Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Movement in US House on Age 65

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

AA767AV8TOR

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Posts
258
Today the full House T&I Committee passed H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill, containing a provision that would raise airline pilot retirement age to 65. The language included in the bill is more complex and differs from the approach taken by S.65 (and S. 1300) in several ways. The bill addresses issues raised by ALPA and satisfies concerns about those issues as expressed by SWAPA, Rep. Hayes and other cosponsors of H.R. 1125. The language would require FAA to implement the new retirement standard immediately upon enactment. It would not require the ICAO pairing standard for pilots over 60 flying domestically but would enforce the pairing standard on international flights. The bill would automatically sunset the pairings on international flights if ICAO changes that standard. It contains a strong liability provision and would implement the new age standard prospectively. It prohibits reinstatement with seniority and benefits but would allow (not mandate) flight engineers still on their respective properties to return with seniority. It would permit 60+ pilots to become new hires without seniority benefits. It contains collective bargaining language that would allow companies and unions to work out compliance issues regarding pensions and benefits. It does not contain the Akaka Amendment or any other ERISA/pension provisions. The legislation requires all 60+ pilots to obtain a first class medical certificate but would prohibit FAA from establishing any additional medical exams for pilots over 60 unless the Secretary of Transportation can show new published studies that may warrant additional testing. The Bill contains Safety language insisted on by Mr. Oberstar that would require pilots over 60 to have two line checks per year. First officers who have had a simulator check within 6 months would only need one line check per year. Like S.65 it requires GAO to issue a report on the impact of this provision on aviation safety within 24 months. The legislation is expected to move to the House floor sometime in July, however, tax provisions still need to be addressed by the House Ways and Means Committee. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to take up the tax provisions in their FAA proposal on July 12. If H.R. 2881 is passed by the House then differences with the Senate language would have to be reconciled before taking it up in their FAA package or in any other legislative vehicle. Serious issues remain on the base bill regarding the NATCA contract, user fees etc. This is, however, a very positive move down the playing field for the Age 65 issue.

There were 2 amendments accepted to the FAA bill introduced yesterday, one by Mr. Costello adding language to force retroactive consideration of the NATCA contract was accepted 53 - 16. An amendment offered by chairman Oberstar to allow FedEx trucking employees to organize locally was adopted 51 - 18, one voting present. The Base bill passed by voice vote.
 
YEE HAW! I'm so danged happy, I almost soaked my Depends! ;)

(Sarcasm off) Whatever your stance is on this issue, the fix was in. This was a done deal long before it saw the light of day. JMO. TC
 
It would not require the ICAO pairing standard for pilots over 60 flying domestically but would enforce the pairing standard on international flights. The bill would automatically sunset the pairings on international flights if ICAO changes that standard.

Looks like international scheduling is going to get more complex. Senior FO's and senior augmented long haul pilots who are senior will require junior captains who are not senior citizens.

This might just make some opportunity that doesn't currently exist while domestic goes backwards for the next five years.




 
Too bad(not really) that the first amendment was attached(air traffic controllers), that will guarantee a veto from bush

Well, for once Bush's hatred of labor will actually benefit the majority of air line pilots. Too bad that the NATCA guys continue to get s#&$ on, though.
 
Well, for once Bush's hatred of labor will actually benefit the majority of air line pilots.

That's highly debatable. The only true winners are the guys sitting wide body Captain. The rest of us will end up working five extra years for only maybe two extra years of pay due to the stagnation. You call that a benefit??

AA767AV8TOR
 
That's highly debatable. The only true winners are the guys sitting wide body Captain. The rest of us will end up working five extra years for only maybe two extra years of pay due to the stagnation. You call that a benefit??

AA767AV8TOR

You misunderstand me. The previous poster said that Bush will likely veto the bill, so that's good for guys like you and I that think Age-65 is an ass-rape of the highest order. Bush is trying to screw labor (vetoing the bill in order to screw the NATCA guys), but will indirectly help the majority of pilots by keeping the age limit as is for a little while longer.
 
Well, for once Bush's hatred of labor will actually benefit the majority of air line pilots. Too bad that the NATCA guys continue to get s#&$ on, though.

At least now everyone admits it had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with $$$. 5 more years of $30k/yr!
 
Not really. Guys at 65 still jumping time zones like these guys are shaving years off their lives. What good is an extra 5 years if you are dead. I was in my early thirties flying C-17s over several time zones. It takes its toll. I could not even fathom doing it in my 60s.

That's highly debatable. The only true winners are the guys sitting wide body Captain. The rest of us will end up working five extra years for only maybe two extra years of pay due to the stagnation. You call that a benefit??

AA767AV8TOR
 
At least now everyone admits it had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with $$$. 5 more years of $30k/yr!

Who admitted to anything about age 65 not involving safety? This has always been about the senior guys picking the pockets of the junior guys. And yes, it’s still about safety.

The ultimate irony about the situation is that the younger Southwest pilots let this happen on their watch thinking they were going to upgrade in minimum time. Now with Southwest just starting to curb their growth, they might have just hosed their careers. I’ve seen the growth come to a screeching halt twice here at American in 15 years.

Take it from a 15 year F/O; Age 65 will be the worst thing to hit the industry since B-scale.

