Originally Posted by
rekatron
Okay, so is any of this based on actual precedent, or is it just a "feeling". I see a lot of people confidently talking out of their ass about ICAO but what I don't see is a lot of written history or precedent to justify how 100% confident they are that ICAO is at the U.S.' beck and call.
It should be obvious that I'm speculating, but I did pay careful attention when this happened in 2007 and learned a few things.
IF age 67 passes, then it will likely create a big mess for US majors (with current language). ICAO can help mitigate that by raising their MAX age to 67.
That does NOT require that the Euros let their pilots fly to 67.
If they choose to do that, it does NOT obligate European pilots to actually fly to age 67... they are not indentured servants, at least not more so than any other socialists. They can still retire under whatever rules they already have, unless those are changed by their own governments, regulators, or employers.
All ICAO can do is increase the max age up to which member states can authorize for their own international crews.
Originally Posted by
rekatron
And again like I said before, the people doing the diplomacy are the ones who don't want this increase to happen. Why would our diplomats press foreign states to do something the POTUS doesn't agree with?
The legacies will be dealing with the fallout. The legacies do not want this to happen. I'd speculate that if it DOES happen, the executive branch will not petulantly punish the legacies for something they didn't want in the first place. I'd speculate that .gov will ask ICAO to raise the age limit to solve the hot mess for US majors.