House committee votes to raise pilot retirement age to 67

Autothrust Blue said:
Maybe, and I know this just sounds crazy, but maybe this shouldn’t even be this way to begin with
Click to expand...

I agree... and let us all remember who put forth the regulations (law?) that union dues cannot be used for political purposes. Of course there is ZERO stipulation on corporate lobby/PAC money being spent to forward "management's" agenda.
 
lostplanetairman said:
That being said, 65 was enough. I am very happy to be in a simulator and classroom: days/ week.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not everyone has the option of going right from flying the line to a schoolhouse gig to keep the income coming in.

That being said, a schoolhouse retirement gig sounds like the best thing ever to me.
 
ppragman said:
Gotta pay for that 12th divorce somehow lol

and solid call on the 80% number, I'd say that's pretty close.

www.statista.com

Distribution of household income U.S. 2023 | Statista

In 2023, just over 50 percent of Americans had an annual household income that was less than 75,000 U.S.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
Click to expand...

I *could* support Age-67 under only one circumstance.

You give everyone a vote on who can stay.

There are standards bearers that are great guys that I’d love to keep in the fold. But then, there are those that I literally cannot wait until they age-out of our various Widget Pilot pages because I’m tired of their bitching, negativity and my raise wasn’t enough/I’m leaving ALPA/What’s the union going to do about my grievance?
 
No dog in this fight, and I already know that it's hard to say good-bye to a once comfortable and well-known life.

Still, practical reasons aside (and, yes, they are there cognitively), it's (maybe) sort of like raising kids. There comes a time when it's both right and necessary to step aside and let them live the lives they have chosen. In this sense, there comes a time when the "next generation" replaces our own.

Does our experience count? Maybe not as much as it did when the kids were young and needed us in the role. Sometimes wisdom trumps experience and we move on to the next stage in our own lives, enjoying what we had (and cherishing it) but letting others grow into their role, though it replaces our own.

So, "F" all that, just saying "No" to 67, personally. Retire and enjoy the days you have left.
 
I’m against raising it too, my post was rather tongue-in-cheek because that would never fly!

I am very much looking forward to retiring as early as possible. I want to do all the cool things while I still have my relative youth.
 
Lately I've been flying with a bunch of guys near 65, all counting the days. The ones I've flown with that are a delight to work with, who put care and effort into doing their job well and creating a good environment, are already one foot out the door and aren't working a day past 65 even if the rule changes (one has waffled but pretty much all the good ones have stated they won't stay).

The ones chomping at the bit for 67... somehow they all seem to end up on my bid avoid list by the end of the trip.
 
derg said:
I *could* support Age-67 under only one circumstance.

You give everyone a vote on who can stay.

There are standards bearers that are great guys that I’d love to keep in the fold. But then, there are those that I literally cannot wait until they age-out of our various Widget Pilot pages because I’m tired of their bitching, negativity and my raise wasn’t enough/I’m leaving ALPA/What’s the union going to do about my grievance?
Click to expand...

The biggest argument that people trot out is the "I'm 64 one day and safe, and I'm 65 the next and unsafe?". The fail to consider that it's not 100% pass/fail. There is a bell curve, and whether people like to admit it or not, everyone can't pile into the "above average" side of the chart. Does that blow? Sure, but that's how the Feds work, and they'll simply say "Bummer, but the line has to get drawn someplace".

Want to be excused from the curve? Want to defy the odds? Well, they're not going to let you do that Mr. I.M. Special unless they go with a different paradigm. Astronaut physicals and the phrase that dare not speak it's name....cognitive testing. Everyone lost their minds over the whole proposed BMI rules...."ahhh, they're inaccurate!" Yup, they sure are, but that's how bad rules get made is by boxing them into a corner. You think BMI is bad? Wait until you see how cog testing would be implemented.
 
Richman said:
Everyone lost their minds over the whole proposed BMI rules...."ahhh, they're inaccurate!" Yup, they sure are, but that's how bad rules get made is by boxing them into a corner. You think BMI is bad? Wait until you see how cog testing would be implemented.
Click to expand...

Pre-hire USMC-style PT test. Will give you a healthier pilot force that doesn’t look like a bag of donuts in their company uniform. :)
 
BobDDuck said:
We (as pilots) make more than about 80% of the population. Do we really need to "keep the income coming in" post 65?
Click to expand...

4 of the 9 NMB Mediators have ALPA volunteer experience not unlike yours. There is a direct pipeline from senior committee work/paid volunteerism to consulting and government jobs post mandatory retirement. The regular rank and file pilots also don't have that option.

