Bandaid on a dam. Make the barriers to entry lower and you'll see a lot more pilots coming into the industry. And I don't mean even the ATP rule. The initial cost of flight training has gotten too expensive.

MIflyer12 wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

yup, I'm descriminating. sue me. too much risk.

Indeed, you are discriminating, and in most other industries you would indeed be a risk for a lawsuit.

There are exemptions from the U.S. law prohibiting mandatory retirement age, and, indeed, those are commonly in occupations where high cognitive capacity is expected. Execs can be forced to retire at 65. And they're not piloting 500T fuel bombs. Add in greater risk of heart attack and cardiac arrest over 65. Have everyone in a left seat do extensive annual congitive tests and nuclear cardiac stress tests from age 62. The fact that the general population is living longer is absolutely no comfort or rationale for increasing the mandatory pilot retirement age.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1625.12

100% agree. Let the market correct the shortage, and quit with the short-sighted solutions that allow the regionals to operate like sweat shops. I’m ready to hang it up at 65.

UPlog wrote:

The standard retirement age for Americans born after 1960 is 67, so I don't see a reason why it should be any different for us pilots.
So long as folks maintain their proficiency and health and desire to work until 67, so let them.

Fully Agree
I know many people that are above 75 that are sharp brain wise & some that hike the high sierra mountains. So if your fit & in good health your good to go.

I assume all those complaining about when the age was raised from 60 to 65 and the stagnation that occurred will be retiring at 60 themselves when they reach that age, to stand by their beliefs.

I don't personally have a dog in this fight and from reading the thread, there's a lot of emotion on both sides with regards to this issue (as would be expected). I think both sides bring up some compelling arguments.

I will say, however, that there is certainly a difference in different people based on age. It could be cognitive, it could be motivation, but there are definitely differences.

As an example, my father (a widebody cargo pilot) will be turning 65 next year and is practically counting down the days. He wouldn't stay to 67 if the company threw incentives at him to do so. He's done and ready for retirement.

On the flip side, his father (my grandfather) retired in 1985 (as a 747 Captain at NW) when 60 was the rule and would have been thrilled to go another 20 years if the law would have allowed it. Flying is his life. He went on to flight instruct (taught me) and I had the privilege of riding along in the back seat while he did his biennial flight review on his 90th birthday a couple years back. I couldn't think of a more competent pilot. It's almost like reflexes for him (that said, nowadays he only flies with another licensed pilot).

It is definitely an interesting debate. Will be fascinating to see what comes of it.

How about just lowering the ridiculous 1500 hour minimum for new pilots down to something reasonable like 500-700 hours? That might help make flight training attainable for young people. We only got 1500 hour minimums as an over reaction to the colligan air q400 crash in buffalo, and it was 100% over reaction.

Instead of milking retirees for more work, which if they want to work still, and can prove they're not a safety issue, more power to them. But trying to keep pilots who should be retiring in place because new pilots can't afford to join the profession is not going to solve the shortage

Crosswind787 wrote:

How about just lowering the ridiculous 1500 hour minimum for new pilots down to something reasonable like 500-700 hours? That might help make flight training attainable for young people. We only got 1500 hour minimums as an over reaction to the colligan air q400 crash in buffalo, and it was 100% over reaction.

Instead of milking retirees for more work, which if they want to work still, and can prove they're not a safety issue, more power to them. But trying to keep pilots who should be retiring in place because new pilots can't afford to join the profession is not going to solve the shortage

The cost of going from zero to CFI is still tens of thousands of dollars. The Military is not an option for everyone (so for those hot heads who say join the military, just can it). Student loans and pell grants are not available for flight training unless you go to specific programs, and typically those programs involve universities or community colleges which require an entire degree filled with unnecessary classes and are way overpriced. The solution is to make all flight schools eligible for pell grants, student loans, and all types of financial aid one would get if they're going to college or law school or medical school, or even for a master's degree. That's the hold up, the amount of money it costs to become a pilot and the lack of financial aid available. Not to mention most CFIs are 1099 contractors and don't get any health insurance when they're working 7 days a week and the lack of other low time pilot opportunities as a substitute for being a CFI.

Flying isn’t a terribly “scarce” skill (as proved by the pilot glut 1945-2010). The really key issue, as with medicine, is expensive training. Both pipelines are dysfunctional and need redesign. What we don’t need is geriatric baby boomers taking everyone’s careers away.

