vagabond

Note: This is not a debate, only a news article, which I found interesting.
Updated: 3:42 p.m. PT April 2, 2007
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Three airline pilots have asked an appeals court to let them keep flying past the mandatory retirement age of 60, a limit federal regulators plan to raise to 65.

The pilots said in a petition to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that they don't want to wait for the Federal Aviation Administration to complete the process of raising the limit.

Plaintiffs Joseph G. LoVecchio, of Lancaster; Lewis J. Tetlow, of Bedford, N.H., who turned 60 on Monday; and Richard C. Morgan of Charlottesville, Va., argue it is unreasonable to deny their petition for a waiver to a rule that is likely to be wiped out anyway. Tetford turned 60 on Monday.

"I'll probably have to look for a flying job, but at age 60, it's always hard to do that," Morgan said Monday. "It's very daunting and the market is actually flooded with other airline pilots."

The pilots, who fly for Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways, asked the court in their motion, filed Thursday, to order the FAA to act on their waiver requests before April 30. The pilots said FAA officials told them they would not act on waivers "piecemeal" while the rule revision is being considered.

An FAA spokeswoman did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.

With airlines slashing pensions and in need of qualified pilots, pressure has mounted to rewrite the age limit, which has been in place since 1960. Critics say that flight safety must come first, and that the impact of raising the age limit is not fully understood.

Pilots' unions have split on what the limit should be.

On Jan. 30, the FAA's administrator, Marion Blakey, proposed allowing pilots to fly until 65, as long as at least one member of the flight crew is under 60. However, Blakey at the time said it would take up to two years for the rule to take effect.

The FAA's proposal mirrored a rule adopted two months earlier by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations group. Since the international standard changed, foreign pilots have been able to fly in the United States up to age 65, as long as they're accompanied by a co-pilot under 60 and undergo medical testing every six months.

CaptainMark

A300_Driver

Free Blue Vests and Smiley Faces for all the old farts senior to me!!!

Roberto

Here is a link where you can read the entire article
http://www.seniorpilotscoalition.org:80/

and another for the court filing
http://www.seniorpilotscoalition.org...ourtfiling.pdf

and finally, for their web site
http://www.seniorpilotscoalition.org/

They have a court date April 27th in U.S. District Court 8, Washington D.C. The FAA asked for an extension, but the judge said no.

vagabond

For the curiously inclined, mandamus is Latin for “we order” or “we command” and the writ orders a public agency (FAA) to perform an act which it has neglected or refused to do. Some writs ask for forbearance, but those are not as common.

Roberto, thanks for the links. Professionally, I am interested in the memorandum referred to in the writ. Are you able to obtain a copy? Also, do you know of similar cases in other appellate courts? It would be very interesting to have such a case go up to the 9th Circuit.

Roberto

Vagabond,

I don't have any more info on the writ, but here is some additional info.

If you want to keep up to date on age 65 info, here are some good websites:

http://www.age60rule.com/

http://www.seniorpilotscoalition.org/ (SPC)

It seems to me, the SPC is doing very well at the moment. Go to their web site to read their latest news release and court filing. The have a court date on April 27th to force the FAA to act on exemptions. The FAA, as usual, asked for an extension, but the judge said no. If you want to support them in their fight, go their web site for information.

Here is an update from one of their members, and a petitioner on the court filing.

Subject: www.seniorpilotscoalition.org update on court filings


To All:

I am resending the last update for those that may not have received it, and want to pass along the latest info that we can regarding the Court proceedings. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is still reviewing our Writ of Mandamus and that has to be viewed as a good thing. I sure hope we will hear on Monday, but who knows.

In regard to the Declaratory Relief and Injunction filed in the District Court, dates have been set. The FAA did ask for an extension last Thursday due to the volumes of evidence we have prepared and after some negotiations between all parties, Judge Bates allowed both parties some extra time for review between pleading dates; however, the Hearing of the case is STILL set for Friday, April 27, 2007 at 11:00 AM in courtroom #8 of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No extension of the Hearing date was granted. I hope that All who are listed as Petitioners on the suit will plan to attend. It's not mandatory, but it sure would look good in the court. Others may as well, but frankly I don't know the size of this court room. I will find out for you. It will be great to meet all of you there that have supported this effort, and so many that I don't know personally yet. Hopefully that will all change on April 27th.

Can't say enough about your efforts to spread the word. It has made all the difference in the fund raising for this action. All my best this holiday weekend as we continue to put documents together.

Lew Tetlow


To All:

The basic information for joining The Senior Pilots Coalition is at the end of this message, but I have to share the more critical info first! Since we broke this story to the media the response has been unbelievable both in the press and from NEW members. I will also tell you that we got their attention. Now things are beginning to happen, but that's as far as I can go for now.

