All items of age 60 discussions are on this page now.
For older items scroll on down.
Click to go to this link for more info.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
welcomes the legislation signed into law last night by the President that allows U.S. commercial pilots to fly until age 65.
The determined efforts of Congress have averted a lengthy federal rule making process while enabling some of our nation’s most experienced pilots to keep flying. Effective last night, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act allows both pilots on a domestic flight to be up to age 65. For international flights, one pilot may be up to age 65 provided the other pilot is under age 60, consistent with the November 2006 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard. While the law is not retroactive, airlines do have the option to rehire pilots who are under age 65. The rehiring of pilots is not mandatory and is the decision of each airline. In January, the FAA announced that it would raise the retirement age for commercial pilots to 65. The mandatory federal rule making process would have taken 18 months to two years. The FAA took a renewed look at its longstanding rule in September 2006 with the help of aviation industry and medical experts who provided the agency with valuable insight and analysis. The “Age 60 Rule” had been in effect since 1959.
Congress to consider last-minute push to raise pilot retirement age
Thursday December 6, 2007
US Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) is trying to speed passage of a bill that would raise the mandatory pilot retirement age to 65 by year end.
Mica noted that passage of the FAA reauthorization bill, which includes a provision to raise the mandatory retirement age (ATWOnline, Jan. 31), is unlikely before Congress adjourns. In a letter sent yesterday to Transportation Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.), he urged passage of legislation to ensure that the country's "most experienced pilots are permitted to continue flying commercial aircraft."
Mica continued: "You and I have both received bipartisan request letters from our colleagues urging passage of legislation to increase the retirement age for thousands of commercial airline pilots across the country," citing the Freedom to Fly Act, which has 313 bipartisan sponsors. Airlines are facing a pilot shortage that could be relieved in some measure by extending the careers of senior pilots (ATW, September 2007).
by Sandra Arnoult
Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:35:26 -0700
Subject: [retup] Latest info on the Age 60 issue in Congress
Latest info on the Age 60 issue in congress:
Latest info on the Age 60 issue in congress:
The pilot age change legislation has been voted on and passed in committee and
on the floor multiple times in both chambers. It has wide support and, more
importantly, very little opposition. The corporations are silent. ALPA is
quietly supporting expedited movement. Only the APA and the SPC are in
opposition. There is no congressional support (except, perhaps, from a few
isolated offices) for expanded age language and no possibility any such
language would be adopted. Congressional leadership will oppose (and has
opposed) all expanded language. The prospects for expanded language are nil.
Below: APA Press Release and message to APA members.
Fellow pilots,
Late Friday night APA was informed that the House of Representatives
had adopted the Senate language in an effort to get the transportation
appropriations bill to President Bush before Congress adjourns for the
holidays. This bill contains language that, if passed, will change the
pilot mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65.
In response to this threat to safety, on Wednesday APA will run
newspaper advertising in USA Today and Washington, D.C. publications The Hill
and Roll Call. APA has also issued the press release that we have
appended to this message.
President Bush has stated that he will veto the bill and our
legislative consultants in Washington do not believe that the Senate has the
votes to override the veto — but APA still needs your help to ensure that
President Bush does veto this bill. We are asking each of you to take a
few minutes and call the White House and tell them that you want
President Bush to veto the transportation appropriations bill. You may call
the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 or leave a message on the
White House comment line at 202-456-1111.
APA National Communications
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Captain Karl Schricker
817-302-2350/214-957-5275
Gregg Overman
817-302-2250/817-312-3901
ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION URGES PRESIDENT BUSH TO VETO SPENDING BILL,
PRESERVE AGE 60 RETIREMENT FOR AIRLINE PILOTS
Fort Worth, Texas (November 13, 2007)—The Allied Pilots Association
(APA), representing the 12,000 pilots of American Airlines (NYSE: AMR),
is urging President Bush to follow through with his stated intention of
vetoing a transportation appropriations bill.
The spending bill includes language that would raise airline pilot
retirement age to 65 from the current age 60 standard. Congress is expected
to pass the bill sometime this week. The legislation will then go to
the White House for final approval.
“By an overwhelming majority, our pilots support keeping retirement
at age 60,†said APA President Captain Lloyd Hill. “They support the
current mandatory retirement age based on numerous safety concerns,
foremost among them pilot fatigue.â€
Hill pointed out that the National Transportation Safety Board has
linked pilot fatigue to 10 commercial aviation accidents since 1993 that
killed 260 people. He also noted that the issue of pilot fatigue has
generated significant public attention recently. An article in the Nov. 7,
2007 issue of USA Today reported that fatigue led hundreds of pilots,
mechanics and air traffic controllers to make mistakes on the job,
including six cases where pilots fell asleep in mid-flight. Pilots
acknowledged that they “flew to the wrong altitude, botched landings and
missed radio calls.â€
Hill added that research by the Aerospace Medical Association has shown
that older pilots have greater difficulty dealing with the physical
demands of overnight flying and long flights across multiple time zones.
The Federal Aviation Administration has conceded that older pilots’
accumulated experience does not compensate for the impact of fatigue on
their performance.
President Bush has cited cost concerns as the reason behind his
plans to veto the transportation appropriatio bill"n€ Hill sd ai€œWe
agree the bill would proet be costly tcbut not just in dollars and cents.â€
APA plans to run newspaper advertising later this week that calls on
airline passengers to make their voices heard. The union will recommend
that travelers contact the White House to urge President Bush to follow
through with his veto plans.
"We will let our passengers know that for safety's sake, it's the
right thing to d"o, he said.
Founded in 1963, the Allied Pilots Association—the largest
independent pilot union in the U.S.—is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. APA
represents the 12,000 pilots of American Airlines, including 2,246
pilots on furlough. The furloughs began shortly after the September 11,
2001 attacks. Also, several hundred American Airlines pilots are on
full-time military leave of absence serving in the armed forces. The
union’s Web site address is www.alliedpilots.org.
American Airlines is the nation's largest passenger carrier and
fifth-largest cargo carrier.
Paul Emens, Chairman
APAAD (Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination)
emens@earthlink.net
410-991-8381
And a response.
Cort,
I called the APA rep Karl Schricker and gave him an earful. He thinks that letting the NPRM run it's course will prove that it is a safety thing. They have no clue how many studies have been done that proves it isn't safety. I asked him to at least be man enough to admit it all about the economics of having a pension vs not having a pension. I also told him that the people in Washington can see right though their charade and know that it's about the money not safety. I also reminded him that once the age rule is changed that APA won't be able to go on strike for years due a large number of "experienced pilots" will need to take their jobs since they lost theirs no thanks to APA. We all know that with the "experienced pilots" every RJ pilot will be right behind them. I than called the White House and gave them a 6 minute lesson on why APA doesn't want the age change and that they still have their pensions. I than told the WH that Bush must consider at the very least signing a wavier exemption for all USA pilots to allow them to keep flying just like the ICAO pilots are if he is planning on vetoing the Transportation Appro. Bill.
I would have everyone on your list call this guy Schricker and than call the White House immediately. That will really rattle the cage at American. Have everyone leave Schricker a voice mail about how wrong APA is.
Than call the WH and let them know how wrong APA is. Cort once again do this but keep me out of it. I need to stay below the radar for many reasons because other groups that trust me and I get very good information from. You know what I mean. We do need to act on this today if at all possible though!
Cort thanks so much for all your hard work.
