bugman61

While I certainly disagree with rickair on some of his status claims, we are of the same conclusion on the eventual outcome. And if you don’t see it, then you haven’t been paying attention. The odds swung in favor of 67 the day the house committee adopted the amendment by one vote. And the insistence by a small minority in the Senate on changes to 1,500 hours sealed it. I’d say 90% odds than any FAA reauthorization in the next year includes 67. It would stake a seismic economic shift, or a series of lengthy extensions and delays that force a reevaluation to change it.

nene

Age 60 to 65 could not have come at a worse time for the airlines and/or pilot careers, but that didn't slow it one bit. If they'd even cared one iota about pilots careers they would have phased in the 60-65 over the course of 10yrs, say one extra year every two for example, at least there would have been some industry throughput instead of a full stop for the better part of 5 yrs.

rickair7777

Yes that would have been more equitable. But the issue then was that ICAO had already done it.

The issue today is appearing to mitigate the shortage. It would actually mitigate it for regionals, ACMI, third tier, if nothing else most of their guys probably would stay longer since they'd have to be pretty darn comfortable to still be there in the first place.

As you say, they aren't concerned with pilot career progression... getting "stuck" for an extra year or two in a $250K+ job with 18 days off/month would seem very much like a first world problem to congress and the public. Which is why ALPA is pounding the safety drum...

500RVR

And ALPA is lying about safety, absolutely disgusting!

PineappleXpres

Lying? How old are you?

CBreezy

The only thing disgusting are people like you who ignore the safety implications of older pilots and try to gaslight everyone else.

sailingfun

Not a chance in 1000 that would fly in the court system. When ICAO went to 65 and the FAA agreed those pilots could fly in US airspace it was over. Game, Set and Match. Age discrimination is illegal in this country. The only questions at that point were if it would allow a return of retired pilots and what would the actual age be set at with 65 the baseline minimum. ALPA was able to prevail on both those issues however I was surprised they did not lose in court on the first.

hercretired

news flash but zero, none, no, nada talk about "Age 67" since we went into Continuing Resolution mode. Add the middle east crisis in the mix, and this is unlikely a priority on the front burner of Congress. Presidential elections soon to follow.

it was fun to talk about while it lasted.

Current CR: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/h...8hr5860cph.pdf

Expires Nov 17, 2023

"will eventually happen" - comment posted to CompuShare Age 65 message board, in 1987

yes, I am sure "it will eventually happen"

until then, Happy Birthday to anyone turning 65 soon. Have a great retirement !

rickair7777

For clarity the age 65 law did explicitly allow the return of 60+ pilots, but it also explicitly required that they return as new hires EXCEPT for those currently on property as a crew member. So 60+ FE's could bid back into a pilot seat.

The current language says none of that, so if you want to maximize seniority progression that might be something you should ask your union to lobby for.

rickair7777

You keep saying that. When age 67 was a standalone bill out of left field, it's odds of going anywhere was near zilch. As expected, it stalled and died on the vine.

The continuing resolution language has nothing to do with age 67 either way. The only impact is delaying the urgency of needing to pass a long-term FAA re-authorization.

Age 67 was pretty well baked into the FAA re-authorization process. That process is suspended because like you say they have a CR to tide them over for a few weeks and now another war to consider. But it's not dead, it's just in a holding pattern.

The FAA bill *will* need to be addressed sooner rather than later, for a multitude of reasons unrelated to age 67, which is just along for the ride in that process. The FAA bill will be passed, and age 67 is in a good place to be included. I'm not going to guess specific odds, but let's say better than 50/50. It's in the package and will probably stay there unless somebody makes an effort to get it out (somebody who matters).

At this point IMO the unions need to get onboard so they have a say in the details, such as 65+ pilots returning and reclaiming seniority, and how international ops will be dealt with. With a few simple sentences the law could ensure that most legcay WB pilots simply choose to retire as originally scheduled (rather than go to Guppy class), and the regionals and some third tier airlines who really are in deep staffing doo-doo get to keep pilots they need very badly. It is not bad for most of us if senior regional lifers get to stay, our business models currently rely on that, and frankly I'd rather the regional lifers train the CFI's on 121 *before* sending them to us.


And yes, anyone with a big birthday this year should be shopping for new golf clubs, they're going to need them.