Age 60/65 Compromise
11-08-2006, 03:08 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Andy,
If the age 60 rule does change feel free to turn around and walk off the aircraft. The international flights might be a limiting factor for you if you check ID's while boarding.
I will say again I don't intend to to work past age 60, but I will not work to deny those that have the skills and abilities to do so. If and when I approach age 60 and my abilities are there and the enjoyment is there it might be a problem for me. At this time by all means continue to proclaim your displeasure at the top of your lungs. Oh! and get some sleep.
If the age 60 rule does change feel free to turn around and walk off the aircraft. The international flights might be a limiting factor for you if you check ID's while boarding.
I will say again I don't intend to to work past age 60, but I will not work to deny those that have the skills and abilities to do so. If and when I approach age 60 and my abilities are there and the enjoyment is there it might be a problem for me. At this time by all means continue to proclaim your displeasure at the top of your lungs. Oh! and get some sleep.
11-08-2006, 04:01 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,152
OV1D/Klako, you never fail to amuse me. You are truly out of your league when discussing this topic.
One more time, very slowly – I LIKE THE STATUS QUO. I have no desire to push for a change. I was merely offering a possible solution for all of you cretins who wish to change the age 60 rule.
Now, how much are you willing to bet? I will bet you up to $15,000. We can meet in Las Vegas and sign a contract with a lawyer present and deposit the money in escrow. You obviously lack brains; do you also lack a pair of gonads?
When Congress gets back in session? The House will likely adjourn (well) before Thanksgiving; they will be busy with the reshuffling of committees. The Senate will pass a few CRs (continuing resolutions) and will likely also adjourn before Thanksgiving – same reason. Well, confirmation of the new SecDef will keep the Senate in session for a couple of extra days, but I still say that they’re likely to adjourn prior to Thanksgiving. There are nine appropriations bills that have yet to be passed – fuggetaboutit, they’re not going to pass before the 110th meets.
Stand alone bills? ROTFLMAO! S 65/HR 65 have been dead as standalone bills for a while – HR 65 never left subcommittee. What’s that tell you as to the importance that Congress places on this legislation?
Did some research? Similar legislation almost always attached to appropriations bills? OK, I’ll call you on this. Provide links. Otherwise, you’re just another Cliff Claven trying to BS everyone. You’re wrong. This is a purely legislative amendment; it has nothing to do with appropriations.
Germane? You’re a monosyllabic Neanderthal; where did you find and plagiarize this document? FWIW, it’s a riddled with errors.
Ah, Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Sweet; at least you know the correct number of the rule. However, if you had taken the time to read more about points of order, you would have known that Senators cannot make a point of order against any amendment until that bill has been introduced to the Senate floor. And I think that it’s safe assume that you have absolutely no idea how points of order work for appropriations bills. You may want to read the Byrd Amendment (I know; there are a lot of Byrd Amendments) in reference to appropriations bills. The Byrd (appropriations) Amendment requires a 60% majority to override a point of order.
Now, PULEEZE find at least one ‘expert’ who states that Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of Order does not apply. If you actually think that HR 5576 will make it to the floor of the Senate, not have a point of order raised over the S 65 attachment – or overridden, get passed with S 65 attached, and finally make it through reconciliation between the House and Senate version of HR 5576 before you reach age 60 this December, I’m going to break some bad news to you. You possess an intellectual capacity greater than two standard deviations below the mean. Heroin addicts possess a greater grasp of reality than you exhibit with this post.
Thanks, I offered this up to those who are pushing for a change. I’m not. I like the status quo.
BREAKING NEWS: The age 60 rule doesn’t even register inside of the beltway. A vagrant’s flatulation registers higher on the Richter scale of Washington DC politics.
Originally Posted by OV1D
Unfortunately, Andy has no authority to broker compromise. I will bet that S.65 will pass in it’s current form, attached to the appropriations Bill, H.R. 5576.
Now, how much are you willing to bet? I will bet you up to $15,000. We can meet in Las Vegas and sign a contract with a lawyer present and deposit the money in escrow. You obviously lack brains; do you also lack a pair of gonads?
