<sigh> I respectfully, completely disagree. That's not a lie, in any way shape or form. You can disagree with a position, but that's not a lie. No serious person can claim that decline doesn't come with age. That's just a fact. Obviously, 100 years old is going to be unsafe 99.99999% of the time. Are you going to fight for that .00001% to keep flying? Of course not, that would be absurd. In my, and ALPA's opinion, At SOME point, there must be a line. Just like there are age lines in all sorts of other things, like Driving (15 years and 364 days vs. 16 years old), Voting, Drinking, ATP, Running for President, etc. There are "time" lines (measured in years) to hold a Class I after Cancer - in fact, the medical standards draw all kinds of 'arbitrary' lines which could be argued. So we can argue where the line should be, but in any system as enormous as this, a line MUST be drawn somewhere. For ATC it's 56. For us, it's 65. For many part 135 operators, It's 70. Does that mean that there are some perfectly capable folks who must retire while still capable? Yep. Every reasonable person will concede that. But by drawing the line at a reasonable place, where we know with a high degree of certainty, that those who remain are statistically very likely to be 'good to go', we ensure the safety within the system as a whole.

So, you can disagree with the premise, but it's not a lie to argue that line should be 65. BTW, I have not seen ALPA make 'ageist' or 'demeaning' comments, per se, either. The fact is, and LEPF even admits, the vast majority oppose 67. So it's not a lie to do the 'will of the membership' - but that's not what LEPF/EPAS will claim.

The LEPF/EPAS absolutely loves to rabble rabble in their echo chamber. Completely shut down anyone even offering a moderation of tone or vitriol. They repeat the same nonsense to each other so much, they actually believe it. It's amazing to watch, in a way, to see what people will actually say if they think they are among friends. I would argue the number of genuine lies coming out of that crowd is pretty enormous. And to wish ill/misfortune on those who believe differently than you, in a genuine disagreement, is beyond the pale and shameful, IMO. It's incredibly ironic to see someone make this kind of case given the vitriol levied at Ambrosi. Talk about personal attacks. Holy cow! The vast, vast majority of them don't care one bit about anyone but themselves, and are 100% wanting to pull the ladder up behind them. Scorch the Earth if it gets them more. They don't care one bit about anyone but themselves, as long as they 'get theirs'.

Having someone offer counter-points and find holes in arguments is actually a good thing. It's healthy. It sharpens a case tremendously, and weeds out (most of) the nonsense. And it lends humility and credibility to an argument/case, because it can stand up to scrutiny. LEPF/EPAS have none of that, IMO. They drum anyone out of thier group that dares to stray 1mm from the approved line. I've seen it with my own eyes. What they do have is motivation and organization. And it may well get it over the 'line'.