Huck

So... on a senior trip, who's going to get bumped if they're both over 60?

MaydayMark

So, assuming the age 65 issue is a "done deal," then, what happens next? If age 60 "was" discriminatory, why won't 65 be considered discriminatory in a few years?

Maybe we could have one pilot over 80 if we had one pilot under 50? After all, it's not about safety and it was never based on medical facts ...

Give me a break ... lots of occupations have mandatory retirement ages for good reasons. I don't see any of them jumping on this bandwagon. In fact, they appear to understand that early retirement is actually a GOOD deal. Maybe those occupations require higher IQ's than being a pilot?

Regards,


Mark

767pilot

IPA is officially neutral.

As for "(2) REGULATIONS- Not later than 30 days after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Secretary of Transportation shall take such action as may be necessary to implement paragraph (1) and to modify the regulations relating to pilot privileges by reason of age."

Can't that be read to say that the secratary must take action to start the process, not necessarily to make it happen in 30 days? If she calls for a two year NPRM or comments on how to make this thing happen, she is in compliance with section 2 as long as she starts within 30 days.

FoxHunter

NO, the current age 60 FAR is a rule, the Congress will make age 65 the law.

Daniel Larusso

I think you are correct 76, however I think that bill has a codicil that states that it covers everyone as of the date of the bill signing. So even if the NPRM were to be issued and take however many years to be finalized, the system will be in paralysis. Beyond all of this just going away, it would be far easier to just let the FAA issue the NPRM on their own and avoid the retroactive nature of the Congressional legislation. The FAA final language isn't going to write itself any quicker b/c Congress passes a bill, so the actual process isn't going to happen any quicker in the end. We'll just have to deal with a whole bunch of people who have the right to stay or come back in whatever capacity as long as they were under 60 before this summer. Not only will this F-up progression in the long run, it will f-it up royally in the short term as well.

767pilot

No, congress will make it a law to change it from 60 to 65 with the mechanics left up to the administrator. Otherwise, why drag her into this language at all?

767pilot

I forget what they call it, enabling language or something like that which deals with implementation issues will probably ensure your prophecy is correct. This will be a hot potato tossed from hand to hand with nobody really wanting the responsibility for handling it. Congress will accept their kudos for chaning it past 60 and that will be the end of their involvement.

FoxHunter

Because it is the responsibility of the DOT to administer the law.

kronan

Even if Congress passed the law today, it would take more than 30 days to implement it. Bush could let it sit on his desk (up to 10 days---and then one of two things happen even if he doesn't put pen to paper: if Congress is in session the Bill becomes Law, if not-then it is a "pocket" veto and it doesn't become Law)
and depending on what else it is attached to, Bush could even Veto it outright,
and there's always agency inertia to fight.
Congress tells the FAA what to do, then the FAA takes a while figuring out how to do it. (I had experience with a much smaller Congressional rule change while I was a "civil"-servant)

As for the one issue folks out there. I didn't move to Canada when Bill was elected, nor when Nancy and Harry took over. I also haven't stopped paying my taxes because I don't agree with many of the issues MY govt is supporting.

I'm also not too worried about the folks coming back. If it happens, it will happen, and statistically, things will even out over time. I wasn't looking at the retirement charts trying to figure out which company would allow me to upgrade quicker. It will happen when it happens....and it will be somewhat my choice. $$$ versus QOl. Many things out of my control will impact it, age 60 or 65 is a small one, Economy going into the dumper would have a bigger impact in my opinion. So, I'll cross that bridge when it gets here....and life will go on no matter which way it shakes out.

After taking a look at the 10 and 27 bidpacks, kind of hard to figure out how many over 60 guys we he have. To me looks like 90-120 in the 10 and about 50 in the 27. Out of that, think of how many are in the 60-62 range? (Assuming the FAA has to go through the NPRM process the Age 65 thing is still 18 mos-2 yrs out.....and do you really think FedEx is going to want to spend the training $$ for a 1 to 2 yr Capt)

126 guys are retiring this year. How many of them want to roll the dice and move on to engineers versus going straight to retirement?

Taking a look at the pension bucks, I can get 120k a year to do nothing. Or, about the same for being a 27 engineer (doesn't consider the vacation, sick leave bennies).

Personally, I always thought the age 60 thing was BS. I thought it should be age 50, hell retirement is 42-50 for the majority of military folks.

FoxHunter

Wrong, 30 days after the law is passed the max age for pilots goes from age 60 to age 65. Suggest you call the MEC office to confirm the fact.