• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Nobody will be able to fly for hire after 65

hawkerfun

Active member
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Posts
34
Total Time
10,000
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., issued a news release last night announcing his intent to remove the ATC privatization piece from the FAA reauthorization measure, H.R. 2997, the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century AIRR Act. The decision represents a major shift in Shuster’s direction

According to the statement, the decision to eliminate the ATC language was based on a lack of bipartisan support for the measure. With this controversial piece removed, however, Shuster has cleared the way for the AIRR Act’s passage once it is scheduled for deliberation by the full chamber. As previously communicated, NJASAP expects the full House to vote on a manager’s amendment to make technical corrections and minor legislative changes to the measure. It is uncertain, but highly likely the manager’s amendment will include language to implement a mandatory retirement age of 65, mirroring existing rules in Part 121. The bill is expected to be considered by the full House in mid March.

According to a report from Politico, "Shuster's white flag means lawmakers should now begin talking more openly about an extension after the current authorization expires March 30, leaving the only real question how long it will be, and whether it will be clean. Regardless, it will give lawmakers some breathing room to pass a long-term bill in both chambers and march it through a conference committee (still a tall order even in the best of circumstances, especially with other competing pressures on the calendar)."

The Senate bill, while not including the ATC reform language, has also not been without controversy. Two anti-labor amendments were added to the legislation during committee markup, one dealing with states’ rights to regulate meal and rest breaks for truck drivers and the other to undermine the minimum 1,500-hour requirement for first officers (FOQ) employed by Part 121 operators. The latter provision drew the ire of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who represents Buffalo, NY, the site of the 2009 Colgan Air crash that led to the new FO requirements.

This opposition has forced the Senate bill into a holding pattern and unable to clear the legislative requirements to be brought to the floor for debate. With Shuster dropping his coveted ATC provision, many are speculating Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chairman John Thune, R-SD, will similarly concede and drop his controversial FOQ amendment.

Despite these new developments and removed roadblocks to consideration in both chambers, the legislative path forward is still unclear. Both chairmen plan to meet and discuss a way forward, leaving three possible scenarios:

  1. The House bill moves with the ATC piece removed, and the Senate takes up the House-passed bill.
  2. The Senate bill moves with the FOQ language removed, and the House takes up the Senate-passed bill.
The two chairmen agree on a whole new piece of legislation, combining pieces of both bills
 

bafanguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Posts
2,416
Total Time
23,000
hawkerfun,

Not sure I understand the scope of the proposed legislation from the article:

"...highly likely the manager’s amendment will include language to implement a mandatory retirement age of 65, mirroring existing rules in Part 121."

Does this mean Part 135 and 91K ?

I'm hearing speculation of an impending increase to ~68 for Part 121. Emphasis on "speculation" but there are people swearing it's coming soon.
 

CALRepublic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Posts
576
Total Time
plenty
Difficult situation for management

As far as Netjets goes. They’re trying to give our young F/Os a reason to stay, and for those looking for a job, a reason to come here. They’re trying to make this place more attractive

But the looming pilot shortage is gonna hit hard.

I think they’re between a rock and hard place on this one.
 
Last edited:

Diesel

TEB Hilton resident
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,394
Total Time
696969
Difficult situation for management

As far as Netjets goes. They’re trying to give our young F/Os a reason to stay, and for those looking for a job, a reason to come here. They’re trying to make this place more attractive

But the looming pilot shortage is gonna hit hard.

I think they’re between a rock and hard place on this one.

It will be worse if an accident happens with someone over 65. It’s not what the owners are paying for.
 

CALRepublic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Posts
576
Total Time
plenty
Agree.

I’m sure CEOs are not too thrilled to see two 68 year olds jump in the cockpit

Is not just about giving young guys a chance at a career, it’s about the owners as well
 

Diesel

TEB Hilton resident
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Posts
4,394
Total Time
696969
Agree.

I’m sure CEOs are not too thrilled to see two 68 year olds jump in the cockpit

Is not just about giving young guys a chance at a career, it’s about the owners as well

Lol 68 is young. There are far older pilots up front.
 

Bjtdrvr

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Posts
180
Total Time
10000
There are many more small 135 pilots that would be affected by this type of change out there than would be affected at Netjets. I seriously doubt that the faa would make a broad change to the rule causing turmoil among them.
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
I believe a more thought-out approach would be to solve the perceived "problem" with crew pairing. If one pilot is over 65, the other pilot must be under 60. A simple solution.
 

Honorstudent

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2015
Posts
100
Total Time
10000
Not that it will affect me anytime soon, some day I to will be 65 and if I am healthy enough to continue to fly it should be my choice. There are some 50 year Olds that can’t climb a flite of stairs let alone walk to and from the A/C across the ramp without becoming short of breath. Just saying you let the government get this passed and the next thing is BMI so you had better be prepared for that as well. Currently I’m not worried about either but the old saying if you give them an inch they will take an acre, I have flow with several pilots over 65 and the one thing they all shared was extensive experience which can only be gained through a lifetime of flying. One should not discount the value of that.
 

shanes123

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Posts
969
Total Time
6000
I know 40 year olds that can't climb a flight of stairs..Make it a fitness requirement over say 65 not a age.. Theres guys 85 running marathons that are in better health then 40 year olds out there..age is a number and a poor indicator of health and ability.
 

AirBear8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2004
Posts
204
Total Time
15000
If the age 65 language survives, it will ONLY apply to NetJets since it was custom written for them. It specifies over 100,000 operations per year, and only NetJets has that many. A new PAC composed of NJA Pilots opposed to this bill has formed. Their best bet at getting it voted down is to highlight publicly how it only applies to NJA and to get that language stripped out so that it will apply to all Part 135. Then all the alphabet soup of aviation groups will come in opposed to it.

The Latest timeline for a vote on this is mid to late summer.
 

rajflyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Posts
1,797
Total Time
17500
Another case of the few bad folks hurting the good of the whole group

if you are too old RETIRE

you are only losing respect from your co workers
 

CALRepublic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Posts
576
Total Time
plenty
"if you're too old retire, you're loosing respect from your coworkers"

one thing I know about these old guys, they DO NOT give a s#*t what people think

either you push them out or they're staying. simple
 

rajflyboy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Posts
1,797
Total Time
17500
"if you're too old retire, you're loosing respect from your coworkers"

one thing I know about these old guys, they DO NOT give a s#*t what people think

either you push them out or they're staying. simple

for these select few I believe that to be the case

it’s sad because there are a bunch who are still doing the job well
 
Top