There are decent reasons not to allow airliner pilots or ATC at full social security retirement age. And the reasons to do so (shortage!) are contrived. There are plenty of capable young people looking to start demanding, lucrative careers. Let them.

evank516 wrote:

Crosswind787 wrote:

How about just lowering the ridiculous 1500 hour minimum for new pilots down to something reasonable like 500-700 hours? That might help make flight training attainable for young people. We only got 1500 hour minimums as an over reaction to the colligan air q400 crash in buffalo, and it was 100% over reaction.

Instead of milking retirees for more work, which if they want to work still, and can prove they're not a safety issue, more power to them. But trying to keep pilots who should be retiring in place because new pilots can't afford to join the profession is not going to solve the shortage

The cost of going from zero to CFI is still tens of thousands of dollars. The Military is not an option for everyone (so for those hot heads who say join the military, just can it). Student loans and pell grants are not available for flight training unless you go to specific programs, and typically those programs involve universities or community colleges which require an entire degree filled with unnecessary classes and are way overpriced. The solution is to make all flight schools eligible for pell grants, student loans, and all types of financial aid one would get if they're going to college or law school or medical school, or even for a master's degree. That's the hold up, the amount of money it costs to become a pilot and the lack of financial aid available. Not to mention most CFIs are 1099 contractors and don't get any health insurance when they're working 7 days a week and the lack of other low time pilot opportunities as a substitute for being a CFI.

Bingo. Make better loan options available for flight training.

SteelChair wrote:

Why is Congress involved? Why doesn't this follow normal FAA rule making procedures?

All legislation and regulation (involving interstate transportation) is the under the original jurisdiction and purview of Congress.
The FAA, as an Executive agency, is only granted the power delegated (expressly or implicitly) to it by Congress.

Or in short: Congress has a right to butt-in to anything regarding regulation of transport business that it chooses to, and the FAA has no choice but to accept Congress's actions.

SurlyBonds wrote:

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

yup, I'm descriminating. sue me. too much risk.

Indeed, you are discriminating, and in most other industries you would indeed be a risk for a lawsuit.

But not this one, and reasonably so.

ClassicLover wrote:

I assume all those complaining about when the age was raised from 60 to 65 and the stagnation that occurred will be retiring at 60 themselves when they reach that age, to stand by their beliefs.

Non-sequitur much?

If you don't understand the difference in barriers to entry of airline piloting, versus managing a clothing store or running a pizzeria, then I'm not sure any here's explanation is going to do much to help.

Crosswind787 wrote:

How about just lowering the ridiculous 1500 hour minimum for new pilots down to something reasonable like 500-700 hours? That might help make flight training attainable for young people. We only got 1500 hour minimums as an over reaction to the colligan air q400 crash in buffalo, and it was 100% over reaction.

Instead of milking retirees for more work, which if they want to work still, and can prove they're not a safety issue, more power to them. But trying to keep pilots who should be retiring in place because new pilots can't afford to join the profession is not going to solve the shortage

The hang up isn’t the ATP rule and there already carve outs of the ATP rule at 750, 1000, 1250, 1500/200, Age 21 that allows a person to get a restricted ATP.

The problem flight training costs from 0 to Commercial/CFI. It’s really expensive and there’s are limited funding that can be obtained for flight training since your traditional student loans can not used for strictly flight training.

They could do a lot of things beyond simply raising the age to 67. One thing would be to allow them to fly, but not as CAPT, and only domestic. Japan implemented something like this, and it took hold at the regional level. Can't fly out of Japan above age 65, and can't fly anywhere with another pilot over age 60. More medical periodicity required, etc.
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Docum ... ev1_en.pdf

What other countries allow 67? Wouldn’t a non age 67 Pilot be restricted from flying to that country? No way scheduling would be able to work around this unless it’s in the contract. Sounds good to me. Bid a country I am not allowed to fly to and get paid to sit home. Sign me up.

I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other. Those that want to go past 65 probably don’t have anything better to do. Personally I’m thinking 62. I have a years + worth of sick time built up. I can start getting my operations at age 60 and avoid flying those last two years. I have so many things I want to see and do. Once I retire I will have to pay out of pocket for my healthcare. May as well have the airline pay for it before I go.

To each there own.

IMHO, if a person is healthy and can pass a physical and mental exam why not. Has there been any studies that have shown that 66 and 67 year old flight deck personal have an increase of risk of an accident?

Crosswind787 wrote:

How about just lowering the ridiculous 1500 hour minimum for new pilots down to something reasonable like 500-700 hours? That might help make flight training attainable for young people. We only got 1500 hour minimums as an over reaction to the colligan air q400 crash in buffalo, and it was 100% over reaction.

