The FAA Reauthorization Act has passed in the House with age 67 embedded in the bill.
Final vote: https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2023364

Here is the text in HR 3935 that applies to age 67:
EC. 330. AGE STANDARDS FOR PILOTS.Section 44729 of title 49, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking “Subject to the limitation in subsection (c), a” and inserting “A”; and

(B) by striking “65” and inserting “67”;

(2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking “; or” and inserting “, unless the operation takes place in airspace where such operations are not permitted; or”;

(3) by striking subsection (c) and redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as subsections (c) through (g), respectively;

(4) in subsection (c), as so redesignated—

(A) in the heading by striking “60” and inserting “65”;

(B) by striking “the date of enactment of this section,” and inserting “the date of enactment of the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act,”;
(C) by striking “section 121.383(c)” and inserting “subsections (d) and (e) of section 121.383”; and

(D) by inserting “(or any successor regulations)” after “Regulations”;

(5) in subsection (d), as so redesignated—

(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

“(1) RETROACTIVITY.—A person who has attained 65 years of age on or before the date of enactment of the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act may return to service as a pilot for an air carrier engaged in covered operations.”; and

(B) in paragraph (2) by striking “section, taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out this section, or taken prior to the date of enactment of this section in conformance with section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect before such date of enactment), may” and inserting “section or taken in conformance with a regulation issued to carry out this section, may”; and

(6) by adding at the end the following:“(h) Savings Clause.—An air carrier engaged in covered operations described in subsection (b)(1) on or after the date of enactment of the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act may not require employed pilots to serve in such covered operations after attaining 65 years of age.”.

Here's a link to section 44729 of 49USC for those that want to see the changes made: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44729

 

How would this Retroactivity part work? They can come back sure, but as a new hire correct?

 

May depend on the carrier.

It is only saying that if you reached 65 before the bill becomes law you can work for an operation that is required to abide by this rule as long as you are not 67 or older.

That is my interpretation.

 

That bill never received a vote, correct? It was the previous Congress. Nehl first introduced Age 67 in THIS Congress - he filed the amendment in the T&I committee at the last minute. That bill made it through committee and was just voted on by the full House today.

Unless I'm mistaken above, you are arguing semantics: last Congress v this Congress.

 

I posted this with the text just so everyone could see how poorly this is worded in current legislation. It really needs to be cleaned up. I'm waiting to see what comes out of the Senate on this issue; hopefully it's more detailed.

Even if ALPA doesn't get involved with cleaning up the language, there's still likely to be some inputs from the FAA and airlines to tighten up the language.

 

You are right, no one really knows what's in Nehl's head. But did he consult aviation medical professionals, airline finance experts, ALPA, NTSB, FAA, etc. before coming to a logical, thoughtful conclusion that Age 67 was going to "fix" whatever perceived problem we have today? Or did just talk to his brother?

 

WHOA! You never stated 118th Congress. You stated that Nehls first introduced it in Congress.
Everyone familiar with this issue should know that it was first introduced in the 117th Congress. And hopefully most people know that unpassed bills die at the end of each Congress. The bills I referenced died at the end of the 117th Congress.
It is typical for bills that die in one session of Congress to be reintroduced in the next session. You seem to be suggesting that Nehls is the 'mastermind' of this legislation. I spent more than a couple of minutes posting the origin of this change.If you have proof to the contrary, post it rather than making baseless accusations.

 

The amount in career earnings lost every time they raise the age is staggering. Millions for me. I take it personally. I have no desire to fly to maximum retirement age. I would retire tomorrow if I could afford to. Everytime they raise the age, they prevent my forward progression and no I don’t chase the money. I enjoy life.

 

While I’m not happy about it it’s probably better than lowering entry level standards. Seems to get to some middle ground it’s one or the other. I flew with 250 hr pilots based in ewr early 2000’s in an rj. Not really wanting to do that again in an Airbus.

 

Nonsense!

Widebody captains at major airlines have fantastic lives.