Alpa Fdx
05-06-2007, 07:23 AM
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. ——
To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for
the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 through 2011,
to improve aviation safety and capacity, to modernize the air traffic
control system, and for other purposes.
SEC. 706. MODIFICATION OF FAA’S AGE-60 STANDARD.
(b) SUNSET OF AGE-60 RULE.—
23 (1) IN GENERAL.—On and after the effective
24 date described in subsection (e), section 121.383(c)
1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations shall have
2 no further force or effect.
3 (2) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days
4 after the effective date described in subsection (e),
5 the Secretary of Transportation shall take such ac
6 tion as may be necessary to implement paragraph
7 (1) and to modify the regulations relating to pilot
8 privileges by reason of age.
9 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The provisions of subsection (a)
10 shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under
11 any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bar
12 gaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in oper
13 ations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regula
14 tions, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who
15 attained 60 years of age before the effective date described
16 in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with
17 such air carrier following that person’s termination or ces
18 sation of employment or promotion or transfer to another
19 position with such air carrier pursuant to section
20 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as
21 in effect on the day before the effective date described in
22 subsection (e).
1ST SESSION S. ——
To amend title 49, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for
the Federal Aviation Administration for fiscal years 2008 through 2011,
to improve aviation safety and capacity, to modernize the air traffic
control system, and for other purposes.
SEC. 706. MODIFICATION OF FAA’S AGE-60 STANDARD.
(b) SUNSET OF AGE-60 RULE.—
23 (1) IN GENERAL.—On and after the effective
24 date described in subsection (e), section 121.383(c)
1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations shall have
2 no further force or effect.
3 (2) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days
4 after the effective date described in subsection (e),
5 the Secretary of Transportation shall take such ac
6 tion as may be necessary to implement paragraph
7 (1) and to modify the regulations relating to pilot
8 privileges by reason of age.
9 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The provisions of subsection (a)
10 shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under
11 any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bar
12 gaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in oper
13 ations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regula
14 tions, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who
15 attained 60 years of age before the effective date described
16 in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with
17 such air carrier following that person’s termination or ces
18 sation of employment or promotion or transfer to another
19 position with such air carrier pursuant to section
20 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as
21 in effect on the day before the effective date described in
22 subsection (e).
05-06-2007, 07:27 AM
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect
on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactmentof this Act.
05-06-2007, 07:33 AM
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by 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.
who was under 60 as dos is covered. Therein lies the mess. The FAA is unlikely to change it's internal processes and just like the incredibly drawn out requisition process leads to long waits for out-of date technology in the aviation infrastructure, the administrator is likely to use the NPRM process in this case. The word is that the FAA lawyers won't even have the language written until the fall so even if it's a short and uneventful comment period,(Thanks D. Webb, Wally, and take it in the back Prater!) it would likely be year end or later at the earliest for things to be effective. However since everyone under 60 at dos would be covered, companies would be in short term paralysis staffing wise while they wait for the final language. You can now go back to salivating over your furball.
Edit: reading the language above language from whichever of the bills is being quoted, it looks like would be more accurate to say date of effectiveness vs. dos which is what the union said-what a surprise another inaccuracy(albeit small) in this charade that is ALPA's investigation into the Age 60/65 situtaion.
Last edited by Daniel Larusso; 05-06-2007 at 07:37 AM. Reason: Add on comment
05-06-2007, 07:56 AM
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso
No need to call them, I went to the union meeting and heard it myself. If it passed by bill, the administrator has 30 days to implement but everyone
who was under 60 as dos is covered. Therein lies the mess. The FAA is unlikely to change it's internal processes and just like the incredibly drawn out requisition process leads to long waits for out-of date technology in the aviation infrastructure, the administrator is likely to use the NPRM process in this case. The word is that the FAA lawyers won't even have the language written until the fall so even if it's a short and uneventful comment period,(Thanks D. Webb, Wally, and take it in the back Prater!) it would likely be year end or later at the earliest for things to be effective. However since everyone under 60 at dos would be covered, companies would be in short term paralysis staffing wise while they wait for the final language. You can now go back to salivating over your furball.
who was under 60 as dos is covered. Therein lies the mess. The FAA is unlikely to change it's internal processes and just like the incredibly drawn out requisition process leads to long waits for out-of date technology in the aviation infrastructure, the administrator is likely to use the NPRM process in this case. The word is that the FAA lawyers won't even have the language written until the fall so even if it's a short and uneventful comment period,(Thanks D. Webb, Wally, and take it in the back Prater!) it would likely be year end or later at the earliest for things to be effective. However since everyone under 60 at dos would be covered, companies would be in short term paralysis staffing wise while they wait for the final language. You can now go back to salivating over your furball.
I also was at a union meeting where the issue was addressed. I thought the answer by the leadership was less than candid if they really knew what was going on. The NPRM could be fast tracked and be effective by the end of the year. If Congress passes the change there will be no NPRM. In the event that Congress make it a law the rule will change no later than 30 days after it is signed by the President.
05-06-2007, 08:04 AM
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
I say we introduce a motion at the next LEC meeting, to allow the over age 60 guys to wear 5 stripes on their shoulders.
They've earned it.
And, it would give all of us lesser experienced aviators the opportunity to recognize who these heroes are.
They've earned it.
And, it would give all of us lesser experienced aviators the opportunity to recognize who these heroes are.
05-06-2007, 08:07 AM
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,336
On question 23, I answered that I expected to retire at 65, even though my goal is somewhere between 57 and 60. I do strongly believe that despite the "takin it back" campaign, we will all lack the ability to retire at 60. I think it is the pandora's box and ALPA is being led right into it.
