US house panel votes in age [67]
#641
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
Sienna is in the pocket of RAA, the only group really in favor of reducing the ATP requirement.
https://www.businessinsider.in/polit.../101881733.cms
https://www.businessinsider.in/polit.../101881733.cms
While I don't think that going all the way back to 250 hrs and a wet commercial is the solution, I think that there's a better middle ground for minimum requirements for flying 121 ops. Somewhere between 250 and 1500 hrs ... I'd have no problem supporting 1000 hr minimum for being hired at a 121 carrier.
What Sinema's amendment (and Sinema isn't the only one backing it; Sen Thune is also in favor of it and probably several others) would allow up to 150 hours of simulator time to be substituted for flight time requirements toward the ATP. I guess if one feels that those 150 hrs should be in an aircraft rather than allowing simulator time, then it does lower requirements. From my experience, there is more to be learned from simulator time than flight time. One can have various emergencies thrown at them in the simulator where it simply isn't possible to do that in an aircraft. My personal opinion, not worth anything, is that more simulator time for new pilots is a good thing.
#642
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
Why is it likely?
It’s hasn’t been popular enough to pass as a stand alone bill.
It hasn’t been placed into the senate version of the FAA reauthorization act.
The secretary of the DOT is publicly against it.
The CEO of United airlines is publicly unenthusiastic about it being any benefit to the public.
The President is claiming to be the most pro labor union President of all time and the labor unions are against it.
It can’t be added as an amendment without 60 votes.
You said yourself the committee responsible for adding into final language is facing a mutiny and has chosen to just close shop instead of loose control. It would seem the ATP issue closing the committee down would defacto prevent age 67 from being added.
It seems the most likely trajectory is Senate passes FAA reauthorization without it being included.
It would seem the bills go to conference committee with the WH and Senate withholding support of age 67.
So question is, how committed is the House?
Its possible it didn’t sway the house vote at all and just reflects good lobbying to a committee that placed the language in the House bill.
It’s hasn’t been popular enough to pass as a stand alone bill.
It hasn’t been placed into the senate version of the FAA reauthorization act.
The secretary of the DOT is publicly against it.
The CEO of United airlines is publicly unenthusiastic about it being any benefit to the public.
The President is claiming to be the most pro labor union President of all time and the labor unions are against it.
It can’t be added as an amendment without 60 votes.
You said yourself the committee responsible for adding into final language is facing a mutiny and has chosen to just close shop instead of loose control. It would seem the ATP issue closing the committee down would defacto prevent age 67 from being added.
It seems the most likely trajectory is Senate passes FAA reauthorization without it being included.
It would seem the bills go to conference committee with the WH and Senate withholding support of age 67.
So question is, how committed is the House?
Its possible it didn’t sway the house vote at all and just reflects good lobbying to a committee that placed the language in the House bill.
1) the FAA Reauthorization Act cannot leave subcommittee without a majority vote in favor of it. Please count the votes as it stands.
2) There's a huge amount of funding tied to the FAA Reauthorization Act. Senior Dems will not allow this bill to be stuck in subcommittee forever.
3) Even if the Senate version doesn't include 67, House members are likely to demand it be including during the reconciliation process.
4) When the age changed to 65, it firmly opened the door to further age increases.
5) Congress sees a pilot shortage and sees age 67 as a way to help mitigate that shortage.
6) Having pilots work longer means that they will continue to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of drawing payments from it. This is actually a bigger issue than most others here.
Our opinions on this matter don't count for anything. If you want to try to move the needle, contact your representatives and tell them you oppose this change. And make sure you get a lot of non pilot voters to contact their representatives to oppose the change. And send lots of money to your representative to influence them.
You need to play the DC game. No discussion on this forum is going to make any difference in the outcome.
#643
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 582
Likes: 27
I don't know where you came up with it not being able to be added without 60 votes; there are only 9 memebers on the subcommittee so it only requires 5 votes to be added in a markup session (which needs to happen prior to leaving subcommittee).
1) the FAA Reauthorization Act cannot leave subcommittee without a majority vote in favor of it. Please count the votes as it stands.
2) There's a huge amount of funding tied to the FAA Reauthorization Act. Senior Dems will not allow this bill to be stuck in subcommittee forever.
3) Even if the Senate version doesn't include 67, House members are likely to demand it be including during the reconciliation process.
4) When the age changed to 65, it firmly opened the door to further age increases.
5) Congress sees a pilot shortage and sees age 67 as a way to help mitigate that shortage.
6) Having pilots work longer means that they will continue to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of drawing payments from it. This is actually a bigger issue than most others here.
Our opinions on this matter don't count for anything. If you want to try to move the needle, contact your representatives and tell them you oppose this change. And make sure you get a lot of non pilot voters to contact their representatives to oppose the change. And send lots of money to your representative to influence them.
You need to play the DC game. No discussion on this forum is going to make any difference in the outcome.
1) the FAA Reauthorization Act cannot leave subcommittee without a majority vote in favor of it. Please count the votes as it stands.
2) There's a huge amount of funding tied to the FAA Reauthorization Act. Senior Dems will not allow this bill to be stuck in subcommittee forever.
3) Even if the Senate version doesn't include 67, House members are likely to demand it be including during the reconciliation process.
4) When the age changed to 65, it firmly opened the door to further age increases.
5) Congress sees a pilot shortage and sees age 67 as a way to help mitigate that shortage.
6) Having pilots work longer means that they will continue to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund instead of drawing payments from it. This is actually a bigger issue than most others here.