AA767AV8TOR
 
The ultimate irony about the situation is that the younger Southwest pilots let this happen on their watch thinking they were going to upgrade in minimum time. Now with Southwest just starting to curb their growth, they might have just hosed their careers. I’ve seen the growth come to a screeching halt twice here at American in 15 years.

Take it from a 15 year F/O; Age 65 will be the worst thing to hit the industry since B-scale.

AA767AV8TOR


Nothing like getting drug down into the depths of YOUR depravity by appealing to the emotions of our pilots. Let us alone...we can decide for ourselves. Lots of guys I know don't want to go beyond 60, let alone till 65. But at least let us decide when we have the means to retire...without having to travel half way around the globe to make it work. Drop your bombs elsewhere! We have no need for your 15 year FO B-scale drivel...

BTW...we fought B-scale...were you around then???
 
Last edited:
Not really. Guys at 65 still jumping time zones like these guys are shaving years off their lives. What good is an extra 5 years if you are dead. I was in my early thirties flying C-17s over several time zones. It takes its toll. I could not even fathom doing it in my 60s.


The difference was in your early 30's you could get laid stateside....until prostitution is legal and cheaper than it currently is in Nevada , those over 60 guys are very willing to cross multiple time zones. That's why they want to fly to 65
 
Let us alone...we can decide for ourselves. Lots of guys I know don't want to go beyond 60, let alone till 65. But at least let us decide when we have the means to retire...

So, if you ever see that your skills are eroding a bit, you're missing a few more radio calls, your FO is kinda helping you a bit more than usual - will you voluntarily hang up the headset, or will you ignore that in the interest of you having the means to retire?

We have no need for your 15 year FO B-scale drivel...

Why not? That's effectively what this ruling is creating.
 
So, if you ever see that your skills are eroding a bit, you're missing a few more radio calls, your FO is kinda helping you a bit more than usual - will you voluntarily hang up the headset, or will you ignore that in the interest of you having the means to retire?


I was under the impression that every captain annually gets multiple checkrides and multiple physicals....am I mistaken????
...and I don't look at an additional 5 years of earning power as the worst thing in the world. From what I hear, an additional 5 years of earnings compounded adds exponential value to a retirement portfolio.
 
Let's see - checkride:

1) Cat II/III approaches
2) Rejected T/O followed by a V1 cut to a SE ILS
3) Windshear avoidance.
4) Abnormals/checklist use. You might want to review System A failure <wink wink>

Oh yeah, it'll be in that sequence.

Let's see... medical:

EKG - OK
Eye test - OK
Hearing - Eh?

Cognitive skills - huh? Sorry Prussian, but we don't test for that. Just how we depend on you to not fly when you have a cold, we depend on you to retire when you feel you're starting to fall behind the power curve.

Funny how that works, huh?
 
Look, let's face it...we are all type A personalities and most pilots are consumed by flying. It's sort of like a crack addiction.

I was furloughed and looked at various other fields of work, but in the end none of them offered me what I liked....what I needed, that big ol' jet soaring through the sky.

In what other industry would you have smart college educated people taking 40-50% paycuts and not leaving in droves to find other jobs? Seriously....We are all addicts, are lazy and have basically no other skills (I'm talking in generalities here).

So, do you really think that a 62 year old who is suffering from dimentia, ED, and hearing loss from 40 years in the cockpit going to hang it up....hell no. Do crack addicts give up the pipe?

That guy is going to do what the rest of us do...find a doc that says..."if you can see and then fog up this mirror I'm holding up...I'll give you a first class medical....Oh BTW thanks for the easy $100."

First class medicals are a joke...if the flying public only knew...But seriously, pilots are the last people who should be deciding when to hang it up.
 
So, if you ever see that your skills are eroding a bit, you're missing a few more radio calls, your FO is kinda helping you a bit more than usual...

Hey, wait a second! My FO's were doing that right after I upgraded... What are you trying to say? ;) TC
 
You misunderstand me. The previous poster said that Bush will likely veto the bill, so that's good for guys like you and I that think Age-65 is an ass-rape of the highest order. Bush is trying to screw labor (vetoing the bill in order to screw the NATCA guys), but will indirectly help the majority of pilots by keeping the age limit as is for a little while longer.

Bingo! Look for a veto from the shrub. Assuming it even crosses his desk. I don't expect this (FAA Reauthorization Bill) to be voted on in either the House or Senate ... it's not a priority to Congress. We pilots may like to think that the world centers around us and aviation, but it does not.
 
I think the primary reason the veto will happen is the Fedex trucking union provision. Watch for Fred Smith to start a lobbying blitz. I, for one, am glad it'll be vetoed. Nothing would make me happier than all current 58 year old pro 65 guys being forced to retire without seeing the fruits of their labors. For a change, I'm also glad there's no line item veto!
 
I'm sure if I was 58 and sitting in the left seat of a 777/747/etc I would want an extra 5 years at 200k+ but you have to admit that it's a land grab guys! You benefitted from age 60 retirements and now you want to pull up the ladder behind you and take money out of the junior pilots' pockets. All the while crying about age discrimination and other such bs.

I had high hopes for Prater but his blue ribbon panel (filled with captains) was a bunch of horsesh$t. Add to that the pandoras box he's opened with the failure to follow Alpa merger policy by not presenting the USairways list to management, and you have a presidency that reaks of corruption and incompetence. I loved his comments that he 'looks forward to flying the 787 at CAL.' I'm sure he's going to be real excited about an extra 5 years in that puppy!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom