Final Issue

President's Message

With this issue, the PPF will cease operations. Our bills are paid. The costs of printing and mailing this newsletter will be one of the final expenses. Our CPA will do the IRS paperwork and after her payment, the last check written will be to Lifeline Pilots, a volunteer charity that facilitates transportation for on-going medical treatments, diagnosis and follow-up care through pilot donation of flight expenses and time. Pilots can also choose to assist passengers with humanitarian situations. That donation should be approximately $20,000. It was the original BOD’s decision to give any leftover funds to an aviation related charity, and that is what we will do.

I personally want to thank all of our members for sustaining 16.5 years of fighting the government over the Age 60 Rule. Special thanks to all the retired members who chose to stay on board despite the fact that any change would pass them by. Some of our original members (1991) stayed until the present. With their belief that the Rule was wrong, they financed the lawsuits and legislative battles that finally brought change.

Lastly, I want to thank all the pilots that served in BOD positions throughout the years. We’ve had several compete changes over time, and with rare exception, all worked harmoniously and diligently for change to the Rule. Each and every member paid their own travel expenses, hotel and food bills. Not one was ever paid or reimbursed for their time and efforts. None could have expected more.

The decision to dissolve the PPF comes at a time when lawsuits are blossoming over the injustice done to pilots between ages 60 and 65. The Senior Pilots Coalition (SPC) is filing another suit asking that the recent change to age 65 be declared null and void. This action is based on the furor over pilots just above age 60 not being given their seniority for rehiring, immunity for airlines and unions, and the voiding of contractual language protecting pilots rights.

What a stew the politicians have brewed this time. Trying to cure one 47 year old travesty with another.

There are two sides to every story, and another organization that sided with ALPA and some airlines by endorsing the current legislation has already attacked the SPC for not accepting the status quo. They expect, assuming the SPC wins, firing of those pilots who just came in under the date of the new legislation.

Congress rarely, if ever, admits their mistakes, and I would guess they won’t this time. Rather there may be an amendment of some sort allowing some pilots retroactivity, in return for retaining amnesty for airlines and unions.

As in every other lawsuit, this could take years, and by then who knows what the airlines/pilots/unions will look like.

All this could have been avoided if, as I was told by a high FAA official many years ago, that this Rule has been a pain in the a** since it started. The FAA would like it to change. All they want to do is change 60 to 65 in the regulation. However, he stated that it would never be pushed up from the bottom by an organization like the PPF, but had to be pulled up from the top by the courts, the congress or the administration.

So be it.

We’ll watch from the sidelines.

Bert Yetman

 

Conditional Victory

IT’S OVER! The 47 year old Age 60 Rule is now the Age 65 Rule!!!

On December 13, 2007, President Bush placed his signature on H.R.4343, a.k.a. the “Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act”. This act went into effect immediately.

The entire process was totally unexpected and came as a surprise, although we know that congress has ways of doing things secretly or hurriedly.

Here’s what happened. Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, removed our bill from the FAA Reauthorization Bill which has been passed on to next years congress. A new number, HR 4343 was assigned and this stand alone bill was passed by the House 390-0. It was immediately shuttled to the Senate and put on “Hotline” status. That means that each Senator has one hour from the announcement of Hotline status to object. Objections are sent to either the Democrat Cloakroom or the Republican Cloakroom (don’t ask me why they call it that). If there are no objections, the resolution, word for word, passes by Unanimous Decision. No vote.
H.R.4343 was immediately sent to the White House for the Presidents signature. As it was a no-cost item, he signed it without comment.

I’ve heard that pilots with imminent birthdays traded flights to get airborne quickly, as if the Rule might get recalled.

H.R. 4343, as signed by the President appears on the following pages.

Now I want to announce that the PPF’s work is done. Since our inception our job was to “amend or eliminate” the Age 60 Rule. That, at last, has happened.

We realize that lawsuits are ongoing and that justice was not done for everyone. Pilots retiring one day before the signing are not allowed to keep their seniority and, if possible, may be hired anew by an airline. The process will be left to each airline.

In the last few months we joined forces with the Senior Pilots Coalition in an effort to have any age 65 bill dated back to the ICAO change to 65, November 23, 2006. That didn’t happen.

Invariably, when pilots oppose the airlines and unions, the pilots get shortchanged. Money is the primary stimulator for congress, and the airlines and unions have more than we do.

