|
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 3424155)
Is SWAPA the pilot group that is behind the push? Are they individually lobbying Lindsey Graham? Are they acting in conjunction with other unions, or just doing what they want to do? Is the SWA pilot group pushing SWAPA, or is it SWAPA pushing their pilots?
You're insinuating it's SWAPA's move when they are actually the ones who raised the alarm about this legislation being proposed? |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3424208)
The management at airlines are behind the push. Reducing training costs for two years is a big savings for all airlines. They're probably making a lot of campaign contributions right now, spreading it around among politicians they expect to be in office next year - good timing since it's an election year.
They'll trot out some willing pilots to testify that raising the age is a good thing to help alleviate the shortage. They'll get AARP support on it to oppose age discrimination. They'll point out that it will save the social security trust fund money. But all of that's kubuki theater for the public - the political contributions will ensure passage of an age change. We're just pawns in the game. My guess is that ICAO's rules will also change within a year or two after the US. Because you can bet there will be plenty of palms greased. |
As long as ALPA does not get behind age 67, good luck pushing this through the Dem controlled House and Senate.... or Biden's veto if the Republicans take Congress in the midterms. This is why we back the PAC.
|
Originally Posted by Moonbeam
(Post 3424220)
Exactly right. Jeffery Skiles is already being used to push for the age increase. It will be exactly like last time without any extra cognitive testing or studies and we all know it won't solve a thing.
|
Originally Posted by guppie
(Post 3424259)
As long as ALPA does not get behind age 67, good luck pushing this through the Dem controlled House and Senate.... or Biden's veto if the Republicans take Congress in the midterms. This is why we back the PAC.
|
Originally Posted by ZapBrannigan
(Post 3423852)
I hope that the bottom half of the seniority list votes NO with near unanimity! Increase in retirement age harms virtually everyone except for a very few who are the last few years of their careers. You can’t move the goal posts in the middle of the game! No FO should have to wait a further three years to upgrade while the pigs feed at the trough! No junior pilot should be stuck on a trans-con commute to reserve… or stuck flying weekends… or holidays… enduring stagnation, so that pilots who have had decades to prepare for retirement could be given a few more years at the top of the list.
PLEASE TALK TO YOUR FRIENDS, YOUR CLASSMATES, JUNIOR CAPTAINS, and get them to vote NO. There are more captains than FOs, and if we don’t organize and vote like our careers depend on it, we will stagnate as others prosper. My money says it's going to change, and there isn't anything any of us can do about it. |
Originally Posted by guppie
(Post 3424259)
As long as ALPA does not get behind age 67, good luck pushing this through the Dem controlled House and Senate.... or Biden's veto if the Republicans take Congress in the midterms. This is why we back the PAC.
"As the wheels of FAA rulemaking grind inexorably forward, the nation’s largest union of airline pilots executed a 180-degree turn on mandatory retirement for airline pilots at age 60. In late May, the executive board of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) voted by an 80-percent margin to end its four-decade opposition to any efforts to raise the limit. The union said that in the face of concerted efforts to change the rule by Congress and the FAA, the executive board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA’s influence in any rule change." Will ALPA prefer to be party to the process once again? Or risk being relegated to outsider obstructionist status? The older guys who tend to make up top union leadership have a vested interest in avoiding additional medical screening for older pilots... especially if it were to get applied under age 65 :eek: Also the politics are more complicated that just "Dems Love Labor", there's also the age-ism aspect (consider the top Dem leadership for a moment :rolleyes: ). Also the risk of a summer-long travel meltdown right before mid-terms. Would age 67 prevent that? Probably not. Would it appear that politicians are doing some thing, anything? Yes. |
Originally Posted by nimslow
(Post 3424291)
I personally don't support raising the retirement age, but welcome to the career of pretty much every late 90's, early 2000's hire at the majors. Not that long ago I was flying with captains who had spent 18-20 years in the right seat. And these guys were commuting from the west coast to NYC, just to be able to hold captain.
My money says it's going to change, and there isn't anything any of us can do about it. |
Originally Posted by Andy
(Post 3424208)
The management at airlines are behind the push. Reducing training costs for two years is a big savings for all airlines. They're probably making a lot of campaign contributions right now, spreading it around among politicians they expect to be in office next year - good timing since it's an election year.
They'll trot out some willing pilots to testify that raising the age is a good thing to help alleviate the shortage. They'll get AARP support on it to oppose age discrimination. They'll point out that it will save the social security trust fund money. But all of that's kubuki theater for the public - the political contributions will ensure passage of an age change. We're just pawns in the game. My guess is that ICAO's rules will also change within a year or two after the US. Because you can bet there will be plenty of palms greased. |
Originally Posted by 172skychicken
(Post 3424412)
Whose management? Your own CEO was on CNBC this morning and said he opposes the change. FAR from a unified front. This is pretty clearly originating from the RAA.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:47 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands