New AGE limit discussion

[pilotyip]

Yip, just because ALPA fought it doesn't mean that age 60 wasn't there for safety reasons. I read quite a few of the medical committee reports; they went through a LOT of data in order to come up with their recommendation. To say that this was merely a backroom deal is insulting to that board of medical professionals who arrived at that decision.

As far as CR wanting to get rid of higher paid pilots ... I've also read that we've got the UFO from the Roswell incident in a hangar at Wright Patt. Just because you or I read something doesn't make it true.

But it was written by a pilot who lost his job because of age 60, so how could it be untrue. Why that would be like saying things posted on FI might be untrue. How could we exist in such a world? BTW I have seen the UFO, it is not a Wright Pat, it is in New Mexico, down near Roswell.:laugh:

 

[Andy]

But it was written by a pilot who lost his job because of age 60, so how could it be untrue. Why that would be like saying things posted on FI might be untrue. How could we exist in such a world? BTW I have seen the UFO, it is not a Wright Pat, it is in New Mexico, down near Roswell.:laugh:

The irony is that the guy who stated it was a backroom deal had links to some of the medical boards that were conducted. This led me to read other transcripts and notes from members of the board. They went through a long grind to arrive at age 60. It was actually the most liberal policy of all of the proposals.
They seriously considered age 55 and limiting entry into jet aircraft to a much lower age; something like 30. I don't remember the exact age restriction they considered for jets because I'm getting old and I forget some stuff nowadays ...

 

[vetrider]

The timing of age 65 really couldn't have been worse for many people. Many people trying to get a foothold in the industry and feed their families. Of course I also understand, conceptually anyway, what some of the guys went through getting the rug pulled out from under them pay and pensionwise. I'd argue that the former had a tougher row to hoe than the latter, but that's neither here nor there, and we could argue for a hundred years about it.

At any right, throwing all the bs aside, I'm really not opposed to 65, I do think 60 was a little young to toss perfectly good and capable people. Much beyond that though, that's starting to push it, a line does have to be drawn somewhere. Many talk about more stringent medical standards in lieu of an age, but does anyone really see that anytime soon? I think 65 is a sweet spot, we should just leave it that way.

 

[vetrider]

Back when the max age was 60, many claimed that they were going at 57 or thereabouts. Didn't happen (at least, not until lump sums were in jeopardy). When the papers are right in front of you, the pen suddenly weighs a hundred pounds. It's human nature to put off a decision that, once made, cannot be reconsidered.

I think that is very true, and very understandable. At my airline we have had a few pull the plug at 62 or 63, I'm counting 4 of them in my head right now. In about 1999 or so, we had one guy pull the plug at 57, I remember that well. And this fellow never had a pension or high pay, having always worked for the 'cheapest outfits' in his words. I do remember flying with him, he was just a very positive person, his glass was always full.

 

[whymeworry?]

We've had quite a few 60+ guys die both on and off the job over the past couple of years (none in the cockpit, while on the layover). Most of these guys had plenty of money but wanted to milk the job for all they could. Now they're 6 feet under.

You can't take it with you, folks. Retirement is suppose to be a phase of life to be enjoyed. This whole working till your dead thing. How stupid is that? Get a life or hobby outside the airline. Life is much more enjoyable that way.

I like flying planes. But I like a lot of other things more because I've been flying planes for over 20 years now. The world is awesome, there are so many other things going on to merely focus on something as one's career.

I'm still planning on going out at 60. Hope my forecast holds

 

[laker4284]

Please walk us through your scenario where you see it differently. The legislation was bottled up in subcommittee by Rep Mica. ALPA had Rep Mica release it from subcommittee on 5 Dec 2007. Bush signed it into law on 14 Dec 2007 after passing both the House and Senate. If that's not 'dead of the night' in Washington lawmaking terms, let me know how you define 'dead of the night'.

Andy. Back home and feeling tired, so cruising Google and doing a little research is the order of the day. Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

"Shoved through in the dead of night" is not at all the way the final legislative action happened. Even adopting your amended description, "in Washington terms", does not make the legislation qualify for being shoved through or moved through in the dead of night.

First of all, Rep Mica is a Republican and by 2006 the Democrats were in control of the House. Mica was the leader of the Repub Minority and did not set policy, move logislation, etc.

Rep Oberstar, a man who was a strong ALPA supporter (an ALPA pet, really), ran the Transportation Committee (I shortened its long and unwieldy name) and Rep DeFazio, another Dem, ran the Aviation Subcommittee.