All The Best,
Capt X
F.V. "Cort" de Peyster
From "On the Road again" (workin)
All, I recently received this response from Jay Keese, the SWAPA
lobbyist in DC who has done a TON of work for us over the years on Age60. As
much as I have stirred he pot on this issue, I just wanted to get this
'best guess' info out to you all.
Bill Martin
Bill:
I think it's safe to say that Bobby Sturgill is squarely in our camp. He is
a former United pilot, a Naval Aviator and a old squadron mate of SWAPA
Government Affairs Chairman Kevin Henry. We've had several
conversations with him on the topic of age 60, all of which have shown nothing but
support for change. His new chief of staff used to work for Rep. Hayes, our
champion on this issue. She has said that Administrator - designate
Sturgill wants to get this done ASAP. As tempting as it is to ask him to
move the NPRM process faster, we don't want to do anything that might
jeopardize our ability to pass the get a legislative solution-- especially
since we appear to be so close on that front. We hope to get his feedback
on the best and most expeditious way to move forward with a change in
the Age 60 Rule. We will watch for his comments in the Senate nomination
process and continue to have dialogue with the new administrator on the Age
60 issue.
Jay Keese
Principal
Capitol Advocates
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 585
Washington DC 20001
202-669-4061 cell
202-624-1450 office
202-393-5218 fax
jpkeese@cagdc.com email
Congressional Actions:
Proposed age standards for pilots
Thu, 20 Sep 2007
H.R. 2881
FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007
Sec. 44729. Age standards for pilots
(a) In General- Subject to the limitation in subsection (c), a pilot may serve in multicrew covered operations until attaining 65 years of age.
(b)Covered Operations Defined- In this section, the term `covered operations' means operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
(c) Limitation for International Flights-
(1) APPLICABILITY OF ICAO STANDARD- A pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in covered operations between the United States and another country only if there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.
(2) SUNSET OFLIMITATION- Paragraph (1) shall cease to be effective on such date as the Convention on International Civil Aviation provides that a pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in international commercial operations without regard to whether there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not attained age 60.
(d) Sunset of Age-60 Retirement Rule- On and after the date of enactment of this section, section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, shall cease to be effective.
(e) Applicability-
(1)NONRETROACTIVITY - No person who has attained 60 years of age before the date of enactment of this section may serve as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless--
(A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier in such operations on such date of enactment as a required flight deck crew member; or
(B) such person is newly hired byan air carrier as a pilot on or after such date of enactment without credit for prior seniority or prior 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.
(2) PROTECTION FOR COMPLIANCE- An action taken in conformance with this section, taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior to the date of enactment of this section in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect before such date of enactment), may not serve as a basis for liability or relief in a proceeding before any court or agency of the United States or of any State or locality.
(f) Amendments to Labor Agreements and Benefit Plans- Any amendment to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air carrier that is required to conform with the requirements of this section or a regulation issued to carry out this section, and is applicable to pilots represented for collective bargaining, shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the designated bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier.
(g) Medical Standards and Records-
(1) MEDICALEXAMINATIONS AND STANDARDS- Except asprovided by paragraph (2), a person serving as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations shall not be subject to different medical standards, or different, greater, or more frequent medical examinations, on account of age unless the Secretary determines (based on data received or studies published after the date of enactment of this section) that different medical standards, or different, greater, or more frequent medical examinations, are needed to ensure an adequate level of safety in flight.
(2) DURATION OF FIRST-CLASS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE- No person who has attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless the person has a first-class medical certificate. Such a certificate shall expire on the last day of the 6-month period following the date of examination shown on the certificate.
(h) Safety-
(1) TRAINING- Each air carrier engaged in covered operations shall continue to use pilot training and qualification programs approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, with specific emphasis on initial and recurrent training and qualification of pilots who have attained 60 years of age, to ensure continued acceptable levels of pilot skill and judgment.
(2) LINE EVALUATIONS- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this section, and every 6 months thereafter, an air carrier engaged in covered operations shall evaluate the performance of each pilot of the air carrier who has attained 60 years of age through a line check of such pilot. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an air carrier shall not be required to conduct for a 6-month period a line check under this paragraph of a pilot serving as second in command if the pilot has undergone a regularly scheduled simulator evaluation during that period.
(3) GAO REPORT- Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment ofthis section, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report concerning the effect, if any, on aviation safety of the modification to pilot age standards made by subsection (a).'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The analysis for such chapter is amended by addingat the end the following:
`44729. Age standards for pilots.'.
PRESS RELEASE SEPT 12, 2007
Senate Approves Stevens-Inouye Provision to Allow Commercial Pilots to
Fly Past Age 60
Similar Provision Was Approved by Commerce Committee as Part of FAA
Reauthorization Bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Senate today approved a
provision sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Vice Chairman of the
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Chairman
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to allow commercial airline pilots to fly until age
65. The measure was added to the Transportation Appropriations bill
which passed by a vote of 88 to 7. A similar provision was approved by
the Senate Commerce Committee on May 16, 2007 as part of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. The FAA announced
earlier this year that it would begin a rulemaking process to raise the
retirement age of commercial pilots to age 65. Since 1960, FAA
regulations have specified that commercial airline pilots must retire upon
reaching 60 years of age.
“Alaska and the nation are losing a number of experienced pilots
every day due to the outdated FAA Age 60 rule,� said Senator Stevens.
“It is important we change the rule as soon as possible to make sure
our most senior and seasoned pilots remain in the system.�
senator Stevens’ provision would specifically:
*raise airline pilot retirement age to 65;
*sunset the age 60 rule and require the FAA to implement the new
retirement standard immediately upon enactment;
*allow both pilot and co-pilot to be up to 65 years old for domestic
operations;
subject international flights to the international standard that the
pilot can be over 60 if the co-*pilot is 60 or under;
*allow companies and unions to work out compliance issues regarding
pensions and benefits; and
*require GAO to issue a report on the impact of this provision on
aviation safety within 24 months.
Paul Emens, Chairman
APAAD (Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination)
emens@earthlink.net
410-991-8381
Editorial
Aug. 20, 2007 Houston Chronicle
Friendlier skies: The Federal Aviation Administration should let healthy U.S. airline pilots fly until they reach 65.
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle
For almost 50 years the Federal Aviation Administration has required U.S. airline pilots to retire at age 60. The policy lacks a medical rationale, discriminates against American pilots and should be speedily changed.
FAA regulators grant waivers to most foreign airline pilots between the ages of 60 and 65, but decline to do the same for U.S. pilots. The officials cite general policy difficulties, but reluctance to get crosswise with the airlines is no excuse for not doing the right thing by America's pilots, many of whom are veterans of Vietnam and other conflicts.
In January, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said the time had come to end mandatory retirement at 60. She said the FAA had examined safety data and could find no evidence that pilots who reach 60 are any less safe than younger pilots. Several hundred pilots older than 60 fly corporate jets, where they are not restricted.
It's good that she has set the process in motion, but years of bureaucratic torpor and formal rule-making procedures could pass before the change takes effect.
The solution is for the FAA to grant U.S. pilots approaching 60 the same waivers it grants older foreign pilots flying into, out of and around U.S. airports. Safety would not be affected, and the pilots would remain in the cockpit, where they are needed to counter a looming pilot shortage.
The United Nations' Civil Aviation Organization allows one pilot between the 60 and 65, so long as the other pilot is under 60. This seems a reasonable mix of vigor and experience.
