Alpa Fdx
05-05-2007, 04:37 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
APAAD reported yesterday: On our last day of the Blitz, May 3rd, the Senate Commerce Committee introduced the FAA Reauthorization Bill, which includes, in Section 706, our complete S.65 language. S.65 is no amendment or attachment; our language is a part of the body of the Reauthorization Bill, a much stronger position. Both Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and ranking
member Trent Lott (R-MS) signed off on our language being in the FAA bill.
member Trent Lott (R-MS) signed off on our language being in the FAA bill.
IMO, forget the NPRM. It will be either congress or lawsuits that get the job done first. The legal fight is proceeding to the U.S. Court of Appeals with multiple actions against the FAA. One of the foremost Constitutional lawyers in America has signed on as lead counsel. It should get more interesting.
05-05-2007, 04:45 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
Do you love flying? Thought I did. Hate all the BS. Hate the thought of 5 more years on the line. The old guys will tell you that I don't have to - but they get 5 more as Captain - I get 5 more as FO. 60 was one of the things that brought me to this career. Hard to believe there are people at Fedex who planned so poorly they want this BENEFIT of the job to go away!
05-05-2007, 04:51 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
By the way, there have been a lot of attacks on Webb. I am not going to attack his character or motive. I am still in the info gathering stage with regards to his communication, though the tone did turn me off.
I also would not quit the union. I am pro-union. But, I am thinking hard about the future of my PAC contributions. Any other thoughts?
I also would not quit the union. I am pro-union. But, I am thinking hard about the future of my PAC contributions. Any other thoughts?
Last edited by fdxflyer; 05-05-2007 at 04:56 PM. Reason: spelling
05-05-2007, 05:27 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FedEx Capt
Posts: 292
By the way, there have been a lot of attacks on Webb. I am not going to attack his character or motive. I am still in the info gathering stage with regards to his communication, though the tone did turn me off.
I also would not quit the union. I am pro-union. But, I am thinking hard about the future of my PAC contributions. Any other thoughts?
I also would not quit the union. I am pro-union. But, I am thinking hard about the future of my PAC contributions. Any other thoughts?
EVERYONE needs to voice their opinion on this matter--I did the survey and will keep voicing my opinion to my Blockrep as long as I need to.
Don't just sit back and hope it all works itself out--we (guys that have 20 years left) will truly be hosed (5 fewer years as Captain, reduced B fund--if we get to keep it--, and forced to work until 65 unless we want to take a penalty for retiring "early").
This is not an ALPA thing, it was started by some Southwest guys that needed to pay for their 5 ex-wives.
ALPA is just trying to play catch up just like the rest of us...
05-05-2007, 06:11 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
The FAA had 16 years prior notice of the recent ICAO change, participated fully in the debate over one pilot to 65, and had 2 full years prior notice of the exact date it would become effective, 23 November 2006. And the Congress had 7 years similar notice.
ICAO responded to a request in 1989 by assigning the task to its Air Navigation Commission as a medical issue, MED 7101, with the Aviation Medicine Section as the responsible agent. The following year (1990), the European Union FCL [Flight Crew Licensing] Sub-Group on Medical Certification also embraced the movement for change, proposing the eventual “one pilot to 65” policy declaring: ...age limit should be 65 for 2-pilot or multicrew operations. [with the other pilot under 60]
In 1994, the UK adopted the “one pilot to 65” rule that had been proposed by the EC/FCL Sub-Group in 1990. The entire European Union’s JAA followed suit in 1996, to become effective in 1999. In that same year, ICAO noted that the 1990 suggestion of “one pilot to 65” policy “may” be appropriate for the world body, but chose to assess the outcome of the EC/JAA’s change first. The modern and concluding ICAO movement began with a new survey in 2003, and by November, 2004, ICAO had settled on the original 1990 UK/EC/JAA formula – one pilot to 65 – and its effective date, to become effective on November 23, 2006.
This gave a full, two year – 24 months – FINAL notice to the US, to ALPA, to APA, to ATA, and to the FAA that the end of “age 60” was both near and inevitable. And that the replacement would be “one pilot to 65,” and that it would occur – to reiterate – on November 23, 2006.
Over ICAO’s entire seventeen year deliberative process (1989 – 2006), the US/FAA was fully involved in all of its deliberations. The relevant ICAO bodies (Air Navigation Commission, Aviation Medicine Section, and ICAO Council and Secretariat) considered, addressed, and rebutted every objection raised by the US/FAA (and ALPA’s international proxy, IFALPA). On March 10, 2006 ICAO formally adopted, over the US/FAA’s recorded “no” vote, the “one pilot to 65” rule, to become effective on, as previously noticed, November 23, 2006.
You can get more complete info here:
http://www.age60rule.com/docs/L-HEAD%20EdComment1.pdf
05-05-2007, 06:21 PM
#96
Thx Age 65
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11CAP
Posts: 1,041
Is anyone else sick of the baby Boomers? First the 60 Vietnam peace movement, than the bankrupting of Social Security, and now this. Is there anything they can't screw up?
05-05-2007, 07:38 PM
#97
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Tool-Box, old man
Posts: 2,205
fbh
05-06-2007, 03:44 AM
#98
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 21
Can anyone explain the requirement to have a co-pilot under 60? If there is no medical difference / threat of being over age 60, then why this discrepancy? Will there be some type of trip rig for elder care?
05-06-2007, 04:18 AM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A300 F/O
Posts: 193
It's not about SAFETY LeadSolo - it's all about DISCRIMINATION - at least that's what the folks in ALPA want you to believe.......
05-06-2007, 04:32 AM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 579
Blakey stated in order to have the same rule as ICAO. ICAO stated it was done to promote unanimity. Medical studies have determined it is unnecessary. CYA in reality, IMO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
