Age 65 rule came at worst possible time?
Over the past few weeks, I have begun to wonder if the new age 65 limit may have contributed to the current employment crisis in the airlines. Certainly, it hasn't had an impact on the economy, but is it possible the rule has played a bigger role in staffing levels than we might have thought?
Had the rule not been instituted in late 2007, we would be in the midst of many reitrements. As such and even as capacity has been reduced, major carriers would still have had to fill spots left open by retirements. In turn, this would have created openings at regional carriers as more experienced captains moved on to more lucrative pay. If nothing else, the onslaught of retirements probably would have mitigated furloughs.
Instead, most pilots reaching the age of 60 have chosen to continuing flying. Because pilots of 60 years of age have many years of seniority, they cost airlines more in pay. Certainly, they're more expensive than the first and second year hires who would have replaced them. Regardless and through no fault of their own, the works have been gummed up and we see the furloughs which continue to be announced.
I don't know if what I have written has any validity, but I thought I would throw it out there.