That seems reasonable for 34 years ago. But here's what you wrote. "My son gets more in his B plan per month in year two than I made total in year 4." I think you meant per year.

Very surprised at some of these names if true.

If this letter is legit, wow, what a huge blunder.

I'm old, retiring soon and don't support 67. I agree with sailing, 65 hit the sweet spot. As to these blokes, my association speaks for me. Not these people. Give it a rest already.

The last of the baby boomers. Most entitled generation in history. Not going to get into details because the points have been argued relentlessly. Their position is self-serving. I have yet to fly with a 64 year old that plans on retiring if age raised.

Thank you! Thought I was the only one.

I am at the end of the baby boomers and I do not agree with them at all. Do not lump us all in together. You are such a millennial!/S

Yesterday ALPA said: Age 67 will "increase ticket prices".

Today ALPA says: Airlines can "solve their pilot shortage with industry leading contracts".

https://www.facebook.com/ALPAPilots

Next they will embrace DEI.

Oh ... they already have!

Ok - for the one millionth time, it is not the new and recent hires that will mostly be affected by this although they will experience some negative effects. It is the 1998-2001 hires who already lived through 5 extra years in the right seat, furloughs, BK etc that will be very negatively affected. Just when these guys are knocking on the WB-A door we are discussing moving the goalposts again.

As I am approaching geezerhood at 60, I am mostly agnostic on this issue. But if the decision were mine, I would not change the age.

Scoop

Just food for thought here but I fly with a lot of 98–2001 hires and most all of them are favor in increasing the age to 67 now. It's not just the "1989 hire, age 64 guys" that are in favor.

Who says it was Kooks and not a different misspelling?

Ok, so, standard arguments aside, If 67 were to happen and ICAO takes a few years or more to catch on, wouldn't this be a great opportunity for negotiations? All of the costliest problems lay on the company side, and only by negotiating to change the PWA could they fix them. I would think ALPA could get some very significant asks out of this just to change anything. Am I wrong? Is there a reason the pilots would be the underdogs at that negotiating table?

touché….change the O to C…

Point of Order. How old were you when your son was born? What is the difference in hiring age between you two? And how much are your year 4 "then year" dollars worth today?

The whole thing is just an absurd money grab by the pro-67 crowd that will introduce operational disruption and add an element of risk into the U.S. airspace system.

-There is no pilot shortage. Hiring has reached equilibrium in 2024 and will begin to “normalize”.

-There have been no studies conducted as there were the last time ICAO raised their retirement age.

-A shocking number of airline pilots age 64 and older are out on medical or disability. Trying to sell this raise in the retirement age as a solution to some made up problem is incredibly disingenuous.

-This undermines the basic principles of collective bargaining and makes ALPA look weak. What a way to show yourself out the door and leave things for the rest of us. On the back of record contract gains at all the legacy airlines no less.

-What should be terrifying to ALPA pilots is the possibility that a very vocal minority can hijack the narrative and influence legislators to change long-standing best practices for policy and rule-making as it relates to aviation.

The pro-67 crowd is nothing more than incredibly selfish. They have their own self-interests in mind. Never mind the profession. Never mind your career. Never mind my career. It’s all about them.

The pro 67ers apprantly have a lot more backing/support than most people think.. Seen this?


'raise the pilot age DOT com'

Dude: You're wrong on most of those points, there are many older pilots who didn't get hired young like you probably did. I don't think Congress is too fond of the young guys calling "stagnation".

I was 28. He was about 5 years older than me.

I hadn't and I don't think many have. "We are a large group of pilots" or a group of large pilots? I notice an attempt at some impressive made up titles and some "senior advisors" but no junior advisors. Reminds me of the condo board at Del Boca Vista.

Here's one of thier featured news articles. https://airlinegeeks.com/2024/01/09/...ilots-in-2023/

They just set up a bot to google and post every internet story with the words pilot shortage.

This is thier most convincing article on the subject. https://www.elkvalleytimes.com/news/...8c6cc9074.html

They do aircraft sales too. https://raisethepilotage.com/newsroom/

which ones are wrong?

Notice you don't hear the Age 67 supporters talking point that this is a 'done deal' much anymore though I do still see "our opinions don't matter"? And now they send a signed letter to Congress dated 1/9/24. I guess both of those talking points are erroneous much like those in this letter.

Their lobbyists told them to push the 'done deal' BS so pilots who don't support changing the retirement age wouldn't bother to call their Senators. Age 65 happened in large part because a minority of older pilots were more engaged and active in lobbying Congress.