Instead of milking retirees for more work, which if they want to work still, and can prove they're not a safety issue, more power to them. But trying to keep pilots who should be retiring in place because new pilots can't afford to join the profession is not going to solve the shortage

You do know it’s an ATP, not a 1500 hour rule? Please read 61.160

DreamDriver wrote:

They could do a lot of things beyond simply raising the age to 67. One thing would be to allow them to fly, but not as CAPT, and only domestic. Japan implemented something like this, and it took hold at the regional level. Can't fly out of Japan above age 65, and can't fly anywhere with another pilot over age 60. More medical periodicity required, etc.
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Docum ... ev1_en.pdf

Thing is, I’d bet the majority wouldn’t take it. The guys who want to stay are 777 capts. Make them fly the 737 domestic for two years and they’re gone.

What's the most objective decision that can be made here, all selfish interests set aside (including that of pilots, airlines, politicians, etc.)?

I guess the most "libertarian" stance would just let it be 67 or no restriction, so long as pilots are able to REALLY prove they're capable of flying the airplane with no signs of cognitive decline, which is indeed, a big deal. How can you check this? I'm no expert. Would it be reliable testing? I don't know.

DreamDriver wrote:

They could do a lot of things beyond simply raising the age to 67. One thing would be to allow them to fly, but not as CAPT, and only domestic. Japan implemented something like this, and it took hold at the regional level. Can't fly out of Japan above age 65, and can't fly anywhere with another pilot over age 60. More medical periodicity required, etc.
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Docum ... ev1_en.pdf

ICAO is that you cannot fly international multi crew beyond 65. I dint see any reason why there should be any FAA limit on age, if a person can pass their medical and skills checks there is no objective reason to stop them from flying. if you put an age number there, people will use it as a target. If you take that number away, people will need to figure out when they want to leave.

The 65 limit on international operations would be something different operators will need to manage, and it woud also make people decide if they really want to work longer.

A change of no limit at all on the FAA maximum age, and keeping the ICAO international multi crew OPS requirements will have very little impact at all on the number of pilots.

TonyClifton wrote:

DreamDriver wrote:

They could do a lot of things beyond simply raising the age to 67. One thing would be to allow them to fly, but not as CAPT, and only domestic. Japan implemented something like this, and it took hold at the regional level. Can't fly out of Japan above age 65, and can't fly anywhere with another pilot over age 60. More medical periodicity required, etc.
https://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Docum ... ev1_en.pdf

Thing is, I’d bet the majority wouldn’t take it. The guys who want to stay are 777 capts. Make them fly the 737 domestic for two years and they’re gone.

Probably. But I know a few folks who start looking for work six months prior to retirement. They end up at a 135 slinging bags as an FO, becoming a sim instructor, or flying overseas. Staying with the same company with a lot of the benefits would be enticing. And then there is ICAO..... who needs to sign off on it. Even if the senate passed the bill, ICAO won't let the international thing happen. I doubt this topic is even on the ICAO radar right now.

Airbuser wrote:

What other countries allow 67?

Definitely Japan and Canada as mentioned upthread. Could be others, but those are the ones I know off the top of my head. For example, I saw a WS 737 on flightaware recently flying YYZ-YHZ without entering US airspace. Usually that route passes through several US states. 99% probability it's an over 65er on the flight deck for that.

Off the top of my head, Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia have no age limit.

Ew gross, I don't even want to be flying for hire by 60 lol

If I may, I’ve been flying part 121 for a decade now, was in the 91/135 for a few years before that. Flying with a captain that’s in their twilight starts to turn into a chore for the first officer. They are set in their ways, they still do old procedures, they tell you non relevant stories about being a flight engineer, and they tend to not give two s**ts about CRM. They also think they are still fully capable of performing the task at hand like they did decades ago. My job as a first officer is not to be a babysitter on a redeye. My job is not to apologize to the lead FA during a lav break. My job is not supposed to be laugh every time 30 year+ El Capitan says “what are they going to do? Fire me?” when they go off SOP. This goes beyond can they hold a medical. These captains act like saints on a checkride and get right back on the line busting limitations left and right. Age 67 will make me pull even more hair out until upgrade.

LAX772LR wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Why is Congress involved? Why doesn't this follow normal FAA rule making procedures?

All legislation and regulation (involving interstate transportation) is the under the original jurisdiction and purview of Congress.
The FAA, as an Executive agency, is only granted the power delegated (expressly or implicitly) to it by Congress.

