Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Include them in the study, identify them as such. Maybe their situation is so much worse that they need different (better) rest rules and a different retirement age.
Yes I know their rest rules are currently not 117.
But the reality is that the retirement age is about pax safety, not cargo or crew safety. Yeah they might crash into a building, but so might many other non-121 airplanes.
Still feels like corner cutting to get to 67. I don’t use corner cutting logic too often. Doesn’t apply to
the gov of course. Purely political and nothing is logic based.