View Full Version : Age 60 and the new Home Land Security Bill?

Flying Guy
20th Nov 2002, 02:24
The Homeland Security Bill just passed the US Senate. Anybody know if Senator Murkowski's bill 361 was included? If so, the mandatory retirement age for pilots in the US is increased to 62.

That would be huge for me!

20th Nov 2002, 04:26
Hello Flying Guy,

Immunity for big business was left in there but the lobbyists made sure that Senator Murkowski's Amendment was removed.......

Too many of them and too few of us.

It's Rumor Control Friday. Gene Harmer wants to know where the
Age 60 debate is in the new political arena. Gene, we just learned
that a controversial amendment introduced by Alaska Senator Frank
Murkowski to raise the retirement age for pilots has been removed
from the Homeland Security Bill. House leaders refused to include
the measure in a revised version of the bill now headed to the
Senate. Senator Murkowski, who is leaving the Senate to become
Governor of Alaska, attached the amendment to the original Homeland
Security Bill in the Senate. CAPA Executive Director Mike Cronin
has been following the bill...

{CRONIN:} There was some movement earlier this year to introduce
legislation changing the age 60 rule and because of the way the
Homeland Security Act was structured and the way it passed all
of the movement to attach an age 60 rider to the bill was rejected
by the House leadership so that did not make it into the legislation.

{ERIC:} The Senate will tackle the compromise Homeland Security
Bill next week and Washington lobbyist Susan Williams tells IPNN
it is unlikely the Senate would try to reattach such a controversial
amendment. We can tell you that Republican Senator John McCain,
who will chair the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportatio
Committee supports raising the pilot retirement age to 63, so
that issue could emerge during the next session. We'll of course
keep you posted.

Flying Guy
20th Nov 2002, 04:39
Well, that is really disappointing. All those young guns in ALPA will get "there" some day and many will change their tune. Wish I could be around to poke my finger in their eye then.

Flying Guy

20th Nov 2002, 04:55
The Retirement age in the Air Force was 55 for the longest time. If you know that your have to retire at 60 then shouldn't you just plan accordingly? If I have to retire at 60 then so be it and I will enjoy my retirement.
This is not saying that over 60 you become a hazard but the potential for unexpected health problems increases. It has more to do with public perception than anything else.

Anthony Carn
20th Nov 2002, 07:14
I understand that the law can't be applied in retrospect; To do so would be unfair. A very sensible principle -- don't apply things in retrospect when it's UNFAIR !

So how come pensions are'nt protected in the same way ?

Pension planning is long term and not a subject which lends itself to moving goalposts.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

20th Nov 2002, 07:28
I planned to work for several airlines that went broke.
I planned to get divorced at least once.
I planned to have kids and pay for their education.
I planned to have a personal pension fund that is worthless.
I planned to be able to retire at 65 in comfort.
I'm planning to be a burden on the state for years after 60.
Who is going to pay for that?
You...and you will be in event worse shape at 60.
People are living longer and the workforce is shrinking.

20th Nov 2002, 08:58
saudipc-9 In the UK the retirement age was 65 and was arbitarlily changed to 60 sometime in the '80s, it is now back to 65 but that doesn't really help when France, Italy, India and the USA still keep it at 60, including overflying. When many of us started our careers we planned for 65, as was reasonable.

As a recent letter to 'Flight International' by Dr. Ian Perry, a specialist in aviation medicine, said, there is no medical justification for stopping pilots at the age of 60, in fact he, (who did a study on pilots aged over 60), went on to say that realistically, from the evidence gathered from the health point of view, pilots could go to the age of seventy.

20th Nov 2002, 19:28
I'm relieved that the attempts to bootstrap S.361 on Homeland Security have come to naught. At best, it was a cynical and selfish play.

Respecting the right to work of those being furloughed, and holding in abeyance the right to work claims of those being retired can better serve the “cause”. Those who can afford to do so should retire gracefully in the knowledge that they have received their allotment and perhaps are keeping someone off the street.

Things will turn around, and when they do, pursue the discrimination issue without the additional burden of the greed issue.

The goal is good, but the timing is terrible.


20th Nov 2002, 20:36
Age 60 and the new Home Land Security Bill?

Did the rider with the flying past age sixty make it through with the Home Land Security Bill? If so do you know where it is. Yes I am a FLAP, and an old guy;-*))

20th Nov 2002, 21:31
Does the age limitation apply to hijackers?

Few Cloudy
21st Nov 2002, 16:22
Sure does,

If you haven't made Martyr by 60, you are a psss poor hijacker these days.

