I was in the training department for years. 20-30 year old FOs were fantastic, same with 30-40 year old Captains.

The decline is real in the 50s and near absolute in the 60s. Biology always wins. Lancet or NIH had a study that showed decline was 100% for people in their 60s and actually begins in the 40s. When you’re processing thousands of pilots you need a firm rule.

If we go to 67, my understanding from my airline is the FAA is asking for cognitive and stress testing to start at 60. That would be hard for congress/FAA to say no to (although the proposed administrator is an absolute wild card). That would take out more people then you gain by the rule change.

I think it would be better to lower the ATP age and not require the degree or military experience.

Babyshark wrote:

I think it would be better to lower the ATP age and not require the degree or military experience.

I agree, I would lower the R-ATP age to like 19 from 21…

N1120A wrote:

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.

Um, why should people be paying for a career?

Because the get the benefits. Good things in life don’t come cheap, somebody pays.

bigb wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

I think it would be better to lower the ATP age and not require the degree or military experience.

I agree, I would lower the R-ATP age to like 19 from 21…

How many pilots out there meet R-ATP mins at 19? You can’t hold a CPL until 18, I’d imagine you can count on fingers and toes the number of pilots per year who have R-ATP mins at 19.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

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

Um, why should people be paying for a career?

Because the get the benefits. Good things in life don’t come cheap, somebody pays.

Reading is a good thing. Should that be expensive to learn?

TonyClifton wrote:

bigb wrote:

Babyshark wrote:

I think it would be better to lower the ATP age and not require the degree or military experience.

I agree, I would lower the R-ATP age to like 19 from 21…

How many pilots out there meet R-ATP mins at 19? You can’t hold a CPL until 18, I’d imagine you can count on fingers and toes the number of pilots per year who have R-ATP mins at 19.

Those who get their commercial at 18, fly a ton and meet minimums when they get to 19… My first instructor had this happen to him. He had to go do some charter flying before getting hired at the regionals because of his age….

l

N1120A wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Um, why should people be paying for a career?

Because the get the benefits. Good things in life don’t come cheap, somebody pays.

Reading is a good thing. Should that be expensive to learn?

As a modern society, we’ve all agreed that a certain baseline of literacy, maths skills, etc are expected, so education, however good or bad are provided by society, We don’t expect advanced education leading to very remunerative careers as a “free” gift. The individual makes an investment in a life’s work, is rewarded by an employer who can profitably use those skills. You can spend $200,000 in an art history degree or the same in an ATP, guess which pays more. You pay your money, take your chances.

Talk about kicking the can down the road.

Congress thinks they're helping a current shortage when they're just delaying the inevitable again.

Thanks guys and gals, glad we elected y'all.

amcnd wrote:

Keep it 65. And go fly for SkyWest Charter 135 ops. Maybe more 135 ops will pop up. Take the ego hit of going from 787 CA to CRJ200 CA. The Guys (former WB Captains) that are starting at SkyWest Charter seem super happy and are enjoying it so far..

Skywest Charter and other 135 ops are perfect for retired Air Traffic Controllers with the proper pilot ratings who were forced out of ATC at age 56.

The problem remains the 1500 hour rule. If it was reduced to even 500 for regionals and 1500 for mainline, you would get more pilots.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

l

N1120A wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Because the get the benefits. Good things in life don’t come cheap, somebody pays.

Reading is a good thing. Should that be expensive to learn?

As a modern society, we’ve all agreed that a certain baseline of literacy, maths skills, etc are expected, so education, however good or bad are provided by society, We don’t expect advanced education leading to very remunerative careers as a “free” gift. The individual makes an investment in a life’s work, is rewarded by an employer who can profitably use those skills. You can spend $200,000 in an art history degree or the same in an ATP, guess which pays more. You pay your money, take your chances.

Clarify please: seeing as you speak for no one, who is this "we"?

Instead why won't the US allow the hiring of experienced foreign pilots? Just like a lot of other countries do i.e hire expat pilots.

In most other industries, like IT, finance etc, the US wants to hire skilled foreign workers because they can't get a lot of capable local talent. Yet the US aviation industry operates like in almost parallel universe there. And now has this problem.

They'll keep pushing the age and wage limit up, yet it won't strike anyone of them that hiring expat pilots would be the most reasonable solution for the US aviation industry. Some will say, oh but they allowed the Australians to come in for a while, but why can't that be for any capable, experienced and profiled expat pilot?

