Congress passes age 65 legislation Dec 11th

CaptBill

CaptBill

Well-Known Member
Dated December 11th, 2007

The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation this evening that would raise the pilot mandatory retirement age to 65 by a unanimous vote of 390-0. The measure, introduced by House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.), is identical to the language already included in the House and Senate Transportation Appropriations conference report, which is now ensnared in the larger, unrelated fight over completing this year’s spending bills. “I salute Chairman Oberstar and his colleagues for this bold step,” said Capt. John Prater, ALPA’s president. “The legislation passed by the House of Representatives is consistent with ALPA’s Executive Board resolution that is designed to protect the interests of airline pilots and this Association.”
Instrumental in achieving passage of the legislation were House Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Costello (D-Ill.) and committee members Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) and Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.).
The Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act, H.R.4343, was introduced this morning and placed on the House suspension calendar, which is a special procedure used to speed up action by setting aside the regular rules of order and requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage of legislation.
In addition to allowing Part 121 airline pilots to fly up to age 65, H.R.4343 will clarify non-retroactivity, provide sufficient liability protection for unions, prohibit unilateral changes to labor agreements and benefit plans, eliminate the over/under split for domestic operations, and make the rule change effective as of the date the legislation is enacted.
The Senate will now have to decide whether to bring the measure up under their own procedural motion, known as unanimous consent, in which a legislative matter is considered agreed to if no Senator on the floor objects. The Senate has already once before unanimously approved the language of H.R.4343 in the form of the Stevens amendment during debate of the Transportation Appropriations bill on September 11.
 
I like it! Let's see how long it takes the Senate to pass it. And then if it gets past the veto pen.

I'm thinking mid-08 before its enacted.
 
sucks for us young ones, good for the old farts :p

it will be good when we are old farts too though :D
 
Absolutely! It extends the career of everyone who is under Age 60 the day before its enacted. Why don't some of the young pups understand that?
 
taseal said:
sucks for us young ones, good for the old farts :p

it will be good when we are old farts too though :D
Click to expand...

It'll slow down the rise in the ranks now, but it'll pay off in spades in the long run.

Frankly, it doesn't mean EVERY guy that hits 60 won't retire.. just some of them. I'd bet alot have planned ahead and are gonna hang it up either way.

I think this is a good thing. With the generation gap and all, it keeps those guys with the 30+ years of experience in the cockpit for a bit to teach me a few things before they're gone. Besides, they have some of the best stories to tell.

The really good stuff about this amendment was the language about Collective Bargaining requirements towards CBA amendments and retirements. I think that was long overdue.
 
A minor concern I've had, and someone can probably ease it, comes from the general distrust of management types...

What if adding an extra five years to the time you can retire, in the long run, lowers overall pay per year? With an extra five years of potential income, It seems like another bargaining chip (against pilots) to lower pay over a career. "You'll make up the difference..."

Meh.


OR Airlines will offer good incentives to retire early. That would be great, I don't really want to keep going after 60.
 
Firebird2XC said:
It'll slow down the rise in the ranks now, but it'll pay off in spades in the long run.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily because:

Frankly, it doesn't mean EVERY guy that hits 60 won't retire.. just some of them. I'd bet alot have planned ahead and are gonna hang it up either way.
Click to expand...

As long as contract retirement language is maintained, many will still go at 60. For example, my contract defines "normal retirement" as Age 60 or 30 years service." As long as that language doesn't change, I'm gone at 60. Now if the Company manages to change that to "Regualtory Age or 30 years", then I'll have to stay because 60 would become 5 years "early" retirement. Our pension is penalized 7%+ for every year you go early. Personally, I can't afford a 35% pension cut.

With the generation gap and all, it keeps those guys with the 30+ years of experience in the cockpit for a bit to teach me a few things before they're gone. Besides, they have some of the best stories to tell.
Click to expand...

As long as you're open to the experience. I just had a Retired Marine Colonel as my F/O. He knew everything even though he'd been flying commercially for only a couple years. Actually, it was sort of scary how much he DIDN'T know. And he wasn't receptive to guidance.

The really good stuff about this amendment was the language about Collective Bargaining requirements towards CBA amendments and retirements. I think that was long overdue.
Click to expand...

Amen, bro, A f'n MEN.
 
JDMcFly said:
A minor concern I've had, and someone can probably ease it, comes from the general distrust of management types...

What if adding an extra five years to the time you can retire, in the long run, lowers overall pay per year? With an extra five years of potential income, It seems like another bargaining chip (against pilots) to lower pay over a career. "You'll make up the difference..."

