whalesurfer

Very good synopsis. I agree with everything you said except for the ‘age 67’ rule being put on hold.
For one, it’s actually age 68 and not 67. Basically some people want to copy Japan’s regulations where a pilot would be able to fly commercially until that person turns 68; so 67, 11 months and 29 days old..
Secondly, the current economic collapse means absolutely nothing to those who’re making rules and regulations. Don’t forget that age 65 happened in the middle of a recession or the beginnings of a recession. Once the wheels start spinning it’s almost impossible to stop them. In fact, they could use the present market confusion as an excuse to change the retirement age in order to “assist financially struggling airlines.”
Some actually want to adopt Australia’s rules - where they got rid of retirement age altogether - so NO retirement age as long as the person passes the much more stringent Australian medical. I hope it never happens BUT I was also hoping age 65 would never materialize - and yet it did. So who knows..
The facts we’re still hiring is a good sign. Let’s hope it’s for the long haul.

C2078

And here lies the problem. I am trying to dig up an old article, basically ALPA knows if we go to a Japan/Australia style medical, a LARGE percentage of non 65 year olds will immediately loose their medical, at least temporarily. And personally I don’t think they will have 2 standards of medical, one for “younger” and one for “older” folks. I don’t think we want to go down that path.

And to help financially struggling airlines? That argument makes no sense when those are the most expensive pilots and they will have PLENTY of pilots to cover the flying. Plus, based on what I have read, the wheels per say were not even turning, no major support in Congress for this change, no legislation introduced or sponsored by anyone (Schuster was the last one), etc.

If you have a copy, reference anything to a bill pending in Congress, feel free to share, or any articles with congressional sponsors of any bill.

UPSFO4LIFE

I agree, make absolutely no financial sense to keep a guy till they are 67 or 68 or 75 for that matter. That person is the most unproductive and expensive pilot on property. Most vacation time and most likely top pay rate. And no, I hope we never go down the path of no retirement age. If you think the medical will stay the same, you are sadly mistaken.

whalesurfer

It doesn’t make sense to you and I. Airlines ‘own’ the faa and the Congress and they're looking long-term. For several years we’ve been inundated with ‘pilot shortage’ propaganda run by airlines-4-America and other aviation related businesses. They’re all looking long term and they want to increase access to airline pilots because once this crisis is over the best way to keep pilot-costs down is to increase the supply of them.
Don’t like the change but I believe it’s inevitable whether I like it or not. It’ll take a few more years but one day it’ll happen ‘out of the blue’, just like it did on on Dec 13th, 2007.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3993079&page=1

BoilerUP

Fair Treatment For Experienced Pilots Act was signed into law and became effective December 2007, before the Q3’2008 liquidity crisis.

That took a literal act of Congress that didn’t happen until ALPA’s “Blue Ribbon Panel” dropped its opposition in early 2008, and to this point ALPA National has been firm in maintaining Age 65.

Any rumors about increased mandatory retirement age, at this point, are wishful (or fearful) thinking.

C2078

A 2007 ABC News article (of all fake news places) that talks about Age 60 to 65? Really?

whalesurfer

Too bad you weren’t around back then to save us from these ‘wishful thinking’ rumors. (Pretty jacked up insinuation there but that’s fine..)

...and yes, ALPA, the bastion of age 60 rule dropped their age 65 opposition when their members lost their pensions. Never said it’ll happen overnight but yes, I still believe it’ll happen. Back then people lied to us when they claimed retirement age change wouldn’t happen. This is no different.

Don’t know what emoji 2357 is but I was making an age 60 versus age 65 retirement change analogy. That’s all.

____
____
We’re still hiring which is what matters.
As of July (possibly June) all 74 training will be conducted in SDF and MIA. ANC sim will be down for ~3 months to be updated.

No idea how people will make it to/from ANC on their own? The company will probably use all P3s they can get ahold of.. :-/

BoilerUP

I had just left an ALPA carrier and participated in the Blue Ribbon Panel survey which they used bastardized results from to justify their changed position.

To be clear, I didn’t write or intimate *your* thinking about a retirement age change was wishful; there are some out there very much interested in working an extra 2-3 years beyond 65. I don’t think many of those folks wear brown polyester, however...

C2078

I hear the story all the time, bankruptcies, divorces, illness, etc for reasons to work beyond 65. The average life expectancy of a pilot is shorter than non flying jobs, so maybe you get a good 10 years, maybe, after 65. Why anyone wants to keep working and waste those precious years is beyond me.

C17B74

No dog in the fight either way (already limping around so probably not a good idea for me). Understandably there are issues with upward mobility (seniority) or wanting/needing to fly due to more cash flow i.e. - ex-wives, homes, kids, boats, cars, lack of retirement, etc. or just to having the option. Pilot shortage whenever reinstated, many reasons on both sides. For Australia specifically - With Virgin Australia (now tanked) and Qantas primarily, their current rules would help them no doubt with thousands of furloughs required or not. So just having the option would console many if they survive although it maybe another restructuring excuse as seen before...