Within months of retirement so I have no dog in this fight.

You guys are spending a lot of time targeting Congress. The FAA Administrator can simply change the retirement age, which is the course of action I'd expect at this point. Why? Because there's not enough opposition to that happening and he could make the change without much debate. There'd likely be a NPRM, which would allow public comments - I think the window's something like 60 days on comments.
BUT Bedford isn't going to do that until ICAO goes to 67. And neither will Congress change it until ICAO makes the change.
It could change as early as 2026, but my guess would be 2027 or 2028.

It will eventually go to 67, and then age 70 a decade or two after the change to 67. The problem is that once the age changed from 60 to 65, the door opened for further changes.

,,, just my uninformed opinion.

 

Without digging into legaleze this early in the am, I don't think Bedford/FAA could simply direct the change now. Since 2007, we've had a federal law which specifies the age as 65. That was done because the FAA didn't respond to the ICAO increase to 65.

FAA cannot over-ride federal law. Most FAR's are not detailed in law but a few are (such as PEDs and impaired flying).

The original age 60 limit was I'm pretty sure FAA admin action, so the FAA *could* have changed it in 2007, but they dragged their feet until congress got annoyed.

 

Hard to argue with this.

No, the FAA Administrator cannot ‘simply change’
federal law. Age 65 is codified in the Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act of 2007.

 

Let me make sure I understand where you're coming from. Congress enacted a law that changed an FAR. True.
The FAR has changed.

Now you're saying that the FAA Administrator no longer has the authority to change said FAR? OK.

So IF the Administrator did change the FAR without Congressional action, it could be challenged in court. Gosh, it's a good thing that this administration shies away from actions that could be legally challenged. /s

 

No.

Congress enacted a law establishing the 121 pilot retirement age at 65. Period. They did not grant the FAA any authority to modify that in the future, in either direction.

That completely invalidated any conflicting FARs, which are merely bureaucratic suggestions.

USC > CFR. Always. FARs are CFR.

I assume that the FAA changed the FAR to match at some point, but I never looked because it doesn't actually matter if they did or not.

Regarding the administration, if Trump *wanted* to raise the age he would simply direct congress to pass a law to that effect, and they probably would. The troublesome GOP folks in the house tend to libertarian ideals, so I don't think they'd block it on principle. The dems would not filibuster over that, not sure what they're saving the filibuster for, but something much bigger than 67 (they didn't even bother with the BBB ). But I can't imagine the administration would want to raise it before ICAO (disruptive to business interests)... if they want it, they'll lobby ICAO first. Which seems like it might be in progress.

 

One Big Beautiful Bill wasn’t filibustered because it passed through Budget reconciliation. I think.

 

At some point during your career, you will wonder why you work because your investments should be making multiples of what you earn. It’s called the age 67 paradox.

 

👍. I really don’t know what other FOMs say. I’m a 1 trick pony.

 

The lesson I've learned from flying with all sorts of senior dudes: beware of lifestyle creep

 

Boothill at 65 force, limp as a wet sock. Advanced for ratification, guaranteed pass in this session. Lots of naive smalltalk, no action.
https://youtu.be/O7W5Cr_MTpE?si=1DrPm-K880hPLxl8