S. 65 and H.R. 1125 still alive (age 65)

[Andy]

Andy,

If you look at the legislative history on this issue dating back a few years, you will find that your analysis above is incorrect. There are several people in Congress on both the House side as well as the Senate side that have made this their pet project for years. Do a little research on this issue going back a few years and you will see what I am talking about...this stuff has been going on a lot longer than Prater's short tenure.

-Neal

Neal, I'm FULLY aware of the Congressmen who have made this their pet project. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are members of the GOP. The GOP no longer has control of either house of congress; you might want to do a little research on which party currently controls the various committees in the House and Senate. There are a lot of 'friends of ALPA' on committees (including chairmanship) who have a great deal of influence over this matter. And they've suddenly gotten a change of heart on this matter without ALPA approval? That's a tough sell.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal,

What's your take on the belief that some in ALPA leadership have their own agendas and are trying to push a "fast-track" Age 65 Rule through Congress instead of waiting for the FAA's NPRM process?

That is politics XJTAv8r and from day 1 of our participation on the BRP, the 7 of us agreed to leave the politics to the politicians since the Panel's mission isn't about recommending a change one way or the other...it is just to study the effects of a change (if it were to happen) so that ALPA can best manage its way through the change if it does in fact come down the pipe. I think you should call your MEC Chairman Bill Dressler and talk to him about the political issues you bring up if you have concerns. I speak with Bill often and he is very in touch with this issue, etc.

The only thing I will say, however, is that there has been a congressional push on this issue for a long time...from guys like Ted Stevens, Robin Hayes, John Mica, and James Inhofe.

-Neal

 

[BoilerUP]

The poll is absolutely not biased either way. That said, it was important not only to test pilots absolute feelings on the issue of Age 60/65 but also to test their sentiments using various scenarios and assumptions. Like it or not, some pilots' views on the issue do change if they believe that the age change is a foregone conclusion and if there is an opportunity to affect the change in a manner that is most beneficial to ALPA pilots.

I'm absolutely against any change from Age 60 to 65...but let's be honest here, that change is for all intents and purposes totally out of ALPA's control. They can lobby hard against it, protest in DC, or even suggest something like an SOS in opposition to it...but if the folks on Capitol Hill want it to happen, its gonna happen.

I think its a foregone conclusion that the retirement age is going to change - there is too much momentum. While that's not the outcome I desire, if its going to come to that I want to make damn sure my concerns about providing older pilots a career windfall are heard and that the ramifications of such a change on the career expectations of younger pilots are considered.

 

[seefive]

Maybe the Dems should have changed their position on every topic the last many years because the republicans had control of the house and senate and controlled the outcome. The idea that ALPA needs to change position to affect this issue is just a snowstorm bias by ALPA leadership to facilitate this change. It's shameful and ridiculous.

 

[Andy]

Like it or not, some pilots' views on the issue do change if they believe that the age change is a foregone conclusion and if there is an opportunity to affect the change in a manner that is most beneficial to ALPA pilots.

Neal,
That would be fine (influencing the change) IF ALPA were not pulling levers behind the scenes to fast track this thing. OK, I saw the realistic possibility of a change AFTER the NPRM, which would be late 2009. That would give me a little furlough buffer on the next economic downturn that will very likely occur in the next couple of years. United is not growing so the only way that I get a buffer is through attrition. And if attrition stops for another five years, there is a very good chance that I'll end up on the streets for another three or so years.

Neal, I do not intend to shoot the messenger; I appreciate you posting here.

 

[Andy]

Maybe the Dems should have changed their position on every topic the last many years because the republicans had control of the house and senate and controlled the outcome.

Now you're starting to sound like prater. :angryfire

 

[XJTAv8r]

I think you should call your MEC Chairman Bill Dressler and talk to him about the political issues you bring up if you have concerns. I speak with Bill often and he is very in touch with this issue, etc.

I'm XJT Alumni now (at CAL) I just never bothered to get a new screen name.

The only thing I will say, however, is that there has been a congressional push on this issue for a long time...from guys like Ted Stevens, Robin Hayes, John Mica, and James Inhofe.

If you were a "betting man" what would you say the olds are for the rule to change quickly through Congress verses the slower NPRM? You probably have as good an insight as any, being on the BRP.

 

[BluDevAv8r]

Neal, I'm FULLY aware of the Congressmen who have made this their pet project. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are members of the GOP. The GOP no longer has control of either house of congress; you might want to do a little research on which party currently controls the various committees in the House and Senate. There are a lot of 'friends of ALPA' on committees (including chairmanship) who have a great deal of influence over this matter. And they've suddenly gotten a change of heart on this matter without ALPA approval? That's a tough sell.

Not all of the co-sponsors to these 2 bills are Republicans...Senator Joe Lieberman for example. Furthermore, I'm well briefed on the various committees in the House and Senate as well as who chairs them. You would be surprised as to what is going on right now in those various committees.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

I'm XJT Alumni now (at CAL) I just never bothered to get a new screen name.

Oops, my bad. I just looked at the screename...not the info under it.

If you were a "betting man" what would you say the olds are for the rule to change quickly through Congress verses the slower NPRM? You probably have as good an insight as any, being on the BRP.

This isn't an issue I would want to bet on....but I will say that S.65 and H.R. 1125 are very real and very much going to be discussed in a week or two when the FAA Re-Authorization bill gets marked up by Congress.

-Neal

 

[BluDevAv8r]

The BRP isn't exactly representative of the membership; they look pretty long in the tooth. I'd be curious to know where the BRP stands on any change - my bet is that it's something along the lines of 5-2 in favor of changing to age 65.

You'd actually be wrong in your bet then. But the only time we discussed our personal opinions was in the first 5 minutes of our first meeting. After that we never brought it up again (rightfully so). The BRP is not about the merits of changing the age or not changing the age. That is a common misconception unfortunately. We are just technicians studying the effects of a possible change and what ALPA should do IF the age does in fact change.

-Neal