More APAAD/SPC DebateRegarding the above (in addition to cringing every time I hear the act called "Fair Treatment") I cannot imagine a more monumental oxymoron in one paragraph. SPC: hang it up, go home, go find a corporate flying job if you still want to fly, get counseling, get over it! Editor - The SPC's lawsuit is a huge step backwards for the industry, and puts at risk over 10 years of legislative effort by APAAD and other groups to redress the FAA's intransigence on changing the Age 60 Rule. The Senior Pilots Coalition claims they don't want to gut the new legislation, but the fact is their own spokesperson/lawyer, Prof Turley, has said that if they are successful, the current law will be "null and void". Thus, in order to quench the SPC's desire to somehow get justice for a few old-timers who missed the cutoff date, they would willingly snatch away the extended careers of thousands of their fellow pilots, just as they are embarking on their additional 5 years of aviation employment. No one can honestly be unsympathetic to the plight of those pilots who turned 60 prior to the passage of new legislation last December; it was a raw deal especially for those pilots who were intimately involved in the fight to get the law changed. However, when they take their bitterness out on fellow pilots by declaring that "if I can't work beyond 60, then no one should be able to work beyond 60", they are out of touch and acting out of selfishness. When laws change, there will always be some who are left out, but that's just life, which in itself is seldom fair. Why endanger the hard-earned gains of the entire pilot group, just for a few malcontents? And why doesn't the SPC simply push for separate legislation to restore over-60 pilots to the rolls, rather than attack the overall Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act? If the law is over-turned, where do we stand? Do you really think Congress will take the time out of worries about high gas prices/mortgage foreclosures/war in Iraq/etc to readdress the Age 60 retirement issue? No, they will pass the issue back to the FAA, which itself has had 8 months to revise their regulations to reflect the Age 65 standard, but has yet to issue even so much as a pen-and-ink revision! Instead, the FAA will revert to the regulations that remain on the books, and suddenly the airline industry will find itself in further turmoil as over-60 pilots are summarily grounded. Do you call this progress? The members of SPC are showing their greedy, selfish side by pursuing this lawsuit. I, for one, hope the courts will dismiss their suit as frivolous and misguided. We cannot afford to inject so much peril into the careers of a majority of pilots, when we know darned sure that Congress has way too many more important things to address in our sick country, than to worry about the careers of commercial pilots. It sickens me to see the resurgence of pilot vs pilot bickering, when we desperately need to consolidate our gains, appreciate the progress that has been made, and look forward to how we can reinvigorate and secure our profession in the face of unwavering attacks by economic interests that threaten the entire airline industry. SPC: hang it up, go home, go find a corporate flying job if you still want to fly, get counseling, get over it! Ellis Sharadin Paul and Gary - Even if the law is overturned in its entirety, age 60 cannot be reinstated without a new NPRM and regulatory process. Additionally, there is no longer a safety issue for age 65, which was the basis for the original age 60 limit. Both the FAA and Congress concede that age 65 is not a safety problem anymore, therefore, an age 60 limit cannot be resurrected because neither the FAA or Congress has any basis. Additionally, if the entire statute is overturned, it will simply remove any and all age limit, thereby allowing pilots to fly as long as they hold a valid medical and can pass the flight check. Regards, Capt. Mike Peet (UAL) SPC Mike, I think Paul's amicus does no harm, in spite of my comments below (the first paragraph reproduced below). No one wants to see the age 60 restriction re-appear (that would be a loss for all of us --- even those of us that have no dog in the fight, but want to see justice). Both groups have more in common than differences. Quoted from the amicus --- "Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination ("APAAD") and pilot Paul Emens (collectively, "APAAD Amici") oppose discrimination within their industry on the basis of age. APAAD encourages this Court to uphold the Fair Treatment for Experienced Piltos Act, P.L. 110-135, 121 Stat. 1450 et seq. (Dec. 13, 2007)(the "Fair Treatment Act"), codified at 49 U.S.C. s 44729, including its provisions related to mandatory retirement age for pilots." Regarding the above (in addition to cringing every time I hear the act called "Fair Treatment") I cannot imagine a more monumental oxymoron in one paragraph. and --- Section II, under Amici Curiae and their interests --- "APAAD is an organization of professional airline pilots approaching age 60..." I guess I've been ousted. Wonder why? Oh yeah, age discrimination. All else in the brief I would support. I expect the above is more "lawyer-speak", or "clerk-speak", not Paul's intent. Can we really trust the "legal" system in light of all we have been through? I wouldn't be surprised if legally, if a law were repealed, the old "law" would replace by default (I'll yield to John Mansfield or Mike Glawe on this) until re-considered (which could take years) or if the court ruled differently. The bottom line --- why chance it? My take, encouraging the court to do the right thing won't hurt. best regards, Bob ("retired" Oct 2007) SPC, APAAD (I think), and AGE60CAP BigJetCity.com |
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites