Well then, may have to rally a comeback. Still a no. Not because I think pax will perish as result. But because the system demands it on a best practice basis. Walk the walk. https://youtu.be/eQvO7Ez5Mww

 

Kirby was quoted saying that 36% of United pilots age 64 were out on medical (or perhaps it was medical and voluntary early retirement). I’m sure that number goes up exponentially with age so this proposal could end costing more with the airlines footing the bill for pilots aged 65-67 who are out on disability. This also affects those of us with “loss of medical” insurance by jacking up our premiums.

Then we have all the costs of buying off trips for the WB international pilots if ICAO doesn’t change.

All of this so we can fly mostly empty RJs to airports within 100 miles of another all subsidized by an overspent government.

Meanwhile the real problem, ATC, doesn’t get addressed.

 

Graham may have talked about it, but Nehls initiated the first age 67 proposal in either house of congress. All to help his brother; cronyism at its worst. He’s up for re-election next year.

 

So... your concern is how this change would impact the company if everything stayed static other than an age change??

 

That's not correct. Nehls wasn't the sponsor (it was Ferguson) nor even a cosponsor of the first house age 67 proposal, HR 3038, Airline Pilots Retirement Security Act.

 

Tammy had previous stated that they had made a drug deal to the effect of hold the line on the ATP/1500 requirement, but basically in exchange for age 67.

I'm glad that at least Tammy is sticking up for the low end.

 

He would probably argue that he "consulted" with his brother, who's an experienced aviation professional. Elected reps can talk to people.

But for all we know his brother told him to keep it at 65, and he only went on record as a sponsor because he's on the committee. No way to know. Well I guess we'll know eventually, when/if his brother retires before age 65.

I actually have less issue with elected reps consulting citizens, friends, and family, as opposed to lobbyists who clearly have a bought and paid for agenda.

 

WSJ reports that the HR passed the house committee 63-0. That's telling.

The hang up in the Senate appears to revolve around the DCA 1250 NM service limit... some congress critters (from the west) seem to want to eliminate that so they can get to work without having to drive an hour from IAD. Others, presumably from the East, want to keep it to limit congestion and delays.

So now you know what they really care about


Paywall: https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-aut...=hp_opin_pos_1

 

So ALPA is misinformed at best and lying at worst.

 

I don't know what ALPA has stated on this matter, but the original House bill is easy to look up. Ace66 claimed that Nehls sponsored the first age 67 bill in either house; that's incorrect.
It was the 117th Congress, HR 3038 (if you look up HR 3038 for the 118th Congress, you get a different bill)
Here's the link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...%5D%7D&s=2&r=2
This was the first bill introduced in the House to increase retirement age, dated 5/7/21. You can see that Nehls' name isn't attached to this bill as either the sponsor or a cosponsor.

This was 'repackaged' later in the 117th Congress as the 'Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act' which had parallel bills in both the House and Senate.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...%5D%7D&s=8&r=2
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...%5D%7D&s=8&r=1
These bills were introduced on 7/25 and 7/27/22, a little more than a year after Ferguson first sponsored the original bill. Note that Nehls was a cosponsor of the bill on the House side, but not the sponsor.