Originally Posted by
rickair7777
This is totally incorrect. The US raised the age to 65 about one year after ICAO did.
As a party to ICAO, the US (and any other party nation) allows foriegn aircrew to fly in their airspace as long as they
1) Comply with their own national rules AND;
2) Comply with ICAO rules.
ICAO provides a standardized reciprocity so you don't have to comply with 100% of the local rules for every country you fly to. Way too complicated.
There were 60+ foriegn pilots flying in US airspace for about a year before we raised the age.
Another example, there are very low-time widebody FO's flying into the US under ICAO. They are not bound by our 1500 hour/ATP rule, and can go as low as an MPL.
Mostly irrelevant. We can raise our age unilaterally, but it would only apply to our domestic ops until/unless ICAO raised the age as well. At least a couple other countries already have age 67.
If we wait until ICAO does it, that does provide a little more ammunition to make the case.
If we go first, I bet ICAO follows within a year. We're not the only place with a pilot shortage.
Okay, thats's fine, I admit I was wrong, but what you missed in your quest to always be the smartest guy in the room is that THE FAA FOLLOWED ICAO that time. That's not happening this time. Yuge difference.
Originally Posted by
SonicFlyer
Right up until they flip flop. When ALPA sees the winds of politics going against them, they will change their position and support it like they always do. Capital A ALPA is nothing but a political lobbying organization. The "union" is the MEC/LEC.