HSLD

Reading through pilot reactions to the "age 65 ruling" is somewhat predicable and invariably will create a food fight for years to come. One aspect to this story that is being ignored is the process of how this was achieved, which is unheard of, even for a process steeped in politics.

As we know, last year the FAA started the NPDM process, collected comments from affected parties, and then sent the whole thing to the GAO for cost-benefit review.

Then seemingly out of the blue, the House and Senate side-step the FAA's current NPDM process and the 2005 Supreme Court's ruling that declined to hear the age 60 challenge :

Tuesday: The House introduces and approves H.R. 4343 unanimously (390-0)
Wednesday: The Senate introduces and unanimously approves the same legislation.
Thursday: The President signs the Bill into Law
Friday, Dec, 14th 2007: The FAA announces the immediate implementation of the new rule (law).

Whether one approves or disapproves of the change, this new rule is a testament to the effectiveness of special interest lobbying. On the other hand, it could be a new chapter in bipartisan cooperation to fix the US's ailing aviation infrastructure - but I doubt it.

jungle

It is a rare event for Congress to act with such speed and without dissent. One must question why now. The blame and anger has been directed at unions, the president, the "geezers", and even those grey socialists at AARP.
Who stands to benefit the most over the long term? My guess is the companies employing pilots who won't retire for another five years. By subtracting retirement payouts from their expenses, the companies stand to retain some of their most experienced labor for the price of a second through fifth year employee. A bargain in anyone's book. Congress looks humane to the public and everybody that matters is happy.

__________________
Just another slave on the Marxist plantation.

rickair7777

Not too many people have retirements. FDX/UPS/AA would account for most of it. That's not enough $ to explain unanimous votes in both houses and bush's signature, all within three days or so. I'm wondering what's going on too. I had expected this to take another year or so in the FAA regulatory change process.

HercDriver130

I think we all did. I always had believed it was inevitable, but really thought it would be done just before or after the coming presidential elections.

pilotrod

I think you hit the nail on the head with your last sentence above. I think the reason this rule was ramrodded through, was very simple. The airlines are in serious financial trouble, there is a shortage of pilots willing to work for the airlines, not an actual shortage. And I think the government saw this as a band aid on a gushing wound.

Liftr

Remember in all cases, you must Follow the Money.

This has nothing to do with APAAD Pilots wants or Airlines needs.

This was done to save the PBGC.

Which was under strain from the recent bankruptcies. Which made a handful of Execs multi-millionaires.

Now all those poor hourly worker airline pilots get to work another 5 years to earn back the money they lost in BK. At no cost to taxpayers, or rich Execs.

Gotta go now, I hear the black helicopters coming!

III Corps

Truly amazing for sure. But then it also works the other way. When Liddy Dole was DOT head and congress was futzing around on the drug testing she merely did a flanking maneuver and published it as a DOT *requirement*. No congressional hearings, votes, up-down nothing.

The point? 1) expect little from an agency where there is no upside to saying YES and no downside to saying NO and 2) when the boys near the White House want something it happens quickly regardless of where the initiative originates.

Roberto

I believe your premise is wrong. The age change was not sudden, if you were following the developments closely. In March 2006, ICAO announced the age change would take effect in November 2006. It had been advocated for years, in Congress and elsewhere, in the USA and around the world. Versions of it were already in place in Europe and Asia. It had come close to passing in the USA over 10 years ago, and would have passed in the 109th Congress if the Democrats had not won a majority in the House in November 2006. After the ICAO change allowed foreign pilots over 60 to fly in the USA, ALPA ended their special-interest opposition to the age change in order to get protection from lawsuits written into legislation (protection that is under attack in pending litigation).

The age change was introduced in legislation in previous Congresses, and was introduced again in the 110th Congress in February 2007. Before the end of the year, the House bill had over 300 cosponsors, and the Senate companion bill had over 50. In this Congress, the cosponsors kept adding up until it became impossible for the committee chairman to keep it bottled up in committee (he wanted it in his own bill, the FAA Reauthorization Act). When let out of committee, there was pent up demand to get it passed expeditiously. It passed in the House 390-0, and in the Senate unanimously.

The primary special interests involved in this battle were ALPA, APA, and other airline unions. When their position became untenable, Congress voted the public interest, and the age was changed.

jungle

I believe your premise is wrong. Despite the very long windup in your example, actions against age 60 have been going on since it's inception. The question is: Why exactly at this time?
Public interest is almost always a much smaller factor than PACs, you merely have to ask which group has the largest PAC.

Exactly how much public interest do you imagine exists for anyone making over $100,000 a year? Public interest in this regard has chiefly been in stripping away any wealth from anyone making more than the median salary.

__________________
Just another slave on the Marxist plantation.

Roberto

Which groups did have the largest PACs?