To not allow someone to work because of their age when they can meet the requirements of the job is age discrimination.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

The problem remains the 1500 hour rule. If it was reduced to even 500 for regionals and 1500 for mainline, you would get more pilots.

I guess you’re ignoring the fact that this isn’t the issue, and just about every regional has a waitlist for classes. There isn’t a shortage of FOs.

LAX772LR wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

l

N1120A wrote:

Reading is a good thing. Should that be expensive to learn?

As a modern society, we’ve all agreed that a certain baseline of literacy, maths skills, etc are expected, so education, however good or bad are provided by society, We don’t expect advanced education leading to very remunerative careers as a “free” gift. The individual makes an investment in a life’s work, is rewarded by an employer who can profitably use those skills. You can spend $200,000 in an art history degree or the same in an ATP, guess which pays more. You pay your money, take your chances.

Clarify please: seeing as you speak for no one, who is this "we"?

“We” as in the USA, as a population of 330 million don’t give out $10 million careers like pixxy dust. The individual looks at their skills, interests, passions and gets to work in achieving those goals. As the millions seeking a future here see it, America is paved in gold.

This is just the other side of the oscillation no one intervened when regionals were paying 21 dollars a flight hour and no one should intervene when its 100 canada see much smaller oscillations jazz has moved from 41 to 60 but they never paid 21 to start with.

SteelChair wrote:

To not allow someone to work because of their age when they can meet the requirements of the job is age discrimination.

To not allow my 4 year to get a driver’s license is age discrimination.

Whiplash6 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

To not allow someone to work because of their age when they can meet the requirements of the job is age discrimination.

To not allow my 4 year to get a driver’s license is age discrimination.

Key phrase - I don’t think your 4 year old can “meet the requirements” in this case. Come on, clearly we’re talking about adults here.

Nothing here suggests that pilots must work until they are 67. My stepdad retired at 58 under the age 60 rule. But had he wanted to go on, I think he should have been allowed to do so, so long as he met the requirements.

dennypayne wrote:

Whiplash6 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

To not allow someone to work because of their age when they can meet the requirements of the job is age discrimination.

To not allow my 4 year to get a driver’s license is age discrimination.

Key phrase - I don’t think your 4 year old can “meet the requirements” in this case. Come on, clearly we’re talking about adults here.

Nothing here suggests that pilots must work until they are 67. My stepdad retired at 58 under the age 60 rule. But had he wanted to go on, I think he should have been allowed to do so, so long as he met the requirements.

Your stepdad would’ve had to keep flying if they would’ve raised the age to 67 halfway through his career. Raising the age only benefits the top 5% and screws everyone else. When I started this profession the retirement age was 60 and I accepted that as the terms.

The 64 year olds saying “you’ll get your two years at the top” conveniently ignore their two years are at their top spot. Everybody else’s two years from 65-67 are what they should have had 63-65. Those below them don’t gain better time at higher seniority.

BobRoss wrote:

TonyClifton wrote:

The ATP rule has been an undoubtedly good thing. It’s not outrageous to say those flying Air Transports should be Air Transport Pilots.

True! Airliners with 500 hr commercial pilots not flying in the US are literally falling out of the sky left and right in far away foreign lands not called the United States of America! /s
The 1500 hr rule is a complete joke and an overreaction to Colgan. It created nothing more than a flight training industrial complex, which all of the airlines have now cashed-in on. Literally every flight instructor in the US is flight instructing not because they want to, but because they have no other way to meet the requirement. The only reason this isn't being changed is because of a "I did my time, which means so do you!" type mentality. How many Delta or United captains started their careers at a regional 15 years ago with a 250 hr commercial multi?

So what happens to flight schools when they all leave at 250 hours?

Like I said, there is no shortage of RJ FOs right now. Apply to any regional, they’ll tell you 3-6 month wait for a new class.

11C wrote:

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.

I do as well. Let the market decide, not artificially limiting the pool with bogus amount of flying time requirements and arbitrary ending ages.

TonyClifton wrote:

So what happens to flight schools when they all leave at 250 hours?

