US Senate panel votes to reject hiking pilot retirement age

Totally off topic... you guys are able to run OE on augmented flights as a three pilot crew? We are required to run 4 pilots because the OE pilot isn't checked out yet and as such can't be at the controls without a check pilot in the other seat. That even applies in the case where the pilot is still technically right seat (and hence RO) qualifed.
If the student is going right to left seat on the same plane or has previously been qualified on the plane you can go 3 man. New hire or new to the plane is 4 man. Ultimately it’s at the discretion of the LCA but pretty much all release the extra FO if they’re not needed.
 
If the student is going right to left seat on the same plane or has previously been qualified on the plane you can go 3 man. New hire or new to the plane is 4 man. Ultimately it’s at the discretion of the LCA but pretty much all release the extra FO if they’re not needed.

Interesting. Not at all our policy.
 
Over here the original FO tends to get salty when it happens because they lose their landing. But yes, long breaks are nice, unless the Check Pilot is a dick and splits it 1/4 - 1/2 - 1/4 so they can observe the OE candidate coasting in and coasting out. (ask me how I know...)
Here are the original flying FO gets bought off the trip. Quite often they’ll pick up the IRO seat if they want. It’s an upside to having the flying seat be bid for on the pairing.

And wow… I’ve never heard of anyone doing breaks like that for OE before!
 
Interesting. Not at all our policy.
I’m pretty much always the junior FO so I just expect to go all the time. In reality, if they don’t release anyone it’s not really a big deal for me. So I have to get a selcal check and get a longer break. Not a bad deal.
 
The healthcare is the big issue for me, even if you can “afford” to retire early. You don’t qualify for Medicare until 65, and most of the plans I’ve seen on the marketplace are garbage.
This is a huge one here and one that gets left out of peoples thinking. My mother decided to retire but still needs to work( long story short: dad passed suddenly 4 years ago, both terrible with money, very little retirement savings). She has health issues that means prescriptions. Her last job had excellent healthcare, but now that she's retired and on Medicare, it's not all covered or covered the same. Stuff she had a $20 copay for is now $100 or worse. She shouldn't have retired but that's a whole 'nother story.

Other side of the coin is my in-laws. My FIL did well, and saved a lot; money is not an issue. Both of my in laws are reasonable healthy for being in their mid 70's. But his biggest complaint is healthcare costs.

It'll be a concern for my wife and I as well since she has excellent coverage (much better than I can get at AA) but the insurance will only cover her when she retires, not me. It's so unfortunate that healthcare is tied to our jobs in the US (or having served in the armed forces) but it's unlikely to ever change.
 
But the people he loves to vote for would call any solution to it “woke socialism”!


There’s no solution to it. Whatever they propose nothing changes for medical access, instead just makes it more expensive.


You’re stacked against the insurance and big pharma conglomerate. Good luck getting anything changed. And don’t blame just one party. They’re all guilty.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: HJB
There’s no solution to it. Whatever they propose nothing changes for medical access, instead just makes it more expensive.


You’re stacked against the insurance and big pharma conglomerate. Good luck getting anything changed. And don’t blame just one party. They’re all guilty.
There’s a great solution if you’re not beholden to lobbying from big insurance.
 
Not that easy.

I have family in Canada. Their healthcare is a mess, and their taxes are exorbitant compared to us.
my sister lives in France, loves her healthcare and after all of our taxes + Insurance and everything associated with it...she ends up paying way less.
 
You want Canada style MAID? I can see that being controversial.

You put the expense on the government, 1. We’re all gonna pay. No such thing as “free” healthcare. 2. They’re gonna decide when it’s not worth keeping your mom or dad alive. And deny it.
 
My perspective from 6 years of working in close proximity to emergency medicine and hospitals is that “death panels” would be the humane and rational thing to do. Nothing like spending 6 figures at 3 AM to transport a hopeless case somewhere where they can die alone hundreds of miles from their home and family.
 
Not that easy.

I have family in Canada. Their healthcare is a mess, and their taxes are exorbitant compared to us.

I pay a lot of taxes now, and get zero healthcare for it.

Going to a single payer system, and still spending the most per capita in the world on healthcare, would still save us $1.5 trillion dollars per year. (The US spends about $4.5 trillion in total now). There's probably a lot of other things that money could be spent on, that would be better for the US economy.
 
Back
Top