THIS. We're all about safety as long as the burden/cost falls on someone else.

Yup, well aware of the trickle down effect safety could deal out. We could go round and round on this topic while exposing differences of opinions.

Money and public perception will continue to be a huge driving factor. I will stand by my previous statements when it comes to 135/91K having same forced retirement age as 121.

Why do you think 135/91k should have same forced retirement age as 121? That would drive their costs up or force many operations to close. I have no desire to fly for a living after retiring from 121. However, if I spent my career outside 121 I might see things differently. Do I think the faa class 1 is too lax? probably. That is why (among other reasons) 135/91 is much more buyer beware.

Late September Update:

GOVTRACK website just changed the "chances of passing" from 4% to 3% probability

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607

hope nobody was counting on "working to 67 to get caught up on some bills" :rolleyes:

Please Bro. Please retire now. I really want to move up in seniority NOW. If I could just move up and make more money and get a better QOL I could dump this boat anchor around my neck and marry a hot bimbo from Russia who's leaving her soon to be drafted significant other and I could buy a boat and the world would be great. Life is all about one's personal perspective.

I’ll only accept this response in meme format.

Also I really don’t care about any of that stuff I just don’t want to fly with 66/67 year olds. Happy with my current seniority.

November 2 Update

Still 3% chance of being passed. Has not advanced to any additional stages or committees either.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607

Be interesting to see if there's any kind of shift after mid terms.

Even if it does pass, remember it would kick the can down the road 2 years (my guess only half will work the extra time, so effectively 1 year).

So it would delay some hiring / allow catch up to take place for a year. The massive retirement numbers over the next decade will not be wiped out. They will still require massive hiring.

3 years. it's age 68. it's like saying now we have to retire at 64.

Congress will be too busy doing BS investigations to be bothered with governing.

Age 68?

Here is whatever the bill says:

What the legislation does

The Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act would raise the mandatory pilot retirement age from 65 to 67.

That's not a bad thing.

Happy December

Absolutely no, none, zero, progress on this bill. 3% chance of being passed, no changes

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607

What is cited to actually states:

“Odds of passage

“The House version has attracted seven cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

“The Senate version has attracted five cosponsors, all Republicans. It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

“Odds of passage are difficult to predict.

“On one hand, both chambers’ versions have only achieved Republican cosponsorship to date, at a time when Democrats control both chambers. On the other hand, the 2007 law raising the retirement age by five years — more than twice the two-year raise this legislation proposes — proved noncontroversial, passing 390–0 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.”

chance of being based is now lower, at 2%

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/s4607

With Republicans now controlling the house, why hasn't this bill come up for a vote?

Not much of anything is going to come up for a vote because everything is on razor thin margins...... gridlock thankfully.

Be interesting to see how many regionals fold by then.

This is not a bad thing. Return mainline flying to the mainline. Commuters can go back to flying 19-30 seat turboprops between Altoona and Pittsburgh.

Because it has no support even with the republicans.

Really? Wasn't changing it from 60>65 generally accepted as being a positive change for companies, workers, and consumers alike?

Ask those whose careers were stagnated due to age 65 as it being beneficial to workers…..

No, ICAO changed their age to 65. The FAA had agreements that meant they had to let those pilots fly in the US. There were multiple lawsuits over age 60 in court at that time. The FAA had beat those in years past as a safety issue which is the only reason you can discriminate for age. Hard to argue in court at that point that foreign pilots were safe to 65 and US pilots were not. Everyone except a bunch of airline pilots knew age 60 was done so legislation was quickly crafted to raise the age to 65 before a judge did it in court and possibly eliminated any age restrictions and or made it retroactive.
Other than a few pilots no one wants the age raised again including airline managements. The disability costs to the airlines would be enormous.

Sometimes a dysfunctional government isn't a bad thing...

Not if the dysfunction is Congress ceding power to unelected bureaucrats so they can dodge the accountability they are supposed to have for making the laws that govern us. That’s just cowardice and careerism.

Investment managers have shown me divided government, gridlock, is good for the stock market. Neither party can pass extreme legislation. It must be more middle of the road legislation. That is good for the economy.

hopefully all of them.

Interesting. Is there any chatter about ICAO raising again? Or are they not having the same challenges across the pond that we are?

I had concluded that while this would only be kicking the can down the road, it would slow things down for a bit which would help stabilize the regionals--and management would want that. I am also surprised the longest tenured pilots wouldn't want the option to keep going for a couple more years given the money they would make.

Just to get destabilized again after the can has been kicked?

Just rip the bandaid off now. This is ultimately the fault of management for the past 20-25 years so let them face those consequences. Pipeline dried up because no one in the younger generation wanted to become pilots having to spend thousands of dollars, go into debt, etc just for the ROI being $20,000 a year and MAYBE just MAYBE get to a major airline. So they decided to go into sectors where that investment had a better chance of paying off.

If you guzzle propaganda from a fire hose - then yes.

Yes, there are ICAO rumblings, many parts of the world have looming pilot shortages, although covid pushed the reckoning to the right a bit.

Two more years would help the airlines mitigate the shortage, give them some breathing room but not a whole lot... my swag is that only maybe 50% of pilots would be both willing and able to go past 65.

But the US airlines are actually opposed, at least the big ones. General consensus is it will cost them way too much in LTD payments... many folks go out well before age 65, so this would be another two years tacked on for the LTD legion. It's not a tiny demographic.

Pilots who are happy and comfortable in their current seniority might not mind getting an opportunity to work (or collect LTD) for two more years. Many pilots are opposed if they feel they'll get stuck in a less-than-ideal position for two years (really it would be one year at the most).

The french people, right at this moment, ARE PROTESTING IN THE STREETS to prevent the government from raising the retirement age from 62 to 64. And here in the states it is even a question for it to be raised to 67. That's RIDICULOUS lmao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_F...reform_strikes

Retiring at 67 is ridiculous. The average lifespan of a US male is 77 years old.

So you work your entire life, and in the end, just get to enjoy life for 10 measly years when your body aches everyday and you aren't even at your prime anymore, then be buried forever. LOL.

There should in fact be a bill to LOWER the retirement age, not HIGHER it.

i agree Ive seen way to many people work tell 65. Then be dust in the wind shortly after. I want to be out by 60 at the latest…. Or adopt “Euro” vacation rules… should be able to take 1 month a year off paid.. and then 2 -4 other weeks off paid.

I wouldn't want to fly past 65...but I intend to keep working in some capacity as long as I can. I can't stand being idle and there's plenty of evidence that your brain cells start to go and diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's speed up when people retire. Happened to my father-in-law. As soon as he retired his mind and body fell apart.

When Social Security was established, the full retirement age was 65. You could take early retirement at age 62.

Why? The average lifespan of a U.S. male was 62 years old. The average lifespan of a U.S. female was 65 years old. So Social Security bet more than half would not live long enough to see a penny of it.

Using that logic, It should be raised to 77 years old.

Yes, that just stood you on your head. But it is factual.

The average age of death for someone who is 67 is higher than 77. A quick google search says it’s something closer to 83 so like 6 years longer than you mentioned. Just figured I’d throw that out there.

Also, your average pilot is in a higher socioeconomic position, and will live longer than the national average.

Yes we take some health hits due to circadian disruption, bad food, etc but we still live longer than poor folks.