NO. Hell noooo, we do NOT need any stricter medical standards. Its already a nightmare dealing with a deferred medical as it is now.

 

Ummm, no.

I honestly don’t think that many people would continue to 67, many of us want to untie from work commitments and do other things long before that. I don’t intend to stay on a full schedule to 65 as it is.

This actually brings up an interesting idea. United could offer people 60+ a half-schedule, I bet a lot of pilots would be on board with sticking around longer if they didn’t need to fly so much in their sunset years.

 

Stricter medicals & mandatory retirement at 100. We can all go on LTD by 50 & stay there until we die.

 

As someone who also has an EASA license, be very, and I am SERIOUS be VERY careful what you ask for…

I was just quoted 3000$ to renew my EASA medical just because I went uncurrent for more than 1 year.
I’ve been flying in the US for years and thought I would just renew my EASA license and I’m looking at almost 8k$ to get current again…

 

Today's bull**** has been brought to you by the letters R, A, and A...

 

Hey, here’s an idea that I’ve had before (and said, on these boards)….maybe we could make reserve be desirable so that it goes senior!

 

You have absolutely no science to back this up. No one does. This isn’t being pushed by science. There is some logical conjecture that as a stop gap it will let the supply chain ripple caused by covid to catch up. First it was no shortage. Then it was an industry wide fo shortage. Seemingly cured with money (may have been coincidental - the money came about the time the post lockdown trainees hit their 1500 hours). Now it’s a ca problem that will also be cured with time. The slowdown in major hiring with age 67 might be enough to help slightly. But nobody knows this. At all. There’s been no research.

 

only regionals like yours should be allowed to have 67 year old captains
so stick with your turf

men’s a isn’t it ?

 

Yes I’m in Mensa. You?

 

I doubt the poster you were responding to was a neuroscientist, but obviously, yes, there’s been a lot of research done about cognitive decline with age. So the question is, where do we put the mandatory retirement age? I agree with others that some of us are perfectly sharp at 65, but there are plenty who are in obvious decline at 65 as well. As someone who used to do simulator work and more than my share of line checks over the years, I can assure you that pilot “Joe Smith” at 65 is not as sharp as he was at 55. This becomes very evident when stress is introduced. How far do we want to let this trend go, rolling the dice that the medical exam and CQ events catch an issue before a pilot is out in a situation that requires more cognitive power than they have available? I definitely started noticing in my 40s that after a bad night sleep, or especially grueling backside of the clock flight or perhaps just life stress, there were days that I was very glad I did not face a challengeing emergency. I think most of us have enough SA to see that when we were younger, these things just didn’t affect us as much…

As someone who is currently sitting in my desired seat, this would be quite beneficial to me financially. Two more years of making 450 K a year and two less year drawing from retirement account… And yet I’m pretty skeptical. I just can’t see an argument from the pilot side other than the financial one.