Dear ALPA, ICAO, IATA:
Drop unrestricted ATP age 2 years from 23 to 21 and R-ATP to 19.

- cheaper labor for our corporate overlords
- senior gets to mentor them from 2 years earlier (MAXIMUM MENTOROCITY)
-Younger FOs will help us aging folk stay up with the latest drip and slang
-Time value of money. Early access to legacy pilot 401k contributions = money grows more on its own = less old, angry A holes crying about being "made whole".

If an 18 yr old can be a CFI acting as the PIC of an aircraft with an inexperienced student on board effectively flying single pilot, why can't a 19 yr old with proper training be a SIC in a highly scripted and controlled environment under the supervision of an experienced captain?

 

Flew FlexJet. Agreed 100%

 

Or anyone in the part 135/91 world that have decades of first hand experience with these ****.

 

We’ve also seen this in 121 ops with Captains relying on experienced F/O’s + getting lots of corrections from relief pilots. Seems to occur mostly in dynamic situations where they can’t keep up. The cognitive slide is masked by the rest of the flight crew.

 

Nothing like helping gramps keep the greasy side down only for him to turn on you, go to Congress, flex and act like he did it all on his own and should get 2 more years for it.

 

Flew once with a guy who was 73 and his motto was “who cares, what are they going to do fire me/take my license? I’ll just retire.” Thanks for wanting me to go down with your sinking ship *********.

 

I flew with a CA who pulled out laminated briefing cards for every phase of flight. Start to finish, every single leg. At first I thought it was just a weirdo tick and an easy “do-not-pair” candidate. Then I realized they were doing it because they couldn’t go 10 minutes without forgetting basic procedures. The same procedures more or less that they had been doing for 30 years. But hey, glad we can chauffeur these folks to another Million bucks.

 

<sigh> I respectfully, completely disagree. That's not a lie, in any way shape or form. You can disagree with a position, but that's not a lie. No serious person can claim that decline doesn't come with age. That's just a fact. Obviously, 100 years old is going to be unsafe 99.99999% of the time. Are you going to fight for that .00001% to keep flying? Of course not, that would be absurd. In my, and ALPA's opinion, At SOME point, there must be a line. Just like there are age lines in all sorts of other things, like Driving (15 years and 364 days vs. 16 years old), Voting, Drinking, ATP, Running for President, etc. There are "time" lines (measured in years) to hold a Class I after Cancer - in fact, the medical standards draw all kinds of 'arbitrary' lines which could be argued. So we can argue where the line should be, but in any system as enormous as this, a line MUST be drawn somewhere. For ATC it's 56. For us, it's 65. For many part 135 operators, It's 70. Does that mean that there are some perfectly capable folks who must retire while still capable? Yep. Every reasonable person will concede that. But by drawing the line at a reasonable place, where we know with a high degree of certainty, that those who remain are statistically very likely to be 'good to go', we ensure the safety within the system as a whole.

So, you can disagree with the premise, but it's not a lie to argue that line should be 65. BTW, I have not seen ALPA make 'ageist' or 'demeaning' comments, per se, either. The fact is, and LEPF even admits, the vast majority oppose 67. So it's not a lie to do the 'will of the membership' - but that's not what LEPF/EPAS will claim.

The LEPF/EPAS absolutely loves to rabble rabble in their echo chamber. Completely shut down anyone even offering a moderation of tone or vitriol. They repeat the same nonsense to each other so much, they actually believe it. It's amazing to watch, in a way, to see what people will actually say if they think they are among friends. I would argue the number of genuine lies coming out of that crowd is pretty enormous. And to wish ill/misfortune on those who believe differently than you, in a genuine disagreement, is beyond the pale and shameful, IMO. It's incredibly ironic to see someone make this kind of case given the vitriol levied at Ambrosi. Talk about personal attacks. Holy cow! The vast, vast majority of them don't care one bit about anyone but themselves, and are 100% wanting to pull the ladder up behind them. Scorch the Earth if it gets them more. They don't care one bit about anyone but themselves, as long as they 'get theirs'.

Having someone offer counter-points and find holes in arguments is actually a good thing. It's healthy. It sharpens a case tremendously, and weeds out (most of) the nonsense. And it lends humility and credibility to an argument/case, because it can stand up to scrutiny. LEPF/EPAS have none of that, IMO. They drum anyone out of thier group that dares to stray 1mm from the approved line. I've seen it with my own eyes. What they do have is motivation and organization. And it may well get it over the 'line'.

 

whole lot of opinion there. Everyone has one. Agree to disagree.

 

Put it to a union membership vote as a symbolic gesture. It will be voted down, which is why it isn’t happening like that.