I said earlier that we had three lawsuits against the FAA. The second two which are in the District Court are combined to act as one. They are for Declaratory Relief and an Injunction. The dates are already being firmed by the court. The first suit already under review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is for the Writ of Mandamus to force action on the waiver requests. Hoped to have that settled already, but honestly we had some delays in getting other Gov. entities to provide the requested items on time to the court. No surprise there.

I just want to make it perfectly clear that these actions are to protect our jobs. They are not designed for some great monetary relief in the form of penalties etc. Those actions are best being worked through the EEOC. Not that we won't go there, but not in these filings. This is about getting everybody back to work. As soon as we hear from the Court of Appeals, I will forward that info.

This is for all that are signed on to the lawsuits OR plan to sign on. Some biographies are missing some info that we now know the court is requesting. For each person to be named as a Petitioner in the Court of Appeals the following info MUST be part of your biography: so if it was not included please forward via e-mail to Gagliardo@workplace-law.net and in hard copy so it can be updated.

1. Date of birth
2. Date waiver application was filed with DOT and FAA. If none filed yet; so state
3. If not yet 60, your current employer
4. If 60, last date of employment with your 121 carrier and current employment
5. Copy of any response from FAA on your waiver, i.e. acknowledgement that they received it.

VERY IMPORTANT: Do you want to be named in both suits? If so; e-mail AND hard copy the following authorization.

AUTHORIZATION TO BE NAMED AS PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER

Injunctive and Declaratory Relief

I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE SENIOR PILOTS COALITION and its attorney Thomas J. Gagliardo to add my name as a Plaintiff in Tetlow, et al. v. Federal Aviation Administration, which has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and bearing Case No.
07-1:07-cv-00602.

Signature
Print Name
Address

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE SENIOR PILOTS COALITION and its attorney Thomas J. Gagliardo to add my name as a Petitioner in Tetlow, et al. v. Federal Aviation Administration, which has been filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and bearing Case No.
07-1078.

Signature
Print Name

The hard copy is to be mailed to: Thomas J. Gagliardo
Attorney at Law
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 860
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3312

This must be done ASAP!

The following information is passed along for new prospective members of which there are so many and thank you to you all!


Your inquiry into The Senior Pilots Coalition is appreciated and welcome. We are a tax exempt non-profit fighting age 60. Mr. Phil Theodosiou is our lobbyist on Capitol Hill with whom I work daily. There is no better. Presently we have three lawsuits against Ms. Blakey as FAA Administrator in the D.C. courts. I am now totally dedicated toward making her reign miserable!
I hope you will join the SPC. Our members are asked for contributions of $200 per month to support the Congressional work etc. To be listed as a litigant on the suit for damages you must contribute to the legal costs. I have asked everyone to contribute $2K for legal expenses. If you choose to join us in the suit please e-mail your bio to include veteran status and aviation history to our attorney at:
Gagliardo@workplace-law.net, Remember all contributions are tax deductible, and I work for free. We have created a storm and don't intend to let go until age 60 is struck down.
Our amendment to grant all waivers back to Nov. 23, 2006 is before the Congress as the "Ogonowski amendment" with permission and in respect for the crew members lost on 9-11. John was the Captain of AA Flt.11out of Boston. Now the media blitz which has gone national and international.
Please join and contribute for your futures. All contributions are made payable to and mailed to:

The Senior Pilots Coalition
16 Steppingstone Road
Bedford, NH 03110

Again welcome. All questions answered ASAP.

Lew Tetlow
SPC President
603-494-2826

Roberto

vagabond

Roberto, are you planning to attend the April 27 hearing by any chance? I would like to go, but I am in the "other" Washington, and also have prior obligations.

Mr. Tetlow's letter above referenced the EEOC. Do you have an update on that? Thanks.

Roberto

Vagabond,

I am in DC8 FE training at the moment, and won't be able to attend April 27 court hearing. I did send in $2000 to www.seniorpilotscoaltion.org to be named as an et al petitioner and plaintiff in the actions.

The following is a letter about EEOC filings. I'm not involved in that at the moment. www.apaad.org has a lot of info on these. If you send me an email, I can forward other email I have from APAAD.

Regards

EEOC Update:

Friday, several of us had the opportunity to spend about one hour speaking with the lead EEOC attorney that will be handling the challenge to age 60 discrimination issue. This effort is a work in progress and everyone needs to get involved for it to succeed. Any help from the EEOC will be void of political agendas. I personally believe whether it's an outside legal challenge to prove the arbitrary and capricious nature of the rule or an EEOC challenge placed on our union and employers to provide pressure for change, this is where a fair and equitable settlement can be achieved.