Legislation had been in play for years before the final cards were played on 60 in December '07. In early 2007 (110th Congress) H.R. 1125 replaced the prior H.R. 65. The language for these and other versions of legislation was amended roughly every two years when a new Congress was sworn into session. Each version narrowed the scope of the change down. For example, earlier versions would have set no retirement age at all. Another tried to link retirement to Social Security. Finally SWAPA's lobbyist, in concurrence with APAAD, authored very simple language that posed the fewest hurdles to passage and understanding - amend the age to 65.

At the close of 2006 H.R. 65 had something on the order of 100 co-sponsors. S. 65 in the Senate had 25. This is not the dead of night. This is APAAD and SWAPA relentlessly moving forward against ALPA's opposition.

In the Fall of 2006 the FAA held its Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee. SWAPA, APAAD, SWA and Jet Blue dug in against the ALPA and APA majority. From all accounts they beat ALPA and APA soundly, which was reflected in their pro change report and later solidified by the FAA's adoption of an age change from 60 to 65.

In early 2007, when the 110th Congress was sworn in, H.R. 1125 and a new version of S. 65, were in play. SWAPA's lobbyist (Jay Keese) worked his skills at the leadership levels and APAAD (Emens) did the grassroots foot work. At their peak they were running monthly ads in the congressional newspapers and were putting 50 pilots every other month into the halls of Congress.

What ALPA never said to its membership is that it was getting buried in those congressional hallways. Oberstar and other ALPA supporters let ALPA know that it needed to get in the game if it wanted to voice in what the change would look like. This is big. ALPA was told the plane was pushing back from the jetway without them. That's why it was put on the agenda at the big ALPA confab in May (?) 2007 and why it passed. It was play or pay. ALPA voted to play.

Oberstar then obligingly gave ALPA exactly what it wanted in change language and then he sat on it for 6 months or so.

SWAPA/APAAD, however, were increasing the pressure by testifying before Congress, ramping up pilots in the halls, and piling up more and more co-sponsors, many being big-name Democrat leaders. Oberstar was like a guy with his finger in a dike. Sooner or later than water was coming through, with a lot of force.

When Oberstar finally moved to pass age change legislation, he did it like the professional politician he was - he took the new language, gave it a new number (H.R. 4343) and a new name (Fair Treatment, blah, blah, blah) then moved it to a vote and passed it. The Senate did the same. He waited as long as he could (to December).

Was THIS what you consider "in the dead of night"? If so, you missed or misunderstood the dynamics in play in Washington. By May of 2007 ALPA had caved; the pro change guys had amassed 315 co-sponsors for H.R. 1125 and it passed 390-0. On the Senate side S.65 they had 52 co sponsors. The final vote was unanimous. This kind of thing doesn't happen too often in Washington. It took a lot of work, time and money to make it happen.

If anyone was thinking none of the above mattered then they simply weren't paying attention or, more likely, read the tea leaves as saying what they wanted to hear rather the reality of what was taking place.

You can find all sorts of stuff on the web. Thomas.gov tracks legislation. The final ARC report can be found at http://www.age60rule.com/docs/Final ARC Report.pdf
The ALPA news release is at http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007 ALPA News Release.pdf

 

[laker4284]

As you go about helping Mom and prepping your threatened retaliation at my earlier "cut the crap" comment, just so we're clear--this is the "crap" I was talking about. If it looks like crap, smells like crap, and tastes like crap, It's crap! Of course it was shoved through in the middle of the night!! This behavior of yours (not owning up to the facts of the matter) is what I was talking about.

So for planning purposes, don't go off on some tangent if you plan on following thru.

You are more than a tad overwrought. You are also exceedingly rude.
Generally speaking, I tend not to waste my time on people who are rude, swear at me, etc. As I did raising my kids, I don't reward bad behavior.

That said, you can read what I wrote to Andy regarding the "dead of night", etc. He tends to be polite and rational.

 

[laker4284]

Does anyone foresee another dead of the night operation to 67, 70, or no age limit?

Nope.

First of all, it wasn't the dead of night. It took a lot of time, money and effort.

Second, there is no organized group pushing for change.

Thirdly, Congress and the FAA won't re-address the issue so soon.

Fourth, I'd say guys like many on this forum will themselves be more organized the next time around. At least you should be. Or maybe twenty years in the future it will be you guys pushing for change to 67 or higher! Time will tell.

 

[Andy]

Laker, Mica had the bill sitting in subommittee. A bill has to go to subcommittee where it's marked up prior to being released to committee.
In this case, Mica was ranking member in the Aviation Subcommittee where he could and did block the bill, as per House rules.
What Mica was doing in the Aviation Subcommittee was that he blocked any action on the bill to get it out of Subcommittee. http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/CU/The_Legislative_Process/Stage_3.htm

How do I know Mica was the one blocking it? Inside sources.

 

[goodgig]

On a related note, I am watching Mick Jagger jam at the White house.

