bush will sign this into law immediately, or would he tell Congress to pass a spending bill for the war before he'll sign anything? Just curious, because I hadn't seen anything in the news that he signed it into law today like the guy with the space shuttle in his avatar said he would. Just curious...now back to my regularly scheduled bottle of courvossier.

 

[vetrider]

...that Bush will sign this into law immediately, or would he tell Congress to pass a spending bill for the war before he'll sign anything? Just curious, because I hadn't seen anything in the news that he signed it into law today like the guy with the space shuttle in his avatar said he would. Just curious...now back to my regularly scheduled bottle of courvossier.

Either way, you'll be able to make your houthboat paymenth with your new job.

 

[gutshotdraw]

...that Bush will sign this into law immediately, or would he tell Congress to pass a spending bill for the war before he'll sign anything? Just curious, because I hadn't seen anything in the news that he signed it into law today like the guy with the space shuttle in his avatar said he would. Just curious...now back to my regularly scheduled bottle of courvossier.

Whenever a bill passed by both chambers of Congress is forwarded to the President, he has three choices:

1. Sign it
2. Veto it
3. Do neither and it becomes law without his signature after a prescribed period of time.

Therefore, he can't demand Congress do something else before he'll sign this one or that one. Allowing a bill to become law without a signature is a President's way of saying "I don't really like this bill but I don't hate it enough to veto it or I can't sustain a veto anyway." My guess is Bush will choose option 3 on this bill.

 

[CitationUltra]

Senate passed HR 4343 by unanimous consent this evening at roughly 2145.

When Bush signs it, it's law.

Hayes, etc. will present it to White House tomorrow AM to try to get this signed
ASAP.

More info tomorrow.

Congratulations on a job well done, with a very long overdue result.

Your efforts will certainly be appreciate by all those who will realize at least a partial relief from this discriminatory federal policy.

 

[PCL_128]

There's another option:

4. Pocket veto - the President has 10 days to sign the bill into law. If he doesn't sign it within those 10 days and Congress is still in session, then the bill automatically becomes law. If he doesn't sign the bill, and Congress adjourns during those 10 days, then the bill does not become law and is effectively vetoed. I'm not sure if Congress is going to adjourn by the 22nd, but if it does without the President's signature, then the bill becomes void. At least, that is my understanding.

 

[CitationUltra]

Guess what's APAAD doing 4 years from now?...you got it, age 70 retirement age change campaign. Wait and see these baby boomers always get what hey want.

You're right--65 is as discriminatory as 60, barring any credible evidence that another arbitrary age limitation should be imposed. There has certainly been no such evidence brought forth during this controversy.

 

[CitationUltra]

Oh, it'll be a different story then.

 

[CitationUltra]

There's another option:

4. Pocket veto - the President has 10 days to sign the bill into law. If he doesn't sign it within those 10 days and Congress is still in session, then the bill automatically becomes law. If he doesn't sign the bill, and Congress adjourns during those 10 days, then the bill does not become law and is effectively vetoed. I'm not sure if Congress is going to adjourn by the 22nd, but if it does without the President's signature, then the bill becomes void. At least, that is my understanding.

That may be your understanding, but to the so-called "pocket veto" is rarely used, and then only in cases where there is clearly a desire or motive to quash a legislative measure. There is no indication whatsoever in this case that the president does not want or does not intend to sign the bill into law.