21st Nov 2002, 18:18
Amen, Podknocker. Those of us who have seen all our hard thought "Plans" destroyed by a series of incompetent Airline managers, economic disasters and ever increasing taxes, school costs etc. salute you. If everything I planned on had worked out, I would have been able to retire at 60 with no problem, but as it stands now, I will have to work to AT LEAST 65. I hope I'm still alive when the whinging young things who are dead set against us old guys feeding our families find out that their Social security and pension benefits add up to a big fat zero.

21st Nov 2002, 19:09

Back in the old days - well, about 20+ years ago, - come to think of it we may even be going back to the 60s, the age limit for a UK ATPL holder was 65 with the rider that if over 60 you were restricted to flying aircraft of 20,000kgs MTOW.

Along comes JAA with all sorts of ideas on harmonisation of the rules. The CAA in their infinite wisdom, decided to show the world what good europeans we were and start the ball rolling by announcing that they were scrapping the 20K limit unless you held an "as or with co-pilot medical restriction"

Unfortunately somebody included in the small print that it was each individual pilot's responsibility to seek permission to land/overfly as required. After a bit of a hue and cry by the pilots concerned, the CAA decided to be good guys and write to all ICAO countries and ask for block permission for UK over 60s to land/overfly etc. With hindsight this was a gross error!

Prior to the introduction of JAA, pilots over 60 (from all countries who allowed their pilots to fly to 65) used to blithley fly everywhere quite oblivious to the fact that they should always have been seeking permission!

In most countries even their authorities hadn't given it a thought.
Then the CAA request for blanket clearance fell on their proverbial doorsteps. Can our chaps overfly your patch? Er, NO (especially if they were a country who pulled the plug on their own guys at 60 or less).

Why should we give something to you feelthy Brits!

21st Nov 2002, 21:20
Bof - I seem to remember that one either had to go to an aircraft of 20K or less, as a captain, or one could move to the RHS of any size of aircraft? This meant one could stay employed by the same company at the top of the F/O payscale, etc. it being generally felt even then that raising the unrestricted age to 65 was only just around the corner, so the careers of the younger folk would not be adversely effected. I certainly planned on a retirement age of 65, not 60.:(

22nd Nov 2002, 20:15

Fairly close. Most of the bigger UK airlines had retirement ages of 60 (55 in the case of BA ). So when you hit the button you were out no matter what seat you were in. Purely contractual matter and nothing to do with flying legislation. Your Company pension was triggered at 60. (Also dare I say cheaper to replace you at 60 with a first year Capt or F/O).

So some of the smaller airlines had no upper age limit to their contract which allowed them to take on guys over 60. With the removal of the 20K limit, pilots began to see openings for high experience guys in those companies that had no upper limit on age and/or were willing to take on people on short term contracts. They obviously had to have the flexibility in their operation to roster over 60s in UK or avoiding France, Spain and Italy etc.

The attitude of airlines towards the over 60s is now fairly ambivalent. Obviously the majors don't take them, but one or two take a few and most of the smaller carriers have a small number. Clearly the RHS is an easier option. Generally you will start a new contract on "starter" rates.

You need to be careful. If a company decides to give you the heave-ho don't rely on employment law to keep you going. There have been several cases where an Employment Tribunal has found in favour of the company on the grounds that the individual was beyond the normal retirement age of the company.

24th Nov 2002, 04:42
Soon-to-be-retirees had better watch out! As some of the TWA guys retired, their wives of 30 years or more would dump them as soon as they returned from their last trip. Thus, they got half of the lump sum and medical, etc.

Better get the 'Troy-built' warmed up!:D ;) TC

25th Nov 2002, 19:28
Apologies to the guys in the States as we seem to have moved off the original thread, however:-

Could someone confirm if the following interpretation of what I think I have seen here is currently correct:-

Technically, under JAA we can now fly LHS on any size aircraft.

France and one or two others will not let this happen, either for a destination or for overflying. If this is correct will they let you fly overfly or land when flying a smaller aircraft (either LHS or RHS)?

Buster Hyman
25th Nov 2002, 22:12
Does anyone else have concerns about bringing the entire US security & intelligence services under one umbrella? Does the idea of one elected official, who doesn't seem to endure the scrutiny that the President does, having control over all of this ring any bells for anyone else?

Alternatively, have I been reading too much into the questions about flight 77?:(

26th Nov 2002, 23:25
Right Bank

Any size of aircraft - In those specific countries, RHS only and not in command. As far as France, Spain and Italy are concerned the excuse is to do with their national retirement age and pensions.

What the hell that has to do with foreigners, I have never been able to fathom. Guess they all suffer from "dogs in mangers" syndrome.

27th Nov 2002, 14:46
Bewildering. So what exactly does the retirement age of pilots have to do with internal security? I didn't know the concept could be stretched quite that far....isn't this a bit random? Can someone explain? I can't really see someone in the House of Commons trying to get a bill on - say - road safety into the text of - say - the budget...