It is not that black and white an issue. Considerations include:

> Most legacies are in debt - even on older equipment. It is much harder to park an airplane when you have to make payments on it. Parking an encumbered jet almost requires using the bankruptcy tool. A merger amongst healthy carriers is unlikely since it would be hard to reduce capacity. With the same number of airplanes, the airlines need the same number of pilots.

> Delta's list is very young with few pilots over the age of 50. Age 65 isn't a factor at Delta for a decade. Many of the legacies have pilots who are older and who will retire regardless of the age 65 change. It could balance out. Unlike the situation at FedEx where there is a Flight Engineer seat to hang on to while waiting for the age 65 change to allow a bid back to the left seat. At most majors with 2 seat jets you can't come back after age 60.

> Maintaining physical fitness is an issue for all of us, if we want to work past 60. Most of us are going to be more effected by our own high fat / sugar diets than the mandatory retirement age based on pilot demographic studies and the degenerative conditions that are prevalent amongst those of us who make a living on the road. The pilots nearing age 60 now were less informed than our generation. Anyone remember when cigarettes and wiskey were practically considered health foods?

> The restructuring of employee benefits will make flying past 60 less important since retirement does not hinge on final average earning any more.

> The Boeing 787 & the A350. If airlines use it to increase frequency and replace larger jets the net result will be an increase in the number of pilots required to fly it.

My guess is that the bloodbath would be at the regional level as carriers might use a merger to reduce overlap in the branded 50 seat market. If those airplanes get parked it is much less of an issue since they usually are not on the mainline carriers' balance sheets.