Time to be heard. Let your Senators know how you feel and that the FAA Medical is incapable of evaluating cognitive decline. Pilot calls and emails that support ALPA's message on the Hill are quite effective.

https://alpa.quorum.us/campaign/48916/

40k in 1990 is about 100k today if you use CPI inflation numbers. But it’s also worth noting health insurance was free (or so I’m told) and cost of housing was much lower.

also based on the pay tables Timbo posted in another thread that seems to work out to an average of 60 hours a month as a 727 FE.

Can you point factually to a single point that is wrong? And your rebuttal wasn’t even a coherent response to anything I said. Where did I mention stagnation?

It's remarkable and laughable that you think Congress would or would not be "too fond of the young guys calling 'stagnation,'" whatever that means.

It's adorable that the 67 crowd thinks this is anywhere in Congress's top 100 priorites.

And now they're running around Washington, handing out a letter of such poor quality and so lacking in coherence an 8th grader would be ashamed to turn in at school. If anything, once Congress sees some of the folks handing out this letter, they might be terrified that these pilots want to keep flying.

ALPA today posted that Age 67 will harm the public and raise prices and hurt the industry.

A moment before posting that gem ALPA posted:

https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...mA&oe=65A55DA5

ALPA does not give two squirts about the public interest and most everyone with a brain knows it.

I sure would like to know what Alpa’s position is. Their published official position is anti-Age67, yet some of the names on that letter work/worked for DALPA actively lobbying Capitol Hill. I’ve seen their pictures in ALPA magazine on the front steps! Are my PAC contributions going to further stagnate my career? Maybe time to cut funding the PAC.

ALPA has been crystal clear what their position is. They are against raising the mandatory retirement age to 67. And the signers of that letter are undermining ALPA, their peers, and this profession in the name of their own self-interest and greed. The vast majority of pilots do not support raising the mandatory retirement age to 67.

Congress isn’t composed of educated people or even coherent people at this point. These people are some of the most immoral and corrupt people on the planet. They have no shame. Even the ones that went to Ivy league schools are compromised by political affiliation and not by independent thinking even if it causes them to throw basic common sense out the window.

ALPA is supporting another labor group. Organized labor should support organized labor.

Age 67 would harm the public by raising ticket prices for a very logical reason:

If age 67 passes and ICAO doesn’t reciprocate (which they have indicated they aren’t going to. Even Canada just came out and said they won’t allow any U.S. pilots over the age of 65 to fly in their airspace) then there will be pilots sitting at home with pay every month, unable to fly. Or best case scenario ALPA (the organization they’re actively undermining) and the airlines negotiate a buy-out of those pilots… Either way those incurred costs will be tens of millions and those will be directly passed on to passengers. The airlines aren’t just going to eat those incurred costs.

I don't think they'll be invited back.

How did this post get buried? It’s a great question worth discussing.

Beyond codifying an age 65 retirement in the CBA, I don't know what ALPA could give back that would justify a big ask. That's the only way that you could smooth over the operational burden.

I think the big asks would come if 67 passes and Delta has to live with it. ALPA could agree to some training gives in order to make the transition cheaper for Delta. IOW ALPA agrees to allow Delta to require all WB pilots over 65 bid to NB unless and until ICAO allows 67 year old pilots to fly and the quid would be Positive Space for commuters and Holiday pay for all holidays and first class on all DH and …..

As I've said before, you show up to fly a trip you're unqualified for, you don't get paid. No different from forgetting your passport. Simple.

If 67 is passed and we can't legally institute our own retirement age of 65, we would be bound to fight for them to get paid to sit at home.

unless they bid reserve.

If you have been around since the flight engineer days in the airline industry you will see there is no known cure for herpes. It also a known fact that herpes can lay dormant for years only to have an outbreak at the most opportune time, or most inopportune time depending where you fall on the seniority list.

Nice of all those old Captains to allow a token FO to sign the letter.

ALPA can't agree to anything of the sort. Any change of that magnitude would have to go to the membership for ratification.

What are the chances that a majority of the pilot group will be OK with geezers sitting home to collect a check for two years, after the way they have underminded the union, alinged themselves with anti-labor politicaians/the RAA, and unmasked themselves as selfish buffoons? Less than zero IMO

The irony is this is exactly what the old-timers will want...after blabbering about "solving the pilot shortage" by raising the retirment age.

When I said ALPA I meant the membership of ALPA. Yes I do believe that would require a vote and I bet it would pass.