Fer crying out loud, Foxhunter, will you stop posting your dreams as facts?

Just adding to the chorus here. I e-mailed my block reps, and specifically asked for a vote on what to do with the re-treads. I'm guessing that we'll never see a poll (much less a vote) on that, because the MEC feels one way and the membership feels another.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the MEC has wanted a change to the Age 60 rule and now feels that they have enough "cover" to go ahead and officially change position. By the way, if the polling showed a "statistical dead heat" then why does that mean our position should change? Tie goes to the runner, or in this case our long-standing opposition to any change to Age 60.

S 65 IS


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 65
To modify the age-60 standard for certain pilots and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 4, 2007
Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. FEINGOLD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To modify the age-60 standard for certain pilots and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom to Fly Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF FAA'S AGE-60 STANDARD.

(a) In General- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an aircraft operated by an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, until attaining 65 years of age only if the pilot serves--

(1) as a required pilot in multi-crew aircraft operations; and

(2) with another pilot serving as a required pilot in such multi-crew aircraft operations who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

(b) Sunset of Age-60 Rule-

(1) IN GENERAL- On and after the effective date described in subsection (e), section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations shall have no further force or effect.

(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.

(c) Applicability- The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection (e) and is seeking a position as a pilot with such air carrier following that person's termination or cessation of employment or promotion or transfer to another position with such air carrier pursuant to section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the day before the effective date described in subsection (e).

(d) GAO Report After Modification of Age-60 Standard- Not later than 24 months after the effective date described in subsection (e), the Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives concerning the effect on aviation safety, if any, of the modification of the age standard contained in subsection (a).

(e) Effective Date- This Act shall take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
END

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.gov

I can cut and paste with the best of them. So you are CERTAIN that the law in Congress now, AS WRITTEN, will pass and that the FAA will have NOTHING to do with any change? Because that is what you posted. We have seen bills in Congress before with no change. I'm not disputing what is written in the bill; I'm calling you out for cavalierly throwing out your assertions as facts.

This is precisely why I hope we are able to participate with the FAA during an NPRM verse Congressional legislation and I believe is what our ALPA leadership is trying to tell us.

If this gets rammed down out throats by Congress we won't have ANY say.

If the change goes through the NRPM process, the FAA can implement it and we (ALPA) can atleast have some say and possibly (no gaurantees) we might have some direct influence.


The Time to write you Congress on this issue has long past. Now is the time to see the forest through the trees.

So is quitting the union over this.

Yes I am certain. The WSJ reported last December that the FAA had decided to change the age. It was reported that they wanted Congress to do it by law, not the FAA by NPRM. The FAA Administrator announced on Jaqnuary 30, 2007 that it was time to change the rule. She then said the NPRM would come out later this year. WHY?? The FAA wants Congress to make the change by law. The NPRM would only cost the FAA time, money, and be a distraction and unlike many other FAA rule changes it probably been more discussed than any other rule change in FAA history.

APAAD reported yesterday:
On our last day of the Blitz, May 3rd, the Senate Commerce Committee
introduced the FAA Reauthorization Bill, which includes, in Section 706, our
complete S.65 language. S.65 is no amendment or attachment; our language is a part of the body of the Reauthorization Bill, a much stronger position.
Both Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and ranking
member Trent Lott (R-MS) signed off on our language being in the FAA bill.

the administrator will not even be in office in 2 years . U still will be pouring coffee...

george...repeat after me..."2 A off ! 1 B on and checked!!!"

if you don't know foxhunter - some people obviously do - then you dread going to work every time you have a captain named george on your trip.:eek:

Nice one!:D

George, this reminds me of another song from your day. "Dreeeeam, Dream Dream Dream."
Face reality, you will be sitting sideways the whole time pouring coffee!

Rockefeller co-authored a rebuttal to S.65 last congress, and his signing off now is an indication that both the FAA and ALPA have been thoroughly discredited.

IMO, forget the NPRM. It will be either congress or lawsuits that get the job done first. The legal fight is proceeding to the U.S. Court of Appeals with multiple actions against the FAA. One of the foremost Constitutional lawyers in America has signed on as lead counsel. It should get more interesting.

