Of course, you're just a crew lounge lawyer and forum blowhard (who is easily and often proven wrong), but any real lawyer will tell you that the first rule is there's no sure thing. The case you think is a slam dunk is the one you will lose.

 

Every pilot that goes out on LTD (with no chance of return) requires a new pilot to take their place. Labor cost is now new guy wages plus LTD. What impact do you think this will have on wages for EVERYONE when 50% of 65-67 are out on LTD? JB will gladly fund his stolen retirement with your career earnings.

 

Partly true, in theory.

In reality, we do need an age limit for practical reasons. I'm a bit agnostic as to what exactly it should be, but it should be determined by some fairly objective evaluators and science... not selfish angry youth who just got their legacy upgrade after 18 months on property and don't want to sit reserve for an extra 12 months, nor those seniors who have an obvious selfish motive to hang on at the expense of everyone else. So most of our opinions are not objective. Same with ALPA, they respond to the winds of membership opinion (as they should).

If it increases, they could avoid a huge windfall to a small handful of senior citizens by phasing it in over time, ex increase the age limit by one month every 2-3 months. That would definitely be the way to go IMO, but the problem is that it won't dilute the short-term retirements, which is what this is all about in congress (or at the least giving the appearance of doing something about it). So if it happens near term, they'll throw the switch immediately.

Advancing age obviously results in cognitive decline, and also increases the statistical risk of sudden incapacitation..

Practicality comes into play because obvious math says you'd need to screen older pilots more often and probably more thoroughly. At some point that gets expensive and impractical. They could just throw that expense onto the geriatric pilots, but there's real risk that enhanced screening would be extended to younger pilots as well... also at their expense. Can of worms, be careful what you ask for.

I play video games, ride motorcycles and generally keep my brain engaged... I'm sure I could do better on a cog test than some folks half my age. IMO cog screening would be disruptive to our profession because it's a very blunt instrument. Just because you're good at whatever video game they dream up as a test doesn't mean you can land a heavy in gusty crosswinds and vice versa. I think experience and checkrides is the best "cog screen" for what we do.

Eventually the risk of sudden incap is just gets too high, even if you pass an astronaut physical at the airport immediately prior to departure on every leg. That's obvious science and cannot be refuted. You just have to decide how far to the right you're willing to push it.

 

First I'm the furthest from a boomer you can be and still hold an ATP. Second, I didn't say that pilots had enough clout to get votes either way, I said that it doesn't matter what pilots think in these matters because we are such a small voting block and it's not a risk for politicians to extend the requirement age by 2 years because its so non-controversial outside of aviation that it's pretty safe for them to pass.

Reading comprehension.

 

The data is already out there. Just ask NetJets and NetJets pilots why they had to implement an age cutoff. Flying with a Strom Thurmond or Dianne Feinstein is a lot of work.

 

Not supporting it is a long ways from veto... veto has political consequences so he'd have to feel very strongly about to go there. Moral support for Pete doesn't qualify.

 

Anecdotes is not the kind of data they'd need to make a science-based decision. Also they should probably acquire the data in a 121 context.

 

Good grief, we're just along for the ride.

 

I agree to a certain extent and I come from a medical background (previous life). I’ve seen plenty of cases on both sides of the equation. Conscious choices regarding your lifestyle in your younger years pays huge dividends in your later years. There’s plenty of data supporting this. Yes sometimes we have very stressful days with limited access to nutrition but for the most part healthy food is more readily available wherever we find ourselves. The pilots getting close to 65 now (not all) are still of the generation that didn’t focus as intently on personal health as those of us today. Smoking, Alcohol, poor nutrition and lack of exercise were common daily occurrences. These actions skew the data a bit but as each generation reaches their sixties I firmly believe the data will reflect positively and it already is. A.I. ( take it for what it is) is here and I believe it will catch health problems much much earlier and those issues can rectified. I also believe the reason the FAA relaxed the EKG QRS wave parameters was for research purposes to support increasing the retirement age. Again I stand against age discrimination but I stand for thorough analysis and examinations. If I pass with flying colors at 66 then my seat in the cockpit I will take.

 

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/...152578.article

Article indicates that the political motive is loss of service to smaller airports.

ALPA opposes.

RAA (regionals) in favor.

NACA (ACMI/third tier) in favor.

Doesn't say what A4A thinks, but I think they opposed it last time.