I still don't know why I am defending this issue, or even arguing for a position that I do not want to find myself in. But in the words of John Adams... "I am for the prisoners at the bar."

All the points above against the issue do stand... many of the pilots at my shop 'pushing' for the extra two years are the ones who game their schedules to the max.

The vocal anon. 'pro-67' crowd is definitely made up of the most selfish of pilots. In fact, if it succeeds in becoming the new standard, I guarantee that the same group will be pushing for 'Age 70' within 6 months. Quoting from the future: "If an octogenarian with dementia can be illegally elected president, then why can't I fly as long as I hold a medical." (And, yes, I've already seen THAT nonsense online in one form or another.)

A new retirement standard may lead to a new set of medical certification standards, but can any of us say for certain that the current medical standard will stand as written. Maybe the mental health crisis will someday be addressed? Maybe BMI will be a factor? The existence of AMAS and our Union's investment in and advocacy for aeromedical issues tells me that the system already isn't perfect. For instance, no pilot I know goes to just 'any AME.'

But, I am not talking about or trying to defend the permanent no-fly list feminine hygiene product in a bag straw-man that is the focus of all the angst here. Nor am I talking about the Capts. Special who expect to pass the NASA physical from 65-67.

We already have countless retired 121 pilots flying throughout the national airspace system, right now, with so-called 'VIP' passengers. (or at least those who can afford the 'how DARE you' private jet service.) In this topsy turvy labor market many 91/135 operators seem to be advertising for new-hires in the AARP magazine, and many retired pilots who just aren't ready to hand up the hat are squeezing into their 15-20-30 year old blue suit/red tie combo and dusting off the resume. The labor market will change. These operators will turnabout and prey on the young and inexperienced again.

Rather than forcing anyone to stay till they die in the seat. I'm adressing the possibility of giving people the choice to continue working their profession as long as they are able to, if they so choose. The question is choice. Are you engaging in discrimiatory behavior, ageism, in removing the choice from the individual? There are pilots who, even though they 'make more than 80%' do need the income. Are they socking every dollar away for their special-needs child who makes less than 1% of the population? So they can have a quality of life when they are gone? Does their spouse have major medical problems? It doesn't matter the issue... they might still need to work. It's not up to me to judge people's finances. Or, they might choose to work and sacrifice that time for their family. Heck, every day I go to work is a day that I'm trading a part of my life for my family's well being. I've already given them my 30's and 40's... Or maybe it is just a boat.

The point is, no one knows everyone's individual financial situation. Maybe they listened to the other guy and bought those Dinar's. Or, took up day trading. We all collectively make fun of CC's 401K balance. (And, don't get me wrong, that's easy low-hanging fruit for the online poking of fun.) Just because we make a good living and times are good today, that doesn't mean that we will all have financial health on our 65th birthday. There are pilots who are still very much medically qualified to fly that may not 'want' to continue working, but would do so because of their individual family or financial issues. Or even... the job is all they have. Their whole identity is putting on the short sleeve dress shirt and tie.

All the arguments I've seen against are great 140 'Twitter-like' generalizations that completely ignores the nuance of the issue. Or the arguments are a fear-based parade of horribles. (i.e. this will lead to draconian medicals! etc. etc.) Even Ambrosi's letter was very much 'get outta my seat' and old guys aren't safe.

It's too bad that we don't have the time to actually educate, have a discussion, and poll the entire 65K membership. The 'poll' at my shop was very 50% donkey to say the least.

(As to - "pilots are fat and unhealthy." What can we do as a profession to help that? Why are we that way? Why do people medical out? Could it be a byproduct of the certification system? Do pilots intentionally not address health issues for fear of loss-of-medical certification? Could it be a byproduct of sleep cycles and schedules? How is it that a group of people who are so closely monitored have such high self-harm rates? Such high disability-insurance usage?)

Enough ranting, I'm going for a walk.
 
Richman said:
The biggest argument that people trot out is the "I'm 64 one day and safe, and I'm 65 the next and unsafe?". The fail to consider that it's not 100% pass/fail. There is a bell curve, and whether people like to admit it or not, everyone can't pile into the "above average" side of the chart. Does that blow? Sure, but that's how the Feds work, and they'll simply say "Bummer, but the line has to get drawn someplace".

