The thing is the argument from the pilot side matters very little. It really does boil down to just a conflict of opposing self-interests but that doesn’t matter either. All the mutual vilification serves absolutely no purpose because we will have no say whatsoever in the final decision. It probably won’t even be a stand-alone vote rather buried somewhere deep in the FAA reauthorization bill or some other barely-related piece of legislation. Certainly everyone must realize this but by all means let the silly bickering continue because we couldn’t possibly have anything more important or five years overdue to worry about.

 

Perhaps, but if we were unified and wanted to spend negotiating capital, we could put (negotiate) in our UPA that the retirement age must be mutually agreed upon to alter the status quo.

 

No we can’t. Labor contracts don’t supersede federal statutes. But regardless, my point is that mindlessly blaming this age group or that for this bill is ridiculous because no one has anything to do with it right now except Lindsay Graham (and maybe Manchin, Kelly et al.) If it passes someday you can blame/credit congress. But that’s about it. Your fellow pilots on either side of the issue have very little say (or blame) in the matter.

 

[QUOTE=pangolin;3616471]Yes I’m in Mensa. You?[/

Crown Airlnes / Liberty Express

 

We do know a lot about cognitive decline with age, though it’s true 60 (initially) was an arbitrary number. If there is a “magic number” where average aptitude no longer meets the standards of airline flying, I’ve not seen any in-depth analyses comparing 60, 65, & 67. (As mental acuity with age seems to be linked to physical fitness, though, our declining health & the obesity epidemic would suggest that said number may be moving down rather than up, but I digress.)

What I also have not seen are any comparisons of the degree to which this is likely to improve pilot staffing issues against how much it’s likely to cost airlines in extra LTD payouts. This may well be a “solution” that costs a lot while doing very little to address the actual problem. Neither have I heard anyone detail what needs to happen over the next two years to prepare us for the moment when today’s 65YOs are turning 67, & why none of that happened during the 60-65 era- which was also supposed to “solve” the pilot shortage. At its face, this just seems to be a very half-baked idea.

What I can say is that any pilot advocating for stricter medicals could spend 5 minutes googling the law of unintended consequences & considering to what degree they actually want Lindsey Graham tinkering with how our fitness for flight is determined. One run-in on the wrong side of that legislation & you may need age 67 just to work back toward lost wages.

 

Raising age will only lead to higher number of pilots on LTD… extra 2-3 years of 11+K/month tax free. I think a negligible help to pilot shortages… nor a big impact to our seniority stagnation.

 

THis is the same tired bill that Lindsay introduced in July. The Biden administration said no way. It's been languishing for 8 months. Now he has what? 2 Democrat cosponsors? <yawn> This bill is DOA on Biden's watch.

Back The PAC.

Biden 2024

 

You should stop being their advocate. You’re the worst advertisement and probably create a loss on donations.

 

It would be an interesting data point to see the percentage of 60 year olds who make it to 65 without LTD. My guess is the percentage declines from 61-65, and would likely continue on an even steeper negative glide slope to 67 should that be implemented.

 

Now, at my age, I would say never trust anyone over 101. Just saying.