Or in short: Congress has a right to butt-in to anything regarding regulation of transport business that it chooses to, and the FAA has no choice but to accept Congress's actions.

Thanks for the civics lesson. There may be those who needed it.

I shall rephrase. FAA processes many changes to regulations as a matter of course, the FAA routinely does rulemaking. What makes this one so special that Congress has to get involved? Why did Congress get involved with the age 60 rule? Don't they have enough to do? Why can't the safety regulator regulate?

This won’t help the pilot shortage I think most of us can agree on that. Another fact I don’t know if it’s been mentioned the absenteeism and long term leave on medicals is substantial more in the 60-64 year group then the rest of the seniority list. Very substantially more.

UA735WL wrote:

The funniest part is that legislators clearly don't understand that a 65 year old pilot is essentially useless from a "keep flights flying" perspective; all the super senior folks I've known of spent their last couple years at airlines doing stuff like flying a PHX-HNL turn once a month, then dividing the remaining 29 days evenly between their boat, RV, and golf course. I'm not saying that high seniority pilots don't deserve this type of lifestyle, but you can't argue that it's particularly productive. Does anyone actually think that letting these folks do this for another 2 years will solve the shortage? All extending the retirement age does is gift the super senior pilots an opportunity to line their pockets with 350k+/yr for 2 more years while barely working at all.

Is this a realistic scenario? I'm genuinely curious if it is the norm for super senior pilots to do one flight a month and still get a full salary?

SteelChair wrote:

Thanks for the civics lesson. There may be those who needed it.

Indeed, yourself included, seeing as you missed the biggest takeaway:

Congress doesn't need "a reason," and as such often acts without having a particularly compelling one.... any of the 535 can get a hair up an orifice, and next thing you know, there's a resolution superseding FAA (or any agency's) general purview. Happens all the time.

LAX772LR wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Thanks for the civics lesson. There may be those who needed it.

Indeed, yourself included, seeing as you missed the biggest takeaway:

Congress doesn't need "a reason," and as such often acts without having a particularly compelling one.... any of the 535 can get a hair up an orifice, and next thing you know, there's a resolution superseding FAA (or any agency's) general purview. Happens all the time.

Isn't it true that Congress rarely gets involved in aviation rulemaking?

SteelChair wrote:

Isn't it true that Congress rarely gets involved in aviation rulemaking?

Is Congress going to spend its time certifying aircraft and going through ADs?

No, that's what executive delegation is for.

Is Congress going to get embarrassed into asserting itself as the final aviation safety authority?

Happens almost every time there's a fatal accident involving a stateside location or a US-constructed aviation product.

Does Congress routinely step into what are otherwise FAA/DOT self-audits, particularly around the time of reauthorization for specific funding?

You bet, 2022 was a big year for that in fact.

And, as to your question: does Congress (and the Executive for that matter) tend to involve itself in transportation category labor issues and/or disputes?

All the time. Remember, it was with rail workers a few months ago (prior to the Ohio crash).
And before that, it was the Amendment to Title 49 as to who can run the FAA, in 2022.
And before that, it was the W.O.R.K.S. Act in 2021.
Etc etc

If allowing it somehow reduces the ALPAs bargaining power to lower pilots wages and see lower fares I am all for it.

LAX772LR wrote:

ClassicLover wrote:

I assume all those complaining about when the age was raised from 60 to 65 and the stagnation that occurred will be retiring at 60 themselves when they reach that age, to stand by their beliefs.

Non-sequitur much?

If you don't understand the difference in barriers to entry of airline piloting, versus managing a clothing store or running a pizzeria, then I'm not sure any here's explanation is going to do much to help.

I got a different take out of his post. He was responding to newer airline pilots who were complaining about their advancement stagnating if they increased the age, because people would stick around for two more years. He was just asking if they were going to leave at 65 so that seats would open up earlier. It had nothing to do with any other industry. They may stagnate now, but they'll also have the advantage of those extra years when they reach that age.

Ufsatp wrote:

If allowing it somehow reduces the ALPAs bargaining power to lower pilots wages and see lower fares I am all for it.

When did an ALPA bargaining unit negotiate for lower pilot wages? That’d be a knew one

evank516 wrote:

Not to mention most CFIs are 1099 contractors and don't get any health insurance when they're working 7 days a week and the lack of other low time pilot opportunities as a substitute for being a CFI.

