Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
Postage stamp increases aren't arbitrary; they're driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
Raising to 67 is driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue. USPS raises 2 cents when 10 would prevent having to raise prices sooner. But I guess you know what you are talking about, I have flown USPS routes too but I am just not that smart. Have you flown with anybody in their 70s? My guess is as you decline your ability to notice the decline of others is less noticeable. Save your pennies and retire at 65. Don't want to hear about your four ex wives in the cockpit when you turn 66.5 and don't know how you are going to pay for them.