I can't speak to the outside legal challenge except for the fact that it is being handled by the Senior Pilots Coalition and they could use help with the legal fees (tax deductible and handled differently than lobby expenses). Everyone can get involved in the EEOC action. The reason why I feel so confident that the EEOC can make a difference is their track record. Winning against Boeing is no small accomplishment. My guess is they will also prevail over Mobil/Exxon. If you're thinking they don't operate under part 121, remember that this rule was always supported by a court ruling that said the FAA could discriminate if it were in the interest of public safety. It may not be the official FAA policy yet but with the Administrator saying safety is no longer the case and the foreign pilots on our soil ,the landscape has changed.

The EEOC Chair and their lead Attorney are behind us 100%. After speaking with the attorney Friday, I am confident in his knowledge of all the details surrounding the age 60 issue. He has been close to this issue for many years. One of the lead investigators I spoke with handled the flight engineer issues when many of us started our careers. These folks want this law changed and now that safety is off the table, may have the power to do so.

The EEOC is currently designating collection offices to consolidate all our complaints. I spoke with an investigator last Thursday who already had 175 complaints on his desk. He asked me to make sure people file with their local offices since he is quickly becoming overwhelmed. Complaints will be forwarded to collection points when these locations are finalized. The Attorney also said that the EEOC handles about 50,000 complaints a year and a company the size of GM may have several hundred. To get their full attention, we need as many complaints on record as possible.

Many of us have filed against ALPA and our Companies. No matter how you feel about what constitutes discrimination ,our Attorney friend said the easiest ones to prove are the complaints that show one group of employees being treated differently than other( i.e. leaves of absences for illness, other jobs, family issues etc) but not for turning 60. If your airline will not offer a leave of absence for turning 60 than it has a policy against doing so and can be filed against. You don't have to wait until you're a few months from retirement. We were told discrimination would be harder to prove against a company for not filing exemption requests for their pilots since the company has some protection under the FAA rule. If you know of situations where ALPA has fought for a leave of absence for someone, please share that with the group. If ALPA works to support leaves for reasons other than being age 60, they, too, are on the hook. When you make your request for a leave of absence, make sure to ask ALPA for help. If ALPA chooses not to help, they will find themselves helping one group of employees but not others. This is what the EEOC is looking for and could become a real pressure point.

Before you call for your forms, make sure to read the attached letter from the EEOC Chair Naomi Earp so you can explain to the investigator that the EEOC is already involved and supports us.

I need more help contacting other United folks who are close to retirement. I have the list and will provide ten names if you're willing to contact them. Remember, the more who file, the more attention we get. Call me if you have any questions.

George Emory
805-680-5149

Slice

Anyone know where I can mail my check to the junior pilot's coalition? Hell, everyone 22 and under should write-in too since they can't hold an ATP till 23.

__________________
Will fly for...$

Ottopilot

Pilots Sue FAA Over Retirement Age In S.F. Court
cbs5.com

April 26, 2007

More than 125 pilots from throughout the country sued the Federal Aviation Administration in U.S. District Court in San Francisco Thursday, challenging a rule requiring them to retire at age 60.

The pilots say there is no medical or safety basis for the rule, established in 1959. They say the measure violates their constitutional right to equal treatment.

The lead plaintiff, Michael Oksner, 62, of Midway, Utah, a former Southwest Airlines captain, came to San Francisco for the filing of the lawsuit.

He said, "It's an arbitrary and capricious rule. One day I was good to fly and the next day I was no longer qualified."

Oksner said he believes that experience makes older pilots better at their job and that rigorous medical and flight simulation tests given to pilots each year are adequate to ensure safety.

He said, "I was the best captain I had ever been the day after my last flight."

In January, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said the agency is proposing to raise the mandatory retirement age to 65 and to adopt an international standard that allows one pilot in a plane to be up to age 65 so long as the other is under 60.

Blakey said then, "A pilot's experience counts-it's an added margin of safety. Foreign airlines have demonstrated that experienced pilots in good health can fly beyond age 60 without compromising safety."

Oksner said raising the limit to age 65 would be "a step in the right direction," but said he fears it would take several years for the agency to establish a new rule.

The lawsuit seeks a court order declaring the rule unconstitutional as well as financial compensation for the retired pilots.

An agency spokesman was not immediately available for comment on the lawsuit.

The defendants in the case are Blakey and three other present and former FAA officials.

In addition to listing more than 125 pilots as plaintiffs, the suit seeks to be certified a class action on behalf of an estimated several thousand pilots who were or are about to be forced into retirement at age 60.

__________________
-Otto Pilot