Age 67 Thread Drift
 

Does the threat of 67 influence
1. senior upgrades so pilots can get in before the music stops?
2. junior upgrades for fear of stagnation?
3. I don't read podcasts or listen to emails is 67 being discussed again?

No matter what ICAO does I imagine any regulatory changes would likely get tagged onto an FAA Reauth bill. So don’t think there’s any immediate change on the near horizon.

disagree. If ICAO changes to 67 the US would probably change the law here within a month or 2. Just like they did for 65.

allowing foreign pilots to fly to 67 in us airspace while restricting US pilots from doing the same would be an age discrimination lawsuit slam dunk.

Okay. I have heard literally no one talk about age 67. I think it would be close to 50/50. Half would support it or simply be indifferent and the other half would oppose it. Perhaps there would be some tweaks to our PWA if the pilots and ALPA decide that the majority are against it.

it’s definitely out there. POTUS just appointed a representative to ICAO who is a recently retired DL CA and age 67 advocate. Then there is congressman Nehls from Texas who has a brother who is a double digit seniority number WB CA. Rep. Nehls is a big supporter of the current administration.

remember, any tweaks would have to be in line with federal age discrimination laws. If the FAA raises the age, there isn’t a whole lot DL or ALPA can do that would be both legal and only affect those over 65. that is, unless a federal law explicitly allows it.

for example we cannot have our LTD end at a certain age. Any cuts to LTD would have to affect a 35 year old and a 65 year old equally.

same with having your seniority reset at a certain age. Not legal.

small correction: nehls is a rep, not senator

yep, good catch

edited

About 2 years ago when there was a real threat of them sneaking 67 into the reauthorozation bill, i put in for a junior upgrade for fear of stagnation. I could have waited a bit more but seeing how there was not much NB-A movement since I finished training I'm glad I did. I personally don't see it as a threat anymore, but if it does get closer to reality I suspect a combination of #1 and #2, with the junior ones having to be ok with long term juniority in case the door slams shut behind them shortly after.

I saw the article. Is that the same pilot who was a former MEC negotiator? Has a common name.

Yes. Same guy.

If you think our LTD will not be affected by Age 67…

Our current policy will change and that will hurt everyone up and down the seniority list.

It’s a massive cost and it’s gonna come from somewhere.

we have improved LTD since age 65. I’ve said before I don’t think 67 would break our LTD, but that’s just my opinion.

my point wasn’t that our LTD would be fine or not, even though I think it would be. My point was DL/ALPA cannot change LTD to make it worse for those 65+. For example we cannot implement an age cap for LTD benefits.

our policy only changes if we vote in a change. As of right now DL owes us LTD until FAA mandatory retirement age. If the age changes that’s a DL problem.

And what are we willing to give up for that?

we already have LTD that goes to FAA mandatory retirement age, regardless of what that age is. Why would we have to give something up for an item we already successfully negotiated.

Because the actuaries know what the cost increase will be.

Maybe if we had better healthcare, food, etc in this country. This isn’t Japan or Europe. We excel in many things here, health care cost and morbidity we excel at in the wrong way.

So again, what are we willing to give up for that?

Those making that argument believe the company will be less willing/able to put money in other parts of the contract, because they know those costs to the penny. So it will be an indirect impact.

In effect, it will rob other parts of future contract gains to 'fund' the increase in LTD payments.

IATA is the one pushing the Europeans. So the airlines are behind this. I guess it could be an outside the U.S. initiative because they see staffing as an issue but here at home it seems to be cooling. With Spirit soon contributing to pilots being available I don't see our airlines as wanting it, but maybe? <shrug>

https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...67-2025-08-28/

The top us airlines should not want it. But if ICAO goes first, they won't have a choice.

in other words, someone’s going to pay for an age increase. That someone is everyone, exspecially those who will be around for a while. how again is that fair?

That’s the neat part! This is when senior absolute LOVES reminding you life’s not fair. Their pleated pants bulge at the thought of telling you to suck it up and figure it out. And don’t for one second suggest that life might not be fair to them. Senior paid his dues to the cosmic ether, and therefore the unfairness of life is a dung beetle’s poop ball that can only roll downhill.

If you think our health insurance premiums are high now, wait to see what they are if we have to assume two more years of pool risk so entitled geezers can stick around for two or more years (they’re not going to be satisfied with 67).

I’ve got over 34 years here. I fly NB by choice. The option of another 2 years won’t affect my aircraft choice. Y’all can have the glory and prestige, I’ve got my coffee shops and restaurants in the burgs and villes picked out. Heck they know me by name at Keefers Downtown in JAN.

69 it will be 😂

while I can see this argument, it’s already an item in the contract. We have it. The idea we would have to give something up to keep it seems overly defeatist.

costs on items change. It is delta’s responsibility to pay for LTD until mandatory retirement age. If that age goes up by 2 years, they still have to pay that LTD cost.

cool. It’s still in our contract to FAA mandatory retirement age. The only way we would have to give something up is if we voted to.