Want to be excused from the curve? Want to defy the odds? Well, they're not going to let you do that Mr. I.M. Special unless they go with a different paradigm. Astronaut physicals and the phrase that dare not speak it's name....cognitive testing. Everyone lost their minds over the whole proposed BMI rules...."ahhh, they're inaccurate!" Yup, they sure are, but that's how bad rules get made is by boxing them into a corner. You think BMI is bad? Wait until you see how cog testing would be implemented.
Click to expand...

I'd reply them that you really can't tell that you'll be fatigued at the beginning of the long day. It is only when you are somewhere in the middle that you start seeing the signs. Well degradation in sensory and motor skills are similar to this. One day you're sharp and the next day your fo/copilot/captain is having to carry you through the flight because you aren't able to contribute as much. It is also hard to recognize within yourself. I have flown with some older guys who were my FO's that I would not leave my seat to use the bathroom because I was worried that something would happen in my absence. That's not an effective way to have to operate an aircraft.
 
ClearedForOption said:
4 of the 9 NMB Mediators have ALPA volunteer experience not unlike yours. There is a direct pipeline from senior committee work/paid volunteerism to consulting and government jobs post mandatory retirement. The regular rank and file pilots also don't have that option.

I still don't know why I am defending this issue, or even arguing for a position that I do not want to find myself in. But in the words of John Adams... "I am for the prisoners at the bar."

All the points above against the issue do stand... many of the pilots at my shop 'pushing' for the extra two years are the ones who game their schedules to the max.

The vocal anon. 'pro-67' crowd is definitely made up of the most selfish of pilots. In fact, if it succeeds in becoming the new standard, I guarantee that the same group will be pushing for 'Age 70' within 6 months. Quoting from the future: "If an octogenarian with dementia can be illegally elected president, then why can't I fly as long as I hold a medical." (And, yes, I've already seen THAT nonsense online in one form or another.)

A new retirement standard may lead to a new set of medical certification standards, but can any of us say for certain that the current medical standard will stand as written. Maybe the mental health crisis will someday be addressed? Maybe BMI will be a factor? The existence of AMAS and our Union's investment in and advocacy for aeromedical issues tells me that the system already isn't perfect. For instance, no pilot I know goes to just 'any AME.'

But, I am not talking about or trying to defend the permanent no-fly list feminine hygiene product in a bag straw-man that is the focus of all the angst here. Nor am I talking about the Capts. Special who expect to pass the NASA physical from 65-67.

We already have countless retired 121 pilots flying throughout the national airspace system, right now, with so-called 'VIP' passengers. (or at least those who can afford the 'how DARE you' private jet service.) In this topsy turvy labor market many 91/135 operators seem to be advertising for new-hires in the AARP magazine, and many retired pilots who just aren't ready to hand up the hat are squeezing into their 15-20-30 year old blue suit/red tie combo and dusting off the resume. The labor market will change. These operators will turnabout and prey on the young and inexperienced again.

Rather than forcing anyone to stay till they die in the seat. I'm adressing the possibility of giving people the choice to continue working their profession as long as they are able to, if they so choose. The question is choice. Are you engaging in discrimiatory behavior, ageism, in removing the choice from the individual? There are pilots who, even though they 'make more than 80%' do need the income. Are they socking every dollar away for their special-needs child who makes less than 1% of the population? So they can have a quality of life when they are gone? Does their spouse have major medical problems? It doesn't matter the issue... they might still need to work. It's not up to me to judge people's finances. Or, they might choose to work and sacrifice that time for their family. Heck, every day I go to work is a day that I'm trading a part of my life for my family's well being. I've already given them my 30's and 40's... Or maybe it is just a boat.

The point is, no one knows everyone's individual financial situation. Maybe they listened to the other guy and bought those Dinar's. Or, took up day trading. We all collectively make fun of CC's 401K balance. (And, don't get me wrong, that's easy low-hanging fruit for the online poking of fun.) Just because we make a good living and times are good today, that doesn't mean that we will all have financial health on our 65th birthday. There are pilots who are still very much medically qualified to fly that may not 'want' to continue working, but would do so because of their individual family or financial issues. Or even... the job is all they have. Their whole identity is putting on the short sleeve dress shirt and tie.

All the arguments I've seen against are great 140 'Twitter-like' generalizations that completely ignores the nuance of the issue. Or the arguments are a fear-based parade of horribles. (i.e. this will lead to draconian medicals! etc. etc.) Even Ambrosi's letter was very much 'get outta my seat' and old guys aren't safe.

