Please vote NO on S.65!

[Double Shot]

Changing the age 60 rule doesn't necessarily affect when a furloughed pilot is offered recall from furlough.

Those thousands and thousands of furloughed pilots can get a job at one of the airlines currently hiring.

An airline that furloughs employees may be in financial trouble and consequently never offer the furloughee a prosperous career.

And...
If a pilot likes flying soo much he/she can also go find a corporate job once they reach the age of 60.

 

[RAC396]

Rac396:


So in other words.....life is good as you have enjoyed the benefits of the age 60 rule your entire career through quicker upgrades etc.. Now that you have your's, pull up the ladder and change the rules.

Everybody at a 121 airline knew the rules when they got into this profession. The rules didn't change mid-stream for anybody that is currently at a 121 carrier excpet for maybe a very few individuals.


Somebody else mentioned just wanting "the right to work".....Well, how about the thousands and thousands of furloughed 121 pilots out there right now that may never get to come back to their jobs because of this change?? What about their "right to work??" Again.....you've got your's, pull up the ladder. And yes, it is about personnal gains or losses on BOTH sides. Anybody that tries to dress up their arguement with some BS "it's age discrimination" or crap like that is a hypocrit.

I have only flown the line at a 121 carrier 7 years,and only enjoyed one upgrade.I served my country for 24 years,Vitenam & desert storm.Worked for a major aircraft maker,and as a profesional sim instructor,prior to making it to the line.I love it here,and plan to stay.

 

[BoilerUP]

Changing the age 60 rule doesn't necessarily affect when a furloughed pilot is offered recall from furlough.

Those thousands and thousands of furloughed pilots can get a job at one of the airlines currently hiring.

An airline that furloughs employees may be in financial trouble and consequently never offer the furloughee a prosperous career.

Changing the Age 60 rule will amount to a 5 year stagnation at airlines with a high amount of future retirees, specifically the legacy airlines with hundreds (if not thousands) of furloughees. I don't know the percentage of hiring that is for growth vs. attrition, but I'd be willing to say current and future attrition will vastly outweigh growth in the near to medium term. Some furloughees have been on the street 4+ years, and this change would likely keep them on the street for much longer. The career progression of upcoming pilots (like myself) would be stunted by the instantenous lack of movement at the regional level due to the lack of movement at the legacy/LCC level.

I truly sympathize for those who have had their careers affected by industry downturns and/or mismanagement, and I hope I never have to endure it. However. while it would benefit *some* active airline pilots, changing the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65 will result in the continued screwing of the junior (or furloughed, or young) pilot at the hands of the senior captains. Many of these senior pilots "have to work" because they lived beyond their means for their entire time in the top 3% of wage earners in this country. Personally, I don't think I should have to support their three ex-wives, vacation homes or new Lexus habit with my career progression.

 

[nwbusdrvr]

Lets see - CAL is hiring now for what reason? Oh yea, because of retirements. So how many furloughed pilots would have the chance to go there if the age is changed? Like the other post mentioned, I got mine, and I want more!

 

[N1kawotg]

What makes everyone assume the guys being forced to retire haven't been trying to do away with the law for many years when they were younger? I personally know a dozen guys that have been fighting this for years. As for the argument that the furloughed guys will be on the street longer that is anyones guess. BK companies may never hire thses guys back anyway unfortunately. Plus, once back wouldn't t be nice to know that I now have extra years 5 at the top of the pay scale to earn the money lost while waiting for mgt to get their act together and turn the companies around. Everyone assumes that the 55+ guy didn't plan right and too bad on him. What if we were in any other industry, we may never get your chance to be on the top. I'm 34 and got into this inustry knowing this would be debated and so if it doesn't change now, please don't write saying that no one young wants this rule change. I'm calling the committee to vote yes. ICAO and every other country is now wising up, don't let the French look smarter then us.

