R2024-27 APA Neutrality Regarding Pilot Age
04-18-2024, 06:55 AM
#41
It's 5 o'clock somewhere
Joined APC: Oct 2020
Posts: 1,856
Hard to believe that the union pledging to remain neutral on the issue can spark a 4 page pie fight pro/con age extension. I guess you guys will just fight about anything.
Signed an old guy who isn't in favor of age extension.
Signed an old guy who isn't in favor of age extension.
04-18-2024, 07:27 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,870
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
Hard to believe that the union pledging to remain neutral on the issue can spark a 4 page pie fight pro/con age extension. I guess you guys will just fight about anything.
Signed an old guy who isn't in favor of age extension.
Signed an old guy who isn't in favor of age extension.
04-18-2024, 08:45 AM
#43
Clear ECAM
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 887
Originally Posted by AllYourBaseAreB
its just one rep proposing it. APA is currently against an age change
04-18-2024, 08:46 AM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2022
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by ClncClarence
No, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where this idea started. It’s also super easy to Google.
Straight from the proposed bill:
Just take out ‘65’ from the current law and replace it with ‘67’ - it’s that simple.
Straight from the proposed bill:
Just take out ‘65’ from the current law and replace it with ‘67’ - it’s that simple.
But that isn't what came about when it finally got inserted into the House bill.
Hence why it keeps popping up. Just one or two steps behind.
It's less mystifying than the Pro-67 guys who are retired salvating because they misinterpret the retroactivity language and thinking they are going to come back at their seniority and position before retiring. When in reality it means you are simply eligible to fly under 121 again the moment it becomes effective. Unlike when it became 65, those who retired at 60 were told, " Too bad" and couldn't come back.
04-18-2024, 08:59 AM
#45
Clear ECAM
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 887
Originally Posted by joepilot50
It's less mystifying than the Pro-67 guys who are retired salvating because they misinterpret the retroactivity language and thinking they are going to come back at their seniority and position before retiring. When in reality it means you are simply eligible to fly under 121 again the moment it becomes effective. Unlike when it became 65, those who retired at 60 were told, " Too bad" and couldn't come back.
04-19-2024, 05:51 PM
#46
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2019
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by ClncClarence
According to a rep on the town hall the other night, the feedback from the pilot group has been ‘four or five to one’ against any changes.
4-5 are against it for every 1? Or 4-5 are for age 67 against every 1?
04-20-2024, 10:45 AM
#48
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2023
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by ClncClarence
No, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where this idea started. It’s also super easy to Google.
Straight from the proposed bill:
Just take out ‘65’ from the current law and replace it with ‘67’ - it’s that simple.
Straight from the proposed bill:
Just take out ‘65’ from the current law and replace it with ‘67’ - it’s that simple.
04-21-2024, 07:20 PM
#49
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2022
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by Margaritaville
Hard to believe that the union pledging to remain neutral on the issue can spark a 4 page pie fight pro/con age extension. I guess you guys will just fight about anything.
Signed an old guy who isn't in favor of age extension.
Signed an old guy who isn't in favor of age extension.
04-21-2024, 09:07 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 349
Originally Posted by ClncClarence
No, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where this idea started. It’s also super easy to Google.
Straight from the proposed bill:
Just take out ‘65’ from the current law and replace it with ‘67’ - it’s that simple.
Straight from the proposed bill:
Just take out ‘65’ from the current law and replace it with ‘67’ - it’s that simple.
It then became obvious to the lobbying group that the only way to achieve a realistic change was by modifying the FAA Reauthorization Bill by striking 65 and replacing it with 67.
I guess age 67 grass roots started before the FAA Reauthorization bill was up for renewal, so that vehicle wasn’t a viable option at first.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