Originally Posted by OV1D
When the U.S. Congress is back in session, it will be busy with Appropriations Bills until the end of this year. Time is running out for bills S.65 and H.R.65 that would amend the FAA’s “Age 60 Rule” extending the retirement age for airline pilots to age 65. It now looks unlikely that these “Age 60 Rule” bills, standing alone will be passed by this 109th Congress
Stand alone bills? ROTFLMAO! S 65/HR 65 have been dead as standalone bills for a while – HR 65 never left subcommittee. What’s that tell you as to the importance that Congress places on this legislation?
Originally Posted by OV1D
If we all did some research, we would find that similar legislation is almost always attached to appropriations bills. There is a general agreement that appropriators should not "legislate" as that is the job of the legislators. However, it is very common especially in the present legislative environment that the Congress now finds itself in that the only Congressional business having a chance of being completed this late in the game are attached to appropriations bills. Certainly this is not the preferred way of “skinning the cat” but I do not think that you can find an appropriations bill in the last 20 years of appropriation bills that did not pass without some policy legislation attached to it.
Originally Posted by OV1D
Extending the retirement age for airline pilots to age 65 is a provision that is germane in terms of jurisdiction and saves the federal government lots of money and thus is likely to pass the “sniff test”. However, it could possibly be objected by a Senator with pockets stuffed with ALPA and APA money motivating him/her to demand a point of order under Senate Rule 16. If a such a Senator makes a point of order on Rule 16, then it would have to then get 51 Senators voting against the point of order to keep the provision in the bill. Since most will agree that there are at lest 60 and possibly 70 Senators who have said that they would vote in favor of S.65, the point of order would very likely be put down. The Senate Rule 16 would likely not even happen because again the experts would agree that the appropriators and the authorizers did agree in conference that it should stay attached to H.R.5576. So the provision would probably not be subject to such a point of order vote. The real motivation going around among Senators, is that going to age 65 for airline pilots could save the government billions a year and thus the appropriation vehicles may be the only flights departing on time before the end of the 109th Congress.
Ah, Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Sweet; at least you know the correct number of the rule. However, if you had taken the time to read more about points of order, you would have known that Senators cannot make a point of order against any amendment until that bill has been introduced to the Senate floor. And I think that it’s safe assume that you have absolutely no idea how points of order work for appropriations bills. You may want to read the Byrd Amendment (I know; there are a lot of Byrd Amendments) in reference to appropriations bills. The Byrd (appropriations) Amendment requires a 60% majority to override a point of order.
Now, PULEEZE find at least one ‘expert’ who states that Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of Order does not apply. If you actually think that HR 5576 will make it to the floor of the Senate, not have a point of order raised over the S 65 attachment – or overridden, get passed with S 65 attached, and finally make it through reconciliation between the House and Senate version of HR 5576 before you reach age 60 this December, I’m going to break some bad news to you. You possess an intellectual capacity greater than two standard deviations below the mean. Heroin addicts possess a greater grasp of reality than you exhibit with this post.
Originally Posted by OV1D
The Bottom line for Andy, NO COMPROMISE!
BREAKING NEWS: The age 60 rule doesn’t even register inside of the beltway. A vagrant’s flatulation registers higher on the Richter scale of Washington DC politics.
Last edited by Andy; 11-08-2006 at 04:24 PM.
11-08-2006, 07:22 PM
#13
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: The Missionary Position
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Andy
OV1D/Klako, you never fail to amuse me. You are truly out of your league when discussing this topic.
One more time, very slowly – I LIKE THE STATUS QUO. I have no desire to push for a change. I was merely offering a possible solution for all of you cretins who wish to change the age 60 rule.
Now, how much are you willing to bet? I will bet you up to $15,000. We can meet in Las Vegas and sign a contract with a lawyer present and deposit the money in escrow. You obviously lack brains; do you also lack a pair of gonads?