It's too bad that we don't have the time to actually educate, have a discussion, and poll the entire 65K membership. The 'poll' at my shop was very 50% donkey to say the least.

(As to - "pilots are fat and unhealthy." What can we do as a profession to help that? Why are we that way? Why do people medical out? Could it be a byproduct of the certification system? Do pilots intentionally not address health issues for fear of loss-of-medical certification? Could it be a byproduct of sleep cycles and schedules? How is it that a group of people who are so closely monitored have such high self-harm rates? Such high disability-insurance usage?)

Enough ranting, I'm going for a walk.
Click to expand...

There's a lot to unpack here... and none of it (mostly!) is ranting. The only thing I'll say in response, is that it's pretty close to a zero sum game. Every block hour that a guy stays in a seat longer than the old rules of the game (age 65), is directly taking away from the money, quality of life, and schedule, of somebody junior to them. Again, the rules were well established (until they weren't).

If somebody *wants* to keep working, that's great. I think it keeps their mind and body active and healthy, and will prolong their life. But they shouldn't be doing in a seat that (under the current rules) belongs to somebody else. Go join the MNB. Go be an instructor. Go give lectures about aerodynamics, travel, or fishing, at a local library. There are literally hundreds of things that aged out 121 pilots can do, both related and unrelated to the industry.
 
///AMG said:
Probably the quickest way to make the current pilot shortage an actual pilot shortage.......if they said "do this or you lose your job, ready go" the airports would be littered with pilot corpses who gave it their best.
Click to expand...

Actually, the quickest way to wreck the entire pipeline is to do what the RAA wants. Roll back the ATP rule.

Every CFI would be hired inside of 12 months. There wouldn't be anyone left to do any training, not just for airline track people, but everyone.

The whole pipeline would come to a screeching halt.
 
ClearedForOption said:
4 of the 9 NMB Mediators have ALPA volunteer experience not unlike yours. There is a direct pipeline from senior committee work/paid volunteerism to consulting and government jobs post mandatory retirement. The regular rank and file pilots also don't have that option.

I still don't know why I am defending this issue, or even arguing for a position that I do not want to find myself in. But in the words of John Adams... "I am for the prisoners at the bar."

All the points above against the issue do stand... many of the pilots at my shop 'pushing' for the extra two years are the ones who game their schedules to the max.

The vocal anon. 'pro-67' crowd is definitely made up of the most selfish of pilots. In fact, if it succeeds in becoming the new standard, I guarantee that the same group will be pushing for 'Age 70' within 6 months. Quoting from the future: "If an octogenarian with dementia can be illegally elected president, then why can't I fly as long as I hold a medical." (And, yes, I've already seen THAT nonsense online in one form or another.)

A new retirement standard may lead to a new set of medical certification standards, but can any of us say for certain that the current medical standard will stand as written. Maybe the mental health crisis will someday be addressed? Maybe BMI will be a factor? The existence of AMAS and our Union's investment in and advocacy for aeromedical issues tells me that the system already isn't perfect. For instance, no pilot I know goes to just 'any AME.'

But, I am not talking about or trying to defend the permanent no-fly list feminine hygiene product in a bag straw-man that is the focus of all the angst here. Nor am I talking about the Capts. Special who expect to pass the NASA physical from 65-67.

We already have countless retired 121 pilots flying throughout the national airspace system, right now, with so-called 'VIP' passengers. (or at least those who can afford the 'how DARE you' private jet service.) In this topsy turvy labor market many 91/135 operators seem to be advertising for new-hires in the AARP magazine, and many retired pilots who just aren't ready to hand up the hat are squeezing into their 15-20-30 year old blue suit/red tie combo and dusting off the resume. The labor market will change. These operators will turnabout and prey on the young and inexperienced again.

Rather than forcing anyone to stay till they die in the seat. I'm adressing the possibility of giving people the choice to continue working their profession as long as they are able to, if they so choose. The question is choice. Are you engaging in discrimiatory behavior, ageism, in removing the choice from the individual? There are pilots who, even though they 'make more than 80%' do need the income. Are they socking every dollar away for their special-needs child who makes less than 1% of the population? So they can have a quality of life when they are gone? Does their spouse have major medical problems? It doesn't matter the issue... they might still need to work. It's not up to me to judge people's finances. Or, they might choose to work and sacrifice that time for their family. Heck, every day I go to work is a day that I'm trading a part of my life for my family's well being. I've already given them my 30's and 40's... Or maybe it is just a boat.

