Removal Of Name Of Member As Cosponsor Of H.r. 65

[Sporto]

This was recently posted on "GovTrack".


Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL]: Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 65.

I don't know exactly what this means but I like it

 

[General Lee]

My phone calls have been working? Come on baby---keep age 60......


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[AAflyer]

My phone calls have been working? Come on baby---keep age 60......


Bye Bye--General Lee

Just called his office, spoke with the aid. It was late, she was not sure, and said she would contact me in the morning. I take it the above statement is accurate.

AA

 

[dtfl]

My phone calls have been working? Come on baby---keep age 60......


Bye Bye--General Lee

Yeah I wrote Martinez in FL and the reply I got back was - (to sum it up he supports 65)

Dear Mr _______

Thank you for contacting me regarding age restrictions and retirement benefits for commercial airline pilots. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to take this opportunity to respond.

The Age 65 Act (S. 65), which was introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) on January 24, 2005, seeks to amend federal aviation law to increase the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots from 60 to 65. This measure would in effect tie the commercial pilot retirement age to the social security retirement age, prohibiting the Federal Aviation Administration from requiring commercial pilots to retire before they are eligible for Social Security benefits.

S. 65 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where it was amended to allow pilots over 60 to fly if accompanied by a co-pilot who is 59 or younger. The committee approved this amendment pending its adoption by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is set to meet on this issue in November 2006. S. 65 now awaits a vote before the full Senate.

A similar measure (H.R. 65) was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Jim Gibbons (R-NV) on January 4, 2005, and was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

S. 65 would protect workers’ rights both by rescinding an outdated, discriminatory regulation, and allowing thousands of pilots to continue to pay into their pensions and into Social Security. This particular economic advantage cannot be overlooked, especially considering the current fragile state of a number of airline pension programs.

The Senate’s major pension reform bill, the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 (S. 1783), was passed with my support on November 16, 2005, by a vote of 97 to 2. During Senate floor debate of S. 1783, Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) offered the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Pilots Equitable Treatment Act (S. 685) as an amendment (S.Amdt. 2583) to this bill. Both S. 685 and its related amendment would require the PBGC to offer airline pilots, who are required by the FAA to retire at age 60, the maximum pension benefits allowed on terminated pension plans. S.Amdt. 2583 was adopted into S. 1783 by a vote of 58 to 41. Differences between the House- and Senate-passed pension reform legislation must now be reconciled through a conference committee before further action can be taken.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator

 

[Andy]

Not only did Rep Rush pull his cosponsorship (on 9/19), so did Reps Farr and Simmons on 9/21.

Hopefully this link will work:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00065:@@@P

 

[Jeepman]

My phone calls have been working? Come on baby---keep age 60......


Bye Bye--General Lee

And once our beloved General is a Capt. he will be preaching for age 65!!! WATCH!

 

[Networ-King]

And once our beloved General is a Capt. he will be preaching for age 65!!! WATCH!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dammit jeep you beat me to it LOL...... Glad to see that people know the real you general.... LOL.... Thanks for the laugh jeep.

 

[Andy]

And once our beloved General is a Capt. he will be preaching for age 65!!! WATCH!

I'd be in favor of a change to 65 if:
1) Anyone over 59 is restricted from bidding Captain.
2) They can put in place a medical and checkride system that can effectively screen out those pilots who are at increased risk.
3) There aren't any pilots on furlough.

Until those conditions are met, I will oppose any change.

 

[2wheelz]

"2) They can put in place a medical and checkride system that can effectively screen out those pilots who are at increased risk."

-Andy

What increased risk? There is absolutely no scientific evidence that a sixty year old pilot is any less safe than a fifty-nine year old pilot. If you can pass the current medical system and the current checkride system, you are as safe as every other pilot who has done the same.

Everyone knows why the age 60 rule was created, and safety had nothing to do with it.

 

[Andy]

What increased risk? There is absolutely no scientific evidence that a sixty year old pilot is any less safe than a fifty-nine year old pilot. If you can pass the current medical system and the current checkride system, you are as safe as every other pilot who has done the same.

Everyone knows why the age 60 rule was created, and safety had nothing to do with it.

In terms of accidents/per 100,000 flight hours, there is an upward turn in the historic statistics at age 55. While not statistically significant comparing one year to the next, the trend is quite pronounced when veiwed over the span from early 20s to 59. It is a U-shaped graph.

The original suggestion to the FAA by a medical panel was to not allow pilots to transition between props and jets after the age of 55, along with mandatory retirement at 60. The FAA threw out the transition restriction.
The medical panel looked at quite a few studies before determining those ages.

 

[m80drvr]

"2) They can put in place a medical and checkride system that can effectively screen out those pilots who are at increased risk."

-Andy

What increased risk? There is absolutely no scientific evidence that a sixty year old pilot is any less safe than a fifty-nine year old pilot. If you can pass the current medical system and the current checkride system, you are as safe as every other pilot who has done the same.

Everyone knows why the age 60 rule was created, and safety had nothing to do with it.

After flying at a fractional with many 60 to 65 year olds I will say that yes some were very sharp some were better pilots than I will EVER be BUT a large protion of them were behind the power curve. Sure it may have only been about 30 to 40 percent of the guys BUT their is no room for decreased performance in the cockpit.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Dizel8]

"2) They can put in place a medical and checkride system that can effectively screen out those pilots who are at increased risk."

-Andy

What increased risk? There is absolutely no scientific evidence that a sixty year old pilot is any less safe than a fifty-nine year old pilot. If you can pass the current medical system and the current checkride system, you are as safe as every other pilot who has done the same.

Everyone knows why the age 60 rule was created, and safety had nothing to do with it.

Then why do we have the restriction that only one of the pilots may be over the age of 60? I mean, if it is so safe, then why worry about it, further, why have an agelimit at all, 65 is as arbitrary as 60, why not 63.75 or 69.25?

This issue is about money, it was then, it is now, only the players have changed!

 

[2wheelz]

This issue is about money, it was then, it is now, only the players have changed!

I completely agree. It's ALL about $$$. If safety were really the issue, our legislators would address rest and work rules rather than a capricious and arbitrary age rule.

 

[Oh-ryan]

Then why do we have the restriction that only one of the pilots may be over the age of 60? I mean, if it is so safe, then why worry about it, further, why have an agelimit at all, 65 is as arbitrary as 60, why not 63.75 or 69.25?

This issue is about money, it was then, it is now, only the players have changed!

agreed! What kind of message does it send out to the general public. "Good morning folks. Welcome aboard flight 437 to Orlando. I am your Captian and am 64, you're in luck cause your copilot today is only 59. You see, the goverment thinks I am perfectly safe to fly, as long as someone under 60 flies with me".

What a joke. If they increase it to 65 then it should be done without restrictions. Pass your medicals and your checkrides and go have fun. Can you imagine what a headache it would be for the crew scheduling department if they have to factor in yet another variable to the equation?

 

[Quiet Flight]

Anyone have a form letter voicing their opposition to an increase in the age 60 rule? If so, can you PM me? Thanks.

 

[GuppyWN]

Wait till I'm over 55. Then I'll be in favor of changing the law. The major difference is I'll tell you straight up it's about cash, not some discrimination label I pulled out of my arse cause it sounded better.

Gup

 

[cjs]

Wait till I'm over 55. Then I'll be in favor of changing the law. The major difference is I'll tell you straight up it's about cash, not some discrimination label I pulled out of my arse cause it sounded better.

Gup

Pay attention, class .. what you see here is an honest man.