The time has passed when a rule change could help Fedex Captain Steven E. Collins, who turned 60 in May. Collins shared his story in a letter to the Chronicle editorial board, which calmly demonstrates the injustice and capriciousness of the over-60 rule:
"I served as an Army helicopter pilot from 1966-1971, flying combat missions in Vietnam in 1968 and 1970. From 1974-1990 I was a Navy fighter pilot deployed on aircraft carriers to hot spots around the world. In 1990 I retired as executive officer of the Navy Fighter Weapons School, better known as "Top Gun."
"In 1990 I joined Fedex as a flight crewmember and rose to captain, based in Anchorage, Alaska. ... It will be 18 months or two years before a proposed new rule will take effect. In the interim, more than 5,000 American commercial pilots will be forced to retire at age 60. ...
"Please inform the American public of this horrible wrong."
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= =========
Friday June 29th.
Age 60 ----> 65 legislation moves forward
from Dan Hanley:
Today the full House T&I Committee (Transportation and Infrastructure)
passed H.R. 2881, the FAA reauthorization bill, containing a provision
that would raise airline pilot retirement age to 65. The language
included in the bill is more complex and differs from the approach
taken by S.65 (and S. 1300) in several ways.
The bill addresses issues raised by ALPA and satisfies concerns about those
issues as expressed by SWAPA, Rep. Hayes and other cosponsors of H.R. 1125.
The language would require FAA to implement the new retirement standard immediately upon enactment. It would not require the ICAO pairing standard for
pilots over 60 flying domestically but would enforce the pairing standard on international flights. The bill would automatically sunset the pairings on international flights if ICAO changes that standard. It contains a strong liability provision and would
implement the new age standard prospectively.
It prohibits reinstatement with seniority and benefits but would allow (not
mandate) flight engineers still on their respective properties to return with seniority. It would permit 60+ pilots to become new hires without seniority benefits. It contains collective bargaining language that would allow companies and unions to work out compliance issues regarding pensions and benefits.
It does not contain the Akaka Amendment or any other ERISA/pension provisions. The legislation requires all 60+ pilots to obtain a first class medical certificate but would prohibit FAA from establishing any additional medical exams
for pilots over 60 unless the Secretary of Transportation can show new
published studies that may warrant additional testing. The Bill contains Safety language insisted on by Mr. Oberstar that would require pilots over 60 to have two line checks per year. First officers who have had a simulator check within 6 months would only need one line check per year.
Like S.65 it requires GAO to issue a report on the impact of this provision on aviation safety within 24 months. The legislation is expected to move to the House floor sometime in July, however, tax provisions still need to be addressed
by the House Ways and Means Committee. The Senate Finance Committee
is expected to take up the tax provisions in their FAA proposal on
July 12. If H.R. 2881 is passed by the House then differences with
the Senate language would have to be reconciled before before taking
it up in their FAA package or in any other legislative vehicle.
Serious issues remain on the base bill regarding the NATCA contract,
user fees etc. This is, however, a very positive move down the playing field for the Age 65 issue.
There were 2 amendments accepted to the FAA bill introduced yesterday,
one by Mr. Costello adding language to force retroactive consideration
of the NATCA contract was accepted 53 - 16. An amendment offered by
chairman Oberstar to allow FedEx trucking employees to organize
locally was adopted 51 - 18, one voting present. The Base bill passed by voice vote.
Jay Keese
Capitol Advocates
JUNE BLITZ DATES: 5-6 (Primary), 12-13, 19-20.
On May 24th, ALPA flip-flopped its position (again) and formally
endorsed changing the 48 year-old Age 60 Rule. This is a massive break through.
In January the FAA announced its intention to amend the rule though an NPRM. Your logic and hard work overcame the united opposition of ALPA's stacked membership on the FAA's Age 60 ARC. The FAA adopted our position.
ALPA amended its position re age 60 for the first time in 28 years.
Why? Because you out-hustled ALPA on the Hill, getting APAAD’s message
out loud and clear. ALPA’s fig leaf was stripped away and what was revealed was not pretty! Congressional leaders were turning their backs on ALPA and ALPA's hand was forced.
Now ALPA wants a seat at the table. They also bring to the table a list of caveats, their demands for the perfect rule change as they see it.
Our challenge is to not allow ALPA to, belatedly, push its way into the legislative process and either insert language objectionable to us or, just as problematical, slow the process down causing the loss of yet more pilots. This farce must be made to end now!
ALPA has the ear of powerful representatives who will listen to its wants. However, in our favor is that with ALPA now saying "yes" we can approach literally hundreds of congressional representatives and ask them to change the rule secure in the knowledge that a "yes" from ALPA is a historical change, a change that puts to rest forever the false claims of "safety" and lays bare the discriminatory nature of
the rule.
To allow ALPA free reign in DC is courting disaster. To not now exert
maximum effort is to squander the opportunity we now have. We must take advantage of the situation.
We will begin a massive all-Congress information campaign immediately. Part of it will be via phone and e mail. However, that is no substitute for boots on the Hill.
We need you in DC, aggressively pushing for amendment to the rule as quickly as possible. With every day wasted, we lose another 5-8 pilots. This is what APAAD has always fought against – the needless retirement of airline pilots.
Please contact me directly and let me know if you can come, what day(s)
you can come, and your contact information. I will on the Hill on the
dates shown above.
We have made great strides. Let's finish this!
Paul Emens, Chairman
emens@earthlink.net
Paul Emens, Chairman
APAAD (Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination)
emens@earthlink.net
410-991-8381
LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY P.X. BOTHWELL
350 Bay Street, Suite 100PMB314
San Francisco, CA 94133
Tel. (415) 370-9571
Fax (415) 362-5469
attorney@apxbothwell.com
April 25, 2007
10 A.M. THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007
AIRLINE PILOTS’ CLASS ACTION
SEEKS MONETARY DAMAGES FOR
‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL’ AGE 60 RULE
(SAN FRANCISCO) – A class action on behalf of thousands of airline pilots today claims damages for income lost due to an “unconstitutional” FAA rule that forces retirement after age 59. More than 120 active and retired pilots are named as representative plaintiffs in the suit filed in U.S. District Court here.
Lead plaintiff Michael Oksner, a retired Southwest Airlines captain, and his legal counsel announced the lawsuit in a sidewalk news conference set for 10 a.m., Thursday, April 26, in front of the federal court building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco.
The class action complaint against the Federal Aviation Administration says the FAA’s age 60 rule violates the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. It also says past and present FAA officials, by enforcing the age rule, have interfered with the pilots’ prospective economic relations.
The complaint cites a November 2006 decision by the International Civil Aviation Organization rejecting the age 60 standard. It also cites recent statements by FAA Administrator Marion Blakey acknowledging that the age 60 rule never served any safety
purpose. According to the complaint, FAA officials over the years published distorted age-safety data. Objective studies have shown that the more experienced pilots have better safety performance records.
The pilots are represented by San Francisco attorneys Tony Bothwell and Rey Hassan. Bothwell previously brought an age 60 “exemptions” case to the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hassan has served as counsel in several class-action cases. The class action filed today is the first major challenge to the constitutionality of the age 60 rule, 14 C.F.R. 121.383(c).
Feb 27, 2007
There hasn't been much discussion on what our objectives should be at the next Blitz. Here are some.
