Posted on 11/18/2005 1:35:09 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee today approved a substitute amendment offered by Senator Burns to S. 65, a bill to amend age restrictions for pilots, by voice vote. The bill was introduced by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
Since 1960, federal regulations have specified that individuals age 60 and older may not serve as airline pilots on any commercial flights. The European Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) permits airline pilots to fly up to age 65, but also requires that another pilot on the flight be age 60 or younger. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has proposed adopting a worldwide standard based on the JAA standard.
The Burns substitute directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary to adopt the ICAO standard or recommended practice within 30 days after the ICAO acts on the matter. ICAO is scheduled to consider the measure in November 2006. The DOT is only authorized to adopt the new modification if it is consistent with the previously agreed upon Air Navigation Commission directive which allows commercial carrier pilots-in-command to fly up to their 65th birthday, if the co-pilot is 60 years old or younger.
As in the underlying bill, the Burns substitute allows pilots, who have previously been terminated or had a cessation of employment at a commercial air carrier because of the Age 60 restriction, to seek re-employment at a commercial air carrier. However, pilots cannot file suit to gain re-employment and cannot file suit to reclaim seniority under any labor agreement in effect between a recognized bargaining unit for pilots and an air carrier engaged in commercial operations.
The substitute requires the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to submit a report to both Senate and House authorizing committees of jurisdiction concerning the effects, if any, the age modification change has on aviation safety.
The bill now proceeds to the full Senate for its consideration.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
SCORE ONE FOR THE OLD PHARTS!
Heck, let's hit the other list, too.
Common sense scores again!
Give me age and experience any day. I get nervous seeing some of the children that are in the front seat nowadays. Not to disparage young pilots. One of the best pilots I ever trained under was over 70.
I've never understood why 60 was the limit. Better medical screenings should be in place instead.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
}:-)4
You can thank Elwood Quesada (appointed to the FAA by Eisenhower) for the rule. He was basically the J. Edgar Hoover of the FAA and no one following him has wanted to challenge many of his policies.
Which? The regulation or the repeal of the regulation.
The repeal seems logical. With medicine nowadays, 60's no longer the barrier it once was.
}:-)4
The Airforce allowed Robert Scott (God is my Co-pilot) to fly a single seat F16 at the age of 82.
Even more when you read things like this.
Delta Increasing Cockpit Diversity By Training Pilots for Free
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a6ee7ae76dd.htm
ALPA was against it after taking a big poll of its members. I think it was 54-46, percentage-wise.
The age 60 retirement was great as long as the pensions were generous. Now that many of the airlines are reneging on their pension commitments and dumping on the taxpayers, retiring at 60 isn't the good deal it once was.
From an emotional point of view I think most pilots would love to fly past 60, but why would you want to work for your retirement (predicated on getting paid a reasonably good retirement)? Put another way, if you would've made 75,000 as a retiree after 60, then if you work to 65 then aren't you giving them the first 75,000 of your labor for free for that last five-year period?
I know several geologists in their eighties who still work.
Do you know any geologists that have to pass an FAA class 1 medical? ;)
ALPA's take on the vote is below (seems fairly neutral). It doesn't seem right or economical to the company for an airline captain pilot that retired at 60 the day before the legislation goes into effect not to be put right back into the captain's seat-- but apparently has to be re-hired at the bottom of the seniority list, unless there's a clause in their contract (and there aren't yet for obvious reasons).
U.S. Senate Committee Votes to Raise Airline Pilots’ Retirement Age Legislation Now Awaits Consideration by Full U.S. Senate:
In an unrecorded voice vote, the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee passed legislation on November 17 that is designed to establish an upper age limit of 65 for airline pilots in multi-crew operations. If passed by the fall Senate and the House, the legislation would become effective within 30 days after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) adopts this standard, which is likely to take place in November 2006.
Under this legislation, a pilot could fly to age 65 in FAA Part 121 operations of Title 14 as a required pilot only in multi-crew aircraft operations, and only when another pilot serving as a required pilot has not yet attained his or her 60th birthday. This legislation would allow a pilot who is retired and between the ages of 60 and 65 to be re-hired, but it would not allow him or her to sue to gain re-employment. The legislation would not provide the basis for a claim of seniority under any labor agreement, and a pilot could not sue to regain seniority. Twenty-four months after the legislation is implemented, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) would be required to submit a report to the Senate Commerce Committee concerning the effect of this change on aviation safety.
This legislation now awaits consideration and a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which is unlikely to take place until the first half of 2006. No hearings or votes on the upper age limit in the U.S. House of Representatives have been held during 2005.
And your opinion is????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.