,,,, except I have spent a lot of time living the same life as them.
I divorced shortly before 9/11 and gave my ex pretty much everything. After being furloughed, my choice was to pay rent and not pay child support or be homeless and pay child support. I chose the latter. I got to spend a decent amount of time associating with those people you refer to as 'scum'. Most are financially illiterate and should never have been extended easy credit to buy a home.

As far as the American dream I've 'enjoyed,' I didn't buy a house in the 21st century until 2015 when my finances were finally in proper order and I was comfortable making that financial committment. And no, I don't own any rental properties and never have owned rental properties.

I'm a huge 2d Amendment supporter and own firearms. But I would never advocate allowing every person to own a firearm. On that same note, not every person should own a home. Your misguided empathy does huge damage to those who do not have the financial skills to own a home. I've seen how a lot of those people are far worse off due to buying a home than they would have been if they had been lifelong renters. You and your ilk are horrible, horrible people for the huge financial damage that you cause with your misguided empathy ... I consider people like you even worse than those who advocate unrestricted firearm ownership because your ideas do damage on a massive scale to families with your reckless home ownership ideas that you refuse to acknowledge. You are the worst of the worst.

 

Agreed. The pilot shortage isn't limited to the US; it's worldwide.

It more looks like the paragraph on pilot age was written by ALPA and included in the WH statement to appease ALPA. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conten...AP-HR-3935.pdf
There's far too much spending at stake to hold it up for not raising retirement age.

I remember fairly clearly jumpseating on regionals back in 2000 where the FO's commercial ticket still had wet ink.
Where I see a problem right now in lowering the minimums is that it would reduce the number of working CFIs out there. And there's a huge shortage of working CFIs. That said, I think that the minimums should be somewhere between the current limits and a 250hr Commercial license.

 

LOL!
filler

 

It was rare, but occasional, before the turn of the century. The subsequent rise of the wet commercials led to the ATP rule.

I think there are better ways to do it than 1500 hours, but they are complicated and costly. If the industry wants to go there, great. But don't just give them carte blanche, we've BTDT...

 

Fundamentally they accommodate their member states, they are not the tail wagging the dog. If the country with the largest airline fleet in the world makes a minor tweak, ICAO will probably synchronize pretty quickly one way or another (age 67 or no age limit). US airlines carry almost as many pax as the rest of the world's airlines combined.

I don't think Canada has a limit, legally. But AC was allowed to mandate age 65 due to international restrictions.

The proposed legislation doesn't address any of that, but it could be a real Fluster Cluck if it just goes into effect on 1 Oct. Legacies probably would lobby for some kind of relief, although they could also work out something with their unions.

Regional pilots would be happy... they could keep flying and enjoy their recent compensation windfall a little longer.

 

Oct 1st seems like an optimistic deadline? I was imagining it would be end of the year earliest before this is hashed out. Could be wrong though.

When does the current FAA spending bill expire?

 

This is abjectly false, why do you keep repeating it?

The 1500 hour rule was passed as a political move after the Colgan crash even though both pilots had well over 1500 hours at the time of the crash.

 

Oct 1 is fiscal year. In most all cases, agency budgets start and stop there, unless a Continuing Resolution is in effect or sequestration. Oct 1 is not optimistic with Congress. They need 10 subcommittee meetings to decide what to eat for breakfast.

Also, "chatter" on this bill has slowed recently.

 

Personally I think this will die in the senate. But we will see

 

There had been language allowing for 180 days after the bill was signed to allow the FAA to implement the change but I didn't see that in the section 330 amendment to the House bill which is where age 67 was added. I would expect something along those lines in the final version.
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act expires Sep 30 (end of FY2023). And the FAA Reauthorization Act has a LOT of spending in it so it's likely to get some attention before the end of this month since Congress will be on recess in August. There are a few issues that need to be ironed out before the Reauthorization Act is ready for prime time.

Sen Duckworth shut down the Senate Commerce Subcommittee and did not schedule further hearings after Sen Sinema pushed for lowering ATP training requirements in the June hearing. Here's Duckworth's 'blood on their hands' speech shortly after that hearing: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c50746...ad-blood-hands
For those keeping score of who's in the Commerce Subcommittee, it's 5D-5R-1I. Sinema was put on the subcommittee as a D and then went I but caucuses with the Ds. Schumer let her keep her committee assignments which is why she's still on the Commerce Subcommittee ... https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ocratic-party/
The dynamic of Sinema pushing for lowering ATP training minimums created a problem for Duckworth because Sinema could vote with the Rs and push the bill out of subcommittee over Duckworth and the Ds' objections. Duckworth responded by suspending all further action on the Reauthorization Act. Since it appears that Duckworth agreed to 67 in exchange for holding the line on ATP minimums, things should now move forward in the Senate Commerce Subcommittee.

While we here at APC are looking closely at retirement age and ATP minimums, these are very minor issues for the FAA Reauthorization Act. The big stuff are the projects (money) involved with the Act along with the perimeter rule/flights out of DCA. The DCA issue got more complicated now that Sen Manchin has weighed in opposing additional flights out of DCA. Until Manchin voiced opposition, I had expected an increase in DCA flights. Now, I suspect there will be a lot of political skirmishes on this issue and will probably stay status quo (no additional flights). The losers in the DCA flights will probably see additional money thrown at their district/state. (Rep Chip Roy R-TX is wants more flights out of DCA).

Here's a very good summary of where things stand on the Reauthorization Act: https://www.politico.com/newsletters...unway-00106441

Note that the Politico summary stated that Buttegeig declined to comment on raising pilot retirement age. Previously, he had been the administration's moutpiece opposing age 67. That's a noticeable shift for Buttegeig.

And then yesterday we got a blast email from ALPA asking everyone to let their congresscritters know we oppose age 67. It looks like a last ditch hail mary before ALPA changes its stance in August during the Congressional recess IF it's clear that the age will change.

If the political winds change on this, I'll be happy to post new information. However, at this point it appears that age 67 will be attached to both the House and Senate versions of the FAA Reauthorization Act.