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/