FWIW, since the ACA, it’s pretty reasonable to get health insurance as a 1099 contractor. Good plans can often be had for less than $20 a month after tax credits.

So being a 1099er isn’t like it was in the 90s or early 2000s

Ufsatp wrote:

If allowing it somehow reduces the ALPAs bargaining power to lower pilots wages and see lower fares I am all for it.

You will not see lower fares…

I got a better idea. Lower the ridiculous 1500 hour rule (those Colgan pilots both had over 1500 hours total time, rest was the factor in that crash). And be more adapting to people that have actually pursued mental health treatment and have had success from said treatment. With MH awareness becoming mainstream and treatment being advocated for, the airlines of the US are going to have a harder time getting pilots since more people will be barred because they got the help they needed.

TWA772LR wrote:

I got a better idea. Lower the ridiculous 1500 hour rule (those Colgan pilots both had over 1500 hours total time, rest was the factor in that crash). And be more adapting to people that have actually pursued mental health treatment and have had success from said treatment. With MH awareness becoming mainstream and treatment being advocated for, the airlines of the US are going to have a harder time getting pilots since more people will be barred because they got the help they needed.

Good news, it’s already not 1500 for many many pilots and pathways.

TonyClifton wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I got a better idea. Lower the ridiculous 1500 hour rule (those Colgan pilots both had over 1500 hours total time, rest was the factor in that crash). And be more adapting to people that have actually pursued mental health treatment and have had success from said treatment. With MH awareness becoming mainstream and treatment being advocated for, the airlines of the US are going to have a harder time getting pilots since more people will be barred because they got the help they needed.

Good news, it’s already not 1500 for many many pilots and pathways.

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

TWA772LR wrote:

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but is the hours for a 4 year college program 1000 hours? 100 seems like it’s a low typo.

TWA772LR wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I got a better idea. Lower the ridiculous 1500 hour rule (those Colgan pilots both had over 1500 hours total time, rest was the factor in that crash). And be more adapting to people that have actually pursued mental health treatment and have had success from said treatment. With MH awareness becoming mainstream and treatment being advocated for, the airlines of the US are going to have a harder time getting pilots since more people will be barred because they got the help they needed.

Good news, it’s already not 1500 for many many pilots and pathways.

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

Getting into a $10-$15 million career isn’t cheap, nor should it be.

USAirKid wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but is the hours for a 4 year college program 1000 hours? 100 seems like it’s a low typo.

Yeah that's a typo. It's 1000.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

Good news, it’s already not 1500 for many many pilots and pathways.

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

Getting into a $10-$15 million career isn’t cheap, nor should it be.

But what makes training that much when the pay was still considerably lower even just 10 years ago? On the flip side, dispatchers are starting to make pilot pay and that training for the certificate is only 6 weeks. 200 hours of classroom time and the ADX draws from the same questions as the ATPL written, plus an O&P.

I'm not advocating for only 200 hours for an ATPL, just pointing out how it's an unnecessarily, artificially high barrier to entry for the pilot labor market.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

a $10-$15 million career isn’t cheap, nor should it be.

Why shouldn't it?

What is the actual logic behind such a (ridiculous IMO) statement?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

Good news, it’s already not 1500 for many many pilots and pathways.

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

Getting into a $10-$15 million career isn’t cheap, nor should it be.

Um, why should people be paying for a career?

saab2000 wrote:

Totally opposed here. I fly for a major US carrier and have strong opinions about this as well. My career progression stopped for five years at a regional so fat cats at the top of their major airlines could fly for another 5 years. One was whining to me about how during a slowdown he might have to sell his second house in a well known ski resort town. Know your audience when crying me that river.

The pilot shortage is here for a reason and kicking the can down the road for two more years won't solve it. Make it a better career..... That'll solve the issue. It's a good career but one where timing is literally everything (and nobody knows the right time) and success or failure is so unpredictable that I really am not sure I'd encourage anyone to get into it today.

Some pilots are really sharp at 60 or 65 and others are checked out at 50.

For those who aren't ready financially, that's not the problem of younger pilots.

My carrier's union did a survey on this issue about a year ago and around 70% of the respondents were opposed to an increase in the retirement age. I was strongly in that 70%.

So when you get to the top are you going to retire at the younger 60 years of the past. Maybe they should take your comment on here and force you to retire at 60 as you comment indicates that would be fair to younger pilots. You cant have it bth ways. Many on here have made similar comments, but not plecged to retire at the older required time.

