hamfisted

I'll be glad to say I was wrong if anybody can tell me that this legislation continues to "race through Congress". Any informed sources know anything about the curent legislative status of this proposal? I've done extensive research and can find no proof that this legislation is being fast-tracked; or even "pushed" toward approval. Sure glad we jumped on this train despite the objections of the "overwhelming majority". I know, I know....let it go!

Freightbird

The change is included in the FAA's reauthorization / funding bill. The following statement came vis email from ALPA. Age 60 is mentioned in the last two paragraphs


ALPA Commends Introduction of FAA Reauthorization
The following statement was issued by ALPA’s president, Capt. John Prater, at the introduction in the U.S. House of Representatives of a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

“This legislation represents a strong step forward in making the modernization of our air transportation system a national priority. While ALPA recognizes that the introduction of this bill is only the first step in the process to pass legislation, the action sets the stage for progress toward meeting surging air transportation demand. U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) and his committee deserve much credit for also seeking to resolve an array of critical aviation issues that influence safety and labor relations in our industry.

“We are encouraged by the bill’s language that provides a number of funding sources for the FAA. Adequate funding will allow the FAA to effectively plan for the future development of our air traffic system. The FAA needs a stable, predictable, funding stream to know with a high degree of certainty what its resource capabilities and limitations will be, enabling solid development and acquisition strategies for the programs and equipment that are key elements of modernization.

“We are equally encouraged by the number of robust safety initiatives included in the bill. The support for significant improvements in runway safety, known throughout the industry as a critical need, is commendable, and we look forward to working with the FAA as it develops products and processes to expand the industry’s efforts to prevent runway incursions. The expanded study of wake-vortex effects, research on weather phenomena, and positive steps forward in fuel tank safety have long been key in ALPA’s aviation safety strategy.

“The recognition that unmanned aerial systems (UAS) can be introduced into the national airspace system only after complete assurances of safe operation shows the importance of maintaining the same high level of safety for the traveling public regardless of the vehicle or program involved. The bill also reflects the wisdom in recognizing the critical importance of Wake and Midway Islands to the economic operation of flights in the Pacific.

“This bill also takes us closer to addressing one of today’s most pressing airline safety issues—pilot fatigue. ALPA is particularly concerned about pilot fatigue, especially in the current environment in which airline managements are legally able to stretch pilots’ work and duty time to the limit. Rep. Oberstar’s committee directs—in no uncertain terms—the FAA to commission a study by the National Institutes of Health on pilot fatigue and to put updating the U.S. flight-time, duty-time, and rest-requirement regulations into a formal rulemaking process.

“This legislation also reflects opposition to recent attempts to allow greater foreign control of U.S. airlines and makes clear that foreign interests are not to be given control of U.S. airlines.

“Lastly, language to raise the pilot upper age limit was included consistent with many of the key recommendations outlined in ALPA’s May 2007 Executive Board resolution. ALPA will continue to be fully engaged on this issue.

“While this legislation did not correct the inequality that exists in pilots’ retirement benefits because the current law mandates that they must retire at age 60, ALPA will continue to seek an appropriate pension-related vehicle in both the House and Senate.”

__________________
.

REAL Pilot

It is integrated with the federal gov FAA spending bill for fiscal 2008 which starts in Oct 2007. Go to thomas.loc.gov and do a search for S.1300 , it is in section 701. It is in the bill proper and not an amendment. The real deal is what happens in the joint house-senate committee to approve the budgets. It was sponsored by a Democrat.

hamfisted

So should I read this that it will be accomplished more than likely through the NPRM process as opposed to the "fast-track" legislation that ALPA used as their reason for jumping on the Age 65 bandwagon since the FAA funding resolution is what Prater refers to during his plaudits?(Longest sentence in the world!)

Roberto

I think what you read is in error. I think the FAA is pushing for this to be accomplished in Congress to protect them from the lawsuits that are in progress.

The FAA bills most likely to pass sooner rather than later are S.1300 and H.R. 2881. IMO, they will both be passed and then reconciled in a joint House-Senate conference committee prior to the end of September, and possibly before the end of this month. It has been reported that it is necessary for the bills to be passed before the end of the fiscal year, or the government can no longer collect numerous aviation taxes.

In a related area, the sections that address age 65 are addressed also in separate bills, S.65 and H.R. 1125, with bipartison support (155 or so in the House, and 30 in the Senate), including some of the heavy hitters in both parties.

You can check them out at http://www.thomas.gov/

FXDX

Incorrect Roberto. The FAA is currently operating under a continuing resolution (CR) for FY07. In other words, the same bills for last year with this language were never passed.

The FAA will continue to operate under another CR in FY08 until a funding bill that can actually pass BOTH houses of Congress and not get vetoed by the President of the United States is signed. That could take months, years, or days.

I'd be putting my money on months.

To tell people that this will be a done deal by Sep 30th is pretty fng irresponsible, particularly for you guys holding up your hopes that you will be back in the seat after this passes and you rapidly approach your 60th birthday.

Not only that, but ALPA has inserted so much ancillary language for project and infrastructure funding into the bill (now that they are on the right team) that they may have actually decreased the chances of the bill surviving intact.

What irony.

HercDriver130

I have seen no movement on house tracking web page since June 28.

Roberto

In the stand-alone bills (HR 1125 and S 65), during the month of July, the number of sponsors/cosponsors in the House went from 155 to 245. In the Senate, it went from 30 to 44.

In another front, lawsuits are successfully working there way through the system.

The FAA reauthorization bills (the House version backed by ALPA) both contain age-65 language.

Still expect before the end of September, but no guarantees...

Bohica

Keep believing that shiat that APAAD is feeding you idiots.

First Memorial Day.

Now Sep 30th, because that is when the fiscal year ends.

What a bunch of dolts.

Eventually these selfish priicks will start suing each other and APAAD when they realize how full of shait they were/are.

Imagine the lawsuits if the ALPA Oberstar language does pass and the pax guys who get left on the sidelines realize that their buddies at FedEx and UPS get to keep playing the game.

I think ALPA has unwittingly shot itself in the foot, but more likely they are hoping that after the fact the lawmakers will realize how fooked up it is to allow the FEs to come back but not the pax guys, and allow everybody back.

I personally think it will backfire and they will change the language to keep all the folks who miss the cutoff from moving back into a window seat.

One can hope.

Oh yeah, thanks again all you old selfish priicks.