67 corresponds to the full Social Security rate in the next few years. You remember, it used to be 65. Not any more.

 

Raising to 67 is driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue. USPS raises 2 cents when 10 would prevent having to raise prices sooner. But I guess you know what you are talking about, I have flown USPS routes too but I am just not that smart. Have you flown with anybody in their 70s? My guess is as you decline your ability to notice the decline of others is less noticeable. Save your pennies and retire at 65. Don't want to hear about your four ex wives in the cockpit when you turn 66.5 and don't know how you are going to pay for them.

 

If it goes to 75 I just might come back for the love of flying and mentoring. I would take a job as a regional LCA for a few years. They need Captains and I would enjoy teaching. As long as said airline had separate lines in seniority order for LCA’s. I would last about 2 weeks on reserve before calling it quits.

 

Not really...it's past 67 now.

 

No. For full benefits, this statement is incorrect. Per SSA, page 3 table.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf

 

This is very much a matter of boomers using their massive voting block to change laws that benefit themselves.

 

Obviously you’re coming up at the magic age of 65. I totally don’t see your argument to keep the experience in the cockpit. There’s plenty of young captains at my airline that can do as good of a job as I can our better. I am talking 25-45 year olds. I just turned 60 and can’t wait to retire! I would’ve done it already except I had almost 3 years off on medical. CL

 

That's obvious to you, is it?

I am not.

I didn't make that argument. It's not found in what you quoted. Perhaps you're responding to someone else, but quoting me, because you're attributing to me that which I have not said.

The ability to stay in the cockpit is dependent on the individual's ability, as it always has, regardless of any age limit. This was true of age 60 and also of age 65. Simply because the regulation states that you must retire at 65 doesn't mean that you must remain until 65, or that you can..

Then do so. There is no gun to your head forcing you to stay in the cockpit. Not so many years ago, you've have been forced out of the cockpit by now, regardless of what you want, regardless of your capability, regardless of your condition, and regardless of your reading comprehension.

Age 65 limitations do not force you to remain in the cockpit. Age 65 limitations simply exclude you from the cockpit, regardless of what want, and regardless of what you are capable of doing.

You'd have retired, you want to retire, can't wait to retired, but you're hanging in there (for whatever reason) until you're forced to retire? You see age 65 as a valid reason to be forced out why? Clearly you aren't against the age limit having been raised from 60 to 65.

If the age limit were raised to 67, nothing would force you to remain in the cockpit after 65. That's your choice. Presently when you reach 65, you don't have that choice.

What 24-45 year old pilots can do is irrelevant. They're not age 65. Or 67.

 

Wouldn’t the bump to 67 need ICAO approval from Europe, Canada and the rest of world? I doubt wide body captains would want to demote themselves to domestic only narrow body flying when they turn 65.

 

No, it would not need ICAO approval, congress does not report to ICAO. As you say, seniors would have to downgrade to domestic fleets, or airlines would have to accommodate their schedules to keep them domestic. Probably both, since even narrowbodies usually go to CA, MX, and the Americas. Easier to accommodate with narrowbodies.

So yes it would create a lot of churn, which is why legacies are opposed (that and LTD). Everybody who was about to upgrade to widebodies would still do it, but junior folks on narrowbodies wouldn't move up quite as fast for a couple years.

ICAO would probably follow along quickly though, since there's already some discussion in international circles anyway.