Our suggestion for pilots caught by circumstance and forced to retire early, would be to join the Senior Pilots Coalition: www.seniorpilotscoalition.org or a class action suit at: http://www.age60cap.com.
Possibly both.

Other suits will surely surface in short order. The EEOC may emerge with an age discrimination suit. We’ll see.

In any event, I have asked the PPF BOD for their opinions on closing down the PPF and suggestions on disposing of our treasury. Our original decree, in 1991, was to give the money to an aviation charity.
 

Any PPF member that has paid dues on an annual basis may apply for the remainder to be returned. Please write to me directly at the address on the masthead. After 30 days we will settle all debts and publish our final (Feb.) newsletter.
Until then,

Bert Yetman

 

Press Release
Source: White House Press Office 

Statement by the Press Secretary
Thursday December 13, 9:33 pm ET  WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On Thursday, December 13, 2007, the President signed into law: H.R. 4343, the “Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act,” which raises the mandatory retirement age from 60 years to 65 years for pilots serving on commercial passenger flights within the United States.
 

Well, its overload time in congress again. Congress typically puts off legislation and budget authorizations until the last part of the year. By then the workload is so overwhelming that they just don’t get it done. And they can’t possibly get it done until after December 4, when they return from their Thanksgiving break.

We are caught in the middle of that quagmire. There is, of course, always a chance, but my guess would be that congress will transfer our legislative relief on to next year. At least we won’t have to start over, as the congress will be in its second year and retain their status as the 110th Congress.

Congressman Oberstar (D-MN) Chairman of the House Transportation Committee refuses to consider any language for a bill, other than ALPA language. That means giving immunity for grievances against the Age 60 Rule, to include ALPA, the airlines and the FAA.

The THUD bill (T=Transportation) has passed the House, but has not yet been considered by the Senate. The Senate could examine the bill in December, but my opinion on passage is...no.

How the House can pass a bill authorizing immunity to ALPA, airlines and the FAA can follow on the heels of passing a bill denying immunity for telecom companies involved in wiretapping and sharing the information with government agencies, is a mystery. One or the other will not stand up in court.
The House knows that, but their action will pass the buck to the courts.

Well, Marion Blakey is gone now. Off to the business world, leaving the mess, called the FAA, to Mr. Bobby Sturgell (President Bush’s nominee), an ex-naval aviator and airline pilot. He could speed up the change to age 65, but probably won’t. In any case he would have to go through Mary Peters at the DOT. Twice before, I recall FAA Administrators querying DOT about a possible change to the “rule”. Both times the Administrator was rebuffed.
Of course, if the FAA made the change, it would eliminate any immunity, as they have no powers of legislation.

This Veterans Day, November 11, flyers (excuse the expression) were passed out at the veterans memorial in Washington, D.C. to the thousands attending. The flyer is reproduced on page 3.

All you veterans, and friends of veterans, mark December 4 on your calendar and call your Representative and Senators after that date, reminding them of our situation and requesting they only pass legislation withholding immunity and prospective only clauses. Equity for veterans dating back to the ICAO change to 65...November 23, 2006. Or, call them earlier in their home districts.

The airline business is really weird. Oil prices are skyrocketing, which will raise ticket prices, while new planes are selling at record rates. The Dubai airshow announced sales of 150 billion dollars for aircraft, mostly airliners. That’s over 400 aircraft. As the ticket prices climb, I foresee fewer people willing to put out the ticket money, hence fewer full planes and predictable cutbacks at the airlines. Maybe I’m wrong.

Bert Yetman

 

Self Explanatory, Not Voted Upon

*SA 2845. Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. INOUYE, and Mr. INHOFE) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3074, making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes; as follows:*

On page 16, beginning with line 8, strike through line 2 on page 18, and
insert the following:

*SEC. 115. MULTICREW COVERED OPERATIONS SERVICE BY OLDER PILOTS.*

(a) *IN GENERAL.--*Chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:``º44729. Age standards
for pilots

``(a) *IN GENERAL.--*Subject to the limitation in subsection (c), a
pilot may serve in multicrew covered operations until attaining 65 years of
age.

``(b) *COVERED OPERATIONS DEFINED.--*In this section, the term `covered
operations' means operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations.

``(c) *LIMITATION FOR INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS.--*

``(1) *APPLICABILITY OF ICAO STANDARD.--*A pilot who has attained 60
years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in covered operations between the
United States and another country only if there is another pilot in the
flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

``(2) *SUNSET OF LIMITATION.--*Paragraph (1) shall cease to be effective
on such date as the Convention on International Civil Aviation provides that
a pilot who has attained 60 years of age may serve as pilot-in-command in
international commercial operations without regard to whether there is
another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not attained age 60.