 

[JohnDoe]

quote:
"Those thousands and thousands of furloughed pilots can get a job at one of the airlines currently hiring. "

And do you really think those airlines currently hiring are going to hire as many if the rule changes?? Continental, from what I have been reading, is basically hiring for retirements alone. Southwest, again from what I have read, is basing some of their hiring projections on having roughly 170 retirements next year. Seems like every carrier out there is going to have roughly 150-200 retirements per year for the foreseeable future. That is the potential for 750-1000 fewer pilots needed over a 5 year period, at EACH carrier, if the rule changes. (and yes, there will still be some early and medical outs)

quote:
"Changing the age 60 rule doesn't necessarily affect when a furloughed pilot is offered recall from furlough."

Come on. Fewer retirements equals fewer new pilots needed (ie recalled ones). Even if a carrier downsized, retirements would dictate new-hires at some point. Change the rule, 5 years worth goes away.

Again, this issue is entirely a gain/loss perspective. The ones currently employed at 121 want to "pull up the ladder" now that they have theirs, and the ones awaiting recall, or hiring period, want the opportunities for employment retirements offer.

 

[Bill Nelson]

Well for one, its to change the age restriction to Social Security eligibility and not 65, and two there is no mention of the under 60 first officer in the bill printed in its entirety below:


A BILL
To amend the age restrictions for pilots.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS.

• Section 44703 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

• `(k) LIMITATION ON AGE RESTRICTIONS-

• • `(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator may not, solely by reason of a person's age, if such person has not attained the person's social security retirement age as defined in section 216(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 416(l))--

• • • `(A) deny, defer as to, or fail to renew for, any such person an airman or medical certificate to serve as a pilot of aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, or take any other action by regulation or otherwise under this section, including the imposition of restrictions or limitations on an airman or medical certificate following initial or periodic competency or medical testing, which has the same age discriminatory effect on any such person; or

• • • `(B) require an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to terminate the employment of, or not to employ, any such person as a pilot of an aircraft operated by such air carrier, or take any other action by regulation or otherwise under section 44705 of this title which has the same age discriminatory effect on any such person.

• • `(2) APPLICABILITY- Nothing in paragraph (1) shall provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, made by any pilot seeking re-employment by such air carrier following the pilot's previous termination or cessation of employment as mandated by section 121.383(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

• • `(3) AMENDMENT OF REGULATION- Upon the enactment of this subsection, the provisions of section 121.383(c), title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this subsection) shall cease to apply and the Administrator shall take such action as is necessary to carry out this subsection.'.

Ignorance is not an excuse. Educate yourself, before you open your suck!

Age 60 Legislative Action Alert: Senate Commerce Committee to Vote on
S.65

PLEASE call Senators on the Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee to urge them to support the Stevens/Burns compromise bill to reform
the FAA Age 60 rule.

The Senate Commerce Committee will take up S.65 this week and vote on
an amended version offered by Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Conrad
Burns and Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens.

SWAPA and SWA strongly supports Chairman Burns' and Stevens amended
bill and is urging all pilots to call Senators on the Commerce, Science
and Transportation Committee to urge them to support the Stevens/Burns
compromise bill to reform
the FAA Age 60 rule. The Committee is expected to take action
Thursday, November 17 at 2:30 p.m.

The Burns/Stevens substitute to S.65 would require the FAA to adopt the
ICAO standard by the end of 2006. Please urge all members of the
Senate Commerce Committee to vote "yes" in committee, to oppose any
amendments, and to report it out to the full Senate for consideration as soon
as possible.

The Burns/Stevens substitute would:
1. Establish the ICAO report recommendations as the US standard for
age restriction, which is;
. 65th birthday as the maximum age for pilots, and;
. Pilot-in-Command may be over 60, co-pilot must be under 60.

2. Require the FAA Administrator to implement the standard within 30
days of ICAO adopting standard-probably means December 2006.

3. Create no new right to action for pilots already over 60 before the
law's effective date- meaning any pilot can get re-hired, but pilots
already retired can't sue to get their job, pay or seniority back.

