And I never said you CALLED them scabs. But your post most certainly drew a comparison and tried to drop them in the same vat of hot grease as a scab. Totally unsat and should be called out whenever/wherever. Too few understand our history, and those who know won’t let cheap shots go unchallenged. I’ve flown with many 570. The fact is, the held the line, and scabs are selfish pricks.

 

I believe this is the same argument made when the feds changed the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 65. That hasn't turned out to be substantive concern for the most part. The same could be true here as well. Most people I know who are 65 don't go into brain meltdown at 65 + 1 day. As someone in their 50s, I see this argument based solely on selfish reasons and the greedy desire to push the "old guys" out so they can upgrade. Your view on this will change as you mature. But what do I know. Oh, and I still plan on retiring at 65.

 

I see you argument based solely on selfish reasons and the greedy desire to hang on to a seat you knew had an existing time limit and deny your fellow pilots the very seniority you enjoy at the same point in their careers. Your view on this will be come more entrenched as you approach that limit and say “but it’s only 2 more years and I’ve earned it”.

 

67 is happening. Best be in a seat you can live with for the next couple of years…

 

 

not in this administration. Enjoy the attrition 😎

 

While 67 is a congressional push, because, I think a function of CEOs lobbing them to provide an answer to poor leadership and planning, it can not happen until we all agree on it. ICAO and EASA along with the UK CAA will be required to have the same ages. 65 is the current age in all those governing authorities and by that an airline can not allow anyone older to fly a Part 121 aircraft in those regulatory airspaces. When 65 went in to law we were behind and the FAA stopped pilots from other country airlines from flying into the National Air Space because we did not allow it as soon as they did. This is a pie in the sky view of a congressional and CEO wish list, but it will not happen soon. This is a 3-4 year proposition, the FAA has been working on a BASA SIP with EASA for A and P Mechanics for 6 years and are no where close, now try and get them to change a limit! I would say most of us will be gone by then.

 

I don’t know about 67. The point I was trying to make is this. ALL studies have shown cognitive decline starting around 60. 65 is a pretty substantive age, whereby one can have expected to produce all the labor they can - especially in an industry where mental acuity is necessary. The FAA cannot be expected, nor should we want them, to evaluate individuals in their certification with such granularity. Therefore an approximate age of acceptability is fair and based on the science, 65 is a solid and appropriate number. This is not a decision that should be based on shortages or other economic factors.

Probably, the right answer is that individuals over 65 who wish to continue must take a cognitive function exam every 6 months, or, that contract be written, if they haven’t already, so that 65 plus union members can still function as sim instructors to 67.

I don’t have skin in the game, I expect to retire around 60, but my family and I will be flying, I care enough about the industry and our passengers to want to maximize their safety. Right now, I don’t believe that 67 does that.

 

My AME said he was at a FAA meeting recently and age 67 isn’t going to happen anytime soon… so my guess is approved next month?

 

Funny, my AME said it is happening.