This, right here. [/close thread]

There's going to be furloughs. The pilot "shortage goes away for a few years. Be ready. Now... All of the snowflakes will go from ranting against age 60-something to screaming gimme-handouts because, I deserve it. Then those that have to take concessions and/or pay a 'free-stuff" assessment out of their paychecks will NEED age 60-something to get said assessment money back. Then after getting their "free-stuff" from the senior guys, the snowflakes will complain how the greedy senior guys want retirement raised to make up for lost wages, as the recent riddle kids get their student loans forgiven.

I should have listened to my Grandma and been a fireman.

ALPA members probably should and probably will get a "vote"... which will inform national's position. Same for APA, SWAPA, etc.

That will not really influence congress too much. Senior union leadership could address this vigorously with congress, or not-so-vigorously. How hard the leadership fights will matter, a little bit.

If congress (aka key congressional leaders who have relationships with stakeholders) wants to do it, they'll just be looking for some data which shows that the safety impact is negligible. If they have that data in their hip pocket, then they can proceed with the rationalization of pilot shortage impact on the public and reducing arbitrary age discrimination.

If they *want* to do it, they'll go shopping for whatever data they need to defend their position. FAA will probably do as they're told per the regime.

It's less likely that congress will approach this with a totally open mind and decide based on data... they're going to have an agenda before they even start discussing it.

Then the pilots unions will spend a combined few hundred thousands of dollars of PAC money for the cause.

Meanwhile, Boeing and Airbus will throw in tens of MILLIONS of dollars.

We're all just along for the ride. Just like last time. Want it, or not want it. If you honestly think any of us are going to get a real say in this, I've got some great low price affordable property out in Hawaii for you.

Lemme say this again for those of you own the back. Last time, ICAO had already raised it to 65.

The FAA had to follow suit or international pilots over 60 wouldn't be able to fly here. It would have been a crap show. This time we would be doing the reverse. Lindsey is just seeking attention as usual. This is a nothing burger and just a big management distraction when every airline is in contract talks.

This will go nowhere until ICAO raises it first.

This is totally incorrect. The US raised the age to 65 about one year after ICAO did.

As a party to ICAO, the US (and any other party nation) allows foriegn aircrew to fly in their airspace as long as they

1) Comply with their own national rules AND;
2) Comply with ICAO rules.

ICAO provides a standardized reciprocity so you don't have to comply with 100% of the local rules for every country you fly to. Way too complicated.

There were 60+ foriegn pilots flying in US airspace for about a year before we raised the age.

Another example, there are very low-time widebody FO's flying into the US under ICAO. They are not bound by our 1500 hour/ATP rule, and can go as low as an MPL.

Mostly irrelevant. We can raise our age unilaterally, but it would only apply to our domestic ops until/unless ICAO raised the age as well. At least a couple other countries already have age 67.

If we wait until ICAO does it, that does provide a little more ammunition to make the case.

If we go first, I bet ICAO follows within a year. We're not the only place with a pilot shortage.

I honestly think we will not get a say in this. That's why I had quotes around "vote".

If the big unions make a big enough stink it might possibly tip the balance. Maybe.

Perhaps some of you glazed over Kirbys CNBC interview. If the major airlines don't want this AND the unions don't want it, they'll have a lot of trouble getting the votes to pass this. It would be one thing is this was major airlines vs unions, but it sounds like it is closer to major airlines AND unions vs regional airlines. That's a whole different ballgame.

Don't forget all the voters who are going get stranded this summer. Pilots can whine about stagnation in their $200K+ jobs, and majors can whine about costly geriatric CA's but the voters get a vote too. The RAA also has exhibits A-Z... cities which no longer get air service.

Summer (and Nov/Dec) travel disruptions could drive this forward. Even though it won't solve the problem, it gives the appearance of action. Especially summer, congress can't ignore that with mid-terms looming.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, or happen this year, but it certainly *could* happen. We're not privvy to the thinking and motives inside the beltway.

This...

filler

That is the strangest, weakest, and most counterproductive argument I have seen on this thread….. and that is saying a lot!

Managements are scared. They are attempting to divide and conquer. Don’t be a sucker and argue against fellow pilots.

The pilot unions should stay agnostic on this subject.