Originally Posted by TankerDriver (Post 3649355)

Maybe my math is wrong, but....with 1,000 hours of sick in the bank, you could take 40 hours of sick per month for 2 years.

Originally Posted by Montcalm (Post 3649360)

And ~17 years worth of sick time accumulation, under our pathetic sick policy.

Originally Posted by Icaruss (Post 3649526)

CEOs have quite a bit of pull in congress to lobby against it. This age increase will not benefit the airlines since, it will increase pilots on disability, use of sick time, and oh BTW you can’t fly outside to most international destinations past 65 yr. How’s this helping pilot shortage?

Originally Posted by ImSoSuss (Post 3649540)

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they are for it. Stagnation would solve their regional lift shortage.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 3648698)

I think hiring will continue.

The Venn diagram for pilots who both want to work past age 60 and can hold a medical is probably relatively small.

Also due to ICAO rules 65+ pilots would initially be limited to domestic ops, so any seniors who stay past 65 will need to move to domestic fleets... that could create churn on narrowbody fleets but it would be offset by vacated WB opportunities.

The ICAO rules create a wildcard: Can airlines require that a pilot be able to fly to all destinations served by his fleet? Even NB's go to CA, MX, etc. Will airlines have to accommodate seniors by intervening in their schedules to keep them domestic? Can airlines refuse to employ seniors since they can't fly international? Can airlines require that seniors bid around international? Some of this might have to get hashed out in court (age discrimination, reasonable accommodation), or it might be specified in whatever law raises the age. All these issues go away when ICAO raises (or eliminates) their age limit.

Originally Posted by GhettoJet (Post 3649730)

"My assumption is that by the time you get to 65, you are senior enough to drop your whole schedule, pick up one or two premium trips and use sick time when needed."

That's an incorrect assumption at AA for the large majority of pilots. It may be true for some narrowbody pilots who hold high value turns, and some widebody FOs who can drop an FO trip and have someone who is holding an FB pairing trade into it but for the most part scheduling's use of red/redder only lets you swap (1) weekend flying for weekday flying, (2) holiday flying for non holiday flying, (3) lower time trips for higher time trips, and (4) shorter trips for longer ones.

Spirit's schedule flexibility is so far ahead of ours it's like comparing a regional contract (us) to a mainline contract (them).

Understand that the mindset here is to have every warm body on the property flying as close to FAR limits as possible, and APA negotiates contracts that enables such behavior by management.

Originally Posted by Supermoto (Post 3650657)

Looks like they're trying to sneak this in at the last minute. No idea the crapbomb they're dropping on the industry as airlines have to firebomb the training and scheduling dept to accommodate pilots that can't fly international.
Any intel on how the senate commerce committee feels about this?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...67-2023-06-14/

Originally Posted by El Peso (Post 3650678)

So totally spit balling here. Isn’t it a part of our employment requirement that we can perform our duties unimpeded and unrestricted? So a 65 year old guy who goes back to the narrow body and can’t fly to the Caribbean, Mexico, South America, nor eventually to Europe on the XLR, is he/she still considered able to perform their duties freely and unimpeded? Doesn’t the company have a case for termination?

The idea that they’re going to reshuffle the entire planning department so these guys can have their domestic only schedules seems massively burdensome.