Florida Mortgage Report

Think Congress Can't Work Fast? Think Again.

I did a post yesterday eluding to the speed at which Congress can cram a potentially bad bill down our throats while enforcing endless arguments on much more important issues.  The bill I mentioned was designed to raise the age limit of pilots mandatory retirement to age 65 (was age 60).

Well, this is a testament of how fast Congress can actually work.  Here is the timeline...

Tuesday (12/11) - House strips bill from FAA reauthorization bill and creates a stand alone bill solely to raise the pilot retirement age to 65.  Fails to add similar language as ICAO, thus allowing two pilots in the cockpit that are both over age 60.

Wednesday (12/12) - Senate accepts bill without objection sending bill to the President.

Thursday (12/13) - President signs bill into law, potentially diminishing the safety of flights throughout the US without a second thought.

Wow, a bill can be formulated and turned into law in just 2 days.  So, why then do the really important bills take months or even years?

Why can't an AMT patch be done correctly and quickly?

Why can't a GOOD mortgage reform bill be past quickly as well?

Apparently, it is much more important to raise the age of a pilots retirement than to put together and pass "meaningful" bills.

Don't forget that the majority of the pilots in the US, and the majority of the public for that matter, were against raising the pilot's retirement age until more conclusive evidence that safety would not be diminished.  Yet, this law goes even beyond what ICAO implemented last November, where one pilot must be less than 60.

Has safety been compromised to appease the minority?

Time will tell, but you be sure that financial gains come before safety for many out there.

Typical Government: Help the Few While Screwing the Majority

It never ceases to amaze me how Congress can quickly push crappy legislation through, but when legislation that is needed is being worked on, such as an AMT patch, it takes forever.  Granted any "rush" job is going to be poorly done, but a poorly done fix that helps the majority that can be amended later is better than screwing the majority in a way that cannot be undone.

Case in point is the failure of Congress to come together and formulate a AMT patch.  While everyone agrees a patch is needed since the AMT is grossly outdated and will screw more than it was originally intended, neither side can decide on how to do it.

Yet, when it comes to legislation that may prove to be unsafe in the long run, they push it through, such as the "Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act", HR 4343.  This bill is to raise the pilot retirement age to 65, something the majority of airline pilots do not want, many for safety reasons.  Yet, appeasing the minority as Congress likes to do, they cram it through both the House and Senate while leaving important bills on the sideline.

The FAA has a rulemaking process in place already.  They have sought to change the rule before, but it was deemed unnecessary and potentially unsafe due to lack of evidence showing little or no loss of safety when over 60 pilots man the cockpit. 

What has changed?  The main reason more pilots want to fly beyond age 60 is due to loss of their pensions.  Until recently polls showed that a relatively low percent were in favor of changing the age restriction.  Recent polls show more pilots, though still only around 40% want to change the rule and the change came after they were financially stripped.

Current polls of the public show so far that the overwhelming majority of the population favor status quo as well, due to potential safety concerns.  So, why then is Congress pushing this issue through, when there is a rulemaking process and the majority is against it?  Why are they wasting time focusing on this issue when issues, such as mortgage reform and AMT go unresolved?

These are just some of the things that go on that you may not be aware of.  In fact, the only reason I am even aware that this issue came out and was pushed through both the House and Senate in a matter of days is the fact I am also an airline pilot.

While the arguments for the change may be that other countries allow over 60 pilots in the cockpit (with limitations), they have only been doing it for a short period of time and there is still no conclusive evidence for keeping pilots past 60.  There are some concerns though.  Pilots are required to fly more hours these days than in the past.  We know there is an increased risk of health problems for others, so how are pilots any different?

While this post is intended to make you aware of how Congress is wasting time on frivolous issues, I will admit I am against the raising of age 60.  If you are concerned with the potentially diminishing safety of having pilots older than age 60 in the cockpit, you should write the President and your Congressmen and ask for a veto and dismissal of this bill.  It may already be too late.

(Note:  APA does not endorse this post.  This post may not be reflective of the position of APA or its members)