Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo

Going to age 67 will negatively impact anyone who doesn't plan to go to 67. There will be a career pause for up to 2 years. FOs will stay FOs. Reserves will stay on reserve. Schedules, holidays, equipment all impacted by the pause in seniority.

I shouldn't have to explain this to an airline pilot but here we are. Maybe thinking about others isn't your strong suit.

Originally Posted by joepilot50

Just ask those that were negatively affected by age 65.

There is nothing stopping another cascade of events to derail the juniors career.

Given the lessons history has taught the seniors, the senior people shouldn't be thinking the juniors career will be all roses and sunshine either.

IF age 67 is the only thing to happen in a 30+ year career for the new generation, it probably won't be a huge negative impact. But we all know this is a race to get where we want to be. Who knows how many choose to fly to 67. I'm going off history of when it went to 65 and operating under the assumption most will stay. Now throw in an economic downturn and people are stuck in the regionals, fractionals, etc longer.

You can come back and say that is life and how people from the lost decade had it worse, and so far you would probably be right. But for those that argue that since they had it worse than the new generation SO FAR( and pilots are the worst fortune tellers given how many were going majors wouldn't be hiring for years once COVID happened.....), that they deserve the extra 2 years, the its life argument is thrown right back at them. Accept the same statements they tell their kids when they don't like something, " Life isn't fair". How many times must it be said, it's all about luck and timing. You are not entitled to things just as the younger generation isn't entitled to your seat.

Everyone has their position on Age 67. I have mine and you have yours. Chances are both of our views are highly biased and selfish.

Originally Posted by 13n144e

"ICAO" and "airlines" aren't "working against 67". Just ALPA. And it's not real clear how much anyone on the Commerce Committee actually cares. Republicans certainly don't (Cruz adamantly so) and the few Democrats that might (Cantwell doesn't seem to) may not find it worth holding up the entire reauthorization. Even IF the Senate doesn't keep 67 in the markup, it's still in the House version of the bill and STILL could survive Conference Committee to the final version. And no matter what some pilot thinks of 67, there's just not anything so contentious in the bill right now that they won't eventually pass FAA Reauthorization.

Originally Posted by Airhoss

I don't support or oppose age 67.

Originally Posted by Airhoss

It's two years in a time of unprecedented growth. Hardly a blip on the radar. The primary driver of movement at the moment is growth. If you haven't or can't do the math, hiring is massively outstripping retirements at the moment.

When age 65 happened it was a perfect storm during a time of retraction, pay cuts, furloughs, and a crashed economy. I spent most of that decade as a bottom feeder on reserve. Making less than a first year new hire makes now. So cry me a river just make sure and make a tik tok so we can all watch it while we roll with laughter while tossing piles of cash in the air.

Originally Posted by ReluctantEskimo

I always love this one. It happens every time. Any time you guys are shown how bad 67 will be for the pilot group at-large, y'all backpedal and say "I don't support it either way."

So predictable.

Originally Posted by Airhoss

I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS LEGISLATION, I CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT EITHER WAY.

Originally Posted by Airhoss

But you're way to dense to be flying airplanes for a living.

Originally Posted by Airhoss

It's two years in a time of unprecedented growth.

Originally Posted by dmeg13021

Oh, irony is a capricious mistress. Hoss, love ya, but there’s a difference between zero impact on a career and a quantifiable negative impact that most likely won’t be anywhere near the confluence of 65. And no one is blaming you.

ALPA and some on this thread are against raising the age beyond the current status quo for a variety of reasons. When a labor group representing its constituents advocates a position, it’s the very opposite of selfish. It’s called good for the profession.

In my opinion, ALPA values maximizing pilot career compensation during a period that still allows a high QoL in retirement. Advocating to extend this period is (also in my opinion) short-sighted and degrades the overall value to the group to the benefit of a small number. Whether we have input or control over the process, the fact is that raising the age directly takes money away from some members to pay others for two more years.

And if you think that’s cool, well we are not brothers.