I’m not so sure. That’s an extra 3 years of long term disability depending on the airline, and especially if they add cognitive testing I’d bet big money on pilots hitting 65 then sandbagging the cog screen so they can golf for dollars.

 

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.

 

His name is Sully’s Co-Pilot. Get it right, sheesh.

 

The PAC bribes politicians on both sides of the aisle. If this is going to happen, it’s going to happen with or without our consent. We are just small fish in a big swamp when it comes to DC politics.

 

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.

 

We'll see. In 2007 they adapted to to the prevailing winds...

"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

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 ). 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.

 

That was me. I was a January 99 hire at a major. Going on 26 years in the right seat. To be fair, I didn’t go back when recalled so it’s partly my fault. Still stings a little thinking about it happening again.

 

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.

 

According to Kirby in that interview, 36% of age 64 pilots at United are unavailable to fly due to sick, and LTD. CEOs at the big three need to get very vocal and oppose this proposed age increase. If Kirby’s against it I’m guessing the same is true for the other two.

 

Do you believe that stat means that 36% of pilots, age 64, have underlying medical conditions that make them unable to meet the requirements of Part 67? Or, do you think it's a reflection of the CBA that gives NO credit for sick leave balances at retirement?

Let's flip it however, say 36% of age 64 pilots are unavailable, that means 64% of that group IS available. A CEO favoring replacing a pilot at the top of the list (who is a top pay scale, with maximum vacation, and all the other "maximum" labor costs for that job classification) with new guy who is at the bottom scale, and with benefits near or at the bottom of the scale can't be surprising to anyone. However, at United's own admission, they don't know where they'll get the manpower needed to execute on the marketing plan.

The get out of my seat crowd has little merit to the argument when there are unfilled Captain vacancy bids. The seats are open, but where are all the eager new guys to jump in?