``(d) *SUNSET OF AGE-60 RETIREMENT RULE.--*On and after the date of
enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations, shall cease to be effective.

``(e) *APPLICABILITY.--*

``(1) *NONRETROACTIVITY.--*No person who has attained 60 years of age
before the date of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 may serve as a
pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations unless--

``(A) such person is in the employment of that air carrier in such
operations on such date of enactment as a required flight deck crew member;
or

``(B) such person is newly hired by an air carrier as a pilot on or
after such date of enactment without credit for prior seniority or prior
longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to
the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the
air carrier.

``(2) *PROTECTION FOR COMPLIANCE.--*An action taken in conformance with
this section, taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out
this section, or taken prior to the date of enactment of the Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect before such date of enactment), may not serve as a
basis for liability or relief in a proceeding, brought under any employment
law or regulation, before any court or agency of the United States or of any
State or locality.

``(f) *AMENDMENTS TO LABOR AGREEMENTS AND BENEFIT PLANS.--*Any amendment
to a labor agreement or benefit plan of an air carrier that is required to
conform with the requirements of this section or a regulation issued to
carry out this section, and is applicable to pilots represented for
collective bargaining, shall be made by agreement of the air carrier and the
designated bargaining representative of the pilots of the air carrier.

``(g) *MEDICAL STANDARDS AND RECORDS.--*

``(1) *MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS AND STANDARDS.--*Except as provided by
paragraph (2), a person serving as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in
covered operations shall not be subject to different medical standards, or
different, greater, or more frequent medical examinations, on account of age
unless the Secretary determines (based on data received or studies published
after the date of enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008) that different
medical standards, or different, greater, or more frequent medical
examinations, are needed to ensure an adequate level of safety in flight.

``(2) *DURATION OF FIRST-CLASS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE.--*No person who has
attained 60 years of age may serve as a pilot of an air carrier engaged in
covered operations unless the person has a first-class medical certificate.
Such a certificate shall expire on the last day of the 6-month period
following the date of examination shown on the certificate.

``(h) *SAFETY.--*

``(1) *TRAINING.--*Each air carrier engaged in covered operations shall
continue to use pilot training and qualification programs approved by the
Federal Aviation Administration, with specific emphasis on initial and
recurrent training and qualification of pilots who have attained 60 years of
age, to ensure continued acceptable levels of pilot skill and judgment.

``(2) *LINE EVALUATIONS.--*Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, and every 6 months thereafter, an air
carrier engaged in covered operations shall evaluate the performance of each
pilot of the air carrier who has attained 60 years of age through a line
check of such pilot. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, an air carrier
shall not be required to conduct for a 6-month period a line check under
this paragraph of a pilot serving as second-in-command if the pilot has
undergone a regularly scheduled simulator evaluation during that period.

``(3) *GAO REPORT.--*Not later than 24 months after the date of
enactment of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, the Comptroller General shall submit to
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate a report concerning the effect, if any, on aviation safety of
the modification to pilot age standards made by subsection (a).''.

(b) *CLERICAL AMENDMENT.--*The chapter analysis for chapter 447 of title
49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``44729. Age standards for pilots''.

Click the Image Below for a PDF version of the flyer:

Whatever chance we had on the hill seemed to evaporate, at least for the remainder of this year. It looks like minor issues, of which we are one, will be put on a C.R. (Continuing Resolution) possibly extending into next year. A C.R. allows current financing to continue until congress gets around to deciding the issue. Of course our elected officials are always full of surprises and something may yet happen.

Only a PAC contributing ALPA member would fail to realize that congress is waiting for the court or FAA to do the job, while the FAA is waiting for congress or the court to alter the Rule, and, of course, the court may be waiting for either congress or the FAA to rule one way or the other.

We at the PPF have seen this scenario a number of times over the years, while continually hopeful that the “next time” will be different.

While our lawsuits were pending, our lawyers advised us not to lobby congress, for a bills introduction would encourage the court to delay pending the bills outcome. After all, the court interprets the law while congress makes the law.

This time we hoped things would be different. The pressure of ICAO changing the Rule for 189 plus countries certainly is motivation for the USA to get aboard the bandwagon. Unfortunately, the choice of how to get aboard that bandwagon muddies the issue.

