http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/...a_old_pilots_1

 

From FAA.gov

FAA to Propose Pilot Retirement Age Change
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Marion C. Blakey today announced that the FAA will propose to raise the mandatory retirement age for U.S. commercial pilots from 60 to 65. Speaking before pilots and aviation experts at the National Press Club, Blakey said that the agency plans to propose adopting the new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard that allows one pilot to be up to age 65 provided the other pilot is under age 60.

The FAA plans to issue a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) later this year and will publish a final rule after careful consideration of all public comments, as required by law.

“A pilot’s experience counts — it’s an added margin of safety,” said Blakey. “Foreign airlines have demonstrated that experienced pilots in good health can fly beyond age 60 without compromising safety.”

On September 27, 2006, Administrator Blakey established a group of airline, labor and medical experts to recommend whether the United States should adopt the new ICAO standard and determine what actions would be necessary if the FAA were to change its rule. The Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) did not reach a consensus recommendation but did provide detailed insight and analysis that will be helpful as the FAA develops a rule.

Since 1959, the FAA has required that all U.S. pilots stop flying commercial airplanes at age 60. In November 2006, ICAO, the United Nations’ aviation organization, increased the upper age limit for pilots to age 65, provided that the other pilot is under age 60.

The November 29, 2006 Age 60 ARC report, appendices, and public comments are available online at http://dms.dot.gov, docket number 26139.

###

 

You freaking people.

You have no idea how to defend a nation.

All you did was weaken a country today, thats all you did.

You've put peoples' lives in danger.

Sweet dreams son.

 

First, I am absolutely opposed to changing the agr 60 rule. And yes, it's for very personal reasons. I've spent 28 years gearing my wife and I to age 60. To have it changed at the last minute flat ****es me off. If they want to change the rules, let them grandfather all of us that are close to retiring without penalty. My kids will have to fend for themselves. Better yet, leave the rule alone. Personal rant over.

There are a few intangibles involved with all of this. The big one is the elections in 2008. A NPRM will probably take us past those elections. Would there be time for a new president and/or congress to put a stop to the new rule if they wanted to? I don't know and I doubt that anyone else here does either. At any rate, we could **** and moan about this whole thing until we're blue in the face. The bottom line is that it's way above the pay grade of anyone here. It's become political and is therefore out of the reach of the average American let alone the average airline pilot.

I will say this, though. Seeing some of the people who support the rule change makes me think that it can't be a good thing. Just because they support it.

 

A repeat from my post in the other FedEx thread:

Ranger: I hate to say it, but I think the LEC rep might be wrong. I just looked through both versions of the new contract, the one we got in the mail with the operational chapters and the big one they sent out with all the corrections and additions. There is no mention of a retirement age any where in there, except for 59 and older in the multiplier tables.

Take a look. The R&I committee obviously knows more than I do, and they may have an understanding with the company, but there isn't any mention (that I can find) of the retirement age in the new contract.

We are screwed, and thanks to the old guys for bringing this on.

I would love for somebody to prove me wrong. Really. Please site me a reference in the contract (or anywhere else) that says we can retire at 60 even if the rule changes.

FJ

 

Yikes -- where else did you repeat this? Have I gotta chase you around now? (Now, if you look like your Avatar, that wouldn't be so bad, but . . .)

A repeat from my post in the other FedEx thread:


Have you looked at the Retirement Plans in the Pilot Benefit Book? (I don't have mine handy.)


The letter today from the MEC Chairman supports the view that Age 60 is recognized in our negotiated retirement benefits, and that any change to that age would have to be negotiated.






.

 

Once again, what Tony said.

 

If you saw Marion's speach on NBC the night before last you know raising the age is a done deal, it's just when and the fine print surrounding it as in grandfathering and implementation.
Be that as it may the effort now has to be mitigating the effects on as many of us as we can, which is the tone I heard out of Pratter's speach. FWIW my advice on your NPRM comments need to focus on grandfathering, grandfathering, grandfathering. It wouldn't hurt to focus on on delayed implementation too, just to F*&% the numbnuts who brought this about; especially the nonmember numbnuts. Trying to make a safety argument against it isn't going to cut it, because the evidence to substantiate what we all know hasn't been developed yet. My letters to my congresspeople said just supoena the training records of 60 year olds moving to the back seat and compare to newhires. End of argument, but they don't listen to me and they won't listen to you.

Now don't flame me I know a bunch of you 60 and up guys operate just fine, even better than some sub 60 guys, but you're not the norm.

 

Can you elaborate a bit?

 

Think Jack Nicholson.



You can't handle the truth.







.