Flaps50

House Approves Change to the Upper Age Limit
Language reflects ALPA Executive Board Resolution.

December 11, 2007 - The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation this evening that would raise the pilot mandatory retirement age to 65 by a unanimous vote of 390-0. The measure, introduced by House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.), is identical to the language already included in the House and Senate Transportation Appropriations conference report, which is now ensnared in the larger, unrelated fight over completing this year’s spending bills.

“I salute Chairman Oberstar and his colleagues for this bold step,” said Capt. John Prater, ALPA’s president. “The legislation passed by the House of Representatives is consistent with ALPA’s Executive Board resolution that is designed to protect the interests of airline pilots and this Association.”

http://alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA_...=8300&Tabid=73

Instrumental in achieving passage of the legislation were House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) and committee members Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) and Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.).

The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, H.R.4343, was introduced this morning and placed on the House suspension calendar, which is a special procedure used to speed up action by setting aside the regular rules of order and requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage of legislation.

In addition to allowing Part 121 airline pilots to fly up to age 65, H.R.4343 will clarify non-retroactivity, provide sufficient liability protection for unions, prohibit unilateral changes to labor agreements and benefit plans, eliminate the over/under split for domestic operations, and make the rule change effective as of the date the legislation is enacted.

The Senate will now have to decide whether to bring the measure up under their own procedural motion, known as unanimous consent, in which a legislative matter is considered agreed to if no Senator on the floor objects. The Senate has already once before unanimously approved the language of H.R.4343 in the form of the Stevens amendment during debate of the Transportation Appropriations bill on September 11.

1bdun

Does anyone know what type of time frame might be expected for this one?

As the Senate already approved it, and the House just did, and as someone stated (so it must be true ) that GW cannot veto it, what it the next stage?

767pilot

"The Senate will now have to decide whether to bring the measure up under their own procedural motion, known as unanimous consent, in which a legislative matter is considered agreed to if no Senator on the floor objects."

The senate has not acted on this particular bill yet. They will have another week or two to do so. Any one senator can stop it, and he can do it anonymously if he choses

LaidOffAgain

Now reading that does non retroactive mean that the ROPES that are now sitting side ways can't come forward?? Or am I reading that wrong? Thanks LOA

Toccata

You're reading it wrong. I believe "Any employed crewmember...." is the language that has ben used - not "flight crewmember", but "crewmember".

It does appear also that current F/Os only maintaining a second class physical for various medical reasons may take a hit.

MX727

Click on it and read it. Anyone that is on the seniority list is eligible to fly front seat until 65. Anyone that has already retired is gone. No coming back, unless they get rehired at the bottom of the list.

gcsass

Looks as if it also requires a first class medical and a six month line check for anyone over age 60...regardless of crew position. Anyone else read it this way?

Rocco

That is the way I read it.....

magic rat

Bush said he is going to veto this bill. Not because of the age 65 thing, but other BS sitting in the bill that he doesn't like. That could be interesting.

nightfreight

Every time I read a statement by Prater, it makes want to puke..

When do this dude come up for reelection??? I'm voting for Albie...