Our opinions on this matter don't count for anything. If you want to try to move the needle, contact your representatives and tell them you oppose this change. And make sure you get a lot of non pilot voters to contact their representatives to oppose the change. And send lots of money to your representative to influence them.
You need to play the DC game. No discussion on this forum is going to make any difference in the outcome.
Age 67 could have been added before they went to recess and it wasn’t, so the question is what leverage will change to add it.
DC is a pay to play town, whoever writes the biggest tactical checks gets what they want. It’s likely the majors are lobbing against it also.
I didn’t mean why should it pass according to what they will tell constituents. I meant why do you think the status quo of it not already being in there will change since DC is a pay to play town and it isn’t already there now.
If the senate doesn’t want it to pass, and doesn’t want to be seen voting against it then it stands to reason it will not be in the final language and will have to be added via amendment by LG or someone, but that will need 60 and they can just say “present” to duck it again.
Why do you think the House will have a authority to demand it in conference committee if the WH and Senate don’t want it and that is all backroom closed session stuff.
It seems like all RAA and pro age 67 did was lobby/pay a single house committee to get it slipped into final language on a bill that was going to pass no matter if it was in there or not. That singular event is now being labeled as the “will of the people” or “authentic need” and not the most actual truth which is they paid to play.
Last edited by OpieTaylor; 08-14-2023 at 04:48 PM.
#644
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2021
Posts: 582
Likes: 27
The change to requiring 1500 hrs to fly 121 as a result of the Colgan accident would not have prevented the Colgan accident. The Ca had more than 3300 hrs and the FO had more than 2200 hrs. Prior to that change, one could be hired at a 121 carrier with just a commercial pilot's license
The change was requiring the SIC to hold an ATP rating. They also added upset recovery and changed rest regs, and required 1,000 hours SIC 121 to act as PIC, and created a system to nationalize sat and unsat on FAA events.
They also watered down how to obtain an ATP by creating a R-ATP and reducing required flight time for 141 and military pilots.
It hit the news that she made $16,000 a YEAR, and that is because “she needed the flight time” and wasn’t rated and as experienced as a CA who has a civilized salary. So they fixed that **** real quick and it worked very well.
You have no idea if that crash would have happen if the SIC were required to have an ATP, had accomplished Upset recovery training and operated under new rest regulations. It is very obvious that the requirements increased the pay and plenty of regionals offer hotels so she wouldn’t have had to spend the night in the FedEx waiting room.
Last edited by OpieTaylor; 08-14-2023 at 05:12 PM.
#645
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
If the senate doesn’t want it to pass, and doesn’t want to be seen voting against it then it stands to reason it will not be in the final language and will have to be added via amendment by LG or someone, but that will need 60 and they can just say “present” to duck it again.
It seems like all RAA and pro age 67 did was lobby/pay a single house committee to get it slipped into final language on a bill that was going to pass no matter if it was in there or not. That singular event is now being labeled as the “will of the people” or “authentic need” and not the most actual truth which is they paid to play.
#647
On Reserve
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 32
Likes: 1
The change to requiring 1500 hrs to fly 121 as a result of the Colgan accident would not have prevented the Colgan accident. The Ca had more than 3300 hrs and the FO had more than 2200 hrs. Prior to that change, one could be hired at a 121 carrier with just a commercial pilot's license.
If he had flown some other odd jobs to gain 1500 hours he would have either (1) killed himself or (2) learned from close calls. He would have also had a harder time hiding a 1500 hour marginal record then he did a 600 hour one.
After the 1500 hour rule was in place Todd Norrish was on the same track as Marvin, except he killed himself, crashing, scud running to build 1500 hrs thus eliminating himself from the gene pool before flying 121.
Some people should not drive cars.
Some people should not ride motorcycles.
Some people should not fly airplanes.
Some people should not fly part 121.
1500 hours is simply (1) vetting point. Not the only one.
#648
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,480
Likes: 1,051
The change to requiring 1500 hrs to fly 121 as a result of the Colgan accident would not have prevented the Colgan accident. The Ca had more than 3300 hrs and the FO had more than 2200 hrs. Prior to that change, one could be hired at a 121 carrier with just a commercial pilot's license.
Certainly it can be argued that more should be included in the RATP exemptions. But to claim all new pilots need 1500 hours up pilot a 121 aircraft is disingenuous, at best.
If the PIC had done more than pay to swing gear at some shady outfit, he might have learned what to do when the shaker goes off. He didn't. People died.
#649
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
I'm well aware that there are waivers to the 1500 hr rule. Still, way too restrictive. And PFT's been gone for a very long time.
So if I'm reading the room correctly, you guys are in favor of keeping the barriers to entry to the profession high while not wanting to change retirement age. While there's a shortage of pilots. That's an untenable position. One or both of those are likely to change in order to get/keep more pilots.
So if I'm reading the room correctly, you guys are in favor of keeping the barriers to entry to the profession high while not wanting to change retirement age. While there's a shortage of pilots. That's an untenable position. One or both of those are likely to change in order to get/keep more pilots.
#650
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,480
Likes: 1,051
I'm well aware that there are waivers to the 1500 hr rule. Still, way too restrictive. And PFT's been gone for a very long time.
So if I'm reading the room correctly, you guys are in favor of keeping the barriers to entry to the profession high while not wanting to change retirement age. While there's a shortage of pilots. That's an untenable position. One or both of those are likely to change in order to get/keep more pilots.
So if I'm reading the room correctly, you guys are in favor of keeping the barriers to entry to the profession high while not wanting to change retirement age. While there's a shortage of pilots. That's an untenable position. One or both of those are likely to change in order to get/keep more pilots.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



