Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Over 60 can't land?

Old 01-30-2008, 05:36 AM
  #41  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jagplt's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 777 Multi-tasker
Posts: 712
Default

Originally Posted by purpledog View Post
In light of the emphasis the FAA is putting on runway incursions, I think taxiing qualifies. They better put a tiller on my side, he's there for ballast.
I'm detecting another by-product of this change... a disrespect for Captains.. I'm not flaming the guys on the board, it's a place to vent... but as long as we can seperate the difference between the boards and the cockpit and remain professional.

I know everyone is going to flame this, and that's fine... I'm as guilty as others, mainly towards particular examples of "Captains", but if you really think about it, it's a bad road that the union leadership has put us on.
jagplt is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 07:25 AM
  #42  
Gets Weekends Off
 
fecav8r's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 675
Default

Originally Posted by Bohica View Post
That just doesn't make sense to me. That would negate much of the reduction in training cycles that the company was gaining by canceling the previous bid awards.
I think it stems from the phrase "required crew member" in the bill. If you are not a S/O and are over 60 you aren't really a "required" crew member. I think that was the interpretation the Company and the Union came up with.
fecav8r is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 08:37 AM
  #43  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 426
Default

I believe this is where the confusion arises: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...a/age65_qa.pdf


This was posted on January 17, 200[8] by the FAA and it is on their website. (It actually states January 17, 2007, but alas, we know what they meant...)
Lindy is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 10:28 AM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

Originally Posted by jagplt View Post
So as I understand what's being said here.. In order for a ND to be returned to the front seat he must first check out as an S/O? Doesn't make sense to me, but I guess it keeps the guys who are "injured", say a shoulder or something.. from playing the system and jumping back into a front seat over those who have played the game as intended...
I think you just have to draw the line somewhere. Since we are already adequately staffed in the wide CA seats and there are trainees in the pipeline, putting guys back into the CA is a little more expensive than sending them thru SO school with the intent of pulling them off the line shortly after IOE. There is precedent with junior guys going to a school and getting pulled for an upgrade during or immediately after.

Benefits of sending guys thru SO school with the anticipation of getting CA in bid 08-01

-- What if the class one medical doesn't work out?
-- What if the bid is canceled or awards delayed? FDX always like to have guys in que to go to training so they can change the class date to suit company actual staffing needs. As opposed to the long range projections (WAGs) provided by long bid cycles.
-- Cheaper to adequately staff CA seat and overstaff SO seat, even if only temporarily
-- Some may choose to retire
Gunter is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 10:40 AM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default Congrats FoxHunter!

Congrats to FoxHunter ... the below passage sounds like he just became our newest "new hire." Since he was over 60 when the law changed and NOT an actively employed flight crew member, I think he might be in big trouble Lucy. Oooops ... FH says I'm an "age bigot"

Question: May a person who was in the employment of an air carrier when he/she attained 60 years of age before December 13, 2007, but who was not conducting part 121 operations for the
carrier as a required flight deck crew member, continue employment with the air carrier?

Answer: Yes. However, under 49 U.S.C., § 44729(e)(1)(B), that person must be treated by the carrier as a “newly hired pilot...without credit for prior seniority or longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or
employment policies of the air carrier.”

Question: In the scenario described above, must the pilot be separated from the air carrier with a formal break in service in order to qualify for coverage of § 44729(e)(1)(B)?

Answer: No. The decision to “rehire” the pilot or keep the pilot in the airline’s employment is a matter to be decided through the company’s contractual process with its employees. In any case,
a person who attained age 60 before December 13, 2007, was not a required flight deck crewmember at the time, and who resumes pilot duties must be treated as a newly hired pilot.

MaydayMark is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 10:56 AM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
jagplt's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: 777 Multi-tasker
Posts: 712
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post
Oooops ... FH says I'm an "age bigot" [/COLOR][/I][/SIZE]

lol... you're just a trouble maker! lol

it's great!
jagplt is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 11:45 AM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Piloto Noche's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 193
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post
Congrats to FoxHunter ... the below passage sounds like he just became our newest "new hire." Since he was over 60 when the law changed and NOT an actively employed flight crew member, I think he might be in big trouble Lucy. Oooops ... FH says I'm an "age bigot"

Question: May a person who was in the employment of an air carrier when he/she attained 60 years of age before December 13, 2007, but who was not conducting part 121 operations for the
carrier as a required flight deck crew member, continue employment with the air carrier?

Answer: Yes. However, under 49 U.S.C., § 44729(e)(1)(B), that person must be treated by the carrier as a “newly hired pilot...without credit for prior seniority or longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or
employment policies of the air carrier.”

Question: In the scenario described above, must the pilot be separated from the air carrier with a formal break in service in order to qualify for coverage of § 44729(e)(1)(B)?

Answer: No. The decision to “rehire” the pilot or keep the pilot in the airline’s employment is a matter to be decided through the company’s contractual process with its employees. In any case,
a person who attained age 60 before December 13, 2007, was not a required flight deck crewmember at the time, and who resumes pilot duties must be treated as a newly hired pilot.

So, I guess, JL, FH, and all of the other members of the over 60 club who were too "Sick or Busy" to check out as an engineer will be new hires????
Oh, now THAT is priceless!
Piloto Noche is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:03 PM
  #48  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Default

Jack was in school right before the law changed.

This would be priceless if it were to come true, but alas, I doubt it will be so.
USMCFDX is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:12 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Paddles's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Moving Around
Posts: 184
Default

Originally Posted by fecav8r View Post
I think it stems from the phrase "required crew member" in the bill. If you are not a S/O and are over 60 you aren't really a "required" crew member. I think that was the interpretation the Company and the Union came up with.
I think that the definition of the phrase "Required Crewmember" is going to be key. There are several over 60 guys who have been sick/NOQ for many months now. Obviously, the ones who have turned 60 in the past 6 months are the majority of these. Anyway, all you have to do is look at the practice bid to see who these guys are. OBTW, 2nd practice bid closes today. Interesting to see how the company and association determine the definition of the all important Required Crewmember.
Paddles is offline  
Old 01-30-2008, 12:20 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 426
Default I think the FAA has given their opinion (to date)....

Question: May a person who was in the employment of an air carrier when he/she attained 60 years of age before December 13, 2007, but who was not conducting part 121 operations for the carrier as a required flight deck crew member, continue employment with the air carrier?

Answer: Yes. However, under 49 U.S.C., § 44729(e)(1)(B), that person must be treated by the carrier as a “newly hired pilot...without credit for prior seniority or longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”


This is a quote from the www.faa.gov website. I believe flying Part 61 flights does NOT meet the standard ennunciated by the FAA.

As for being sick/out on medical, I think someone should send this question to the FAA. Apparently they haven't put this specific question in their Q & A, maybe if enough ask they just might??

Specifically, the question to be asked: If a pilot turned age 60 prior to December 13, 2007, and at that time were listed as sick and/or out on medical, are they considered "new hires" or can said pilot return into their previous position?
Lindy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
POPA
Hangar Talk
3
01-22-2008 05:17 PM
Planespotta
Hangar Talk
47
12-18-2007 01:35 PM
doogiebarnes
Regional
20
11-11-2007 08:21 AM
Fly4Beer
Major
16
01-31-2006 01:15 PM
LAfrequentflyer
Hangar Talk
0
09-29-2005 11:47 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices