I'm still a few hundred numbers out or it would have me thinking too. [emoji22]

Only certain airports and planes are certified for auto land so their availability for crew scheduling would be extremely limited. Better they be sim instructors because you can’t crash a sim only red screen it.

Or a mad rush not to. Who wants to be on reserve for 3 years?

that what I was thinking. Sit back, call in sick a few times a month, max vacation and you're only working a fuller schedule for 5 mo this a yr max. I think it would have zero net + effect on staffing.

When it was still age 60 everyone went back to the panel on the 727 at my airline. More than a few would bid reserve "no fly" and on the rare occasion they got called they would just bang in sick. Then they would bid all the summer vacation slots and work during them to make some money. Then they would go out on medical for a few month, come back for a few months until they died. The lucky younger ones were able to go back to Captain for a few years when it changed to 65. It was a glorious time in aviation! Can't wait for it to return.

How do you handle the icao rules without abrogating seniority? Will 55 year old FO’s bidding domestic trips get those trips robbed for 66 year old FO’s who can’t bid international? Will younger FO’s get pushed off of narrowbodies so a junior 66 year old can be assured of not going overseas? That’s the biggest challenge IMO. I’m fine with 67 if you start at the bottom of the list again so you don’t rob senior people of trips/fleets they want. Everyone seems to forget that older doesn’t always equal more senior. I had a 63 year old a class behind me.

The only people to truly benefit are those who would be about to turn 65. They got an extra 2 years without any expense. Everyone else’s expense is compounded and working until 67 wouldn’t likely make up for the compounded setback. Nobody under 60 should want this.

Correct…..

True, but sometimes it ain’t the flying - many other variables at Giant :rolleyes:

I'm aware of the ones on the newhire end of the spectrum, but are you saying there were Captains who did this?

I’m aware of at least one SWA ExTO Captain that was hired at FDX in early 2021 that already has a CA 757 award.

That's a sticky question. Hopefully everybody's CBA language is tight enough that nobody will have their schedule adjusted out of seniority, ie the company should eat it or the Oldie eats it. Maybe the Oldie gets a chance to trade out and failing that a reserve flies it and the Oldie sits reserve?

This is similar to people who can't fly to Canada because of a DUI, some airlines will accommodate that... you bid-avoid, then try to trade out and if you can't then they swap you with a reserve.

Those with contracts open should maybe start thinking about that. Most companies can re-flow you during a trip due to IROPs, but having somebody who's illegal to fly a trip awarded it six weeks out should not constitute an IROP. This is actually easy to avoid in PBS... oldies simply can't be awarded international trips. Line bidding is a little harder... depending on the prevalence of international ops they might have to concentrate those in fewer lines to create enough domestic-only lines. This is another example of why tight union control of PBS parameters is important... don't want PBS going back up the list and taking pairings away from senior pilots because an Oldie's not legal for Edmonton.

Or pure seniority solution: if an Oldie can't bid trips/lines he's legal for then he gets reserve. Could a reserve then get called out of seniority to cover a trip? Sure, but that happens all the time anyway, most companies try to load balance reserves so if the junior has 70 hours and the senior has 10 for the month, guess who's getting called?

I think this would have negligible impact on others as long as the fleet in question is mostly domestic. So airlines would have to draw the line as to which fleets Oldies are even eligible for. It's possible that an airline could simply refuse to employ an Oldie if they don't have any pure domestic fleets.

We have a pretty solid precedent in this industry regarding seniority... companies generally can't violate it to accommodate religion, motherhood, etc. Even though people have in the past tried to claim such accommodation.This should be no different.

If you can financially retire tomorrow, why does having a younger wife who wants to work into her 60's, play into your decision on when YOU retire? I'm not being snarky, just genuinely curious. I'm 5 years older than my wife, and if she wants to continue to work after I'm ready to retire, then more power to her, but I'm punching out on my time frame, and she understands that. I am just the type of person that couldn't imagine working one day longer after hitting "my number" and I love my job.

I do blame congress. That’s why I said to entertain an age increase then all the regional pilots need to be on the mainline seniority list and contract otherwise it isn’t about a pilot shortage it’s about keeping costs artificially low.

ALSO anyone over the age of 65 needs to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list with their longevity intact and pay at the highest category they were able to hold at age 65. This way the airlines get their pilots and the rest of us aren’t hurt seniority wise and the old guys keep the money coming in. Sure the 65+ QOL will go down being at the bottom and flying an RJ but they were planning to be retired anyway so it’s all just gravy for them. Also, their experience could be useful on that type of flying bc right now we have two inexperienced pilots trying to get out as soon as possible bc of the pilot cast system of regional vs mainline.

