Now that the bill has been signed, the age provision only applies to NetJets, and the company has already announced its intentions to send notification to FAA, the only thing left to do is start a prediction pool on what date the company sends the notification.

I'll take Monday, January 2, 2023....

Happy Christmas y'all.

Can someone point to where it says this applies to 91k (let alone regular 135)? Everywhere I am reading (and I could not find it in the bill, although I am only 1 cup of coffee in), I am seeing where it RAISES the MANDATORY retirement age (not implements a retirement age) from 65-70 for "large, unscheduled charter operators". I am not quite sure what a "Large, unscheduled Charter operator" is (Maybe ACMI?), but since Net Jets etc. currently have NO retirement age, it clearly is not the "Large unscheduled charter operator" that they are targeting in this bill. Here is my reference:

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...tification-aam

Flex could easily meet this requirement as well. But you can tell who paid for this to be signed into law lol.

The provision will allow a “large, unscheduled charger operator” to impose an age 70 mandatory retirement age one year after notifying the FAA of its intention to do so. Once implemented, it cannot be rescinded. The definition of the term “large, unscheduled charter operator” only applies to NetJets at the moment based on the newly established operations threshold.

This is a done deal people. We may have all stayed at a Holiday Inn Express this week but the lawyers have fancier degrees than we do and birthed this particular baby. It’s all over but the shouting. Of which there appears to be plenty.

Now go enjoy your Christmas while some of us try to scrounge food on the road tonight and tomorrow…

Why would anyone want to work past 70 anyway? Wasn't too long ago that the mandatory retirement age at the airlines was 60.

I emailed AIN and quoted the bill where they have interpreted it incorrectly. There was never an age 65 or any retirement age for 135….until yesterday. Now it’s 70 yers old. They did not raise a retirement age. They created a new one for 135/91k with large operations. AIN had this one wrong.


I’m really curious if this will effect EJM and if they have enough 135 operations to meet the definition.

AIN is usually pretty reliable but the article was poorly written.

I'd have to go read the provision again (please...NO) but I think I recall 75,000 Part 135 operations per year. There is NO WAY EJM meets that threshold and it would be a stretch for Flex.

Yes, that was on purpose...

You would be surprised. There are some that cannot let go, have no life, only live for the job. More than you think.

When I was at USAir in the early 90's we had some ex-Braniff pilots who had squat for retirement. Many of them downgraded to B727 F/E at 60 so they could keep flying and get their retirement fund in better shape.

I have a friend who went back to USAirways in 2007 when we were recalled. I opted to stay at NetJets. He's now an A320 PIC and making good money living in base. He told me if they made it 67 he'd stick around till then because the job is pretty easy right now and he's putting away a lot of $$$ for retirement and all the "toys" he has.

Dang! I was off by a whole 8 days....