In spite of talk of a future NPRM we still want legislation, for many good reasons laid out in the Feb 2 "APAAD February 2007 Update". Here's one more reason
The FAA had at least one previous NPRM (1981) and dropped it two years later with no action. Blakey has made good noises lately, but ends her FAA tenure later this year. With the pro-unionists in control of Congress and the Administration weakened, her replacement is likely to be even more AFL-CIO friendly, and ALPA's an AFL/CIO leader. Read watering down of the NPRM, a further stretch out, or a drop. No way does an NPRM assure a change to the rule - and we don't even have an NPRM yet, to drop later!
Another topic. What is our position on the "applicability" sections of S 65, and HR 1125? These sections will prohibit pilots over 60 from returning to the front seat.
"The provisions of subsection (a) shall not provide a basis for a claim of seniority ... that is made by a person who was a pilot and who attained 60 years of age before the effective date described in subsection A." This forsakes the current flight engineers, the pilots who will turn 60 awaiting a rule change that may not happen, those whose managements have already agreed to take them back, those whose contracts provide for a return, those who have gone to the training department to await a change, those who could win court decisions to come back, etc. Exemptions, if they are even granted, would expire with the passing of the legislation or rule change, as you would have no claim on seniority after 60, and would be instantly unemployed. According to the APAAD Feb Update, the proposed NPRM would go further, and prohibit ever returning to Part 121 operations even as a new hire .
Why are these provisions there? The ARC report says it is to shield unions and companies from lawsuits (from us). But it's not the business of the FAA or Congress to micro manage contractual matters of seniority and seat position bidding for managements or unions. Sure, lawsuits will result. They have already started. So what? The courts are intended to correct inequities. Why prohibit that with a regulation or legislation? If this is an attempt to gain easier acquiescence from ALPA, it is misplaced. Given encouragement and continued power, ALPA will force increased medical requirements for over-60's and other obstacles which will nullify any change in the rule. ALPA has never compromised with an opponent such as APAAD. They've already sued APAAD (ALPAAD) once to try to destroy it. Anyone think ALPA's become "nicer", since?
We need a lot of discussion on this, leading to a suggested APAAD position for the Blitz and after. I am in favor of the following.
1) We want legislation. The FAA has literally asked for it, it is the only way to change the rule now, it is the only way to insure the rule is changed at all.
2) We prefer legislation without restrictions on the right of return, and demand that proponents of those restrictions identify themselves and justify restrictions.
3) Our eventual goal is the national standard established in ADEA for all jobs - no arbitrary age limit on employment but a standard of ability to do the job.
Dave Skilling, APAAD Advisory Board
Feb 20, 2007
Age 60 class action suit
I'm the administrator for the Age 60 Class Action Project. The CAP is designed to: 1) eliminate any unsupportable age rules, and 2) seek 5 years compensation for jobs lost to the age 60 rule. The premise is that the FAA continued to force eligible pilots out of their airline jobs with full knowledge that it was not a safety issue. We intend to do what the EEOC has wanted to do for years, take the FAA to court.
Cort and Tom, as well as APAAD, keep me abreast of what is cooking in the older ranks of the airline business. I retired nearly 3 years ago from SWA. I've been a petitioner for an exemption through the PPF twice before. The CAP is an outgrowth of the latest suit. The specifics can be found at www.age60cap. com. If you've lost your job to the Rule, or will lose it in the next several months, I encourage you to visit the site and sign on if it interests you.
Whether we can recover lost pensions, income, savings, and benefits is up to the court, but the evidence is huge and quite convincing. We hope the court will view the Rule as an outrage. The lawyers are depending on an award to compensate them for the next two or more years work, which indicates their confidence in our case. Both lawyers are civil rights specialists in the SFO area, in the 9th circuit court district.
Enough of this chit-chat. Check out the site and stay in touch.
regards,
Mickey Oksner
303-751-0385 home
303-883-8715 cell
Dec.19,2007
Special R & I Report
Retirement Age 65
Last Friday afternoon, members of the US Airways MEC, JNC, R & I, Legal and Communications were briefed by a team from ALPA National lead by Manager of MEC Benefits, Steve Hodgson on the new Retirement Age 65 regulation.
As you know, President Bush signed into law the "Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act" which immediately rose the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. Many of ALPA’s recommendations to protect pilot interests were incorporated into this legislation.
What is in the new law?
1.) As of December 13, 2007, pilots can fly to age 65.
2.) The change became law immediately and abolishes the age 60 regulation.
3.) Any pilot over 60 flying as a required crew member (flight engineers, second officer, etc) on the date of enactment can continue to fly.
4.) Pilots over age 60 can be rehired or hired by another carrier, but will restart at the bottom of the seniority list.
5.) Until the ICAO rules change, the law provides for an over/under split for international operations. For a pilot to serve as PIC and be over age 60 another pilot on the flight deck must be under age 60.
6.) Domestic pilots are not required to comply with the over/under split.
7.) All part 121 pilots over age 60 will be required to have a first class medical every 6 months and may be required to have additional line and or simulator evaluations.
8.) Carriers must bargain over changes to the collective bargaining agreements and benefit plans. Any amendments necessary to conform to the new law or to carry out the new law, requires bargaining by the company with the labor group. They may not unilaterally make changes to the CBA or benefit plan to conform to the new law.
9.) The Act limits lawsuits or other legal proceedings for all actions taken in compliance with the Age 60 rule or the new Age 65 rule.
In looking over our present contract, we anticipate no real issues of concern. Our current contract has previously inserted language that was added to the retirement and disability sections. This language extends coverage to whatever the FAA mandated retirement age happens to be. Medical, dental and life insurance benefits should remain the same and intact as long as you are an active pilot on the seniority list. The new law also seems to have no effect on our survivor benefits. Pilots won’t be able to draw on their DC Plan or 401k Plan until they actually retire. Pilots that qualify for PBGC pensions will be able to draw on those benefits anytime after age 60. We’re sure there will be additional information available to us in the future. We will keep you updated as we receive the more data.
Rich Alter, Chairman
R & I Committee
Patrick Healy <patrickhealy1@mac.com> wrote:
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:07:01 -0800
From: Patrick Healy <patrickhealy1@mac.com>
To: qbcvv@groups.mac.com
Subject: Senate Passes Age 65 Legislation
Vote Comes One Day After House Approves Separate Provision
Sometimes, the Senate CAN act quickly. One day after the House of Representatives unanimously approved a measure increasing the mandatory retirement age for US commercial pilots to 65, the Senate voted its approval for the legislation as well... sending the bill to the president's desk.
As ANN reported, Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar -- sponsor of the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act" -- pulled the measure from the broader FAA Reauthorization Act, which Congress passed in September, when it became clear the Senate wasn't going to act on its version of FAA reauthorization before the end of the year.
If signed into law by President Bush, the legislation will update a 1960 FAA ruling forcing pilots from the cockpit at age 60. The measure would bring US standards into compliance with international regulations; the International Civil Aviation Organization adopted the age 65 retirement standard in November 2006.
Under the bill, pilots who choose to fly commercially past age 60 will need to have their medical certificates renewed every six months under the measure, according to The Associated Press, and submit to a line check twice a year. They'll also need to participate in additional training and qualification programs.
Flights departing US airports for foreign destinations would require at least one pilot under the age of 60, if a pilot between 60-65 is also part of the flight crew.
