Andy, you're getting wrapped around the axle over semantics. These incentive programs really weren't much to write home about. It was basically a few months of health insurance and some severance pay.

The fact is that at DL guys are going earlier than 65 by choice which was the verbiage that hockey pilot stated. There are a number that have left prior to 65 outside of those programs as well by choice.

 

The rule is in committee in both the House and the Senate (as of late July). As a 737 check pilot with our airline and on the interview team I can honestly say this won't slow down the attrition much at all. The mainline carriers are ALL hiring people with E3 visas trying to enter the country. While this looks attractive they don't always hang around that long. Industry execs feel they need 13,000 pilots/year for the foreseeable future, and we are only able to produce about 5,000 or so for the mainline carriers. If you are looking to get on the age 67 rule won't slow down hiring much at all.

 

Personally would like the 67 rule just so I have the option to keep working if I choose to when I reach that age. If not I can choose to retire still. Having the option would be nice and I know a lot of people around that age really do end up retiring on their own without being forced into it. So it’s not a problem solver for sure

 

1. The rule was INTRODUCED on July 25. It left Lindsey Graham's brain on that date.

2. Per GOVTRACK website, it has a 4% chance of being passed.

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

 

No kidding. Imagine having to retire at 65, hell, the 25 year old girlfriend might leave and the vacation home and yacht could get repoed!

 

I find it humorous that the FAA mandates retiring from a 121 cockpit while the cockpit of a 135 ops can fly FOREVER. Heck, some 135 ops use the same aircraft.
Why? Money and public perceptions. Cause it's big news when an airliner crashes and kills hundreds while a biz jet kills tens.
117 rest rules apply only to 121 pax ops and not cargo. Why? Money and public preception.

It is about money! Then public perception.

If the feds truly wanted safe air travel then 121 and 135 ops would be one reg, one retirement age and one rest rules. ATP and COMM ratings are same for 135 and 121 ops. If different worlds in 121 vs 135 then why not different certificates and/or certifications of pilots?

 

No, there is a difference...

For scheduled 121, the public expects to be able to buy a ticket and not have to worry about operational details related to safety, and they expect a very high level of safety.

For charter (and 91), the customer is closer to the weeds and needs to take some additional responsibility in selecting who they fly with. It's also important that many 135/91 market segments simply cannot support 121-level safety and be economically viable... that's OK, if you want to incur a little risk in life to do a scenic helo tour or fly to a fishing lodge in Alaska that's OK, and it's not the FAA's place to tell you that you can never fly unless you meet the 121 10^(-9) safety threshold.

Same for private pilot operations, if you want ALL flying to be at 121 safety levels then only the very wealthy could ever afford private aviation, and that would require a professional crew.

Now I do take some issue with the blurring of some lines with scheduled 135, such as what some regionals are fixing to do, to get around R-ATP and age 65 limits. If they're going to run 135 scheduled ops in the paint job of a 121 major airline brand they need a giant cancer warning painted on the hull....

WARNING: This product contains flight crew members who DO NOT meet established airline safety regulations. Flight crew members (pilots) may exceed the maximum airline retirement age, and/or they may not have the necessary pilot experience to qualify to fly for regular scheduled airlines. This operation is conducted under a special waiver of established regulations, and may result in injury or death of passengers..

 

This - and no larger aircraft are not 135. They are 121 supplemental and fall under the same regs. Anything over 30 pax or 7500 lb payload capacity.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Unless one has flown 121 and 135/91K then they will have a hard time comparing. I've flown both and can compare both.

Turning left and sitting down after entering the door is a great way to go. The new 117 rest rules would serve well across both sides of the industry. Knowing only the day you start and end your work week, not knowing the start/end times of the work days in the middle is tough. Not knowing the length of the duty day is tough.

If there is such a difference then why not make two different standards for ATP to serve 121 and 135/91K segments? Simply have an add-on requirement if one goes from 135/91K to 121 world.

Makes no sense, exacly my point.

Both ops fly into the same weather, have same AIM to follow, same medical requirements, same training standards (AQP), get violated the same, have same stablizied approach requirements, fly into many of the same airports and many more that former airline pilots are shocked jets fly into...07FA, KTEX, KVBT, TUPJ and KUDD come to mind. Not to mention the countless non-tower airports with the wild west flying seen sometimes.

Blending of some of the regs and rules would be a welcome benefit and an improvement on safety. As would a required retirement age in the 135/91K world.

Point is if the feds wanted to make flying safer the could. They have separated 121 world from boxes and pax, why? Preception of the traveling public and over the safety of the crews. Remember, this is the same FAA that allows a <24 month old kid and let's say weighs 23 lbs to lap sit while a woman holding a 4 lbs purse in her lap to stow under the seat in front.

We can do better on all fronts of aviation safety.

 

Safety is expensive. Infinitive safety has infinite cost, the regulators can only mandate so much before the whole enterprise fails.

For political reasons, they have to make the airlines very safe.

That doesn't apply to niche and private operations, they basically set a floor and allow the customers to choose... some operations are very bit as safe as airlines, and quite expensive too.

If you expect .gov to extend airline safety to charter/fracs, why stop there? What about generic 91? What about private pilots? Shouldn't they have two pilots with ATP's, two engines, and the ability to climb out after a V1 cut too? And a dispatcher, etc? ASEL should clearly be illegal.

Airline safety is set for very specific reasons (including international conventions). Those reasons don't apply to other segments. The argument "but safety!" is meaningless out of context.