-------------------------

A PPF member is recommending membership in the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). That organization is actively supporting flying to age 65. VVA has requested their state organizations contact congressional representatives specifically on our issue. The VVA not only works with vets from the Vietnam era, but also veterans throughout the present Gulf War. VVA is presently seeking a couple of DC or Maryland based Vietnam era helicopter pilots to ride the VVA UH-1 float in the DC parade celebrating dedication of “The Wall”, Saturday, November 10, 2007. Call 1-877-727-2333 to help out.

-------------------------

Meanwhile, our Canadian friends who filed against Air Canada for forcing their retirement at age 60, have filed an application for review and are awaiting the outcome. Their request states:

“The Application seeks review of both parts of the Decision, namely the 15.1(c) part, and the Charter challenge. In both sections, we allege that the Tribunal made several errors of law and abuses of jurisdiction, including failure to properly consider the evidence before it, taking into consideration irrelevant factors (including accepting as fact propositions of witnesses and counsel that were little more than mere speculation), and fettering of its own discretion. We took serious issue with the designation of the chosen "comparator group," given that it excluded all other Canadian pilots groups and given that the group selected included many pilot groups from countries that have wholly different legal regimes, labour relations regimes, and human rights protection and records.”

Their protest apparently achieved victory for Air Canada pilots to continue to age 65, but restricted the two pilots who brought the case forward, hence the requested review.

-----------------------
 

While several of our members having been “bureaucratically superannuated” by the FAA, have taken flying jobs in India, there seems to be a storm brewing over their licenses. Story on page 2.

-----------------------

SPC/PPF continues to run ads in the “Roll Call -The Newspaper of Capitol Hill Since 1955”. The latest is on page 3.

Bert Yetman
 

October 11, 2007
India stops licenses to US pilots over 60

Domestic airlines operating Boeing planes such as Air India, Air India Express, SpiceJet and Jet Airways are going to be the ones most affected
P.R. Sanjai

Mumbai: The civil aviation regulator has stopped issuing licences to American pilots who are above 60 years of age, to fly planes within India, in a move that could significantly impact domestic airlines that are already facing acute pilot shortages. The regulator, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), cited the current US rules that don’t allow pilots to fly after the age of 60 for its decision, even though the US has said it will change its rules within two years.

An Indian pilot is typically allowed to fly up to 65 years, subject to certain conditions.
“If America is not allowing a pilot to fly after the age of 60 in their country, how can I give a license to these pilots to fly in India?” asks Kanu Gohain, director general of civil aviation, the regulator of civil aviation. “The mother license issued by the mother state (US) itself is not allowing pilots after 60. Who am I to change that in India?”

“At least, 30 applications for US pilots from various airlines are pending before the Indian regulator. At present, there are nearly 100 such pilots flying in India,” says a person familiar with the development, but who didn’t want to be identified.

US pilots who work for foreign airlines are currently allowed to fly into and out of the US until they turn 65

This person said airline representatives are meeting with the ministry of civil aviation later this month to try and resolve the issue. There are approximately 560 foreign pilots working in India currently. The ratio between Indian and foreign pilots is 6:1.

Indian airlines are getting young pilots as a result of their own training programmes, but India already requires some 1,000 additional pilots, including 600 captains, or more experienced pilots, as domestic carriers add more planes to their fleets. And the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, a consulting firm, estimates that the country will require around 3,000 additional pilots in the next five years.

Domestic airlines operating Boeing planes such as Air India, Air India Express, SpiceJet and Jet Airways are going to be the ones most affected as many of these relatively older American pilots were primarily flying such jets.

Gohain did admit that the Indian government is aware of the US regulator, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) plans to change the rules. “We are waiting and watching FAA’s move. We will take a decision according to the US regulator,” he said.

The FAA chief had said in January that the increased age limit would take two years to come into effect.
US pilots who work for foreign airlines are currently allowed to fly into and out of the US until they turn 65.
A senior executive of one of India’s premium airlines said it was a matter of experience. “A pilot cannot be unfit to fly after 60,” he said. “We understand the safety is of paramount importance. But seniors bring in wealth of experience,” he added.

“US pilots are a good source for us. Stopping the issuance of license to them will shoot up cost of hiring for airlines. Now, these pilots are trying to secure a license from countries such as Australia and Canada,” said Siddhanta Sharma, executive chairman of New Delhi-based low fare carrier SpiceJet.

Indian carriers are allowed to bring expatriate pilots subject to plans that show how they will train Indian pilots to replace the expats within a given period of time.