Pilots who celebrate their 60th birthdays before Age 65 becomes law are out of luck, as airlines won't be required to hire them back if the measure goes into effect. If they want to keep flying, those pilots will need to reapply for their jobs, and start at the bottom of the seniority scale... a provision that all-but guarantees those pilots will opt to seek employment elsewhere.
FMI: http://thomas.loc.gov/, www.senate.gov, www.icao.int
Thanks Bill. Good article. Denny Holman is one of the important leaders of the United contingent in APAAD.
Bob
U.S. pilots can fly until 65
Bush signs bill raising retirement age, ends debate dating to 1950s
Ending an airline industry controversy that has smoldered for a half-century, President Bush signed a bill Thursday that raises the retirement age for commercial pilots to 65 from 60, a standard observed by the rest of the world.
Pilots say the new law reflects the reality that today's 60-year-olds are physically fit enough to continue flying, and their experience shouldn't be taken out of the cockpit.
The new law doesn't come a day too soon for Southwest Airlines Captain Paul Emens, 59, who has spent more than a decade trying to persuade members of Congress to rewrite federal rules that require pilots to retire by their 60th birthdays.
"I have two very close friends who retire tomorrow," Emens said Thursday. "That makes me highly motivated: trying to save the jobs of people I know."
Emens' friends now will be allowed to work for five more years, provided they pass regular medical and piloting exams.
The new law doesn't allow pilots who've already turned 60 to reclaim their jobs or seniority, the all-important airline pecking order that establishes work assignments and compensation.
Pilots who've already retired would be allowed to resume their careers, provided they return as lowly new hires, assigned as co-pilots on a carrier's smallest aircraft.
"I'd have to go back as a junior first officer on a [Boeing] 737, which I haven't flown in 18 or 20 years," said Marty Noonan, a retired Continental pilot, who opted instead to head overseas to fly brand-new Boeing 777s for India's Jet Airways.
The president's action ends a dizzying week for proponents of the new pilot-retirement rules, which had stalled in Congress for months as part of a larger funding bill Bush had vowed to veto.
But once the pilot legislation was spun out as a separate bill, it sped through Congress. The House of Representatives passed it by a vote of 390-0 Tuesday, while the Senate unanimously approved identical language Wednesday evening.
It ends a debate that began in the late 1950s, when the federal government first mandated that pilots retire by age 60. Emens says his father, a captain for Pan Am, fought unsuccessfully to block its passage, contending it was age discrimination.
But the rhetoric has been especially heated this decade as an aviation downturn stalled promotions for younger pilots and upended retirement plans for those at the end of their careers.
The new law gives pilots who've lost much of their pensions to airline bankruptcies five more years to recapture lost income and will help airlines deal with a growing shortage of pilots, advocates say.
Older pilots who worked for carriers that scrapped their employee pension plans, such as United Airlines or US Airways, were hurt by the age 60 rule because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the quasi-government agency that assumed control of the pension plans, has a rule that cuts retirement benefits for those who leave the workforce before age 65.
Kit Darby, a 23-year veteran of Chicago-based United Airlines, estimates he lost three-quarters of his retirement income and about $1 million in pay because he was forced to retire when he turned 60 in May.
"It's pretty tough to swallow, and it's totally arbitrary," he said.
But extending the working lives of older pilots could have financial consequences for their younger peers, especially those who've been unable to move into larger aircraft and higher-paying jobs during a recent slump as airlines shrank their aircraft fleets and canceled orders for new planes.
Darby, who's also an Atlanta-based consultant specializing in pilot hiring, estimates that about half of the roughly 3,000 airline pilots who turn 60 each year will remain in the workforce.
"It means five years of stagnation for those who expected to move on when older people retired," notes aviation consultant Robert Mann.
Others worry safety may be compromised since pilots in their 60s may find it tougher to battle fatigue or rebound from jet lag than younger colleagues.
"The reality is no one knows what would happen with large number of 65-year-old pilots in the cockpits of modern commercial airlines operating in today's demanding environment," wrote Captain Lloyd Hill, president of the Allied Pilots Association, in a letter urging Bush to veto the bill. His union, which represents pilots at American Airlines, opposed changing the retirement age.
However, both the FAA and international regulators have dismissed safety issues, determining there's no statistical proof older pilots pose a greater risk than younger, less-experienced peers.
"There's no safety issue; there never has been," said Denny Holman, 57, who's a Boeing 777 captain for United Airlines and an advocate of later retirement. "I take two physicals a year. Every nine months, I go back to our training center and take check rides. At any point, an air carrier inspector can jump on my airplane and observe me flying."
The move to rewrite pilot retirement rules gained momentum in November 2006, when the U.S. government first allowed overseas carriers to fly into the U.S. with pilots over the age of 60 at the controls. This created a politically untenable situation, since foreign pilots or Americans flying for international carriers were granted a right denied to pilots flying for U.S. airlines.
Citing that discrepancy, both the Federal Aviation Administration and the nation's largest pilots union, the Air Line Pilots Association, eventually supported changing the retirement age. But with FAA officials warning it could take years to rewrite the regulations already on the books, activists such as Emens turned to Congress for relief.
"I know these guys who had to retire, I know their families are in trouble," Emens said, explaining why he took on this cause. "And I think about it night and day. My only negative is that we couldn't get it done sooner and save the careers of pilots who lost their jobs. That's the only negative."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri_pilots_1214dec14,0,1950072.story
December 11 2007
Hi Cort,
Well I just saw on T.V. that the House voted unanimously last night to approve the Age 65 issue...now it's just a matter of a few days/weeks before the Senate passes it. Senator Oberstar had it removed from the bogged-down F.A.A Reauthorization Bill so it was a stand-alone issue. BRAVO for him...I spoke with him about this last December (at the annual Wright Brothers Memorial Dinner in D.C. (that honored Norm Mineta as Man of the Year). He was happy to have just become Chair of the Aviation & Transportation Committee (a Committee that Norm had chaired back in the early 90's), and he said that the issue would eventually pass, but it might take some 'maneuvering'. So glad he was true to his word and that he successfully 'maneuvered' it out of that stalemate F.A.A. Bill!
Congrats for all of your hard work on this over the last few years...bitter-sweet though the victory might be for you, since you won't be able to benefit from it. Nonetheless, a valiant effort for a very valiant man.
You have much to be proud of,
Nancy
From: <smtp@alliedpilots.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:13:59 PM
Subject: APA INFORMATION HOTLINE
This is APA Communications Committee member First Officer Scott Shankland with a special APA Information Hotline for Tuesday, December 11.
AGE 65 PASSES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: In a surprise move, the U.S. House of Representatives, utilizing an administrative floor procedure, unanimously passed a motion to waive House rules and pass HR 4343. This bill was hastily created today and stripped the language increasing the airline pilot retirement standard to 65 out of the FAA Reauthorization Bill, where we had previously had it tied up, and put it into its own stand-alone legislation. Our efforts today to have HR 4343 removed from the House agenda failed and the bill was pushed through with a number of other bills as lawmakers proceeded with pre-holiday clearing of their calendar. While this was a blow to our efforts to maintain the current standard, we will now have to determine how the legislators intend to marry up this bill with companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. We will keep you updated and let you know if action on your part is required
Item 2 was posted on the ALPA US Air site yesterday. Look at George Emory’s post below from California.
MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE
November 19, 2007
This is Arnie Gentile with a US Airways MEC update for Monday, November 19th, with three new items.
