Effing terrible, hard pass!

 

You are saying that you lost progression because of a previous age change, but then recommend another one to fix it. For you.
This imposes the same problem on the next group, right? The stagnation of waiting to move to a bigger airplane or make Captain will cost the majority of pilots more than they can make up by working an extra 2 years. This only benefits the pilots who are at top scale and/or approaching 65.

 

Exactly. Waiting 2 years for that upgrade, etc means you lose the time value of that money in your 401k, investment account etc. So you want 10 more years to get that last "2 more years" and it doesn't make up for losing out on income from 10 years ago.

But if you are 62+ you don't really care because all you see is a couple more years making $500k and if you are on LTD and you have no intention of coming back, you certainly want the age changed so you can collect $15k a month for another 2 years tax free.

I honestly think the Age 67 crowd doesn't really want to fly 2 more years. They are hoping for some buyout since they can't keep flying international or they plan on going on LTD instead of going from a WB back to a 737 to fly 8 leg 3 day trips in a domestic only category. One pilot I talked to said if he could not fly International he'd just bid back to 757 on the west coast and fly 2 day Hawaii trips for his last 2 years. Well that means some pilot currently doing that would be knocked out of those trips and back to all-nighters or some other less desirable flying.

 

APC does need a functional autocorrect on the desktop version (in addition to getting rid of the darn green banner which pops up every 16.9 seconds)!

While I appreciate being honest about your motivation, I respectfully disagree with your logic as expressed. Changing the rules mid game to effectively benefit one group is inherently unfair and selfish, at least in this situation. It’s like changing the number of baseball innings to 11 just because you aren’t winning in the bottom of the 9th. “Us” wanting to keep the innings at 9 is not selfish. It’s the rules we all signed up for.

And while I get that an additional 2 years now would help you make up for the 5 spent ‘stuck’, I would argue that for the vast majority, it would make it worse, like a second kick in the junk. For others, it would. be a ‘new’ injury

In reality, this is a pretty minor issue, but I’m not so sure about your statement about career earnings. On a spreadsheet, the total column might be larger for some, but giving me 500k in 10 or 30 years isn’t the same as 500k tomorrow. it’s “this year dollars” versus “then year dollars“. Granted, we can’t know what those future earnings would total, so it’s really tough to qualify. But regardless of who’s right on that small point, it only matters if I also go to 67….

At the end of the day, every single person who does not go to 67 will be irreparably harmed, IMO.

But again, if you’re 63 or 64, I can’t really blame you for wanting to continue flying, and making money. I might feel the same way if I were in those shoes. Just trying to explain why I think so many are opposed to 67 (as if we haven’t all heard all of these arguments 100 times before already, L O L)

 

My opinion age 67 will not happen now. If the industry gets in a crunch again, there will be a clamor for it. It is all politics.

 

If it were going to happen, it would have been best to have done it ~2-3 years ago when everyone was hiring everyone they could get onboarded/trained. At least then, the “shortage” arguments actually would have had some merit, and the impact would have been minimized.

 

I think there's a lot of wishful thinking going around. I support it, but until the bill is signed, I'm not confident it's "dead."

 

Look what someone posted on the Pilots for Age 67 Facebook Group. Let’s dissect and discuss all the flaws with this argument.

If they really want to mentor inexperienced pilots, make the age 67 carve out for 76 passenger jets and below. They can go mentor at the regionals.

How exactly would’ve age 67 prevented Colgan?


"I've never seen icing conditions. I've never deiced. I've never seen any- I've never experienced any of that. I don't want to have to experience that and make those kinds of calls. You know I'dve freaked out. I'dve have like seen this much ice and thought oh my gosh we were going to crash."
- The First Officer of Colgan Air Flight 3407 from the CVR transcript. 4 minutes and 25 seconds later, as the aircraft was stalling, she raised the flaps without command from the Captain and contrary to all common sense. This action made it impossible to recover from the stall. Just minutes prior to her above statement, she had been discussing her lack of experience (just 1600 hours) and her decision to upgrade to Captain, for which she was already eligible. Senator Chuck Schumer often describes his loyalty to the families of Colgan Flight 3407 and his desire to defend aviation safety. In aligning with ALPA, APA and other unions who are seeking to maintain their collective bargaining leverage by opposing Age 67 and thereby perpetuating a pilot shortage, Senator Schumer and others opposing Age 67 are accomplishing the exact opposite. Pilots who will retire at age 65 over the next few years will leave with millions of hours of flight experience at a time when America's cockpits need them most. The flying public should be aware of this truth.

 

Yeah, let's see the study that shows it's safer to change the age to 67...
still waiting...there is none. If there is, please post it here:

The IATA study showed 2023 as the safest year in commercial aviation ever. Ever. And this was despite a huge growth spurt in the industry.
We see incidents involving older crew members who the 67 proponents want to keep flying even longer.
Shame on those who use a safety argument for their own personal gain.

 

The impact would have "been minimized?" "Best" to do it 2-3 years ago? And crush a big part of our leverage in the latest negotiating cycle? C'mon, man. If Age 67 was up and running or being implemented during negotiations, we would have done much worse. Say it with me: "A pilot shortage gives us leverage at the bargaining table."

It also may well have negated the bonuses and raises seen in the FFD segment, as well. Which is why the RAA are treating geezers like useful idiots in the age 67 fight: to fluff up the number of mainline pilots, allowing some stagnation at the regionals so the RAA can cut back on its bonus schemes, and maybe force rates back down. And if they do get 67 approved, they'll immediately start trying for 70.

It's pathetic to see all the old guys who are trying to line their pockets at the majority's expense, and in the process erode whatever labor scarcity we can bargain off of. These guys don't give a rat's ass about anyone other than themselves. Anyway, unfortuntely, the pilot shortage, to the extent it existed, is a thing of the past for the foreseeable future.