First, for those with a defined benefit plan, we will see efforts of management even at Healthy companies to "buy us out" for pennies on the dollar using scare tactics of insolvency. Using the "well, age 60 is a thing of the past" methodology, they will convince us that "A-funds" are a thing of the past as well, first the A-fund will go, then we'll lose the tax exemption of our stepped up B-funds that we negotiated to make up for the loss of A-funds.
We'll be forced to work past 60 with no extra years of service multiplier. We will pay exorbitant fees for loss of license and disability insurance for the guys that either can't or "won't" fly to 65 because of the medical conditions they have been nursing. Finally we'll all save our companies millions in retirement funding as we will have increased mortality rates from flying that long.
Finally, after 60, the guys that are motivated to keep doing this job, usually have an agenda. Most are doing this because their personal and financial lives are deficient. These guys are a crm problem as well.
This isn't personal, this is business, and this age 60 thing is VERY bad business for me.
First, for those with a defined benefit plan, we will see efforts of management even at Healthy companies to "buy us out" for pennies on the dollar using scare tactics of insolvency. Using the "well, age 60 is a thing of the past" methodology, they will convince us that "A-funds" are a thing of the past as well, first the A-fund will go, then we'll lose the tax exemption of our stepped up B-funds that we negotiated to make up for the loss of A-funds.
We'll be forced to work past 60 with no extra years of service multiplier. We will pay exorbitant fees for loss of license and disability insurance for the guys that either can't or "won't" fly to 65 because of the medical conditions they have been nursing. Finally we'll all save our companies millions in retirement funding as we will have increased mortality rates from flying that long.
Finally, after 60, the guys that are motivated to keep doing this job, usually have an agenda. Most are doing this because their personal and financial lives are deficient. These guys are a crm problem as well.
This isn't personal, this is business, and this age 60 thing is VERY bad business for me.
05-06-2007, 08:12 AM
#117
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
This is copied from Webb's column in the May Positive Rate:
"...The poll data,
as well as pending federal legislation,
may indicate that a change of ALPA
policy is in our collective best interest. If
that happens, in acknowledgment of the
will of the majority, we have an obligation
to support the democratic process..."
Highlights are mine. So...I guess the obligation to support the democratic process in not allowing over 60, at date of implementaion, back to the left seat is not necessary.
"...The poll data,
as well as pending federal legislation,
may indicate that a change of ALPA
policy is in our collective best interest. If
that happens, in acknowledgment of the
will of the majority, we have an obligation
to support the democratic process..."
Highlights are mine. So...I guess the obligation to support the democratic process in not allowing over 60, at date of implementaion, back to the left seat is not necessary.
05-06-2007, 08:21 AM
#118
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 980
Originally Posted by Busboy
This is copied from Webb's column in the May Positive Rate:
"...The poll data,
as well as pending federal legislation,
may indicate that a change of ALPA
policy is in our collective best interest. If
that happens, in acknowledgment of the
will of the majority, we have an obligation
to support the democratic process..."
Highlights are mine. So...I guess the obligation to support the democratic process in not allowing over 60, at date of implementaion, back to the left seat is not necessary.
"...The poll data,
as well as pending federal legislation,
may indicate that a change of ALPA
policy is in our collective best interest. If
that happens, in acknowledgment of the
will of the majority, we have an obligation
to support the democratic process..."
Highlights are mine. So...I guess the obligation to support the democratic process in not allowing over 60, at date of implementaion, back to the left seat is not necessary.
05-06-2007, 08:26 AM
#119
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by FoxHunter
So you expect the leadership to ignore the contract and the obligations of a union?
05-06-2007, 08:28 AM
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,336
Originally Posted by Huck
Let me bottom-line this for you:
If you're a captain now, you'll be a captain for five more years.
If you're an F/O, you'll be an F/O for five more years.
Those in the first group run the union, the blue-ribbon commission and the company. They can talk about unity, the good of the profession and how the youngsters need to take it like a man - it's easy, because someone else's ox is being gored.
Those in the second group are going to lose tens of thousands of dollars, or more, over this. But someday WE'LL run the union, the blue-ribbon commissions and the company. And the elephant never forgets.
Oh and if Capt. Webb gets his way, about 100 of the junior guys in the first group will get bumped back to the second group.....
If you're a captain now, you'll be a captain for five more years.
If you're an F/O, you'll be an F/O for five more years.
Those in the first group run the union, the blue-ribbon commission and the company. They can talk about unity, the good of the profession and how the youngsters need to take it like a man - it's easy, because someone else's ox is being gored.
Those in the second group are going to lose tens of thousands of dollars, or more, over this. But someday WE'LL run the union, the blue-ribbon commissions and the company. And the elephant never forgets.
Oh and if Capt. Webb gets his way, about 100 of the junior guys in the first group will get bumped back to the second group.....
I'm a Captain now and this means I'll be a Captain five more years than I want to with no multiplier....Five more years of being Junior than hell....five more years I have to wait to make widebody Captain.
As you widebody F/O's like to regale me on a regular basis, "a widebody F/O makes about as much as a narrowbody Captain, and they don't have to go to Flint."
It is not a F/O vs Captain thing Huck....it is a "Short sighted greedy 'I got mine' bastard" vs everyone else thing.
I love you man.....just realize we are like-minded individuals on this. I nominate Albie for MEC something or other.
If ALPA is trying to "get out ahead of this thing" to control it, then they better get way ahead......there are some serious issues to deal with and if they don't, then we'll be takin this profession back all right.....we'll be takin it back right up the @ss.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