Item 1. MEC Chairman, Captain Jack Stephan recorded a Chairman’s Message today that summarizes the events of last weeks meeting with the AWA MEC in Denver. The Chairman’s Message reflects our disappointment that the AWA MEC would not engage us in a process that if successful, would produce a comprehensive package to include both seniority integration issues and contract issues for both MEC’s to review. The Chairman’s Message has been posted in What’s New, emailed to all pilots and can be heard by pressing prompt 2 on the Code-a-Phone.
Item 2. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Transportation Appropriations conference on bill, H.R.3074. In addition to setting spending on transportation and other programs, the final conference report includes language to raise the upper age limit for airline pilots to 65. The language in the bill is consistent with ALPA’s Executive Board resolution adopted on May 23. We have posted an ‘Age Limit Update’ that discusses recent events and possible outcomes on both our public and private web site.
Discrimination against US Commercial Pilots
Last Friday, a resolution on the age 60 issue was submitted at the California Democratic Executive Board meeting. This was an opportunity to have our issue heard by over 400 delegates. Our age resolution listed below was one of the only ones presented that had no argument. It will be presented to Congressman Oberstar and the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.
The organization responsible for getting this resolution submitted was Veterans United For Truth. Much of their work is helping Iraqi Vets receive fair and equitable treatment on there return to this country. VUFT has stepped up to the plate to help us bring a fair resolution to this issue. I hope we can return the favor. www.vuft.org
Thanks
George Emory
Wed, 03 Oct 2007 To all:
The frustration level is definitely out there and with good reason. The legislative process has degraded to passing non-binding resolutions. The rest of the process has more to do with making the other guy look bad then it does with actually getting laws passed. What that produces is an environment where any legislative movement is nearly impossible. Most things will be conveniently put on Continuing Resolutions to keep funding levels going without passing "new" legislation. That's just the political reality, and has been for months.
Looking for "stand alone" legislation is not reality. It's far more than pride of authorship, although that does play a big part. ALPA has put the brakes on everything because their precious immunity is not an option that they can achieve. Until the log jam breaks there is little chance of a legislative solution.
Frankly the court is and always has been the best option for a resolution. Granted the time line is equally frustrating; however, it will produce a result that defines the law. While some don't trust the legal system, it has distinct advantages. First, the questions before the court are not sandwiched between a miriad of nonrelated issues that prevent any result from being accomplished. Second, the court does not run for office every two years and can be impartial to outside funding issues.
As of last Friday the FAA had issued 489 denials of the Waiver requests and responded to NONE of the filings for reconsideration. They have several hundred more denials waiting to be sent out. They don't care that they, more than any other entity, have caused a totally avoidable catastrophy. They DON'T care. For them to correct the problem now is merely an admission of how incompetent they have been in creating and prolonging the problem. In light of the list of denials, it is obvious that many people have ignored the court process. Once the denial is over 60 days old it cannot be appealed. I'm sure that many of you know other pilots who are in or about to be in that situation. It would be to their advantage to join our suit against the FAA for multiple reasons. We are not a "class action" suit. With a positive ruling from the court we do anticipate damages, but this organization can only represent those that are members at that point.
There are requirements and legal forms for representation to be part. I will provide that information to those that contact me to join. If they choose to ride the fence to await the initial ruling, I can't help them at that point. It will mean finding separate counsel and filing separate actions. That's a personal choice, but perhaps not a wise one. For information on legal representation contact:
The Senior Pilots Coalition
16 Steppingstone Road
Bedford, N.H. 03110
or my e-mail: abus@comcast.net
cell 603-494-2826
Lew Tetlow
SPC, Pres.From: abus@comcast.net [mailto:abus@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: SPC/PPF update
To all:
Another week has come and gone without a decision released from the U.S. Court of Appeals. The good part is that we are a week closer to "equity"; a decision that I have no doubt will be rendered. You have certainly seen the decision of the Canadian Tribunal. Courts are both different and alike, but rarely do they disagree on the major premise of open and blatant discrimination. Our neighbors to the north clearly recognized the importance of international law and treaty agreements.
When this court rules in our favor ( and I believe that they will ), the flood gates of litigation will open wide. That is ALPA's worst nightmare and the root of "immunity". Theirs is a weak house of cards with no real leadership or principles and is already bursting at the seams over their own GREED. All of these so called UNIONS have been in the business of selling the rights and legal privileges of American citizens for so long that they need "immunity". They won't get it, and they know it! As long as the U.S. does not adopt the age change ALPA, APA, SWAPA and others will continue to hide behind the thin veil of legal protection. That's the major reason that ALPA has pulled its support for ALL proposed legislation to effect the age change. They will even undercut the FAA Reauthorization that they paid dearly for in an attempt to avoid potential litigation. Do you imagine that ALPA is going to support HR- 2881 without their desperate "immunity? Not for a minute! Congressman Oberstar flew the ALPA flag and gets big bucks ( $ ) to do so. His constituants will now get to see just who he supports. The Congressman's latest endeavor at proposed legislation is the Transportation Bill. It has over 60 ear-marks for special interests that total hug sums in the billions of dollars. One of these proposals actually has a good cause in mind. There is a large proposal for "homeless veterans". On the surface that sounds like and is a great idea. A real human endeavor from a concerned Congressman with compassion in his heart. Think again. This is the same Congressman Oberstar that proposes that thousands of commercial airline pilots should lose their professional status and be outsourced to satisfy his benefactors from ALPA. Many of these "veterans" will also lose their homes to forced and unnecessary unemployment.&am p;nb sp; Somehow this is not a problem for Congressman Oberstar. Let the good times roll and the PAC money flow!
We have been working for several weeks with certain members of the White House staff. I made reference to these meetings in my last update. We know that the White House got involved in the waiver process. The FAA did not ignore this interest, but rather flaunted their arrogance by refering to these inputs in their waiver denials. There is now a White House meeting scheduled for Professor Turley, myself and one other. I assure you that your voice will be heard.
As to the continuing fund raising to support all the work being done on your behalf, there is nothing like candor. We have been a group that has depended on voluntary contributions from the start, and I don't plan to change that. This fight has never been this close to a fair and equitable solution. All of that takes funding, and this is your fight--everybody. There are always a few who carry the burden for everyone. We have many such loyal and dedicated members, but this is serious business and it's an investment in your future. This is not the time to sit back and go along for the ride. If you can't remember your last input then the time is now. That's equity too! I've given this struggle for your rights my full attention for over a year as I promised I would. I do it 24-7 and for the last five months have done so unemployed. Nothing worthwhile comes without sacrifice, an d noone should be riding the bench. If you don't step up to defeat the problem then you are part of the problem. Enough said.
To bring attention to this issue requires bold steps because your employer or former employer doesn't care, that "union" you dedicated your professional life to considers you a negotiating tool or worse and the government is watching the "food fight" through their special interest lenses. Some of our UPS members have proposed a solid idea that we will complete in the media. I thank them for the input and initiative. Nothing in DC happens by itself. Good ideas are all around us; so get involved and get others involved. This fight is all of ours, and you have never been this close.
As always, when we have news from the court I will share it immediately. In the meantime, please direct your questions for Professor Turley through me if possible. I will do all I can to provide timely answers.
Lew Tetlow
The Senior Pilots Coalition
16 Steppingstone Road
Bedford, NH 03110
Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:50:43 EDT
Harv,
Today I went to the MEC meeting in Denver where ALPA's Prater spoke.