When Congress gets back in session? The House will likely adjourn (well) before Thanksgiving; they will be busy with the reshuffling of committees. The Senate will pass a few CRs (continuing resolutions) and will likely also adjourn before Thanksgiving – same reason. Well, confirmation of the new SecDef will keep the Senate in session for a couple of extra days, but I still say that they’re likely to adjourn prior to Thanksgiving. There are nine appropriations bills that have yet to be passed – fuggetaboutit, they’re not going to pass before the 110th meets.
Stand alone bills? ROTFLMAO! S 65/HR 65 have been dead as standalone bills for a while – HR 65 never left subcommittee. What’s that tell you as to the importance that Congress places on this legislation?
Did some research? Similar legislation almost always attached to appropriations bills? OK, I’ll call you on this. Provide links. Otherwise, you’re just another Cliff Claven trying to BS everyone. You’re wrong. This is a purely legislative amendment; it has nothing to do with appropriations.
Germane? You’re a monosyllabic Neanderthal; where did you find and plagiarize this document? FWIW, it’s a riddled with errors.
Ah, Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Sweet; at least you know the correct number of the rule. However, if you had taken the time to read more about points of order, you would have known that Senators cannot make a point of order against any amendment until that bill has been introduced to the Senate floor. And I think that it’s safe assume that you have absolutely no idea how points of order work for appropriations bills. You may want to read the Byrd Amendment (I know; there are a lot of Byrd Amendments) in reference to appropriations bills. The Byrd (appropriations) Amendment requires a 60% majority to override a point of order.
Now, PULEEZE find at least one ‘expert’ who states that Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of Order does not apply. If you actually think that HR 5576 will make it to the floor of the Senate, not have a point of order raised over the S 65 attachment – or overridden, get passed with S 65 attached, and finally make it through reconciliation between the House and Senate version of HR 5576 before you reach age 60 this December, I’m going to break some bad news to you. You possess an intellectual capacity greater than two standard deviations below the mean. Heroin addicts possess a greater grasp of reality than you exhibit with this post.
Thanks, I offered this up to those who are pushing for a change. I’m not. I like the status quo.
BREAKING NEWS: The age 60 rule doesn’t even register inside of the beltway. A vagrant’s flatulation registers higher on the Richter scale of Washington DC politics.
One more time, very slowly – I LIKE THE STATUS QUO. I have no desire to push for a change. I was merely offering a possible solution for all of you cretins who wish to change the age 60 rule.
Now, how much are you willing to bet? I will bet you up to $15,000. We can meet in Las Vegas and sign a contract with a lawyer present and deposit the money in escrow. You obviously lack brains; do you also lack a pair of gonads?
When Congress gets back in session? The House will likely adjourn (well) before Thanksgiving; they will be busy with the reshuffling of committees. The Senate will pass a few CRs (continuing resolutions) and will likely also adjourn before Thanksgiving – same reason. Well, confirmation of the new SecDef will keep the Senate in session for a couple of extra days, but I still say that they’re likely to adjourn prior to Thanksgiving. There are nine appropriations bills that have yet to be passed – fuggetaboutit, they’re not going to pass before the 110th meets.
Stand alone bills? ROTFLMAO! S 65/HR 65 have been dead as standalone bills for a while – HR 65 never left subcommittee. What’s that tell you as to the importance that Congress places on this legislation?
Did some research? Similar legislation almost always attached to appropriations bills? OK, I’ll call you on this. Provide links. Otherwise, you’re just another Cliff Claven trying to BS everyone. You’re wrong. This is a purely legislative amendment; it has nothing to do with appropriations.
Germane? You’re a monosyllabic Neanderthal; where did you find and plagiarize this document? FWIW, it’s a riddled with errors.
Ah, Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Sweet; at least you know the correct number of the rule. However, if you had taken the time to read more about points of order, you would have known that Senators cannot make a point of order against any amendment until that bill has been introduced to the Senate floor. And I think that it’s safe assume that you have absolutely no idea how points of order work for appropriations bills. You may want to read the Byrd Amendment (I know; there are a lot of Byrd Amendments) in reference to appropriations bills. The Byrd (appropriations) Amendment requires a 60% majority to override a point of order.
