Not if the FAA has anything to say about it. According to the speech Marion C. Blakey gave in January, "The rule we intend to propose will be parallel to the ICAO standard — either pilot or co-pilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60. It is our intent that this new rule will apply to pilots who have not yet reached 60 by the time the rule goes into effect."

The union may try to support those who have not retired yet, but if the FAA publishes the rule as Marion stated, there is nothing the union can do. It would be expensive for the Company to bring S/O back to the left seat. Between training costs, and 5 week vacations per year, not to mention all the sick leave that these guys have saved up and will use, we're talkin' big bucks I know the Company doesn't want to spend. Which way do you think Fred will lobby for or any other airline for that matter?

The FAA is no longer changing the rule, Congress is. Why do you think Marion announced the change and then said the NPRM would be published 8-10 months later? The Ms. Blakey wanted to give Congress, and all the other parties such as ALPA, airlines time to get a Law passed that will address the challange of dealing with pilots that have been forced to retire on PBGC pensions.

The language of S.65 is included in S.1300 which is the FAA reauthorization bill. The FAA runs out of money on September 30, 2007. Some will note that there are other methods to fund the FAA beyond this date. The other issue S.1300 covers is aviation taxes. On September 30 2007 the FAA not only loses it's funding but the government authority to collect aviation taxes expires.

Foxhunter- You my friend are in Fantasy land. Just like all the other supporters of this. Everyone talks a good game, but don't put the Cart before the horse.

S65 and S.1300 will go no where. Congress will not change the rule, the FAA will. Nice try though. First, there is no House version of S.1300. Then it needs to get out of Committee. Then it needs ZERO changes. And where's the Co-sponsers? 4 Total?

Get a life and stop spreading mis-information. The Rule will change. In about 2 to 4 years. Not this summer.

Fantsy Island? Maybe not!
 

This info is from the FDX ALPA portal FDX LEC 7 post May 8,2007. Indicates that this age 65 is on the fast track. I copied only a portion. You can read the whole letter on the web. But it's 10 days old and things change. :rolleyes:

Senate bill (S-65, which would change the law) now has 25 sponsors and House Resolution (HR-1125, which would do the same thing) has over 70 House sponsors.

We were also told that there are several members of the Senate and the House that believe that the FAA timeline of 18-24 months is too long and they are pushing to make the change via legislation rather than waiting for the NPRM process to play itself out. As such, we could see change very soon. The Senate could attach S-65 as an amendment to an FAA appropriations bill, which will be considered this month (May). If they are successful and the House approves the FAA appropriations bill (with the S-65 amendment) and it is signed by the President, age 65 could be the law of the land before the end of 2007.

Good Luck- I've heard this all before. This Bill is going to be a rider on this or that Bill. Etc. The FACTS are, that neither bill has gotten out of their respective Committees. Which is just the First of many steps. Then they have to go to Conference. Then there has to be ZERO changes of Both Bills. Then the Bill has to pass. Talk to me this summer. I'm sure you'll have a New bill to jump on for your cause. And then another one next spring. This is getting like Ground Hog Day.

The FAA will change the Rule-Maybe. The NPRM may go either way. I still say 2 to 4 years. Wait and see what happens when AMR and the APA come out against it. Then we'll have NWA and AMR against the Bill. Plus APA and the majority of ALPA.

I'm afraid my last post sounded angry or defeatist. That wasn't the intent. I just think we GAVE AWAY a nice perk of this career--the ability to walk away at 60. The justification for the B-fund is now suspect. What will we have to give away to keep it?

Has anyone really looked at what a self-funded retirement would cost? How much would I have to give an investment firm for a pension/annuity that would be the equivelent of our retirement? One way to end this whole "protect the nest egg" battle might be simply raise pay NOW and stop the pyramid scheme. How much would a 40 year old narrow body FO have to save/invest every year to get a solid pension by the time he hit 60?

Strut--these old guys will "get theirs". Their benefits are locked in. The guys who stand the most to lose are those dudes who planned to retire at 60 in the next 8-10 years. They'll be two contracts to whittle away at what they "have" right now. And you are right--it will take a lot of fighting to preserve what has already been previously established as the "normal" airline pilot retirement plan(s). Guys like me, Jolly, and Huck have 15-20 years, or perhaps 20-25 years...until we have to retire...so we can adjust our plans and roll with the flow. I've already mentally "written off" any A plan benefits just to force myself to save and invest conservatively. I HOPE I am wrong and we still have something close to our current plan when I retire. My point was that by pushing the age to the right we've made our B plan a lot more vunerable to future cuts by the Feds and by management negotiators.

And again--whatever happens--I'll be there supporting the team. However--I'd love to hear DW offer ONE idea on how he proposes helping those junior hurt by the support of doing the "right" thing for everyone else's seniority rights.

Bet it was a tiger guy.

NashMD11. Thanks for the info learn something new every day.:D

So you'll refers to who? What cause is that? I'm against age 65. I believed the process was going to take the 2-4 years as you stated, but I was wondering how this was going to be be fast tracked.

Do you think the age discrimination issue might stir the pot in Congress? So why haven't we heard from AMR/APA and NWA?

Sorry, the S.1300 was introduced on May 3, out of Committee May 16.;)


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...0:SN01300:@@@X

Guys,

I'm over 60 and when you get my age, you're gonna have "another pair of shoes to walk in." I don't have college kids to pay for or alimony BUT I've been with that bankrupt airline and, with only 3 years wide-body for high 5 over 16 years service, I am looking at $100,000/yr. Not bad. It's probably the "healthy choice" as well. Still, retirement means moving into an uncertain future. Do you think you know what the future will bring?

So look -- I don't care what you decide with your ALPA votes and majorities and thinkin' you'll be safe at 60 and "bullet proofed" from dereg and bankrupcy. That's what you think NOW.

Me? I'm almost "over the line" on my decision and all I can say is "God only knows, guys." Most here seem to think they control their future. Yeah, so did I. But then it turns out I can retire now and that's good, too! Don't "burn any bridges," OK?

Bob