He was very blunt and told all in attendance that ALPA was going to loose the age 60 issue. Its supporters in Congress have told him that it will change. The Senate is going to put the rule change in this year's FAA spending bill and the House will be doing the same. ALPA's congressional supporters have told him that the "safety" issue is bogus and dead! Prater personally seems commited to going to 65. He stated that when asked for ALPA's opinion he must say its position has not changed.
I pressed him on the issue repeatedly saying that going from $9000 pension to $2200 hurts yet he and our MEC chairman want me to pass up JR manning as ALPA continues to push me out the door and off the property. I need all the extra cash to put into my retirement funds and ALPA policy will not dictate when I'll work if it increases my paycheck. He was quite blunt with those in attendance, mostly younger pilots. He reiterated that the 60 issue must be addressed NOW. He indicated by his choice of words that no matter the survey's outcome, the BOD must face reality and change the ALPA constitution. It is hoped that this will be done by Memorial Day so that ALPA can be involved in the law that is going to be passed this year.
ALPA's concerns are how the tax laws will affect the few defined pension plans that exist along with early retirement issues (55-60) as well as the manning of long range flights ( 1 60+ & 3 under or 2 60+ & 2 under). This issue is important as many carriers have senior/old pilots in the right seat of these 777/747/767 acft. I feel Prater is on our side but restrictions presently imposed by ALPA make it difficult for him to really be constructive. This issue is also erroding congressional support for ALPA.
Prater stated that the change to the PBGC rule on penalties for pilots at age 60 was hostage to the 65 issue. I said that it was probably correct. We hate wellfare queens and this was the perfect example. I told him that my representative could not understand ALPA wanting to retire at 60 when the rest of the world is going to 65 yet want full pension benefits at 60. Personally I feel if the change is made to 65, Congress might be favorable to giving those forced into retirement prior to enactment of the change in the age be able to get full benefits if ALPA pushed this issue but only after 65 becomes reality.
There were 2 others asking 60 questions but I was the most vocal and got the best answers. The rest of the time was on other issues and some really dumb questions.
Rob
Feb 20, 2007
International Civil Aviation Organization
Air Navigation Bureau (ANB)
Age limit for flight crew
Amendment 167 to Annex 1
The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft, subject to conditions. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
1) Pilot-in-Command aged 60-64 years of age
In accordance with Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the amendment means that if a pilot-in-command (PIC) is 60 years of age or over but less than 65 years of age and is engaged in operations with more than one pilot, he/she cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating in airports or the airspace of any ICAO Contracting State as long as at least one other pilot is under 60 years of age. For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years. A State may impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in 2.1.10.1 for the licenses it issues but it cannot prevent, by reason of age, an aircraft from another State operated by a PIC holding a licence issued or validated by that State, who is below the ICAO upper age limit, from operating in the airspace above its territory.
2) Pilot-in-Command 65 years of age and over
Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated. Those seeking information concerning States that may authorize pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 65 years are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities
3) Augmented crews
In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.
4) Medical Assessment
When over 60, a six-monthly medical assessment is necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical assessment for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations).
Feb 10, 2007
If you read the comment from Prater just sent out you will realize age 60 has a way to go if done solely by the FAA.
If you want to continue your career you need to get involved NOW. I have no dog in this fight as I am history, but for the good of the profession and YOUR career don't be timid. Money talks B-----t walks.
Cort
F.V."Cort"de Peyster
UAL SFOFO (terminated)
Please Get Involved !
If the age 60 effort were a drag race , we've left the line with the tires smokin. Speaker Pelosi gavel hadn't even hit the table yet and a new S.65 was in the works. Thanks to Senator Stevens, Senator Feingold, Senator Lieberman and Senator Inhofe we now have a bipartisan bill. We're hoping for a parallel house bill to be coming forth shortly.
There are still a number of ways this effort may move forward but having Bills in the House and Senate provide us with the opportunity to educate our legislators and obtain support for the issue. It is much easier to attach and move legislation if there is a demonstration of wide bipartisan support. Administrator Blakey has wanted this issue solved with legislation from the beginning. A notice of proposed ruling making is an expensive and a timely process. There is another route the FAA could take but they won't until there is support from the new majority.
For those of you within your last few years, don't think this will automatically happen without getting involved. I can't tell you how many times we thought this was a done deal last year. Many of the pilots before us who have put in a huge effort to move this issue had the same thoughts.
It's too soon to assess how the Democrats and the Republicans are going to work together. Last year, the Democrats ran away from this bill because it had mostly Republican support. Hopefully, this will not be the case in the 110th but it's important to get some Democratic Co-sponsors on S.65 as soon as possible so when we get back our 23 Republican Senator Co-sponsors the Democrats won't see it as a one sided issue.
If there ever was a time to pick up that phone and call your Senator ,this is it. Washington is about votes, money and noise. We're a little short on the first two. When you call, remember there are many creative ways to approached this issue. It helps if you can present it in an area of interest to your senator. Do a Google search on your Senator to see what committee he or she is on. Labor, Transportation, Appropriations, Veterans and Pensions are a few of the directions you can take. Ask for the staff member in the office who works on the committee closest to this subject. You can look on www.legistorm.com and check out how important the staff member is to the Senator. This web site list staff members income. If you get a $20,000 a year intern you might not be getting someone who has as much influence over your Senator as someone who is paid $100,000 per year.
I went to one of the MEC meetings for the "Fix It Now" campaign at United and one of the former MEC members tried to tell me if I got to work five more years it would be an unfair windfall. It didn't seem to matter to him that our pensions evaporated. This is what we're up against.
If we win this battle, it is due to all of those who have work so hard on this issue before us. Much of their work can be found on www.age60rule.com www.ppf.org and www.apaad.org . They received no benefit from their efforts other than knowing they did the right thing. If you are not a member of APAAD, please join.
The future of this issue is in our hands. We have some friends in high places but they need to see how bad we all want this. Call me if you have any questions or need ideas on how to move forward.
George Emory
805-680-5149
MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENT:
Three U.S. Airline Pilots File Suit to Force FAA to End Age Discrimination Under Controversial 'Age 60 Rule' That Threatens to Ground Thousands of America's Best Pilots
2007-04-02 16:58:06 -
WASHINGTON, April 2 /PRNewswire- USNewswire/ -- U.S. airline passengers will lose the services of an estimated 5,000 of this nation's most experienced and trusted pilots -- many of them Vietnam War and Gulf War I veterans -- if the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) continues to drag its feet on ending its discriminatory "Age 60 Rule," according to a legal action filed late last week by three airline pilots nearing the age of 60. The legal action is being supported by the newly created Senior Pilots Coalition
(SPC), a fast-growing group of more than 300 pilots who are seeking to end age discrimination at U.S. airlines.
Under the proceeding that demands immediate action by FAA Administrator Marion Blakey to overturn the "Age 60 Rule" imposed in 1959, the three pilots -- Lewis J. Tetlow, of Bedford, N.H., Richard C. Morgan of Charlottesville, VA., and Joseph G. LoVecchio, Lancaster, PA. -- are asking the court to direct Blakey "to issue a decision on each respondents pending request for an exemption from a regulation forbidding him from flying as a
pilot for his employer after his sixtieth birthday."
