It may not change much with 67, but it would be taken into account the next negotiating cycle. Every company knows to the cent how much LTD costs. They will have projections of how much more 67 would costs.

I’m pretty sure it will come up in negotiations.
Nothing is free. It’s some negotiating capital spent before they sit down at the table. Leverage used for something most don’t want.

 

This is factually incorrect. I was a DAL 767 captain getting a medical only once a year just a few years ago. Now I go twice a year due to…..wait for it….age.

 

I think you already know - medical standards and AQP/practical test/checkride standards are functions of and determined by the FAA. If you have questions or suggestions for ALPA about what they should advocate for, you should reach out to them.

 

ALPA is never going to advocate for anything that makes it harder for pilots to keep their jobs. That is not their role in life.

 

Sorry kid, I don't have to do jack. Guess what? I was in your shoes 20 years ago fighting to preserve Age 60 when I got educated on life's reality, especially with respect to retirement age. Just curious, what were you doing 20 years ago? Were you in elementary school? Maybe junior high? Did you study any aviation history, at all? Did you study any ALPA history, at all? Did you study any other pilot union history, at all? Naw... didn't think so, and it's painfully obvious you're swinging without a clue. You do have heart though, I give you that.

You want some hard-hitting data? Here you go: no one has to prove squat to you or anyone, especially today when everything is political. All they have to do is point to other developed countries not having ANY mandatory retirement age for pilots and not seeing airplanes crashing left and right because gummers can't function. Others have 68, some have 67. They'll also point to how they address concerns of two over-Age 65 pilots in the cockpit at the same time. Then they point to shortages on their continents or in their countries for whatever reasons.... and guess what? ICAO eventually ends up changing their retirement age. 2007 repeats itself.

But as you know, we are extra special in the US, so we should be asking for exceptions to ICAO rules i.e. banning foreign airlines for letting their gummers fly in our airspace or to destinations in the US, right? After all.... tHaFeTy aNd tHtaTuTh QuO, right? Guess what? Your precious ALPA will get the memo: flip or flop. Hint: they'll flip, just like they did in 2007 "to stay relevant."

🤣🤣🤣

Nice try kid! I love the buzzwords you're using "gaslighting and projecting." Reminds me of the political hacks calling everyone a racist or bigot... sorry, the sensitivity gauge on that got MEL'd a long time ago. What I am really doing is laughing my a55 off at you foaming at the mouth trying to sell tHaFeTy when in reality all you care about is your career advancement. You know what else is funny? You intentionally dodged affirming that you'd have no objections to requiring PIC on the flight deck to be under 65 and requiring all the gummers in the right seat.... tHaFeTy, tHaThuTh qUo, yOu kNeW dA rULeZ, right?

One thing though.... as I said, I do admire your heart and tenacity. Reminds me of me 20 years ago. But you know what? Look at the bright side of things.... should this abortion pass and the retirement goes to 67 or gets abolished altogether at some point, unlike in 2007, we don't have thousands of pilots on furlough, regional FO's today make a livable wage and don't qualify for public assistance, most FO's at the top 5 can max out their 415c limits if they choose to - back in the day, I don't even think most captains could max it out. So, yep... the blow to our careers in 2007 was substantially worse than any potential blow we'd see if age 67 happened today. In other words, we'll survive, and most likely still thrive. No one is forcing us to stay until 65, let alone 67.

In summary, just as I love to poke fun at those who can't define what a woman is, I love poking fun at the likes of you.... both of you are foaming at the mouth and it's kinda fun watching you get all riled up. Thank you for the entertainment. 🍻

 

AntiWoke police. Dean Cain in the house.

 

Not buying it, Clark! 🤪🍻

 

Thank you for supporting my position. The "dozens" in the same age range clearly could not obtain a medical certificate and most certainly could not pass training, but there are some who could.
If there was no mandatory retirement age pilots would not likely choose to continue into their geriatric years flying the line. I know a few planning on retiring prior to 60, let alone 65 or 67.

 

The increased age should not come without a tiered medical evaluation based on scientific knowledge of aging.

The way medical certificates are handed out like candy needs to change.

 

You wanna run that by ALPA? 🤣

Your point gets countered by increasing number of countries that abolished the retirement age altogether and also placing requirements for the other pilot to be under 60 back then, or 65 now….

Seriously… nothing has changed since 20 years ago. Same song and dance. Same damn arguments. We should have had all sorts of jets falling out of the sky due to old over 60 coots running the show, or hitting GSE when taxiing because they’re napping, or thrashing the nose gear because they fell asleep on short final.

On the other hand, the proponents will show you other developed countries with healthy aviation sector without any mandatory retirement age. What will be your argument then? Cut off your nose to spite your face because you’re angry and envious? I have far more respect for anyone claiming they don’t want 2 year stagnation than anyone preaching “tHaFetY” especially considering how certain generations, quite likely theirs, can’t be peeled away from their phones and PED’s during critical phases of flight. Not much different than some gummer taking micronaps.

It’s a seniority hit. For everyone younger than 65 who’s not at the top of seniority list. Period.

The rest is disingenuous, self-serving bullsh!t. Just own it and stand by it.