In early 2005, the republican senator for Nevada introduced a bill, HR 65, which dealt with altering the retirement age for airline pilots from 60 to 65, so as to be inline with ICAO rules. The resolution was then referred to the House Committee on Transportation and infrastructure which was chaired by Rep. Don Young. Subsequently HR 65 was then referred to the Sub Committee on Aviation which falls under the jurisdiction of the Transportation committee. There was indeed no hearings ever conducted on HR 65 nor were any recommendations tendered to the House Committee on Transportation. That's basically where the resolution remained all through 2006 until the 109th Congress adjourned in December.

Further to the above, a bill entitled S 65 was sponsored in the Senate which was then referred to the relevant committee for consideration. On the 19th July 2005, the committee met and convened a hearing to consider the issue. Representations from many pressure groups such as, FAA, Aerospace Medical Association, Airline Pilots Association, SWAPA, Allied Pilots Association, and Jetblue Airways Corporation were heard and evaluated by the committee members. On the 17th of November the committee ruled and acquiesced to support the change to mirror the ICAO regulations. Following the above procedure, the bill was released from committee and placed upon the Senate Legislative Calendar.

This is the point that many bills perish before even making it to the floor as the responsibility lays with the Senate Majority leader to determine which bills are addressed by the that session of the Senate. The Senate Majority Leader, Senator Frist never determined a date for the hearing of the bill and that is where the bill remained until perishing with the adjournment of the 109th Congress.

Whilst, both bills died a standalone death, they received a much needed boost by their incorporation as amendments into the Transportations Appropriations Bill, HR 5576. Generally, these money bills are voted and passed in the house before moving into the second phase of review in the Senate. While in review in Senate Sub Committee the S 65 changes where added to the appropriations bill.

However, due to the election the money bill was never voted upon and therefore ceased when the 109th congress adjourned in December 2006. Rather than pass these appropriations bills congress choose to pass a continuing resolution which allowed the federal government to fund their agencies until Feb 15th, 2007.

So as it stands, the amendments remain within the appropriations bill and must be addressed by the 110th Congress whether individually or rolled up into a single bill called an omnibus bill. As the balance of power in Congress has changed its unlikely that the Democrat led Senate would choose to keep any controversial amendments in the appropriations bill lest it cause the delay of federal funding for their agencies. Having said that, there is tremendous pressure from both sides of the age divide to influence the proceedings.

It's difficult to argue with the plight of the lower end of the seniority list, having been restricted from the usual career progression by a number of factors including 911 and the vicious airline bankruptcies. Any change to the age 60 rule would surely delay their captain upgrades by at least 5 years and cost untold thousands in lost career earnings. The alternative side of the argument is that age 60 is discriminatory and that pilots may very well be medically capable of pursuing the left seat until age 65.

Irrespective of your viewpoint, it is imperative that ALPA brings all pilots, regardless of seniority, together on this issue. As surely a hotbed issue such as this will only be detrimental to any alliance that currently exists between the different pilot groups and airline management most definitely does not require another issue to play wedge politics with.