Please vote NO on S.65!

[Andy]

I would be a fool to think that sometime over the next 21 years the age restriction will not be increased. We might as well just get it over with.

I agree, however, I think a gradual phase-in of allowing over 60 pilots (to a position other than pilot in command) to continue flying. ... say, increase retirement age by 1 month/quarter. A 5 year age increase would occur gradually over 20 years. Hell, make it 67; just take 28 years to get there.

 

[Andy]

Sorry, I thought that most people knew or could figure that out, you must be the 1% that could not figure that out, Heavy Iron in the corporate world or 135 world are aircraft like Gulfstreams,Global Express,BBJ(Boeing Business Jet,aka B737-700),etc. they don't hold 600+, but they have ranges that go from 4800 NM to almost 7000 NM, there are pilots who are in their 70's flying these all over the world, we fly into places so remote that the airlines would never ever consider them places, and fly into high terrain airports all of the time, so if you are worried about a 65 year old pilot flying from New York to London and back, think about the 70 year old flying a $50 mil. airplane into a high mountain airport down to minimums with no problems, all I can say is that I have seen guys in their 40's and 50's that need to retire let alone some pilots that are 65

Kinda like the Gulfstream that was supposed to take former president bush from IAH to somewhere in South America, piloted by two over age 60 pilots?

 

[Spooky 1]

Kinda like the Gulfstream that was supposed to take former president bush from IAH to somewhere in South America, piloted by two over age 60 pilots?

Andy, have you read this accident report? I have not seen it but apparently you have so please share your sources with us.

 

[Andy]

Andy, have you read this accident report? I have not seen it but apparently you have so please share your sources with us.

This'll get you started:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3090875.html


Edited to add: The final NTSB report probably won't be out until next summer; it usually takes 18 months for it to be released.

 

[Spooky 1]

This'll get you started:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3090875.html


Edited to add: The final NTSB report probably won't be out until next summer; it usually takes 18 months for it to be released.

Andy from your profile one would assume that you are a pretty accomplished pilot. I cannot believe that you would hang your reasoning for this accident on a newspaper report. The cause is yet to be determined. The fact that both of the pilots were well over 60 may or may not have had anything to do with the cause. No more than saying that some accident with a couple of 30 or 40 year olds was caused by their age. I think there is ample documentation that would counter the age factor but I would not want to get into it at this juncture, but rather let the NTSB sort out the cause and other factors.

BTW.......are you still furlouged? With your profile I would have thought you could find something pretty decent out there.

 

[Falconjet]

I just scanned the website of congress and read the bill and looked for ammendments. As far as I could tell, there are no ammendments to the proposed bill in either house. Interestingly enough, there is a bill HR65 on the back burner that pretty much mirrors the language in S65. That language is posted above and from what I can tell hasn't changed.

This info is from the ALPA website which explains briefly the effect of the Senate bill and its estimated implementation date.

UPDATE, November 19 -- In an unrecorded voice vote on November 17, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation designed to establish an upper age limit of 65 in multi-crew operations. It would become effective within 30 days after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts this standard, which is likely to take place in November 2006.
Under this legislation, a pilot could fly to 65 in operations under Part 121 of Title 14 only as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations, and only when another pilot serving as a required pilot has not yet attained his or her 60th birthday. This legislation would allow a pilot who is retired and between the ages of 60 and 65 to be re-hired, but it would not allow him or her to sue to gain re-employment. The legislation would not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement and a pilot could not sue to regain seniority. The legal foundations for these provisions are unclear, however. Twenty-four months after the legislation is implemented, the National Transportation Safety Board would be required to submit a report to the Senate Commerce Committee concerning the effect of this change on aviation safety.
This legislation now awaits consideration and a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to take place until the first half of 2006. No hearings or votes on the upper age limit in the U.S. House of Representatives have been held during 2005. ALPA will continue to keep you updated on this website as this issue develops.


END OF ALPA info.


As has been stated however, the language of the bill ties the retirement age to the start of SS benefits, so for folks born in 1960 or later the upper age limit would be at least 67. The actual bill says nothing about ICAO standards or the need for a yonger than 60 pilot to offset the older pilot, but the ALPA info mentions these.


FJ

 

[Falconjet]

BTW: Spooky: Nice, class act you are.

With your profile I wouldn't have thought you would be such a big dbag.

FJ

 

[FoxHunter]

I just scanned the website of congress and read the bill and looked for ammendments. As far as I could tell, there are no ammendments to the proposed bill in either house. Interestingly enough, there is a bill HR65 on the back burner that pretty much mirrors the language in S65. That language is posted above and from what I can tell hasn't changed.

This info is from the ALPA website which explains briefly the effect of the Senate bill and its estimated implementation date.

UPDATE, November 19 -- In an unrecorded voice vote on November 17, the Senate Commerce Committee approved legislation designed to establish an upper age limit of 65 in multi-crew operations. It would become effective within 30 days after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts this standard, which is likely to take place in November 2006.
Under this legislation, a pilot could fly to 65 in operations under Part 121 of Title 14 only as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations, and only when another pilot serving as a required pilot has not yet attained his or her 60th birthday. This legislation would allow a pilot who is retired and between the ages of 60 and 65 to be re-hired, but it would not allow him or her to sue to gain re-employment. The legislation would not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement and a pilot could not sue to regain seniority. The legal foundations for these provisions are unclear, however. Twenty-four months after the legislation is implemented, the National Transportation Safety Board would be required to submit a report to the Senate Commerce Committee concerning the effect of this change on aviation safety.
This legislation now awaits consideration and a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to take place until the first half of 2006. No hearings or votes on the upper age limit in the U.S. House of Representatives have been held during 2005. ALPA will continue to keep you updated on this website as this issue develops.


