Absolutely. Changing the retirement age from 65 to 67 - even if it were actually to occur - wouldn’t have 15% of the effect of changing it from 60 to 65. Not only would there only be two years involved (40% of the POTENTIAL person-years of the 60 to 65 change) but between vacation time owed and medical leave,the oldest are among the least productive and certainly the most likely to lose their medical. The vast majority would still be retiring without ever using the two year extension. Yeah, there would be some that would continue to work to pay off three exes or buy one last toy but they’d be a small minority.

 

My guess is 2 more years will have a net impact of about 1 more year in the average retirement age, when everyone is pooled together.

With massive annual retirements in the majors, and current shortages, I think it will have minor impact.

 

Were some of you that think this is a nothing burger even alive in 2007. It was catastrophic for many careers. 2008 would have hurt but raising the retirement age in 2007 made 2008 cut much much deeper than it would have otherwise and last years longer than it would have. Thousands of furloughs deep into seniority lists that lasted years. Most of which would have been mitigated if the retirement age hadn’t changed the year prior and the olds kept rolling out the door. Instead they all stayed even when they said they wouldn’t and kept their spots at the top while thousands of us couldn’t even find jobs bagging groceries.

 

That's it. Half of these people were riding pine on their tee ball teams when the adults were dealing with the market tanking and 65.

 

This.

They probably won’t feel the effects of this for a while while the hiring market is strong, until the next industry event hits. The reality will set in for them when they are sitting captain reserve or their standing bid for a senior base goes unfilled a couple more years while those of us who sat frustrated through age 65 bid ridiculously easy schedules and take all the cherry vacation slots and pad another million or so in 401k growth.

 

Which is yet another thing that makes this a nothing burger compared to the 60 to 65 change.

Not only do you lose a fair number of pilots on the way to age 65 to retirement, LTD, and medical issues, but the more senior they become GENERALLY the fewer actual flight hours they do fly due to the buildup in vacation time, and the increase in seniority (and knowledge of how to work soft pay). Not only are you only talking 40% of the POTENTIAL person-years compared to the move from 60 to 65, the reality (in terms of flight hours) is less even than that.

I rather expect that if this 65 to 67 change did go through (and I doubt it will) and a big economic downturn came, managements would do very much like what some did with COVID, offer early retirement or LOAs to allow those within a couple years of retirement to try to get rid of their most expensive and least productive employees to spare the junior people from furloughs, not because of any great love of their junior people, simply because they fly more hours and cost less money.

 

This is laughable. You are arguing that as a pilot gets older, their gaming of the soft time and vacation time increases; so a pilot flying 65-67 will have "more vacation time than a 64 year old" and more "knowledge how to work soft pay." Newsflash, a 65-67 year old will already be maxed on vacation, just as their 63 and 64 year old counterparts will be. You know why, because 99% of them were hired over 20 years ago. Also just as funny that a 66 year old pilot has the "soft time" answers that the 63 year old doesnt.

LTD and medical are the main reasons why it wont have as many old farts continuing past 65. But just as others have said, its not a single event; just like 65, take 67 and add in an economic downturn and it can be a catalyst for more than just a "nothing burger."

 

Lol. What was this thread about again?

 

Laugh all you want. The reason United gave early retirement to those within three years of retirement was because it made economic sense to do so. That would apply even more so to 65-67 year olds.

add in any significantly severe black swan event and it will be more than a nothingburger with it without age 67. But by no stretch of the imagination would going from 65 to 67 be nearly as severe as going from 60 to 65.

 

The economy from 2007 through 2012 was far more catastrophic to your career than age 65.