 

[laker4284]

Laker, Mica had the bill sitting in subommittee. A bill has to go to subcommittee where it's marked up prior to being released to committee.
In this case, Mica was ranking member in the Aviation Subcommittee where he could and did block the bill, as per House rules.
What Mica was doing in the Aviation Subcommittee was that he blocked any action on the bill to get it out of Subcommittee. http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/CU/The_Legislative_Process/Stage_3.htm

How do I know Mica was the one blocking it? Inside sources.

Your link is correct in HOW the markup process works. Where you go wrong is using Mica as the man who mattered. If your sources actually told you that, he was dead wrong.

Leadership for the House Transportation committee and the Aviation Subcommittee were in the hands of Oberstar and DeFazio, respectively. Both were Dems and Dems were in control of the House and the Senate and were in control of the various committees and sub committees. Mica was the minority leader of the committee (known as the ranking member in Congress' arcane terminology). The ranking member is NOT a member of congressional or committee leadership. In the House, more so than in the Senate, the ranking member doesn't have jack to say about moving legislation forward or stop it from going forward. You only have to look at how the Republicans have stonewalled the Dems for the last two years to see how that works (Pelosi is now the ranking member and minority leader). Back in '06 and '07 it worked the same way, except the Dems (Oberstar and DeFazio) were the ones calling the shots on the relative committees.

From Wiki: "Another usage refers to the most senior member of a congressional or state legislative committee from the minority party.[2] This second usage, often used by the media, should properly be referred to as the ranking minority member. "

Mica, as committee chairman, was an early co-sponsor (see Thomas.gov) of the age bills and wrote strongly worded letters to Oberstar, DeFazio and the FAA calling for immediate change.

Not sure why your source has this backward but it might explain why he thought things got "rushed" through when, in fact, they had been moving forward for quite some time.

 

[laker4284]

I earlier said I thought another age change wouldn't happen any time soon and I still believe that.

Without a strong group like APAAD (disbanded) and SWAPA (on record as being opposed to another change) pushing for change the idea won't get the visibility it needs, nor the legs, not the money.

However,

I see the biggest danger coming from the more than a little foolish change in pilot qualifications. If the pipeline gets choked then the only way to fill those cockpit seats is by keeping pilots in the cockpit who might otherwise retire. On a related but different note, I think the idea that any pilot shortage would give pilots some kind of wage leverage is wildly overblown. More likely, growth would be stunted and another pilot change might get pushed into play.

 

[Flopgut]

Laker: Talked to my Congressman. He said there is no effort to change the age now. In addition to mentioning there would be huge changes to medical standards if there is another increase, he indicated that epic furloughs and stagnation for the junior pilots will be addressed. IMHO, that means the old guys will go to the bottom of the list.

 

[PFTEXPJET]

I see the biggest danger coming from the more than a little foolish change in pilot qualifications.

Can you say; MPL?

 

[laker4284]

Laker: Talked to my Congressman. He said there is no effort to change the age now. In addition to mentioning there would be huge changes to medical standards if there is another increase, he indicated that epic furloughs and stagnation for the junior pilots will be addressed. IMHO, that means the old guys will go to the bottom of the list.

Flop,

I commend you for contacting your Congressman. Most guys say they will, but don't and rely on hearsay or rumors. That said, I'd be remiss in not warning you of some of the realities of dealing with our politicians.

Did you talk to your congressman or an aide? Usually you need a connection - or be very lucky - to score a chat with "the man" himself. Aides are easy to come by but often tell you what you want to hear, or have their own axes to grind which are not always in line with their bosses. Even talking to the Big Guy himself can be misleading.

The politicians often tell you what they think you want to hear and sometimes they actually believe it. Then they talk to their inside "experts" - the aides - and are told why they can or cannot support some issue. They can hang up the phone with you and do a 180 in an hour.

Then comes the questions, "What political party is he in?" If he is not a member of the party in control he has little or no ability to implement any policy. For that matter, is the guy a senior one or a junior one? That matters too because you need a champion for you cause with some heft.

Lastly, if a single congressman out of 435 gives you his opinion that's the opinion of one-quarter of one percent of the House. That's a shaky base upon which to bet your career.

All of the above matters just as much in the comments about medicals or seniority issues. You were given an opinion. How that squares with leadership (pushing a policy), political compromise (absolutes tend not to remain absolutes), and federal law (discrimination laws, EEOC, etc).

What I'm saying is - I see the same mistakes and the same assumptions being made on this forum that were made by the "no change" advocates four - or ten- years ago. If you don't have solid data, have a group organized to protect your interests, etc. you will - again - be outhustled, outmaneuvered, and out of luck.

Those who don't learn from history are often forced to relive it.