Neither the company nor the union can do that unilaterally. Even if they agree to do it, it would almost certainly get tossed by the courts as age discrimination. Not going to happen.

Even a CBA can't take away someone's seniority just because they reached a certain age. If they're legal to be employed, and already on the list, they're going to keep their seniority. How much schedule accommodation they get is another story.

While seniority is heavily favored in the USA, a company contract cannot over ride federal law, surely? If they are in conflict the law should trump the contract. Certainly a contract cannot take front seat to a sovereign states law such as where age prohibits the operation. If a country prohibits over 65, then a pilot over 65 should simply be excluded from bidding on such a trip without penalty for the company. A senior A320 pilot cannot bid for a B777 trip if he hasn't been awarded the fleet type. International routes should be the same way.

It certainly can take away their seniority if they were supposed to retire. Anything after 65 is a gift

they absolutely can not do that. Yes it is a gift, but age discrimination is illegal, just because they got a windfall does not mean you can discriminate against them.

if they were to be forced back to the right seat, it would have to be as a result of the law…like changing the law to prohibit CAs over 65 but allow FOs(not happening) or require thorough cog testing for a first class medical over 60 but not a second class.

So one? And an ExTO person not VSP?

That right there should tell you it’s an idiotic proposal.

I personally know of that one ExTO captain. There may be others. The one I know of was a unique situation. Significant other is a FDX pilot.

Age 67
 

Depending on the push to make this law, I wonder if it’s possible Congress may skip or fast track analysis, debates and the NPRM due to data available from foreign countries (ie. Japan age 67).

I know one cpt that took VSP and was planning on going to an ACMI. I dont know if he did but I know he took VSP

Kinda like O2 at F250

Every kindergartner knows that changing the rules in the middle of the game is unsportsmanlike.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...4ffb84d011.jpg

Edit: I don’t know what VSP is. I thought ExTO was the early retirement/ 5 years paid leave.

EXTO - voluntary LOA - on the hook for recall.
VSP - voluntary separation - leaving the company.

Gotcha. VSP in that case. Thanks.

This time I am going to make out bigly! Apparently Lindsey is including a cognitive test every 6 months with raising the age limit. It's the same one the former President passed easily. It's called the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and there ain't no way I am going to be passing that. Looks like LTD for me.

But I will be selling a Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test Prep for $1,500 to the diaper wearers that are worried about not passing. 85% pass rate garenteed. This boomer has also sold his house for $985,000. I paid 82,000 for it in 1989 and never spent an once of money updating it. Moved into my millennial sons basement rent free. Extraordinary times require extreme measures.

Yeah you could do it but you'd get sued and almost certainly lose.

Just like a CBA could not ban women or minorities from upgrade.

Congress can do whatever they want. They could call an emergency session at 0200 tonight and vote to pass the law, and Joe could sign it after breakfast.

That's not typically how they do business though, so I'm sure there would be the usual staff and committee process for something like this. The one time I'm aware of that a vote was taken and passed within hours was when they declared war on Japan on Dec 8th.

Also foriegn countries might have relevant medical data but there are labor, business, and political issues to consider too. It's a tough issue because businesses want it, so that makes it bad. But some union workers also want it, which makes it good. And some other other union workers (and the victim's families) don't want it, which makes it all very confusing.

Hard to say but my SWAG is that this will have to get chewed on for a couple years, and it will depend on how bad the air travel situation gets... bad enough and the pols will want to do something just for the sake of appearing to be doing something.

Netjets has plenty of data on pilots flying into their 80's. If I remember right they sucked Harvey Watt dry when they would go out on LTD. I think the number one claimed disability was mental illness. True story.

Cognitive issues, not mental illness.

This is about age 67. So you throw out age 80 data. Good one.

If they keep kicking the can down the road, the FAA flight physical might actually have to become, you know, a physical.

My guess is, if that happened, they’d lose 20% of current staffing—guys who are currently pencil whipped into the air would be LTDing in droves.

Good point.

True statement and I'm sure the airlines are watching carefully... they should balk pretty hard at any additional screening which would affect those under 65, that would likely be counter-productive to staffing.

However... we've had age 65 for 15 years now and I don't recall any geezer-induced accidents in the US, so maybe they can retain status quo up to age 65.

Awful lot of prognosticating, hand wringing and teeth gnashing on this thread but there's a big difference between this and last time. Last time ICAO had already raised it and the US was moving into compliance. This time we are ahead of ICAO and that's gonna a create a lot of issues. I say that makes it less likely. I say Mr. Rogers (Lindsey) is just attention seeking as usual. Even airline managements won't get behind this because keeping fat cats at the top of the seniority list longer is counterproductive and will scare even more entrants out of this industry.