However, Indian pilots say there are double standards already at play.
“While Indian pilots above 60 are asked to do strict and ridiculous medical examinations, American pilots are not even asked to appear for any such tests,” claims a senior pilot who commands a widebody plane with a state-run airline.

http://www.livemint.com/2007/10/11001520/India-stops-licences-to-US-pil.html

Click Here for the Page 3 Safety Bulletin PDF

President Bush has threatened to veto this bill if the final cost doesn’t fall within the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) guideline.

Educated guesses of people in the know believe that conferencing will take place soon.

The Press Release from Senator Steven's office is on page 2.

In the House, Representative Oberstar (D-Minnesota), Chairman of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee had his language inserted into the bill, as Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) had done in the Senate. We feel this language was influenced by ALPA and the FAA.
The Senior Pilots Coalition (SPC) and PPF have been lobbying congress, mostly in the House, in favor of amending the language to grant equity to our pilots, in line with those conforming to ICAO. In other words, allow our pilots grounded after November 23, 2006, the date of ICAO change, to return to their former positions. We will soon see if our efforts can overcome the forces of ALPA ($$$) and/or the FAA, to do the right thing.

Page 3 shows a copy of a full page ad appearing in Roll Call, an influential Washington daily circulated within congress and sold on the street. This ad will run for 10 days. A follow on is being framed.

Until last week APAAD had agreed with ALPA and the airlines that any change should be prospective. No pilot should return to the cockpit once retired. That was their chosen commitment when they signed the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommendations. On September 5, 2007, APAAD sent a letter to Marion Blakey, outgoing FAA Administrator requesting immediate waivers for all pilots being forced to retire. A 180 degree turn.

This turnaround was supposedly based on a response from the FAA to a request for a proposed timeline for a rule change NPRM. (follows)
“As the Administrator announced, we began work on this rule earlier this year. The substance of the NPRM is drafted and we are in the process of completing the economic analysis. When that’s complete it will go through FAA executive review. We’re working to get i t out of the FAA by mid-September--but that’s going to be a real push. Then it will go to the Office of the Secretary and then to OMB--which takes a minimum of 4 months.
”So we should have the NPRM published by sometime early next year. Following the comment period it will take 12 to 18 months to complete the final rule. We have denied all requests for exemptions because it’s not appropriate to do exemptions when we’re going through general rulemaking. We realize that folks are being impacted by the rule every day--and we are working to get the rule out as quickly as the process allows. We’re also watching the progress of the legislation. If it's enacted, it will certainly Change our time line.”

Ed. Footdragging at its worst!!!

This is as close as we’ll get to an admission that the FAA wants congress to change the Rule for them. Maybe soon APAAD will call for equity for their pilots back to November 23, 2006.

Hopefully we’ll have a quick conferencing, with an equity amendment, passage, and then, watch the court action against unions and airlines.

Bert Yetman

 

 http://commerce.senate.gov                                                                                                    
PRESS RELEASE

Senate Approves Stevens-Inouye Provision to Allow Commercial Pilots to Fly Past Age 60

Similar Provision Was Approved by Commerce Committee as Part of FAA Reauthorization Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The United States Senate today approved a provision sponsored by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), Vice Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) to allow commercial airline pilots to fly until age 65. The measure was added to the Transportation Appropriations bill which passed by a vote of 88 to 7.  A similar provision was approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 16, 2007 as part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill.  The FAA announced earlier this year that it would begin a rulemaking process to raise the retirement age of commercial pilots to age 65. Since 1960, FAA regulations have specified that commercial airline pilots must retire upon reaching 60 years of age.

“Alaska and the nation are losing a number of experienced pilots every day due to the outdated FAA Age 60 rule,” said Senator Stevens.  “It is important we change the rule as soon as possible to make sure our most senior and seasoned pilots remain in the system.”

Senator Stevens’ provision would specifically:

• raise airline pilot retirement age to 65;
• sunset the age 60 rule and require the FAA to implement the new retirement standard immediately upon enactment;
• allow both pilot and co-pilot to be up to 65 years old for domestic operations;
• subject international flights to the international standard that the pilot can be over 60 if the co-pilot is 60 or under;
• allow companies and unions to work out compliance issues regarding pensions and benefits; and

CONGRESS, Please tell these Senior Pilots who are American Military Veterans why they cannot fly in their own country when foreign pilots from other ICAO treaty countries fly into America every day

Click here for the PDF