With 42 years of flying experience, Tetlow -- who is a captain for US
Airways, a U.S. Air Forces Academy graduate, and a Vietnam War veteran -- reaches his 60th birthday today (April 2, 2007). Morgan -- a Navy pilot from the Vietnam era and a captain at US Airways -- will be 60 on May 21, 2007.
US Airways Captain LoVecchio has more than 20,000 of civil and military flight time; he will be 60 on January 30, 2008. Tetlow is the president and treasurer of the SPC.
The Senior Pilots Coalition is warning that "Age 60 Rule" is threatening to strip America's airways of 5,000 or more of its most experienced pilots over the next two or so years.
With an estimated 400 American pilots already arbitrarily forced out due to age at the rate of about 100 per month, the Senior Pilots Coalition notes:
(1) the "Age 60 Rule" was never based on scientific evidence about the age and health of pilots; (2) Americans now live considerably longer and are significantly healthier than they were in 1959; (3) airline pilots, particularly those who have undergone military training, are an extraordinarily fit group, particularly when compared to the rest of the population; and (4) there is no known case on the record of an age related in- air incident or accident attributed to the age of a pilot.
Tetlow said: "The 'Age 60 Rule' is an open-and-shut example of age-based discrimination of the worst and most blatant kind. Trust me when I say that these experienced and well-seasoned professionals are not the pilots that Americans want to see given their walking papers."
Commenting on one little-known aspect of airline industry practices, Tetlow added: "I am confident most Americans who fly for business or personal reasons would be outraged to learn that foreign commercial air carriers are permitted to fly within the United States with pilots over the age of 60.
This is simply intolerable. U.S. airline pilots are unceremoniously given the boot at age 60, while our airspace remains completely open to non-U.S. commercial airline pilots over the age of 60."
The legal action was filed by the pilots as a last resort, after an
unproductive meeting with FAA officials, who indicated that action on the "Age 60 Rule" rule would not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. As the court filing notes: "On Friday, March 23, 2007, Petitioners Tetlow and Morgan (and others) met with the Deputy Associate Administrator and other ranking officials of Respondent FAA. The FAA's Deputy Associate Administrator informed them (1) that in the usual course of business waiver
applications are acted on within 120 days of receipt; (2) changes to ['the Age 60 Rule'] are under consideration; (3) no action on waiver applications would be taken 'piecemeal' because the regulation may be changed; and (4) it would be September before the FAA is likely to finish its internal consideration of changes to [the 'Age 60 Rule'] and months thereafter before a rule change, if any, would occur."
To date, the FAA has paid only lip service to the notion of ending age
discrimination under the "Age 60 Rule." Even though FAA Administrator Blakey acknowledged in a major speech on January 30, 2007 that "the time has come" to change the "Age 60 Rule," her office has proposed a vague timetable for action and has refused to grant individual waivers of exemptions to the rule during the interim -- assuming that the FAA ever decides to take action on the 48- year-old rule.
For a complete copy of the legal filing by the three pilots, go to
http://www.seniorpi lotscoalition. org/.
ABOUT THE SPC
Founded in February 2007, the fast-growing Senior Pilots Coalition already has more than 300 members from the across the United States. SPC is a national pilot organization dedicated to ending age discrimination in the U.S. commercial airline industry. A Web site for the Association is now under development at http://www.seniorpi lotscoalition. org/.
Source: Senior Pilots Coalition, Washington, D.C.
Feb 26 -2007
Evidently the interviewer has not read the EEOC Chairwoman's Letter to the ARC. An investigation can be opened into ALPA and company practices however.
Bob,
Captainpeet@aol.com wrote:
=============
Capt. Tom et al -
The EEOC did a phone interview with me today regarding my initial
questionnaire. Their position is that the EEOC does not contest age discrimination by any Federal Agency. If the FAA has a regulation that is age discriminatory, the EEOC will not investigate it unless they want to set a new precedent. They are not at that point yet. The interviewer did not say that the EEOC would not change its position on this in the future, but for now it was unlikely they would open an investigation.
The interviewer said he would send me the papers for filing the complaint, but that the EEOC probably would not investigate. His supervisor would make the final ruling.
Capt. Mike Peet
UAL
FAA Will Examine Age-60 Rule
FAA considers raising pilots’ retirement age
Change by international body governing aviation would move it to 65
The FAA last week established a forum of airline, labor and medical experts to review the long-debated rule, established in 1959, that requires airline pilots to retire at age 60. The forum will recommend whether the U.S. should adopt the new International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standard, due to take effect in November, that will allow one of the two pilots on the flight deck to be over age 60. The forum also will determine what actions would be necessary if the FAA were to change its rule. "The FAA must ensure that any future rule change, should it occur, provides an equal or better level of safety to passengers," said FAA head, Marion Blakey.
"I'm looking forward to hearing from the experts so the FAA can make informed decisions as the ICAO standard is implemented and Congress considers this issue." Capt. Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, which has long opposed changing the rule, will serve as co-chair of the committee. He said he will ensure that the review is based on "sound science and safety risk." Air Transport Association President James May was also appointed as committee co-chair. Many changes over the years have come about due to FAA efforts to be in sync with ICAO, from adding a "K" to airport identifiers to changing the vertical separation rules in the flight levels. Those who want to keep the age-60 rule status quo may have to mount a strong resistance and rationale to buck the ICAO tide. The committee has just 60 days to complete its review.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA-2006- 26139; Notice No. 06-17]
Age 60 Aviation Rulemaking Committee; Request for comments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for Comments.
SUMMARY: In November 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will adopt an amendment to increase the “upper age limit” for airline pilots up to age 65 provided another crewmember pilot is under age 60. On September 27, 2006, Administrator Blakey established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on the Age 60 issue. One of its tasks is to recommend whether the United States should adopt the new ICAO standard. The FAA and the ARC are requesting comments from the public about whether the FAA should adopt the ICAO standard and any issues surrounding adopting or not adopting the standard.
DATES: Send your comments on or before October 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2006- 26139] using any of the following methods:
· DOT Docket web site: Go to http://dms.dot. gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
· Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to http://www.regulati ons.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
· Mail: Docket Management Facility; US Department of Transportation,
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
· Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
· Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot. gov, including any personal information you provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read comments received, go to http://dms.dot. gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Fred Tilton, Federal Air Surgeon, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-3537.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Comments Invited. The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this request for comments by submitting written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments clearly explain the reason for any position, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot. gov.
Background
Section 121.383(c) of Title 14 of the United States Code (the Age 60 Rule) prohibits any air carrier from using the services of any person as a pilot, and prohibits any person from serving as a pilot, on an airplane engaged in operations under part 121 if that person has reached his or her 60th birthday. The FAA adopted the Age 60 Rule in 1959. Part 121 covers operations of large commercial passenger aircraft, smaller propeller aircraft with 10 or more passenger seats, and common carriage operations of all-cargo aircraft with a payload capacity of 7500 pounds.
In November 2006, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will adopt Amendment 167 to increase the “upper age limit” for airline pilots up to age 65 provided another crewmember pilot is under age 60. The Age 60 ARC provides a forum for the U.S. aviation community to discuss the new ICAO standard, make recommendations as to whether the
United States should adopt that standard, and determine what actions would be necessary if FAA were to change the regulation to meet the new ICAO standard. As part of the ARC’s review and recommendation, it and the FAA are soliciting comments from the public on whether the FAA should adopt the ICAO standard and any issues surrounding adopting or not adopting the standard.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 19, 2006
/s/James R. Fraser