wake me up when this has left the Presidents desk as "signed off"

until then....

 

2 Smirnoff minis head 1st into a cup of ice, V8 & lime on the turn at Congressional if I had a vote

 

I get email after email from my state representative thanking me for giving my opinion on the potential rule change, but they go on to tell me that Airlines such as United have cut service to my state and blame it on a pilot shortage, and somehow raising the age to 67 will allow all the pilots in the “training pipeline” to finish training and get hired at an airline.

So my stance has changed to let pilots over 65 go back and fly an RJ. That solves the entire debacle of ICAO not allowing them to fly international. If you want to fly that bad at 65/66 years old, then go back to an RJ so this nation can recover from the tragedy of cutting air service to places like Cape Girardeau, Missouri and Kearney, Nebraska.

Nothing proves your love for aviation like swinging gear in a 200 in and out of a Class D airport with 23 passengers in the back

 

The bill will happen, they can't just shut down the FAA. So less chatter doesn't mean the FAA re-authorization will die on the vine. It might mean that it's a done deal and they've moved on to other things. Compared to the defense authorizations which I've been remotely involved with in years past, this seems about as white bread as it gets.

Unless somebody wants to hold the entire thing hostage to make a very public grandstand point about something likely unrelated, this HR should pass on time or close to it. They can use a CR to extend it a bit.

The specific contents can still change, and most likely will at least a little bit. But it's noteworthy that the senate web page says the HR is a joint house and senate proposal... basically says Senate committee and leadership is generally OK with the house proposal. They add a few of their own items, but didn't propose deletions or changes to the HR... as I said that's a pretty benign development, often the two houses propose their own separate versions and then have to hash it out to synchronize them to something which will pass both houses.

There's still potential for somebody to make a public stand against it, possibly even Biden but again he'd have to go on very public record as being opposed to old guys staying on the job. See the problem there? The WH regurgitated ALPA's statement but nobody noticed except the people who were supposed to: You and I. If he defunds a major agency, just in time for holiday travel when the FAA is already struggling to perform, THAT will get attention, and not the kind he needs.

Somebody will need a powerful motive at this point because these bills are rigged with pork and special interests... everybody gets something. If you want to make a public spectacle out of taking away some other politicians goodies, then who's going to scratch YOUR back. It could happen but somebody will need a motive and the willingness to go against the grain on what in the grand scheme is a minor issue. In other circumstances I'd say veto might be the best bet, but not this year.

Let's call it 70-80% going to happen as of today. Effective date likely 1 Oct or sooner since there's no hint of delays, which again would be politically counter-intuitive since the FAA needs help, not defunding.

 

ALPA may very well have to change their tune to get a seat at the table and have some actual input (That's exactly what they did in 2007 IIRC). As things stand right now with the language that would be very important... if implemented today, as is, it looks like a hot mess with seniority and international ops, at least until ICAO follows suit (at least 6-12 months?). They also need language precluding those who already aged out from reclaiming their previous seniority and position, they had that last time around.


The silver lining is that the hot mess won't hit all at once, it will build slowly as senior WB pilots age out.

 

Don't worry. Right after ALPA caves in Aug/Sep to support this (like they did last time when they didn't want to be on the losing side), they'll also cave and encourage their MECs to push LOAs allowing 67-67 pilots who recently retired to me back with seniority because "fairness" and "experience". Since the senior guys control the MECs these LOAs will easily pass and won't be sent to MEMRAT due to the "urgent nature of the issue". Then the circle will be complete. Until they come back in 2 years and demand 70+. Which they will.

Furloughs begin in less than a year. 20% off the bottom of every legacy. Prepare yourselves.

 

So we will save this post for posterity.

 

Boring, unimaginative, and predictable response that contributes nothing. Yawn. Next.

 

Kinda hope this happens tbh. It will screw things up even more than they are now.

 

You forget something: the senior MEC folks don't want retirees coming back and displacing them any more than you or I do. MEC by definition are active pilots, so they're in before the lock.

That's not what the usual experts and financial media are saying, they're calling it soft landing already in progress. Much as you might dislike age 67 and boomers in general, this isn't going to collapse the global economy.

I'm not going to predict black swans, or their absence, that's just a looming specter we all have to learn to live with in this bidness,