![]() |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3564821)
Nobody ever said that about age 60, age 60 was a political hack job by the CEO of AA to get rid of troublesome senior CA's who happened to be union agitators.
When it came time to raise the age to 65, the FAA naturally had to consider any safety ramifications, they do that for any regulatory relaxation. Age 65 limit is more reasonably about safety. |
Originally Posted by Boeingdude
(Post 3564903)
Age 65 is safe but 67 isn't LOL
|
Heard in a cockpit: "I hope they extend it to 67. I have two years left as of now. That will sure help me get caught up on some bills"
Me: Uhhhh :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by Boeingdude
(Post 3564903)
Age 65 is safe but 67 isn't LOL
Age 65 is slightly less safe than age 60, which is less safe than age 30. Again, there's some grey area before safety drops off dramatically and we're already in it. Will we go deeper into it? IDK, but it will be a political call for sure. Mayor Pete has already stated that he'll put the boomer pilots out to pasture, his words not mine. "The answer is not to keep the baby boomer generation in the cockpit indefinitely," |
The FAA would be better off lowering the ATP age to 21 instead of 23. That would help the regionals out more than moving the top age up.
|
Originally Posted by Der Meister
(Post 3565007)
The FAA would be better off lowering the ATP age to 21 instead of 23. That would help the regionals out more than moving the top age up.
|
Originally Posted by Myfingershurt
(Post 3565011)
You mean for upgrade purposes? I think the restricted ATP (to be able to fly SIC) age was made younger wasn’t it?
And 23 is plenty young enough to be an airline CA as it is, no need to go lower there. |
The airlines wasted the 5 extra years to do anything to prepare for this. Wages came up only in reaction to supply issues. In 2015 regionals still paid 26-30 bucks an hour and many LCCs were still under 60k first year, some still are! 🤡
... meanwhile the cost of training keeps going up... this career just needs to pay more 🤷🏼♂️ |
Originally Posted by Boeingdude
(Post 3564901)
It's normal for the young guys to keep the age at 65 so they can move up, it's also normal for the older guys to want to have the chance to keep flying. I guess will see if Congress passes the bill. No one has addressed the elephant in the room. Will you pass your medical as you get older?
|
Originally Posted by nene
(Post 3565026)
Right, and the corporations know that if/when you don't pass your 1st class, they would now be on the hook till 65 for LTD benefits. I've never heard of anyone on LTD who retired early.
That's the downside for the airlines. It's long-term and won't go away. The upside is that it delays the retirement bubble, giving them more time to do the planning they should have done ten years ago. That's a temporary problem, no matter how painful. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands