The age 67 change has gone from a peripheral long-shot idea to something that has a fairly reasonable chance of actually happening. In the current environment of everyone hiring at Vno, I would think that this change would have a profound impact on hiring. Obviously, each of AA/UA/DL is different and would be impacted slightly differently by this potential change.

I would think AA would be most affected by this short term. With the greatest number of retirements in the next few years and the most domestic-focused business model, I would think AA would probably continue to hire for a few months to get staffing up to where the company wants it to be (say another 500-700 to address some orders coming in), and then basically shutting down hiring for the next two years. That's not necessarily to say it would completely stop, but it would slow to a trickle. Of course, the long-term outlook of impressive seniority projections wouldn't go away.

I feel that Delta would roughly be in the same boat. With a goal of roughly 17-17.5k pilots on the seniority list, I would think Delta would hire for the next six months and then essentially completely shut down hiring. There wouldn't be a huge wave of retirements coming that the company would have to get out ahead of and any wide body order wouldn't bring aircraft on property for at least 2-3 years.

United seems like it could be least affected by this change. With only a mild-to-moderate number of retirements in the near future and massive growth plans, I could see UA slowing hiring somewhat but not stopping. A large number of WB captains could mean that those 65-67 decide to stay retired anyway, not wanting to go back to NB flying. The flip side is if the growth doesn't pan out the way laid out in United Next and age 67 passes, there could be stagnation for years to come.

Other companies would surely differ greatly in terms of impact felt. Southwest would arguably have the most stagnation of any U.S. airline, while B6, NK, F9, etc. could feel virtually no effects from this with younger pilot groups for the time being.

I'm starting this thread more as a thought experiment than anything else, as I am curious what others think. At the same time, maybe this thread could even help applicants make decisions down the road in the event this all does become a reality.

Best,
D

 

There are many variables on how this could play out. The biggest one being will airlines that fly internationally have to accommodate pilots over 65. If they can not offer accommodations on the grounds they don’t have domestic only jobs (pretty much all planes at all majors except maybe the 717 and 220 at DL fly to countries that still have 65 as the law) then hiring may not be as affected.

can’t speak for others, but as far as DL goes, my guess is hiring will slow to 50-80 a month assuming they are forced to accommodate 65+ pilots. With the caveat that if the economy slows like it did last time the age was raised things will stop and hopefully not move backwards

 

I can’t fathom why any management group or pilot union would support this
. Better get out there and email your representatives.

 

It won't substantially affect the majors - trying to have a subset of your pilots (never mind the most senior) unable to fly outside of US airspace ... non starter.

What it might do is shore up the ability of regionals to keep captains and particularly LCA's.

Although I still think 67 is an awful idea, IDK that the regionals dying is going to help airline pilots.

 

Interesting perspective, but very few stay at a regional until retirement age. If age 67 didn't slow down mainline hiring, I'm not sure how much it would help the regionals.

 

Because the majors are still going to kick people out (mostly) at 65 and they could then be an LCA at a regional for ooboodles of cash

 

IF it passes, no one will be 'kicked out' at 65. There are currently already more than 10 countries with mandatory retirement ages above 65, and IF the U.S. raises it, then it's highly probable that ICAO and JAA etc will immediately follow as they did in 2007.

 

Plenty still retire well before the mandated age. I don’t have an exact number or percentage that stick around to 65 but I’m willing to bet it’s not as high as people think. I can only imagine only a percentage of those that go at 65 will stick around even longer to 67. Even if this passes there won’t be a massive delay in the retirements.

 

C'mon seriously?

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

 

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.