Nobody knows, because a lot of it is opaque to the peons and there are a lot of moving parts and undercurrents. Those on the inside have better SA but they don't know for sure either. I learned a few things about the process while doing mil appropriations work years ago.

When they said they were going to use HR3935 as a vehicle for a CR, I *expected* them to leave the FAA language intact because that part has ALREADY been passed by the house. Looks like somebody in the senate still had a hard spot with the house language, probably the ATP rule.

Maybe the senate should have left the FAA language in because the house said "no way" to the gutted HR last night. Back to square one on the CR, back to the back burner for 3935.


https://www.politico.com/news/2023/0...-plan-00118277


I'm trying share an informed perspective on the process, to reel in some of the wild speculations out of left field...

- Age 67 was (and is) a non-starter as a stand-alone bill.
- Such proposals are often intended to tee up a topic for horse trading to be included in a larger bill. That appears to have happened.
- Once included in the HR, and passed by the house, age 67 prospects looked very good.
- There was no significant public opposition to 67 (compared to the ATP rule, reps are speechifying about that on the house floor).
- No, ALPA is not significant in the context of a major re-authorization.
- Age 67 prospects are lower now, because the HR got up-ended and dumped out on the floor.
- I'd say odds still favor that 67 will get put back in the FAA bill, along with most or all of the other stuff that the house passed. But who knows, it was a lot safer while neatly baked into an important cake with a lot of other goodies.