Originally Posted by
Ace66
That could easily be spun in the opposite direction: age 67 will make airlines more "top heavy" which will increase costs, and there will be more pilots on company paid disability which also increases costs. Higher costs = higher prices. I haven't seen any published stats, but after last summer I doubt many mainline flights were cancelled due to pilot shortages. Sure there were crews that timed out and no ready reserves available but that's on scheduling not pilot shortages. I'll conjecture that the vast majority of flights (or services) cancelled are EAS routes which affect a very small population.
What "shortage"? I haven't heard of any of the airlines cite lack of pilots for cancellations since last summer, and last summer was mostly due to COVID backlogs. This pushing of "pilot shortages" at the majors is pure BS. Aircraft manufacturers can't keep up with demand, and ATC can't keep up with traffic. Delta regrets parking their 777's and Kirby can't find enough WB's. Mainline pilot staffing is not limiting factor right now.
ALPA really needs to hit the media circuit and dispel this false narrative.
The reality is that age 67 is bad for legacies, good for regionals & 3rd tier, and questionable for second tier.
But the voters losing air service really only care about regionals, which have a very real pilot shortage with numerous parked planes and cancellations of entire city pairs.
The complexities of how this will play out at the top of legacy seniority lists is way beyond most voters... "Too many retirements? Let them retire later"
I can only assume ALPA's narrative is aimed at convincing member pilots to email their reps. It sure as hell won't appeal to the average voter. They basically made an unfounded accusation of corruption against a congressman, not a great look (unless they have documentary proof).