Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Which is yet another thing that makes this a nothing burger compared to the 60 to 65 change.
Not only do you lose a fair number of pilots on the way to age 65 to retirement, LTD, and medical issues, but the more senior they become GENERALLY the fewer actual flight hours they do fly due to the buildup in vacation time, and the increase in seniority (and knowledge of how to work soft pay). Not only are you only talking 40% of the POTENTIAL person-years compared to the move from 60 to 65, the reality (in terms of flight hours) is less even than that.
I rather expect that if this 65 to 67 change did go through (and I doubt it will) and a big economic downturn came, managements would do very much like what some did with COVID, offer early retirement or LOAs to allow those within a couple years of retirement to try to get rid of their most expensive and least productive employees to spare the junior people from furloughs, not because of any great love of their junior people, simply because they fly more hours and cost less money.
This is laughable. You are arguing that as a pilot gets older, their gaming of the soft time and vacation time increases; so a pilot flying 65-67 will have "more vacation time than a 64 year old" and more "knowledge how to work soft pay." Newsflash, a 65-67 year old will already be maxed on vacation, just as their 63 and 64 year old counterparts will be. You know why, because 99% of them were hired over 20 years ago. Also just as funny that a 66 year old pilot has the "soft time" answers that the 63 year old doesnt.
LTD and medical are the main reasons why it wont have as many old farts continuing past 65. But just as others have said, its not a single event; just like 65, take 67 and add in an economic downturn and it can be a catalyst for more than just a "nothing burger."