Except age 67 resolutions have failed at every single LEC meeting…and that was before hiring 5000 pilots I’ve the last two years.

Any chance of it passing died when almost 2,000 older pilots took the VEOP.

I think he means IF 67 passed congress, the resolution to get a bunch of quids from the company in exchange for solving the 'ICAO training problem' would go to membership ratification and would pass. I think.

67 ain’t happening. Even if the FAA Reauthorization Bill includes it, the individual unions at each airline can shoot it down via several mechanisms. These pro-67 guys are essentially peeing into the wind.

Depends how sweet the deal is obviously. Everything is negotiable.
​​​​​​

Not what happened last time... but ok what's changed?

And would you be opposed to that?

Show your work here please.

​​​​​wasnt the whole point to alleviate staffing and allow experienced pilots to fly? How does having WB pilots sitting at home work toward that goal?

Yes, because the rest of us will be paying for it for the remainder of our careers. It makes about as much sense as a payday loan.
​​​​​

Bingo. Filler

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2024-01-12/netjets-implements-mandatory-age-70-pilot-retirement

I wonder what impact this could have on the discussion for 121 and collective bargaining.

Wheels up flow at 65? Or at least a guaranteed interview? We don't want NetJets grabbing all the experienced pilots.

​​​​​​

LOL. Now that’s funny right there.

Funny? I think it's a great idea. No age 65, 67, or 70. They can mentor all the juvenile FOs and groom them to flow to Delta.

That huge sucking sound you hear is all the senior 64 year old NB A pilots bidding to WB A on the next AE. A way better deal than the VEOP. Once they figure this out they will all be 66.75 and won't ever go back to training to whatever the bureaucrats and ALPA and ICAO let the 65+ fly.

This is actually a reduction in their age limit. Before it was unlimited. They were having serious issues getting some of their pilots to hang it up.

I never said it was a bad idea. It’s definitely funny to imagine some of the pro 67 crowd getting on with a new hire multi engine commercial FO.

I am actually curious if they had data saying what age increases risk, and did they need to balance that data with their pipeline of recently retired airline pilots?

They're all playing chicken with the company thinking they'll be the ones to finally get a bypass and immediately using 11.G.7 when they realize the company is actually gonna make them train.

Been a lot of that going around ever since that provision became a thing.

The smarter play is to wait until the day before you start training to exercise that provision.

Dude: Are you really that dumb? Federal law trumps union contracts 3very time.

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.

Then how does Netjets have age 70?

because federal law specifically allows it in their case.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ge-91k-135-ops

and so it begins :-)

Why limit it at 67?

Indeed. Benefit from retirement age for the bulk of your career, crickets. Time to retire, fly til ya die!

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.

And then there’s the 45 year old recently former MEC Chairman….

I also find it odd that these younger pilots are shouting at the clouds over this. I 99.99% guarantee that they’ll stay until 67 when their time comes.

Personally, I think mandatory retirement age should be 50. They’re stealing’ our 350A jerbs! /s

On and on my friend . Wait til they push it to 69 👀.

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.

I'm not sure why the big worry of 67 or 69 ? We aren't flying 727, 707 , L1011 etc. that were much more complicated to operate with much less technology and much more complex approaches with less technology. The airplanes are much more automated and systems easier managed by computers etc. Even if there is a cognitive decline somewhat by 67 or 69 the automation and technology more than make up for it . Not saying I'm pushing for those ages but if they pass those I don't see the big deal or raucous about it .

Because they’ll be forced to if they wish to realize their maximum seniority potential. Most pilots who were hired young look forward to the day that they will take their turn in the top 1 - 5% of the list. I’d prefer to realize that potential and move on to retirement well before my elderly years.

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.

what's the big deal . At 67 or 69 one is super senior and getting 17 to 19 days off a month plus 5 vacations and a couple sick calls a year and you've got eons of time at home and yet still getting tons of extra money for the kids and grandkids and padding the retirement. One still has plenty of time to sit around and do nothing after retirement. I mean you could retire at 55 and then one day die in a car wreck the day after retirement. There isn't a guarantee. I Think it's all in what one desires . I mean The Rolling Stones toured into their 80's as far as age . They are worth millions . They don't need the money. They do it for love of what they do .

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.

Pil
 

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.

Yeah, an FO who is system seniority ~100 and the #1 FO in his 787 category

As far as 67 goes, my union speaks for me: I'm against it. Not even worth debating that since we're not going to change anyone's mind.

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.​​​​​