The point is, no one knows everyone's individual financial situation. Maybe they listened to the other guy and bought those Dinar's. Or, took up day trading. We all collectively make fun of CC's 401K balance. (And, don't get me wrong, that's easy low-hanging fruit for the online poking of fun.) Just because we make a good living and times are good today, that doesn't mean that we will all have financial health on our 65th birthday. There are pilots who are still very much medically qualified to fly that may not 'want' to continue working, but would do so because of their individual family or financial issues. Or even... the job is all they have. Their whole identity is putting on the short sleeve dress shirt and tie.

All the arguments I've seen against are great 140 'Twitter-like' generalizations that completely ignores the nuance of the issue. Or the arguments are a fear-based parade of horribles. (i.e. this will lead to draconian medicals! etc. etc.) Even Ambrosi's letter was very much 'get outta my seat' and old guys aren't safe.

It's too bad that we don't have the time to actually educate, have a discussion, and poll the entire 65K membership. The 'poll' at my shop was very 50% donkey to say the least.

(As to - "pilots are fat and unhealthy." What can we do as a profession to help that? Why are we that way? Why do people medical out? Could it be a byproduct of the certification system? Do pilots intentionally not address health issues for fear of loss-of-medical certification? Could it be a byproduct of sleep cycles and schedules? How is it that a group of people who are so closely monitored have such high self-harm rates? Such high disability-insurance usage?)

Enough ranting, I'm going for a walk.
Click to expand...
Well-spoken and erudite.

I still say get the hell out as early as you can because that option is a better one (to me) - unless you're broke,
 
Richman said:
Actually, the quickest way to wreck the entire pipeline is to do what the RAA wants. Roll back the ATP rule.

Every CFI would be hired inside of 12 months. There wouldn't be anyone left to do any training, not just for airline track people, but everyone.

The whole pipeline would come to a screeching halt.
Click to expand...

While I agree it would be a huge change with said consequences in the immediate future, we kinda had this model for many years, with commuter airlines. Would you say there would be something different this time, once the tidal wave of change flattened? Not at all advocating for rolling back the ATP requirement at all, but on the surface, this wouldn't be unprecedented (to play devils advocate)
 
Last edited:
///AMG said:
While I agree it would be a huge change with said consequences in the immediate future, we kinda had this model for many years, with commuter airlines. Would you say there would be something different this time, once the tidal wave of change flattened? Not at all advocating for rolling back the ATP requirement at all, but on the surface, this wouldn't be unprecedented (to play devils advocate)
Click to expand...

Except for a very brief time period in 2006 to about 2008 (and then again right before the ATP rule went in to place), nobody was getting hired with less than 1000 hours, and when time were tough, nobody was going to the "commuters" with less 3000.
 
BobDDuck said:
Except for a very brief time period in 2006 to about 2008 (and then again right before the ATP rule went in to place), nobody was getting hired with less than 1000 hours, and when time were tough, nobody was going to the "commuters" with less 3000.
Click to expand...

Without being too much of a pollyanna (in the "how much worse can it get" sense), we are pretty much already there......hiring FO's right into the majors, after maybe a year at a regional, or even less. This idea would kick that can a little further upstream and undoubtedly have the effect of draining the CFI pool much like the regional pool has already been drained. Which is of course what Richman is saying. But I don't see that as a long term equilibrium. Eventually the airlines will either achieve their hiring goals, or some event(s) will cause a contraction of demand. I don't personally think this hiring boom will last much longer, and will more than likely reverse itself overnight in the not too distant future. But that is just pessimistic me. I've been wrong plenty of times, about things I know much more about :) That being said, I don't invest in airline stocks, at least directly.
 
derg said:
I *could* support Age-67 under only one circumstance.

You give everyone a vote on who can stay.

There are standards bearers that are great guys that I’d love to keep in the fold. But then, there are those that I literally cannot wait until they age-out of our various Widget Pilot pages because I’m tired of their bitching, negativity and my raise wasn’t enough/I’m leaving ALPA/What’s the union going to do about my grievance?
Click to expand...
Logic akin to: "give abortion decisions back to da peeeples". Sorry, NO.

Standards (Forms), Rules (Law), and Objective Reality (Science) are all that matter. Da peeeples is generally uninformed, and swayed by highly-paid orators to believe whatever the orators want da peeeeples to believe... not know, but believe. (See: Gorgias. It's an oldie, but a goodie.)

Plus, weren't you the one recently defending the mad grab for MO' MONEY??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top