Originally Posted by 11atsomto

This was not discussed in your opening statement. However one unintended consequence of this is the length of time ATP cert holders will be on their rookie contract:

For example it’s not rare nowadays to see 2000hr ish or less pilots in new hire classes at a legacy, this is after spending maybe half a year at Regional X.
I think this will be less common following an age 67 ruling, for of a period as you guessed 2 years.
Furthermore the whole “skip the regional” straight to LCC Hotshots will also will likely decrease in volume.

But is that really such a bad thing? Both individually and collectively.

All other things being equal the people on the low end from regionals going to majors now have basically maybe 1/4 of the experience of those 9-10 years ago and are being paid about 240% more.

Most people reading this know a tremendous amount of learning takes place at the regional level, the kind that you can only get by doing it. Regional flying is more conducive to learning and developing than LCC flying. 3-5 takeoffs and landings a day, but also 3-5 Sid’s and stars, 3-5 ground ops, large B airports and occasionally uncontrolled airports…….and of course less time at cruise to talk about how smart you are.

While I’m confident these 2000ish pilots are just as if not more than capable as the people 10 years ago, however they certainly have less experience to draw from.
More time in the regional space will give them that.
What’s different is that, they certainly won’t be going into poverty since starting pay now is in $80 range while they are learning, where the people 10 years ago primarily can just say the only benefit was the life experience of poverty and bad credit.

Obviously the airlines will benefit as LCA’s and training center won’t have to teach 121 101. In addition the new cadets may be more appreciative of that IOE trip to Copenhagen more since it surely beats ATL-Spartanburg 3 times a day.

Originally Posted by NevadaJack

Being 121 that hard?

Having been in this industry for a while, having seen some guys come over from 121, they often can’t cope having to do their own W&B weather planning filing etc

Is teaching 121 that hard for a seasoned non 121 pro pilot?

Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer

C'mon seriously?

That's what they said when it was raised from 60 to 65 and the vast majority did stay to 65.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Different era, those guys had all just lost their pensions.

I can about assure you that almost none of the guys I fly with will stay past 65... they're mostly ready to go now, 65 is just the finish line emotionally.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Different era, those guys had all just lost their pensions.

I can about assure you that almost none of the guys I fly with will stay past 65... they're mostly ready to go now, 65 is just the finish line emotionally.

Originally Posted by PineappleXpres

If 65 is an emotional number, then 67 may seem exhausting. Some may even hang it up at 64.5, because why not?

Also, any mention of the implementation date? Straight away I imagine. Meanwhile regional service will only continue to erode, which will be a pie in the face, should a congressmen even remember this whole discussion.

Originally Posted by Andy

62 has the draw of being able to collect early social security.
65 is a big number because one's now covered by Medicare.
67 is full retirement age for social security - it's a draw, but not nearly as large as 65/Medicare.

Not only were pensions lost, but medical coverage in retirement was also severely reduced or eliminated. That significantly incentivized staying to 65.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

Very few pilots voluntarily retire before the mandatory retirement age. They all think the same thing. Extra 2 years? That’s an extra million in earnings plus I won’t start drawing down yet. The way our system is designed, you exponentially benefit by staying longer so walking away is hard.