TWA772LR wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

I don’t know the exact numbers, but is the hours for a 4 year college program 1000 hours? 100 seems like it’s a low typo.

Yeah that's a typo. It's 1000.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

750 for the military, 1250 for a 2 year college program, 100 for a 4 year college program. And students still have to pay near 6 figures in most cases. The pipeline is nice but still cost prohibitive for a lot of people and still doesn't address the lack of mental health acceptance evolution at the FAA.

Getting into a $10-$15 million career isn’t cheap, nor should it be.

But what makes training that much when the pay was still considerably lower even just 10 years ago? On the flip side, dispatchers are starting to make pilot pay and that training for the certificate is only 6 weeks. 200 hours of classroom time and the ADX draws from the same questions as the ATPL written, plus an O&P.

I'm not advocating for only 200 hours for an ATPL, just pointing out how it's an unnecessarily, artificially high barrier to entry for the pilot labor market.

A dispatcher needs to learn how to get planes out on time & crewed. A pilot needs to learn an enormously larger amount in training. A dispatcher can't crash a plane with 300+ people on board, a badly trained pilot can.

N1120A wrote:

Bandaid on a dam. Make the barriers to entry lower and you'll see a lot more pilots coming into the industry. And I don't mean even the ATP rule. The initial cost of flight training has gotten too expensive.

True that the 1500 rule was an over the top reaction. They should have concentrated on time between flights & following sleep hour rules & reviewed the training of the pilots & if rules for sleep were an issue in the crash that caused the change.

Airbuser wrote:

What other countries allow 67? Wouldn’t a non age 67 Pilot be restricted from flying to that country? No way scheduling would be able to work around this unless it’s in the contract. Sounds good to me. Bid a country I am not allowed to fly to and get paid to sit home. Sign me up.

I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other. Those that want to go past 65 probably don’t have anything better to do. Personally I’m thinking 62. I have a years + worth of sick time built up. I can start getting my operations at age 60 and avoid flying those last two years. I have so many things I want to see and do. Once I retire I will have to pay out of pocket for my healthcare. May as well have the airline pay for it before I go.

To each there own.

I would assume flying country A to Country B both allowing 67 would be allowed. As long as you do not go through another countries airspace that does not allow 67 age.

Ufsatp wrote:

If allowing it somehow reduces the ALPAs bargaining power to lower pilots wages and see lower fares I am all for it.

Yeah, it sucks when workers are able to bargain for their compensation, and benefits. Better to leave that for the corporation to decide. They surely know what’s best for me. And cheap tickets should be the goal, safety is too expensive. I wish I could go back to making $17/hour, so you could fly on the cheap.

rbavfan wrote:

saab2000 wrote:

Totally opposed here. I fly for a major US carrier and have strong opinions about this as well. My career progression stopped for five years at a regional so fat cats at the top of their major airlines could fly for another 5 years. One was whining to me about how during a slowdown he might have to sell his second house in a well known ski resort town. Know your audience when crying me that river.

The pilot shortage is here for a reason and kicking the can down the road for two more years won't solve it. Make it a better career..... That'll solve the issue. It's a good career but one where timing is literally everything (and nobody knows the right time) and success or failure is so unpredictable that I really am not sure I'd encourage anyone to get into it today.

Some pilots are really sharp at 60 or 65 and others are checked out at 50.

For those who aren't ready financially, that's not the problem of younger pilots.

My carrier's union did a survey on this issue about a year ago and around 70% of the respondents were opposed to an increase in the retirement age. I was strongly in that 70%.

So when you get to the top are you going to retire at the younger 60 years of the past. Maybe they should take your comment on here and force you to retire at 60 as you comment indicates that would be fair to younger pilots. You cant have it bth ways. Many on here have made similar comments, but not plecged to retire at the older required time.

I do not plan to go to 65. May hop off at 60, yes.

Airbuser wrote:

What other countries allow 67? Wouldn’t a non age 67 Pilot be restricted from flying to that country?

No. The rules of the country of registration of the aircraft apply everywhere it flies to provided the country it's flying to/from/over is a member of ICAO & are complying with the various ICAO treaties, conventions, etc.
For example Australia has NO maximum age for pilots PROVIDE they can pass the required medical standards. It was decided some decades ago that to have one would break the countries age discrimination laws & nobody wanted that fight.
So an Australian pilot over 65 years of age can quite legally fly into US airspace in a VH registered aircraft for the holder of the appropriate level of Australian operational authority without any drama. Before 3/2020 I am sure it was quite common.

Gemuser