4. Direct the NTSB to conduct a safety study on the new standard and
reports findings to Congress within 24 months.

If you are from Alaska or Montana, please thank Chairman Stevens and
Chairman Burns for offering this important legislation; otherwise call
Senators on the Commerce Committee, from your state, and tell them to
vote yes on S. 65.

Senate Commerce Committee Members

Ted Stevens - Alaska
202-224-3004

John McCain - Arizona
202-224-2235

Conrad Burns - Montana
202-224-2644

Trent Lott - Mississippi
202-224-6253

Kay Bailey Hutchison - Texas
202-224-5922

Olympia Snowe - Maine
202-224-5344

Gordon Smith - Oregon
202-224-3753

John Ensign - Nevada
202-224-6244

George Allen - Virginia
202-224-4024

John Sununu - New Hampshire
202-224-2841

Jim DeMint - South Carolina
202-224-6121

David Vitter - Louisiana
202-224-4623

Daniel K. Inouye - Hawaii
202-224-3934

John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia
202-224-6472

John F. Kerry - Massachussetts
202-224-2742

Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota
202-224-2551

Barbara Boxer - California
202-224-3553

Bill Nelson - Florida
202-224-5274

Maria Cantwell - Washington
202-224-3441

Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey
202-224-3224

E. Benjamin Nelson - Nebraska
202-224-6551

Mark Pryor - Arkansas
202-224-2353

 

[Bill Nelson]

I do not support S.65. I merely posted an email for our unrepresentative union. I strongly encourange everyone to use the phone numbers to call your congress man and tell them you do not support the change.

Vote No on S.65

 

[Chest Rockwell]

If the current age 60 rule were not the law today, is there any good arguement to enact it as law? No. If it is wrong, get rid of it. S.R. 65 is by no means an ideal solution. It is an improvement (stay of execution) until something better comes along.

I plan to retire prior to age 60 so it shouldn't affect me much. The federally mandated termination at 60 is a bad law with no credible factual basis. "You knew the rules when you started" - sounds like an excuse from a child.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Um, SENIORITY rules. Period, end of story.

All you yungins will be singing another tune when you go gray as well, you just don't know it yet.

 

[sandman2122]

I just emailed my senator from Texas to VOTE NO!!

 

[A380-800]

So if a pilot can be PIC if he is over 60 until he is 65, provided that the FO is under 60. Is the guy under 60 going to get some 'compensation' for his new job requirement? Maybe the 64 year old will want to share some of his cash, since without the FO being under 60 airplane no fly. Or better yet maybe we could alternate legs, and salaries of course.

 

[Boeingman]

I am not sure who on earth wants this job past 60. However ALPA should be pushing to redefine the PBGC payout guidelines, medicare and SS rules if it is going to oppose age 60 extensions.

 

[G4G5]

The better question is "Why" didn't you prepare for retirement?

I am 39, my retirement is being taken care of by my financial planner. Hopefully things will work out.

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.

 

[SWA/FO]

Exactly, Boeingman!!!

 

[ultrarunner]

I am not sure who on earth wants this job past 60.

It 'aint about a want...it's about a need.

 

[nimtz]

I am not sure who on earth wants this job past 60.

Agreed. I watched my old man fly long haul his last five years. He was a vegetable quite often on his days off despite being in good shape. Can't believe some of the big gutted fellas I see walking around today will do much better. Too each their own I guess. I wouldn't want this job to kill me by 65.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

I just emailed my senator from Texas to VOTE NO!!

Funny....but I called the same Senator from Texas and requested a "YES" vote.

Tejas

 

[canyonblue]

Based on most of the replies here it looks like it would be a moot point. Not too many pilots want to work past 60 so it should not affect that many if it were to pass.

 

[FL000]

This law needs to stay as it is. Age 60 is the madatory retirement age and should stay that way.

great reasoning. Count me in!

Not.

The way things are going, I'm gonna need the extra 5 years of 401k just to be able to afford Saltines to gum on during retirment.

Why would I give a shiznit about making room for some dude to upgrade or come onto the seniority list. Shoulda got here sooner.