Congress passes age 65 legislation Dec 11th
- Thread starter CaptBill
- Start date
aloft
New Member
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Every rule change screws someone... life's rough, get over it.. etc. etc.
I think 9 out of 10 people still won't go all the way to 65 for one reason or another. I doubt this will have much effect on anything beyond the first couple of years... except those guys that lost their pensions and now only have a couple more years to go will get a few more years to pick up the pieces... I can see merit in that.
I think 9 out of 10 people still won't go all the way to 65 for one reason or another. I doubt this will have much effect on anything beyond the first couple of years... except those guys that lost their pensions and now only have a couple more years to go will get a few more years to pick up the pieces... I can see merit in that.
Because even though I think Gulfstream, GoJets and some of those F-tards at Mesa Air Group that threaten former employees with lawsuits for speaking their mind deserve to be sitting there half-naked with a towel alongside Chris Hansen on "To Catch A Predator", we're still products of pilot mills.
Angry products of pilot mills, fighting the system, but it's all about education, yes?
Angry products of pilot mills, fighting the system, but it's all about education, yes?
jon applespeed
New Member
When getting a class 1 medical at ages 32, 33, and 34, you can hold the cup at arm's length when you have to pee.
At ages 60, 61, and 62, you must stand over the top of the cup when you pee.
And in morse code...:cwm27:
dot, dash dash dot
dot
dot
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Rage Against the Machine, Dough!
Velocipede
New Member
Nope. They'd have to come back as newhire F/Os. The law specificly precludes them from sueing to regain their seniority. The only ones who could would be "herpes" F/Es who remained on their Company's seniority list. That would, most likely, have the greatest effect on companies like FedEx and UPS.
P.S. I second what CalCapt said a number of posts ago. As the old joke goes: "You know how to tell when a pilot is lying?"
"His lips are moving."
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Actually, ALPA was AGAINST the age 65 rule until they polled their membership. A majority of the people that responded to the poll were in favor of changing the rule, so ALPA changed their stance. Keep in mind that it's a majority if the people that RESPONDED. It's very possible that most ALPA members are against the rule changed, but for some reason or another decided not to take 4 minutes to do a poll on the ALPA website.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Exactly. It was basically a push-poll. Provide a faulty premise and you can get people answer things in pretty much any way you want, then you can manipulate the data that was collected. The simple question of "do you want ALPA to change its policy on the age 60 rule" had a significant majority opposed to change.
ready2fly
Well-Known Member
Good point. The proof is in the pudding....or so to speak.
Milesar
Well-Known Member
Here's a 1 page document from the FAA outlining some of the specifics that are now in effect.
View attachment info07021.pdf
View attachment info07021.pdf
flyover
New Member
What exactly was the false premise? This legislation was clearly gaining momentum and was likely going to pass with or without ALPA.
BTW in my opinion all this polling and the move to make ALPA a democracy has eroded it's effectiveness. It's a weak way to govern anything.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The false premise was that the age change was going to come anyway. Would it come eventually? Probably, but without ALPA's support, it likely would have taken years longer. Notice that this legislation was introduced by Rep. James Oberstar, who just so happens to be ALPA's best friend on the Hill. Oberstar doesn't address pilot issues without guidance from ALPA, and as the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he has been the one to hold this issue up all year. Now all of a sudden he changes his mind and not only supports it, but introduces it himself? Honestly, no thinking person can truly believe that this wasn't Prater working behind the scenes to push Oberstar into this. Welcome to the world of politics. If Duane Woerth were still in office, as an opponent of changing the rule, he would have certainly stopped Oberstar from moving forward on this issue.
Yeah, you're right. Ruling with an iron fist and telling your constituents "up yours" is a great way to govern.
ready2fly
Well-Known Member
Works for Eagle MEC. Can't tell you how many times we "constituents" have been bent over by our own representatives who, in the end, were trying to make the mother ship (AMR/AA) happy so that their "flow through" would be solidified.Yeah, you're right. Ruling with an iron fist and telling your constituents "up yours" is a great way to govern.
Niuflyer22
Well-Known Member
How does everybody think this is going to affect the regional hiring boom that is going on right now? I know that there will be probably be some hiring slowdown at the majors, do you think that it will trickle down to the regional level?
WestIndian425
Well-Known Member
Well there have been some retooling and expansions at the airlines anyway, so there'll still be some hiring, I think, and as mentioned earlier, not everyone will stay till 65.
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
Mesa is hiring people over the phone, sight unseen, and can't get enough people to fly their planes, let alone show up for training.
Same with Eagle and many other outfits sans hiring over the phone.
The "shortage" at the regionals will continue until pay goes up. And with age 65 there it could just mean that you'll be in the right or left seat of that CL65 or EMB-145-175 all that much longer.
Velocipede
New Member
False premise? Hardly? Haven't you heard of the the Supremacy Clause?
SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
What that means is on November 25 when foreign pilots were allowed to fly into the US under the ICAO treaty, Congress was essentially forced to adapt US law to conform to the ICAO treaty OR abandon it. No ICAO treaty, no flag flying for US airlines.
In fact, it was a done deal ALPA or individual pilot opinions notwithstanding.
SUPREMACY CLAUSE - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2
What that means is on November 25 when foreign pilots were allowed to fly into the US under the ICAO treaty, Congress was essentially forced to adapt US law to conform to the ICAO treaty OR abandon it. No ICAO treaty, no flag flying for US airlines.
In fact, it was a done deal ALPA or individual pilot opinions notwithstanding.
Bumblebee
Commodore
That makes sense. The old geezers were the framers of the Constitution!