Who Are These Kooks? Is This For Real?
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 763
I don't favor 67. I think 65 was the sweet spot between being fair and a decline in ability to multitask and handle complex situations. What I do find odd however is the current group of pilots screaming about the loss of what would probably be a year to 14 months of career advancement. I find it odd because pilots hired post 2007 have seen a unheard of level of advancement. They will also enjoy a retirement probably triple pilots who have retired in the last 5 years.
Personally, I think mandatory retirement age should be 50. They’re stealing’ our 350A jerbs! /s
#113
Absolutely not. Quality of life declines rapidly at a certain point and the next 5-10 years after retirement will be gone in the blink of an eye. I want to work hard while I’m able to hopefully get out EARLIER than 65 (58-60 hopefully) so that I can enjoy good health and good quality of life for longer (if I am so fortunate). You can’t take money to the grave and I’ll never look back and regret spending more time with friends/family. Quite frankly I think the pro 67 crowd has priorities that are way out of whack. The very definition of losing the forest for the trees.
#114
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 779
Just to keep this rational... federal age discrimination law would 100% prevent any company or union restrictions based on (old) age.
Only federal law (or the constitution) can supersede federal law.
If you hate 67, don't rely on your union to fix it after it passes.
Only federal law (or the constitution) can supersede federal law.
If you hate 67, don't rely on your union to fix it after it passes.
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2022
Posts: 657
It’s funny hearing the pro-67 crowd argue that nobody is forcing us to stay to 67, completely neglecting the fact that doing so requires forfeiting the maximum seniority potential that we’ve spent our careers working toward.
#116
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 779
Absolutely not. Quality of life declines rapidly at a certain point and the next 5-10 years after retirement will be gone in the blink of an eye. I want to work hard while I’m able to hopefully get out EARLIER than 65 (58-60 hopefully) so that I can enjoy good health and good quality of life for longer (if I am so fortunate). You can’t take money to the grave and I’ll never look back and regret spending more time with friends/family. Quite frankly I think the pro 67 crowd has priorities that are way out of whack. The very definition of losing the forest for the trees.
#117
Then wouldnt it behoove you to get behind the change to ICAO rules? I don't particularly want to sit home and get paid for doing nothing, I have more work ethic than that. I also don't particularly want to downbid, but if we were displaced and pay protected, that woud be OK. But I assume you wouldn't fight for that pay protection either. All that does is show that what you really want is for me to get out of 'your' seat by any means possible. You might win, or I might win. But if I do, I would hope that you get behind the efforts to keep us working, or I will absolutely sit home and get paid. As I said, not my personal preference, but if alpa won't support us, then so be it.
#118
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Position: Aspiring Airline Pilot
Posts: 43
Pil
Canada is a wonderful case study. There is no mandatory retirement age for Canadian airline pilots. However due to ICAO, some Canadian carriers have a requirement to retire at 65 and even 67. And some can fly beyond that, just not in international or U.S. airspace.
Canada has also already indicated in no uncertain terms that if the FAA increases the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 that U.S. pilots WILL NOT be able to fly in Canadian airspace as this would be a violation of ICAO. Sssoooo that means that airlines would have to plan around pilots/routes that encroach on Canadian airspace (DTW approaches etc). We don’t even have certainty that 65+ pilots would be able to fly to Hawaii because that is through ICAO airspace.
This whole thing is an absolute cluster ******* in the making and the pro 67 crowd knows it and are full steam ahead regardless. Unreal.
Canada has also already indicated in no uncertain terms that if the FAA increases the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 that U.S. pilots WILL NOT be able to fly in Canadian airspace as this would be a violation of ICAO. Sssoooo that means that airlines would have to plan around pilots/routes that encroach on Canadian airspace (DTW approaches etc). We don’t even have certainty that 65+ pilots would be able to fly to Hawaii because that is through ICAO airspace.
This whole thing is an absolute cluster ******* in the making and the pro 67 crowd knows it and are full steam ahead regardless. Unreal.
Not at all, most of our retiring pilots in the US fly domestic. Looking at Canada, every airline except Air Canada has pilots flying over age 65. WestJet has over 100 now. If the US could not secure mutual agreements with countries such as AUS, NZ, Japan, Canada, etc, then wide body pilots could down bid or retire.
#120
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 745
Then wouldnt it behoove you to get behind the change to ICAO rules? I don't particularly want to sit home and get paid for doing nothing, I have more work ethic than that. I also don't particularly want to downbid, but if we were displaced and pay protected, that woud be OK. But I assume you wouldn't fight for that pay protection either. All that does is show that what you really want is for me to get out of 'your' seat by any means possible. You might win, or I might win. But if I do, I would hope that you get behind the efforts to keep us working, or I will absolutely sit home and get paid. As I said, not my personal preference, but if alpa won't support us, then so be it.
If the retirement age in the US were to increase to 67 or beyond, I haven't made up my mind on what I'd want ICAO to do in response. My intuition is the most rational course of action would be to conduct another scientific study on the matter and look at changing policies through the scope of a SRA. This takes time. I'm not against pilots getting a good deal, though I can't imagine airline management teams aquiescing to letting most WB pilots above 65 sitting at home paid without contributing to solving the problem this was supposed to solve in the first place--manning.
Can you imagine what such a deal would look like? Would it only apply to pilots currently in a international category? What happens to a 64 year old 2 years after the policy if ICAO hasn't budged? Will there be some other form of age discrimination where pilots can't bid to international after a certain age? I'm sure there will be profit to be made among the chaos of it all, and I admit I am weary of paying the consequences of whatever negative externalities you won't have to deal with 10, 20 or 30 years down the road.