Do you love flying? Thought I did. Hate all the BS. Hate the thought of 5 more years on the line. The old guys will tell you that I don't have to - but they get 5 more as Captain - I get 5 more as FO. 60 was one of the things that brought me to this career. Hard to believe there are people at Fedex who planned so poorly they want this BENEFIT of the job to go away!

By the way, there have been a lot of attacks on Webb. I am not going to attack his character or motive. I am still in the info gathering stage with regards to his communication, though the tone did turn me off.

I also would not quit the union. I am pro-union. But, I am thinking hard about the future of my PAC contributions. Any other thoughts?

It's not just about seniority, it's mostly about the Benjamin's (which goes with the seniority). If the senior guys that are taking the surveys and the polls are generally lining up in favor of 65, ALPA is going to follow suit...
EVERYONE needs to voice their opinion on this matter--I did the survey and will keep voicing my opinion to my Blockrep as long as I need to.
Don't just sit back and hope it all works itself out--we (guys that have 20 years left) will truly be hosed (5 fewer years as Captain, reduced B fund--if we get to keep it--, and forced to work until 65 unless we want to take a penalty for retiring "early").
This is not an ALPA thing, it was started by some Southwest guys that needed to pay for their 5 ex-wives.
ALPA is just trying to play catch up just like the rest of us...

I think you would benefit from a better grasp of the history of the change to 65.

The FAA had 16 years prior notice of the recent ICAO change, participated fully in the debate over one pilot to 65, and had 2 full years prior notice of the exact date it would become effective, 23 November 2006. And the Congress had 7 years similar notice.

This gave a full, two year – 24 months – FINAL notice to the US, to ALPA, to APA, to ATA, and to the FAA that the end of “age 60” was both near and inevitable. And that the replacement would be “one pilot to 65,” and that it would occur – to reiterate – on November 23, 2006.

Over ICAO’s entire seventeen year deliberative process (1989 – 2006), the US/FAA was fully involved in all of its deliberations. The relevant ICAO bodies (Air Navigation Commission, Aviation Medicine Section, and ICAO Council and Secretariat) considered, addressed, and rebutted every objection raised by the US/FAA (and ALPA’s international proxy, IFALPA). On March 10, 2006 ICAO formally adopted, over the US/FAA’s recorded “no” vote, the “one pilot to 65” rule, to become effective on, as previously noticed, November 23, 2006.

You can get more complete info here:

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/L-HEAD%20EdComment1.pdf

Is anyone else sick of the baby Boomers? First the 60 Vietnam peace movement, than the bankrupting of Social Security, and now this. Is there anything they can't screw up?

Their offspring? At least we have the lowest percentage of body piercings and tattoos in the industry:)
fbh

Can anyone explain the requirement to have a co-pilot under 60? If there is no medical difference / threat of being over age 60, then why this discrepancy? Will there be some type of trip rig for elder care?

It's not about SAFETY LeadSolo - it's all about DISCRIMINATION - at least that's what the folks in ALPA want you to believe.......:rolleyes:

Blakey stated in order to have the same rule as ICAO. ICAO stated it was done to promote unanimity. Medical studies have determined it is unnecessary. CYA in reality, IMO.

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

What's next?
 

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.
:rolleyes:

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.

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).

No need to call them, I went to the union meeting and heard it myself. If it is 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.

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.

Wrong, 30 days. Do you really thnk that thew FAA is not prepared for this change by Congress when the fact is that the FAA has been working with Congress? Do you really think that airline companies are not prepared? Do you not think the big bid this spring was delayed because FedEx knows what is coming?

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.

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.:rolleyes:

And, it would give all of us lesser experienced aviators the opportunity to recognize who these heroes are.

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.

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. :confused:

So you expect the leadership to ignore the contract and the obligations of a union?:rolleyes:

No. I expect them to not try and change the law, or forthcoming changes in the law to benefit the minority! And, you are the minority. Unequivocally, at FedEx.

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.