I am in my early fifties so I don't have a problem with older people continuing to work if people need to do so. The flipside of the coin is the high number of young people unable to secure meaning employment in this economy. The consequences for the US economy will be many. None more important than a country unable to compete with other industrialized countries in Asia.

ALPA had an update on this a few weeks ago. ICAO is looking to make 65 a policy not a practice for all pilots in the right seat. For the over/under 60 rule. They are proposing that there is no difference in a 59y/o and a 64 y/o.

It is a function of our seniority and pay system that causes some of the hardest (physiologically) flying to be done by the oldest pilots. A 0500 La Quinta van pales before multiple ocean crossings at all hours, or double all-nighter deep South America trips, regardless of the crew augmentation.

Pay should be purely seniority based. Let the guys approaching 65 bid whatever they want, such as day narrowbody turns.

I'm inclined to agree with this. If it were implemented, you'd see widebody long-haul start to go pretty darn junior, I'd think.

Wide body pay and top of scale pay would come down as the wealth was distributed among a greater number of pilots. The net effect should still be the same overtime though.

That's what happened at Lufthansa. All planes pay the same. I see no reason the same couldn't be adopted here so long as they follow the example of Lufthansa and pay well for all types.

Or just go fly for a Part 135 carrier. No restrictions there!

This...Why the hell would I want to keep working past 65? Nevermind getting a physical, I would need to get my head examined!

One contract, one pay scale, one real union, problem solved.

I think USAPA is up to the task!