Wouldn’t most still switch to Medicare at 65? If you don’t sign up at 65 +/- 3 months, you will have to pay late enrollment penalties.

if you delay Medicare enrollment by 2 years, you will have to pay 10% more for part A for 4 years and 20% for part B for the rest of your life.

seems better to still enroll at 65

Maybe if our membership had placed some priority on retiree medical benefits, more pilots would have been willing to bail at 65 and sooner. Healthcare is the boogieman at all phases of life. Delta relies on Tricare to lessen the urgency for acceptable benefits. FYI, other airlines have pooled retirees with active employees in the same risk pool, and it worked. Sure the retiree pays the full premium, but it's the same amount as the active employee + employer pay for the same coverage. Is there a problem with that?

Or if we capped it at 65, and negotiated similar-value improvements for the entire pilot group, instead of wasting it on the olds

That would not be remotely legal actually.

While at least one major does cap LTD at 65, the only reason it hasn't been litigated and over-turned is because the retirement age is still 65.

If you say so, boss.

Can you show me where in the book that's written?

Right now yes.
Any chance the federal government shifts the goal posts and delays Medicare eligibility to 66,67,70 in the future?
Same vein, any chance the federal government moves the goal posts on social security benefits or full retirement age (again)?

cool. Since we keep talking around each other you’re lying to yourself if you think out LTD will not change if 67 happens.

Yeah, the company won’t take that into account… Will the company consider it a freebie?
No, it’s now a bargaining chip for them.
“You ask on xyz (vacation, raise, 401k contributions, etc) is a little high, when you take into account the additional we are paying for LTD.”
“That value went up due to federal mandate.”
“Yes the value went up. We can raise xyz by (fraction of offer) or adjust LTD.”

All prices are taken into account. There are no freebies in negotiations and there is a cap on value. There is some flex in how much we can get an increase in total value or where it goes, but this idea that we get it for free is just unrealistic.

It's extensive and well-settled law and precedent. Google has all the details.

Summary:

Federal law (not the constitution) prevents age discrimination.

Fed can implement other laws which *do* allow discrimination, since it's not a constitutional thing, prime example is age 65.

Fed/state/local governments can set age limits for public safety jobs, where they can demonstrate a legit basis for that. Private employers cannot do that directly, but they might employ people who require a government license with an age limit (like us).

There is a very specific carve-out for private employers to set an age limit of 65 for bona fide executives. The law proscribes the creative use of the "executive" label, ie they can't call you the COO of Flight 123, or the FO the VP of landing gear and comms to justify mandatory early-out.

This is for the upper end, discrimination is obviously allowed for youth, for their own safety and well-being, and for maturity & judgement reasons (ATP, law enforcement, military, etc).

This is true, but it's a bit obtuse to not conceed that it can become a high cost item to keep. Losing out on other gains because we try to keep, as it's cost rises, can be a real thing. I'm not sure 67 will drive up to cost too crazy, but unlimited age would certainly do that. Let's be honest, 67 won't be enough for this crowd. If 67 passes, they'll immediately start pushing for unlimited age.

i agree completely with you. It may make the contract more expensive, but so do lots of things that are affected by external factors.

I’ve said before, I don’t think 67 would be too crazy of an increase to LTD costs, if it goes to 70 or more, no way we keep our LTD in any capacity similar to today.

but I think the idea we would have to give up anything we already have to keep LTD if the age goes to 67 is a little pessimistic at best.

pilots are already eligible for retiree medical until Medicare age as long as they retire at 60 with, I think, 10 years of service. If the Medicare age goes past 65, regardless of FAA age, we would have those pilots in our medical pool.

as far as SS, you can still take it at 65, it’s just not the “full” age. But if you are no longer working, what does full age matter? 67 may be more than 65 but 70 is even more. FRA really only matters if you want to both work and collect SS.

Last I saw the SS trust fund will run out of money by 2034ish. At some point before that we will either
1) begin means testing recipients in which case I doubt many of us will see anything
2) eliminate the income cap on SS contributions, in which case all of us will pay a bunch more in taxes or
3) cut benefits to about 70% of their current level. This could be a straight cut across the board, by raising FRA, or something else.

pretty much guaranteed one of those things will happen in the next 10 years, maybe a combination of all 3.

I wish I could have dropped out of the social security scheme years ago. The most popular solution is just end the income cap which will triple what captains pay for ss every year without increasing the benefit at all.

I don't think we have to give up something we already have, but more of a losing out on potential gains. Either one is still a loss.



Ya their argument about not being able to stay to full retirment age is a bit much. Like the $1k/month loss for drawing it at 65 is going to put them in the poor house 🙄. Most of us will he lucky to see SS in anywhere close to its current for, and if we do, it will likely be because we paid increased taxes.


Agreed.

Don’t ever underestimate the ability of politicians to push out problems as far as possible and continue to print/borrow money. I’d bet on massive money printing and inflation before they do a single thing to SS. SS has been underfunded since the late 70’s. Here we are 50
years later. You think any politician wants to touch this hot potato? Not going to happen.