Age 67
#11
#12
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Position: 1%
Posts: 84
Postage stamp increases aren't arbitrary; they're driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
#13
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.
#15
No. For full benefits, this statement is incorrect. Per SSA, page 3 table.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf
#17
New Hire
Joined APC: Jun 2023
Posts: 7
Postage stamp increases aren't arbitrary; they're driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.
67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.
#18
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,026
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.
I am not.
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.
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.
#20
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post