Meh.


OR Airlines will offer good incentives to retire early. That would be great, I don't really want to keep going after 60.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting take considering ALPA was the group that pushed this legislation. I wonder if that would actually affect anything along that line.

Seems to me the driving force behind it was pilots being put to pasture when they felt they still had five more good years in them. I know a gal, her dad flew for American and hit forced retirement a few years ago. She said it was like somebody died. He really hated it.
 
Velocipede said:
Absolutely! It extends the career of everyone who is under Age 60 the day before its enacted. Why don't some of the young pups understand that?
Click to expand...

Because some of the young pups took Econ and Statistics and understand "time value of money"

They recognize if 65 delays their initial hire date, time on reserve as an FO, upgrade, time on reserve as a Capt, they will never get back the money lost.

If you are already a line holder in the left seat at your final airline, your progress to that position was probably significantly influenced by guys ahead of you getting the boot at 60, since they went away you moved up to the left seat. Now you can sit there an extra 5 while those under you wait. A wait (waiting for 65 year old guys to vacate) you did not have.

Not claiming fair or unfair as much in this career is neither. Just the facts. Don't try to sugar coat it for the young pups. This was not a windfall for them but it was for you.
 
This is great news! One thing confuses me, though. The vote was 390-0. Did they think they were voting on the New England Patriots?
 
Look out for those pieces of the sky hitting the ground....

I think I might be one of the few that DOESN'T think this is gonna cause the world to come crashing down and bringing hiring and attrition at the regionals to a screeching halt. It'll help those that had the rug pulled out from under them in bankruptcy court and give them some more $$$ for retirement. But MOST people that had been setting themselves up to retire at 60 (or earlier) will probably still do so. I know I would if I were in that situation.

Now, FedEx might be a unique situation b/c a lot of the FEs might flip back to the left seat. In fact, that's pretty much why the hiring has been nil for the past little while. Management wasn't sure what their hiring needs would be, and they didn't want to get stuck with too many pilots. Once the dust settles from all this, they'll have a better idea of where they stand on staffing, and hiring will move forward again. Once they start hiring again, I think we'll see a huge exodus from the seniority list here in MEM. I know of at LEAST 20 people that are holding out for FedEx so they don't have to commute. More have taken jobs elsewhere at carriers like jetBlue, Delta and Continental to get out, but if FedEx called, they'd drop those and go running.

Like Velo said, it's still gotta get past Bush's red pen, and he's already said it spends too much (ironically). It'll wind up back in Congress for a veto override.
 
As long as contract retirement language is maintained, many will still go at 60. For example, my contract defines "normal retirement" as Age 60 or 30 years service." As long as that language doesn't change, I'm gone at 60. Now if the Company manages to change that to "Regualtory Age or 30 years", then I'll have to stay because 60 would become 5 years "early" retirement. Our pension is penalized 7%+ for every year you go early. Personally, I can't afford a 35% pension cut.
Click to expand...

Which is why I'm agaisnt the extension.

This is primarly a band-aid for the recent pension thefts. A long term "solution" to a temproray problem is never a good idea.

If anyone thinks that the airlines won't use this as a way to get guys out of their full penisons they're dreaming. The above scenario is exactly what's going to happen.

The "extra" five years will help the guys who got raped in their pensions but for everyone else it's just established a systematic in penisons. All they have to do is raise the bard to 65 and watch as a very large percentage of pilots fail to reach that age. There's already a large number that don't make 60.

I just think if you're 60 and you still need to work go to a corporate job.

Just my opinion.


The arguments that it'll hurt hiring are just flat out wrong. Only a handful will make 65 at worst it'll "delay" the big hiring boom by two years. If it's even noticed at all.
 
Well, let's see...390 to zero seems to be a two thirds majority.

Holy cow, you mean Congress might actually override a veto?

What does this mean? Well, it means those mid-life career changers got a gift -- the career may not have been worth it if you're only going to have 15 years of it but it may be worth it if you'll get 20.
 
pilot602 said:
Which is why I'm agaisnt the extension.

This is primarly a band-aid for the recent pension thefts. A long term "solution" to a temproray problem is never a good idea.

If anyone thinks that the airlines won't use this as a way to get guys out of their full penisons they're dreaming. The above scenario is exactly what's going to happen.

The "extra" five years will help the guys who got raped in their pensions but for everyone else it's just established a systematic in penisons. All they have to do is raise the bard to 65 and watch as a very large percentage of pilots fail to reach that age. There's already a large number that don't make 60.
Click to expand...

Man... makes our 401k plan look better every day... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top