current bill is through the last day before the 68th birthday… unless that has changed.

Better at UAL than anywhere else… unless that somewhere else is Atlas.

This has been propagated widely but isn't true and never has been. The bill that passed the House strikes the number 65 and inserts the number 67 in its place. In other words, it's a two year change, not three.

It's stupid and shouldn't be allowed to pass, but that's what the text of the law says.

And the Senate version?

100% FALSE, and has never been true. READ the gd bill.

I’m not for 67, but jhc get the facts right to make a cogent argument.

There's no Senate version yet, AFAIK.

I have strong interest in this post. I am just about in the same boat. We can be telling a completely different story before you're even in range for an upgrade to WB CA. Or in 10 years from now you might already be over there. I've seen a few United bid packets. 757/767 SFO looks pretty chill as far as leg counts. But if you don't live in Norcal do you want to? The 737 IAH looks like it can be a beating at times. MCO doesn't look so bad. Late nights transitioning into early mornings. I'm not a fan of 30 hour overnights where you get in at midnight and go out 6:00am 2 days later.

This age 67 deal can get real interesting. ICAO is a hard no raising it past 65. That means if you turn 65 on a wide body then you gotta go back to a narrow body your final 2 years and be limited to where you can fly. Basically just North America. People have told me and I agree that I don't think airlines are going to want to train someone to do that there last 2 years. They might potentially offer an early out like they did for Covid. If someone is considering SWA or an FO with over a year to upgrade this should concern them more than anywhere else. SWA isn't impacted by ICAO because they don't go beyond the North American continent. Those guys will stay past 65 uneventfully and add 2 more years to an already slow upgrade time.

Regardless of what the unions or airlines are lobbying for, Washington will do whatever they damn well please as we have seen over and over again. Then they'll say look at us we fixed the pilot shortage and did something about the airline operational difficulties. They don't care about the unintended consequences.

Sure there is. That's what is being debated on right now with a vote by the end of the month. Age 67 survived after Senate Sinema attempted to do away with the 1500 ATP requirement.

ICAO will change their rules a year or two after we do…..just like 65

Probably bad choice of words on my part. There is no final bill to be voted on, it hasn't even made it out of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

But the bill as introduced parallels the House version with respect to age 67.