I suppose that's why its frustrating for many. The bill from congress is being sold as a way to address the pilot shortage, which is equally naive and absurd. The only indirect way it helps resolve the issue is a cynical one...namely it could cause stagnation for hiring, force regional guys to stay longer to pad their numbers...which in turn can lead to the bean counters to attempt to startb depressing their wages again. The irony isn't lost for many to realize that kind of thinking might have lead to the root cause of the "shortage" in the first place. You can't deglamorize/demoralize aviation to the point where prospective future flyers don't think it's worth getting into the first place.


The loudest proponents that want 67 are getting to the end of the tunnel and don't want the music to stop. I get it. No one cares about you once you relinquish your number and you have to take care of your own self interest. But spare me the idea that "it doesnt affect you...you can still leave when you want" type logic. Maybe it is selfish on the other end of the spectrum...but lots of guys playing under the current rules for projected progression don't want to have to wait until 62 just to be a widebody captain at the bottom of the relative seniority list.. especially when those in front benefitted from prior retirees at 65 or early out retirements.


I still think the methodology, despite not being perfect, is still sound at 65 as it is based on data that takes safety into account. Anecdotes of guys who are 65 and run marathons miss the point. Over the full spectrum of data, the age complications start to become the main factor. I think we lose sight that the airlines are a public utility that needs regulatory safety protocols to serve the public interest. And raising the age to 67 cannot be argued for the sake of safety whatsoever. It is simply of the interest for those wanting to pad their retirement accounts.


No one stops guys from becoming sim instructors or flying non 121 ops. But I guess you can't make 500k, get every summer vacation and cherry trip if you did that after all.

 

You know that’s BS.
So only ‘experienced’ pilots could continue?
Define experienced.

 

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...nd-turbulence/The best part:

CA—Jan 2022 hire date
FO 1 2022 hire
FO 2 2018 hire

And wait for it….

Check airman also up front giving a line check

 

Given that the landscape is age 65, that would mean those over 65.

Given that few join an airline in their final months before age 65, generally the more elder, senior, and older pilots are the more experienced.

I do not know it's BS. As always, speak for yourself, not for me.

 

“Let experienced pilots fly” Act.
Gimme a break.
The Regionals will hire into early 60’s knowing they’ll now get an extra 2 years out of them.
They won’t be experienced in 121.

So again, the 65+ will be assigned domestic routes out of seniority because they can’t fly International?
Wide body Captains will be displaced to domestic narrow body?
Will it be narrow body pay?

Define experienced? More than 10 years 121?
Somewhat different yet similar.
The Sport Pilot backfired spectacularly.
Intended to lower the threshold at the entry level and what it turned out to be was a lower threshold at exit level.
Old geezers letting their medical expire so they were never ‘denied’ so they could continue being a danger to themselves and others.

 

New to the company doesn’t mean new to aviation now does it?

 

Knock yourself out.

Not really relevant. The question is one of whether a pilot over age65 can continue to fly. Not of pay. Not of seniority. Not of 121 time, and not even what seat the pilot sits in, whether right or left.

The industry sees very few 64.5 year old pilots seeking to start their career. You can admit that much, right?

There was no valid reason to force retirement at age 60.

There is no valid reason to force it at 65.

There's nothing magic about 67 either.

I just spoke with a gentleman who retires in a few months. I asked what he thought of continuing on to 67. "I'm done now," he said. I want to be home. My wife wants me home." Raising the age to 67 wouldn't change that for him. He's finishing at 65, regardless. Raising the age to 67 forces no one to stay longer, and does't permit those to remain, who can't. It enables those who are able, and who choose to do so, to continue to fly.

Irrelevant. Who cares how many years 121 that person has? Raising the age doesn't presume to dictate. Whether the person retired left seat or right is irrelevant. Whether the person is a senior captain or a new F/O is irrelevant. Whether the person spent 50 years in corporate and general aviation, or 135, or spraying crops is irrelevant. We have people from every mix in the 121 world at present, military to utility to suits and ties and grease and sweat. I used to fly in a 747 with the world's highest time (at the time) DC3 pilot. Great guy. He brought somethign different to the table than I did. We all do. The question is so often asked here that it's nearly nauseating: am I too old to do this, or that? Invariably, no, do what you want to do. This isn't about that. That isn't about this. This is about age, end of story.

Not remotely similar, and more than the similarities between the familiar duck and the bicycle; both having handlebars (except the duck). Non-sequitur, and irrelevant. This is about age. No expired medicals. No entry level anything. Pilots who are able, and who desire to continue to fly, having the ability to do so. Don't try to make it into a bicycle, or a duck.

 

That's ridiculous. There are massive numbers of boomers, and most of them are sober enough to go to the polls one Tuesday each year, but only a few thousand are 121 pilots and care or even know about this issue. There's no boomer legion pushing congress for age 67.

 

Let the inexperienced pilots fly act!

Got to learn, expeience is a good teacher. They will never do it again and now recalibrate their F around and find out chart.

 

You conveniently pedaled around my point.
The Law of Unintended Consequences.