Now, PULEEZE find at least one ‘expert’ who states that Chapter XVI of the Standing Rules of Order does not apply. If you actually think that HR 5576 will make it to the floor of the Senate, not have a point of order raised over the S 65 attachment – or overridden, get passed with S 65 attached, and finally make it through reconciliation between the House and Senate version of HR 5576 before you reach age 60 this December, I’m going to break some bad news to you. You possess an intellectual capacity greater than two standard deviations below the mean. Heroin addicts possess a greater grasp of reality than you exhibit with this post.
Thanks, I offered this up to those who are pushing for a change. I’m not. I like the status quo.
BREAKING NEWS: The age 60 rule doesn’t even register inside of the beltway. A vagrant’s flatulation registers higher on the Richter scale of Washington DC politics.
11-08-2006, 07:31 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: ERJ Right Seat
Posts: 472
Here's a good compromise for you:
This year will make it 60 years old and 1 day. Next year we'll make it 60 years old and 2 days. It will ease the transition for the majority of us that have career expectations. Of course it will take about 1825 years to reach 65, but who's counting?
Guys, do us all a favor, and retire. Go play golf, go fly 135, go play with your children from your third marrige since you're still paying alimony for them; just get out of the game.
This year will make it 60 years old and 1 day. Next year we'll make it 60 years old and 2 days. It will ease the transition for the majority of us that have career expectations. Of course it will take about 1825 years to reach 65, but who's counting?
Guys, do us all a favor, and retire. Go play golf, go fly 135, go play with your children from your third marrige since you're still paying alimony for them; just get out of the game.
11-08-2006, 07:51 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by OscartheGrouch
Andy,
I do wonder if you ever get any sleep! Especially on the age 60 issue you must have some sleepless nights.
In reference to your "compromise" it would seem very beneficial to me since I am 47. However, your safety argument is once again trumped by the age discrimination issue. Continuing to make pilots retire when they have the abilities to remain employed is just plain wrong. It is interesting that this compromise would seem to give you at 45 all the advantages and none of the risks.
I do wonder if you ever get any sleep! Especially on the age 60 issue you must have some sleepless nights.
In reference to your "compromise" it would seem very beneficial to me since I am 47. However, your safety argument is once again trumped by the age discrimination issue. Continuing to make pilots retire when they have the abilities to remain employed is just plain wrong. It is interesting that this compromise would seem to give you at 45 all the advantages and none of the risks.
11-09-2006, 03:35 PM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: The Missionary Position
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by Andy
No; I will assume that you do not have a pair. I am serious about the $15,000 bet.
You can take my betting comment as only a figure of speech and nothing more.
I make serious bets only with gentlemen. Judging from some of your recent posts, a gentleman you are not.
11-11-2006, 01:22 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B737/Capt
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by CALPilotToo
Well, then leave it alone. As it has been for 47 years or inact it for those entering the profession.
I digress though because this isn't about my wanting to irritate others. That would be "selfish" of me and those that wish to end discriminatory practices. Lest we stand in the way of those who use safety as a shield to argue for their own "selfish" interests. What selfish interests might you have CPT? How about we start with those one day younger than you and allow them to work with no restrictions? Since we all know that those currently employed are going to have a perfect career and all the happiness/money they will need in retirement.
I heard they are guaranteeing all retirements at CAL.
11-11-2006, 01:31 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FO - 757/767
Posts: 1,228
Originally Posted by Sanchez
Here's a good compromise for you:
This year will make it 60 years old and 1 day. Next year we'll make it 60 years old and 2 days. It will ease the transition for the majority of us that have career expectations. Of course it will take about 1825 years to reach 65, but who's counting?
Guys, do us all a favor, and retire. Go play golf, go fly 135, go play with your children from your third marrige since you're still paying alimony for them; just get out of the game.
This year will make it 60 years old and 1 day. Next year we'll make it 60 years old and 2 days. It will ease the transition for the majority of us that have career expectations. Of course it will take about 1825 years to reach 65, but who's counting?
Guys, do us all a favor, and retire. Go play golf, go fly 135, go play with your children from your third marrige since you're still paying alimony for them; just get out of the game.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
