This bill is good for all pilots to have the option to fly until age 67. Please contact your representatives below;
Senate Bill S-4607 and House Bill HR-8513 "Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act" allow pilots to fly until age 67.
Senator Lindsay Graham (Senator-S.C.) and Representative Chip Roy (R-TX-21) introduced the bills on July 25-26 2022.
There are also numerous co-sponsors in congress that support these bills. Senator Graham and Representative Roy merely introduced the bills last July and no further action has yet been taken.


//////////CONGRESS MEETS ON JAN 3, 2023. YOUR ACTIONS TO MOVE THESE BILLS FORWARD ARE IMPERATIVE/////////


*Due to the effects of Sept. 11th, Bird Flu, bankruptcies resulting in the loss of our pensions, poorly managed airline mergers and the recent Covid 19 pandemic many of us have had limited airline careers due to furlough, pay cuts, delayed upgrades to captain and loss of wages.

If you are interested in having the "option" to continue to fly to age 67 which closely matches the Social Security retirement age; .please contact your elected representative(s) using the link below.


https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member


We the experienced pilots of the U.S. airline industry are strongly in favor of passing Senate bill 4607 & House bill 8513. Thousands of pilots like us are nearing the mandatory retirement age of 65. Some of us would like to continue our careers and help our companies get through this current extreme pilot shortage. Last summer, hundreds of flights were canceled due to a lack of staffing. Regional airlines are in dire straits trying to fly their schedules with minimum staffing. Major airlines are hiring as fast as they can and due to training pipelines are limited to how fast they can ramp up to match the pilot shortage. Analyst show a current shortage of 8,000 pilots and forecast the shortage to exceed 30,000 pilots by 2025. Another study by Kiplinger shows the North America will be short 12,000 pilots by next year. No matter how you look at it, the airline industry is facing an ever increasing shortage. Allowing pilots to stay until age 67 will help to alleviate this problem. Every airline pilot requires a Class 1 FAA Medical to fly with an Airline Transport Rating and pilots allowed to fly past age 65 would still need to meet these stringent requirements. This requires meeting with a certified FAA Medical Examiner every 6 months and requires an EKG every year. Almost all the pilots that are close to this age limit have decades of experience with the airlines. This experience and wisdom can be passed to the younger pilots joining the airlines today. Age limits for pilots were passed over a 100 years ago by ICAO and times have changed. Canada, New Zealand and Australia have NO age limits for pilots. Japan has increased the age to 68. Europe and the US are the lone holdouts on the current age 65 limit. Some EU members have filed for exemptions. The time has come to increase this arbitrary age 65 limit and increase this to age 67. Please join us in supporting the passage of S.4607 & HR.8513. The airline industry needs this now and we would like to continue our careers in America’s growing aviation industry.

 

No.....
and still no....
Yet still no......
no again but in white

 

Ehmmmmm, that will be a NO for me…!!!

 

That link comes in handy to tell them no as well.

 

Oh hel nooo

 

HELL NO! Not in a million years!

 

You don't get to change the rules when it's your turn. Big NO. Let the chips fall how they fall. The only reason pay and QOL is slowly getting back to pre 9/11 is the shortage fueled by the 1500 hr rule on the bottom end and 65 on the top (finally). It started around 2015 at the RJs and is finally making its way to mainline.

Leave it be

 

Last I read there are NO democrats signed up as co-sponsers. With 51 Dems/Independents in the Senate I doubt it'll go anywhere. I'm guessing it'll need 60 Senators. On another thread someone posted results from a site that tracks a bill's chance of passing. Age 67 was at 2%.

 

Wait, you can start a thread here with your first post?

Also, hard "NO". 2 more years of savings on the back end isn't going to catch anyone up on their 40+ years of savings for retirement.

 

100% Hard no.