Senators introduce Age 67 Legislation
03-31-2023, 12:38 PM
#351
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,716
I guess I get what you’re saying but don’t think it’s quite accurate either. A choice to move up? I’m an ER captain, I hereby choose to move up
. When’s my 330 class date? There are lots of 737 and ER captains who will never hold anything bigger in their careers and not by choice. They didn’t get a band increase. Sure they could move sideways to the 320 and maybe get better seniority, but the same is true of the 350 skipper. He could go to the 330 or the 765 and make the same.
For what it’s worth, I think pay banding was an awesome get in this new contact, especially the 330. I just don’t think it’s accurate to say it helped everybody except the 350 captains.
. When’s my 330 class date? There are lots of 737 and ER captains who will never hold anything bigger in their careers and not by choice. They didn’t get a band increase. Sure they could move sideways to the 320 and maybe get better seniority, but the same is true of the 350 skipper. He could go to the 330 or the 765 and make the same.For what it’s worth, I think pay banding was an awesome get in this new contact, especially the 330. I just don’t think it’s accurate to say it helped everybody except the 350 captains.
03-31-2023, 01:25 PM
#352
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2022
Posts: 85
This is a dumb argument. 67 is stupid, 99% people agree. If you agree with it then you are the 1% and you have to accept that and quit arguing with everyone. It’s okay to be the 1% on a topic, but it’s a battle you’ll never win so just stop talking about it. It’ll probably pass which will hurt 99% of us but it is what it is.
Then they said, “Did they let their 9-year-old post it on there for them?”
“Um, I doubt it. It’s just your typical Delta pilot.”
Lol
03-31-2023, 04:15 PM
#353
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B737 FO
Posts: 695
If we're being honest we all know this is a bad idea. Some pilots are fine at 65 but the majority of 62, 63 and 64 y.o. pilots I've flown with had to be watched much more closely than those under 60.
And 'just tighten up the medical standards' is also a terrible idea. Not because it shouldn't be done but because of how it would be done by the FAA. Of course a 64 y.o. gunning for 67 doesn't care about that. If they toughen up the standards and you medical-out because of the new standards, well you were either going to have mandatory retirement at 65 anyways if 67 didn't pass or get 2-3 more years of LTD if 67 did pass, so what do you care?
I never wanted to work past 60 anyways. 60 is a great age to retire at. Because I lived through age 65 even though I could obviously still retire at 60 I will miss out on my 5 best earning and seniority years if I do. And now if 67 passes those 5 best years get pushed even further out making retiring at 60 even more difficult. Yes, that's a me problem, but isn't 65 already plenty old enough to be working? Enjoy retirement, and if not go fly for NetJets or some corporate gig.
And 'just tighten up the medical standards' is also a terrible idea. Not because it shouldn't be done but because of how it would be done by the FAA. Of course a 64 y.o. gunning for 67 doesn't care about that. If they toughen up the standards and you medical-out because of the new standards, well you were either going to have mandatory retirement at 65 anyways if 67 didn't pass or get 2-3 more years of LTD if 67 did pass, so what do you care?
I never wanted to work past 60 anyways. 60 is a great age to retire at. Because I lived through age 65 even though I could obviously still retire at 60 I will miss out on my 5 best earning and seniority years if I do. And now if 67 passes those 5 best years get pushed even further out making retiring at 60 even more difficult. Yes, that's a me problem, but isn't 65 already plenty old enough to be working? Enjoy retirement, and if not go fly for NetJets or some corporate gig.
03-31-2023, 04:38 PM
#354
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: MD88
Posts: 1,375
This is my opinion and worth exactly what you just paid for it.
1. If you HAVE to work to either 65 or 67 in this job, you lose.
2. If you want to keep flying to 65 or 67 as a hobby, I’m good with that. Just do t let it interfere with the more important things in your life. Spouse, kids, grandkids….
3. At our current hiring rates, and considering how many probably won’t be able to keep medical to age 67, what are we talking? Reducing number of new hires by 3-500 per year?? Whatever, non factor.
4. My opinion? 65 or 67, whatever. Not worth getting your panties in a wad.
1. If you HAVE to work to either 65 or 67 in this job, you lose.
2. If you want to keep flying to 65 or 67 as a hobby, I’m good with that. Just do t let it interfere with the more important things in your life. Spouse, kids, grandkids….
3. At our current hiring rates, and considering how many probably won’t be able to keep medical to age 67, what are we talking? Reducing number of new hires by 3-500 per year?? Whatever, non factor.
4. My opinion? 65 or 67, whatever. Not worth getting your panties in a wad.
03-31-2023, 06:18 PM
#355
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
**** happens though. I broke the hell out of my leg skiing when I was on probation and very easily could have died. Learned about STD early in my career. Healthy play can easily be dangerous.
04-01-2023, 09:14 AM
#356
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: CRJ9 CA
Posts: 4,083
What is 67 designed to help? The pilot shortage at the regionals. So, if the intent of the law change is to keep people at the regionals, by definition, it has to slow or stop hiring at the legacy carriers. The only way to keep the regionals staffed is to turn off the spigot at the regionals, which means no hiring. This will certainly hurt EVERYONE on the seniority list who is 62 and younger.
04-01-2023, 10:15 AM
#357
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 350A
Posts: 425
04-01-2023, 12:19 PM
#358
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Fully Retired
Posts: 7,000
If 67 becomes law, that would shift hiring to the right by 2 years, at most. It will not reduce hiring at all. Same number of pilots will retire, just shifted to the right.
Realistically, probably half will not extend to 67, for one reason or another. So, it would shift hiring by one year, or so.
Just putting some realism out there.
Realistically, probably half will not extend to 67, for one reason or another. So, it would shift hiring by one year, or so.
Just putting some realism out there.
04-01-2023, 02:04 PM
#359
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 941
If 67 becomes law, that would shift hiring to the right by 2 years, at most. It will not reduce hiring at all. Same number of pilots will retire, just shifted to the right.
Realistically, probably half will not extend to 67, for one reason or another. So, it would shift hiring by one year, or so.
Just putting some realism out there.
Realistically, probably half will not extend to 67, for one reason or another. So, it would shift hiring by one year, or so.
Just putting some realism out there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