END OF ALPA info.


As has been stated however, the language of the bill ties the retirement age to the start of SS benefits, so for folks born in 1960 or later the upper age limit would be at least 67. The actual bill says nothing about ICAO standards or the need for a yonger than 60 pilot to offset the older pilot, but the ALPA info mentions these.


FJ

US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation

I'm finished babysitting the younger generation tonight. Sorry to say they have the same problem in the cockpit. Guess I have to chalk that off to experience, or age. or lack of?

 

[Falconjet]

No, just to being a dbag.

FJ

 

[Spooky 1]

BTW: Spooky: Nice, class act you are.

With your profile I wouldn't have thought you would be such a big dbag.

FJ

Hey Falcon Jet, maybe you could share with the rest of the Flight Hangar membership the ages of the following MD11 crewmembers:

EWR: Total airframe loss.
Manila: (or where ever your sorting ops are): Total airframe loss.

The last six trail strikes in the MD11.

Standing by for your prompt, no BS reply. All of us wnat to know about the age problems at your operation and how they may effect your MD11 ops. Come on, just the ages of the Capt.s.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Talking Points: The FAA "Age 60" Rule ​

Allowing airline pilots to fly beyond age 60 is a win-win solution.
While there is no supportable disadvantage in allowing healthy, qualified airline pilots over age 60 to continue in their airline positions, there are many advantages for the airlines, the pilots, the government, the traveling public, and the taxpayer, gained by retaining older, highly experienced, FAA certified, commercial airline pilots.
There is no medical, statistical, or empirical evidence to indicate that older pilots are less safe.

• FAA studies consistently find that accident rates for pilots with similar credentials declines through ages well beyond 60.
• Formal studies and empirical evidence of foreign airline pilots, up to age 72, report no operational problems with their oldest pilots.
  • The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is currently considering adjusting their maximum age to conform to an international majority limit of 65.
  • The European Joint Aviation Authority raised their age limit to 65 for commercial pilots in 1999.
  • Israel and Japan have conducted studies of piloting after age 60 and consequently raised their max age to 65.
• The FAA system of semi-annual medical, functional simulator testing and check rides for all pilots purges the airline cockpits of any pilot likely to pose a safety hazard—regardless of age.
• FAA "Fail Safe" cockpit procedures preclude an accident in dual-piloted commercial airliners due to pilot incapacitation.
• The Aerospace Medical Association, Civil Aerospace Medical Association and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health, find no medical basis for the Age 60 Rule.
• The EEOC has disputed the Age 60 Rule for over 20 years and has successfully forced private corporations to eliminate rules that required their pilots to retire at 60 under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1968 (ADEA).
• AARP supports the end of arbitrary retirement age for airline pilots.

There are numerous benefits to the public in allowing airline pilots to work longer.
The FAA "Age 60 Rule" is an unnecessary burden on the US taxpayer - for each additional year that an airline pilot continues in their position they will:
contribute to the Social Security Fund;
postpone the withdrawal of Social Security funds;
postpone the withdrawal of funds from under-funded airline pensions, and:
postpone or prevent the default of some pension plans.
Allowing airline pilots to work longer will afford them time to replenish retirement savings account losses due to recent interest and stock market declines and job dislocations.
Change to the Age 60 Rule will benefit the Airlines and Employees.
Increasing the maximum retirement age of pilots offers the airline pilot greater choice to leave only when they have satisfied career or retirement goals, and not prematurely.
Airline pilot labor agreements preclude a pilot from returning to their former carrier with seniority. Retired pilots at these airlines will not be able to displace active pilots.
Airlines, without contract language on returning pilots over age 60, should negotiate the terms and conditions for integrating retirees with the existing pilot group.
Retired Captains can bring immediate command experience to up-start airlines.
Airline and Union arguments, which support the current Rule, are economic and therefore not in compliance with the philosophy of the ADEA.
What Can Congress Do?
Support legislation to do away with the arbitrary Age 60 rule
Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-NV) is sponsoring H.R. 65 and Sen. Jim Inhofe is sponsoring S. 65, similar bills, both of which will raise the retirement age to match eligibility for full Social Security benefits.
We ask that you work with Rep. Gibbons and Sen. Inhofe to pass this legislation which will extend the mandatory retirement age for pilots past the current arbitrary age of 60 as soon as possible.
This is a political compromise whose time has come and makes sense for all parties.


Just some food for thought!

 

[Falcon Jet 1]

Have your cake and eat it to. Saving grace is that it wont be implemented till Dec 2006 if it passes both houses, so that will in effect move everyone up at swa another 150 or so. Jim that probably wont bother you unless youre one of the 150 retired.

 

[Jim Smyth]

Nope, I am in my mid 40's. Unfortunately for some of the younger guys this will have an impact if and when it passes. Just like the impact it had in 1959 when they made the back door rule and guys that were in the upper 50's and learned they had to leave soon.

The guy I flew with last weekhas been with SWA for a little over a year. He pulled it up on our union senority upgrade planner and if this ever passes and goes to 65 he said it would delay his upgrade for 20 months according to SWAPA and thats if everyone actualy goes to 65. I know every airline is different with growth/stagnation etc. Hopefully for all concerned gas will keep dropping, airfares will increase and guys can advance to the left seat with growth and some can get called back from furlough as airlines get back on there feet.