Who cares? Are you the owner of a flight school?
So many people are defending the nonsensical 1500 hr rule, usually for selfish reasons.
You don't magically become a better pilot between 1499 and 1501 hours. (But you do get to post on Instagram for clout when you hit 1500!)
Were regional jets falling out of the sky before Colgan because the person in the right seat was a 300 hr comm multi? How many of those "unsafe" pilots back then are now captains at major airlines in the US flying 777s across oceans?
What was the combined total hours of the pilots in the Colgan cockpit?
How about Asiana? They had like 100k hours between them and flew a perfectly good 777 into a seawall in day VFR / cavok conditions.

For the record, I don't care if some airline-owned flight school goes out of business. If anything, this whole model going belly-up would be a GOOD THING to lower the costs. Have you seen what has happened to the price of C172s lately? Every flight school in the country bought them up and now the used stock is literally gone. Rainier Flight Service at RNT can't find *any* used ones out there, so they have to buy new ones - a cost that gets passed onto the student $$$.

Well, it isn’t changing, I’ve spoken directly to numerous congressional offices about it, and met with a laugh when it came up. Airlines are reaping what their sowed for making the entry level job so poor for so long.

My solution? Allow more loans and grants to get started, and airlines sponsor students.

When that Congressman can't fly nonstop from DCA to Peducah, it will change. (sarcasm)

Age won't be such an issue with reduced crewing, and then no one in the cockpit at all. No more human error. Unfortunately, it'll happen overseas first, since the US is abrogating its leadership role. We'll I guess it already exists in the military and the corporate world. I've often wondered if single pilot ever happens in the B2 on the 50 hour missions.

SteelChair wrote:

Unfortunately, it'll happen overseas first, since the US is abrogating its leadership role.

Why's that "unfortunate"... no one other than corporate bean-counters in a dark cubicle actually WANTS that.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

“We” as in the USA, as a population of 330 million don’t give out $10 million careers like pixxy dust. The individual looks at their skills, interests, passions and gets to work in achieving those goals. As the millions seeking a future here see it, America is paved in gold.

You most certainly do not speak of USAmericans, nor for American policy as it stands in that regard. At all.

LAX772LR wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Unfortunately, it'll happen overseas first, since the US is abrogating its leadership role.

Why's that "unfortunate"... no one other than corporate bean-counters in a dark cubicle actually WANTS that.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

“We” as in the USA, as a population of 330 million don’t give out $10 million careers like pixxy dust. The individual looks at their skills, interests, passions and gets to work in achieving those goals. As the millions seeking a future here see it, America is paved in gold.

You most certainly do not speak of USAmericans, nor for American policy as it stands in that regard. At all.

Do you have an example of free $10 million careers?

SteelChair wrote:

Age won't be such an issue with reduced crewing, and then no one in the cockpit at all. No more human error. Unfortunately, it'll happen overseas first, since the US is abrogating its leadership role. We'll I guess it already exists in the military and the corporate world. I've often wondered if single pilot ever happens in the B2 on the 50 hour missions.

Go look at the single-pilot bizjet accident rates. There’s no single-Pilot military transport or bomber, either.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Unfortunately, it'll happen overseas first, since the US is abrogating its leadership role.

Why's that "unfortunate"... no one other than corporate bean-counters in a dark cubicle actually WANTS that.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

“We” as in the USA, as a population of 330 million don’t give out $10 million careers like pixxy dust. The individual looks at their skills, interests, passions and gets to work in achieving those goals. As the millions seeking a future here see it, America is paved in gold.

You most certainly do not speak of USAmericans, nor for American policy as it stands in that regard. At all.

Do you have an example of free $10 million careers?

BETTER QUESTION: what is this nebulous "$10 million career" language that you, and only you, keep using?

So that we're on the same page: what does that mean, what are examples thereof, and let's go from there.

SteelChair wrote:

To not allow someone to work because of their age when they can meet the requirements of the job is age discrimination.

Pilots can still be flight engineers as long as they can hold a medical. But that position is going the way of the dodo.

TWA772LR wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

To not allow someone to work because of their age when they can meet the requirements of the job is age discrimination.

Pilots can still be flight engineers as long as they can hold a medical. But that position is going the way of the dodo.

Going? AFAIK the last transport category aircraft to have an FE were the 727, 742, DC-10, L1011, and a few 767-200s in Australia.

