It’s not greedy to expect to keep what you earned. It’s greedy to expect to get what someone else earned. That goes for a lot of things in life.

 

Sounds about right. Can’t tell you how many times we heard the same exact thing about age 60.

 

Not up to the FAA. IIRC it used to be, the age 60 rule was just an FAR.

But age 65 was enacted as a law by congress (because the FAA didn't do it quickly enough). So now congress would need to change it.

As to if (more likely when) this will happen, that will come down to factors and processes which are largely opaque to us, AME's, and probably the FAA as well.

a) Does it somehow benefit some congresspeople? Apparently it does, or they wouldn't be floating the idea.

b) Are there enough other congresspeople who are violently opposed to counter a)? Not really much sign of that.

c) Can the a) people get it into a large bill as a quid pro quo? This is what we don't know, but this kind of thing happens day in and day out on the hill.

d) Does POTUS hate it badly enough to veto a stand-alone bill? Maybe. Does he hate it enough to veto a major authorization bill with age 67 embedded? Almost certainly not, too many other moving parts with something like that. Also POTUS isn't interested in doing Mayor Pete any favors at the moment since he might run against him.


Bottom line: many folks who might oppose a stand-alone bill on principle or for politics will not go against a major authorization with embedded pork, which their party leadership has carefully crafted with great effort. That's how this will go down, like so many other special interest projects.

 

true… Congress could pass a law mandating it… but if the FAA and unions show how onerous it would be they could sway enough to vote against the rule change. He was saying FAA is not for the change… not that the FAA decides.

 

I highly recommend people opposing 67 attend their local council meetings. The MEC opposes 67 and LAX recently had a resolution to prevent the MEC from opposing it. It was on the agenda but no one attended to vote it down.

If we don't step up and stop this, we're going to see the same stagnation as we did with 65. And then what next? 69/70? At what increase in LTD premiums? At what increase in risk of incapacitation?

 

I recommend against opposing it.

 

I recommend you not steal two years of my earned seniority.

 

Yeah but again, the way niche special interests get legislated is usually by being embedded in a broader bill. Would age 67 be enough to poison such a bill? Don't know. If it's a big authorization bill I'm going to say no way. Why would a congress critter publicly oppose everybody else's access to $ over something which the public doesn't really care about? Because a small union and a federal agency complained? Remember the aviation industry isn't unanimous on this either, legacies opposed; regionals, cargo, charter, etc in favor.

 

Tell you what, we vote in 67 but everyone who retired in the last eighteen months comes back with displacement rights. Still on board?

 

Absolutely. Assuming Congress includes that in the bill.