Relax, I was just replying to the last post in the discussion, it's a conversation not a debate as far as I'm concerned. If you want to win a debate we'll mark you down as the winner now.

 

Recently ran the ss numbers for a 66 year old uncle and both in-laws (in early 70’s) for comparison. All we’re near but not at the max benefit. In all three cases it made no sense to delay the benefit. For the uncle it became clear that putting it off a year was a bad decision. it’s going to take over a decade to break even and that’s assuming no interest on moneys he could have been banking that first year at 65. Anyhow, no point for someone my age (49) looking for at least another decade.

 

Seems possible this could require the airlines to keep larger staff to back up 67 year olds with massive sick and vacation time. So does this solve the staffing problem at all or just make it worse? If I’m working at 67 I’ll be flying one trip a month max.

 

If this gets passed but the ICAO international 65 restriction remains, I see a new push by the senior pilots. Ego based pay (ie Big Jet =‘s bigger pay) will be targeted for massive change. Instead the focus will be on what UPS and KLM have. Seniority and Seat based pay scales. That way they can max their pay on a domestic only aircraft.

 

Aren’t rules like this usually changed by regulators, after extensive examination of data: fatigue, motor skills and aging, etc? How often do safety regulations, particularity in aviation, get changed by a legislator’s bill? The only thing I could see is a bill that would mandate the FAA to examine raising the age beyond 65. At that point the work would begin (probably several years) and then we’d get a recommendation. Anything can happen but I don’t see this going past Grahams’ desk.

 

That sounds like something boomers might do but there won't be enough 65+ to make it happen.

 

The regulator can change it after, like you said, some due process including public commentary. Unless an existing federal LAW proscribes the change in question.

Congress can always pass a law which would always supersede bureaucratic regulations and process (assuming POTUS signs it). No particular due process required, other than normal legislative process. Although some analysis would probably get done by somebody, staffers or lobbyists, and used as supporting material during the committee/ congressional debates. Good chance legislators would ask for the regulator (FAA) to weigh in with their opinion and data. But ultimately congress and laws supersede bureaucrats and regulations, however it plays out. IIRC that's how got the 1500 hour/ATP rule.

Current FARs have, in some cases, matching federal law. IIRC examples are PEDs, alcohol, falsification of FAA forms and there are others. Typical reason is to put criminal teeth behind certain regs.

There are many other FARs which have no matching federal law, and are only subject to regulatory/admin law/civil enforcement. Example would be landing currency, there's no federal criminal penalty if you're out of currency so not going to jail for that.

 

I foresee a mad rush to upgrade before this becomes a thing.

 

Yeah it's got me thinking.

 

LTD from 61-67 sounds nice.