I readily admit I don’t know if any Airbus planes had FEs. I know the Concorde did, but that wasn’t an Airbus, even though they supported it in its later years.

Those are all what… 30 years ago?

USAirKid wrote:

I readily admit I don’t know if any Airbus planes had FEs. I know the Concorde did, but that wasn’t an Airbus, even though they supported it in its later years.

Those are all what… 30 years ago?

The early Airbus A300 in the 1970s had a three-man flightdeck with a flight engineer. That was 50 years ago now, not 30.

There has been a clear trend over 70ish years to reduce the number of crew. First, the navigator. Then, the engineer. And airplanes got safer every time. Why would anyone think that the trend suddenly would change?

I remember reading comments by "experts" when the 757/767 came out. There was talk about putting crew actions into SOP, to keep them engaged. The airplanes were already so automated that procedures had to be dumbed down to allow for human interaction with the systems.

Military tactical airplanes have single crew. Some corporate airplanes have single crew. If there is a high accident rate in single crew corporate airplanes, its because procedures and technology haven't been modified for single pilot operations. I'll bet B2s often flying during the long cruise portion with only a single pilot awake. The military already has performed tanking and carrier landings with uncrewed airplanes. Fatigue is a major risk for long haul and overnight operators. Demanning solves that risk.

Arguing about 65 or 67 is ridiculous, given what's about to happen. It's going to happen. No one can stop it. It may happen somewhere other than the USA first. To some extent, it already has: look at the ME3 crew rest rules.

LAX772LR wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Why's that "unfortunate"... no one other than corporate bean-counters in a dark cubicle actually WANTS that.



You most certainly do not speak of USAmericans, nor for American policy as it stands in that regard. At all.

Do you have an example of free $10 million careers?

BETTER QUESTION: what is this nebulous "$10 million career" language that you, and only you, keep using?

So that we're on the same page: what does that mean, what are examples thereof, and let's go from there.

An airline pilot career is, easily worth $10 million in lifetime earnings, probably $20 million. Just about any career over 40 years is worth $5 million.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Just about any career over 40 years is worth $5 million.

So in other words, arbitrary nonsense that you just made up? Figures.

Let's see: average career length in US as of 2022 is 13yrs 2mo. Men over 18 hold an average of 12 full time jobs over their working lifespan. Average lifetime earnings for college educated USAmerican male is $3.05million and female is $1.86million.

https://www.bls.gov/nls/questions-and-answers.htm
https://www.firstrepublic.com/insights- ... rican-make


[email protected]$10MM is so niche and comparatively rare as to constitute a statistically anomaly.
We don't even see that in traditional venues (e.g. internal medicine) to that extent, anymore.

The subject here is airline pilots, the Delta contract would pay a new hire about 11.24MM over his or her career.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sout ... id=1&pid=1

No one’s career ends in 12 years, we generally have a 40- year working life and earning 5MM over 40 years is very possible.

I know, having sent them to pilot training, that are 40-ish flying 737/320 Captain at DL, that pays $284/hour plus 15% direct 401k contribution. About 360,000 per year over the next 25 or more years, if they make 65 retirement age. That’s 9MM without the previous 8 years they’ve been working plus any military earnings.

Your First Republic link said 17% of workers earn >$100,000 per year, over 40 years is 4MM in real income without any real income growth.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The subject here is airline pilots

(1) but wasn't the subject of your statement I actually responded to, nor
(2) does not encompass your nonsensical claim that funding should be a barrier to entry for any such career.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The subject here is airline pilots, the Delta contract would pay a new hire about 11.24MM over his or her career.

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sout ... id=1&pid=1

No one’s career ends in 12 years, we generally have a 40- year working life and earning 5MM over 40 years is very possible.

I know, having sent them to pilot training, that are 40-ish flying 737/320 Captain at DL, that pays $284/hour plus 15% direct 401k contribution. About 360,000 per year over the next 25 or more years, if they make 65 retirement age. That’s 9MM without the previous 8 years they’ve been working plus any military earnings.

Your First Republic link said 17% of workers earn >$100,000 per year, over 40 years is 4MM in real income without any real income growth.

Earning $5 millions over 40 years is $125,000 per year, or $60 an hour. It is very possible to do it, but far being the majority of careers in the US.
FYI, the average hourly pay in the US was $33.09 in February 2023 (per the US Bureau of Labor)