That is exactly what the (current) language says.

I doubt the GOP would tolerate any snap-back provisions since that would be costly and disruptive to majors... even more so than this will already be.

If retired 65-67 year olds take jobs in other 121 sectors, mission accomplished, butts in seats.

 

It would probably be best if the language specifies directly that retirees are not entitled to return to previous positions. It's kind of implied, but somebody would probably sue and who knows what might come of that.

In 2007 there was language that said they not only don't get to come back to their previous position but also that they can't come back at all... so only those under 60 on the effective got another five years. I don't think they'd do the later provision this time... the whole point is to keep those flying something, somewhere.

 

It’s really simple. Just require those 65-67 to go back to a regional if they still want to fly. That’s where they are needed, not at the majors. Problem solved.

 

Yes, this. The original bills were PR, recon by fire, and staking some territory for their fellow congress-critters to see. Basically saying "this is what WE care about, so if you want support for YOUR stuff, then our thing had better be in the re-authorization.

It's a complicated dance, as I learned to my dismay while working on appropriations in the mil.

Even so, the guy's brother (if that's who he is) wasn't going to change things much either way. This is too big to have gone down because some senior boomer called up his brother in congress and asked for a couple more years on the job. I wouldn't strictly rule out that some tiny pork provision could get into some big bill because of somebody's brother but this one is too public with way too many ramifications for that.

Now if the brother had been an airline CEO... that's exactly how we got age 60 in the first place way back when.

 

True, that would be implausible. “Captain Nehls”, kicking around down on the TX ranch with his bro the former sheriff (now congressman) might have mentioned it once or twice….just maybe, and definitely only “in passing”… But it’s mainly guys like these…….and their ten buddies, and their ten buddies, and their ten buddies, and so on ad infinitem….

 

I hope they all rot in hell.

I hope that all the pilots in this idiot’s district can look past their party and vote him out when the time comes. 2007 and 2008 were in the top 4 worst events in aviation. Congress directly enacted one of them. One exacerbated the other immensely and here we go again repeating history.

 

How do you do that legally? It wouldn't hold up to any legal challenge.

The FAA, in defense of the regionals and bottom feeders, has long held that all 121 operators are held to a common standard. They can't exactly set a lower standard based on the economic situation. Not that it would hold up in court anyway.

 

Here's a better idea. Need butts in seats at a regional? Lower the ATP age from 23 to 18 or 21. Why can we make guys fly longer, but we don't lower the age on the other end? I haven't heard anyone talk about that at all. We're keeping the highest earners and oldest of the group over new blood and cheap labor. You'd think airlines would be all over that.

 

Never understood how people get so wrapped around the axel with regards to things they can’t control. Live your life and stop playing the “what if” game. You’ll be happier for it. From a guy who’s retiring at 65.

 

How many of you have flown with 65+ pilots?