notEnuf

It is old but still the casual attitude toward “negotiating” a solution is always present. If we are in enough of a crunch, lobbying efforts will intensify. BTW we just rejoined A4A. I’m sure we will be coordinating industry wide influence via lobbyists. What topic: extensions, global consolidation and ownership, pilot staffing/single pilot, airspace access/user fees, etc. do you think is Delta’s motivation?

IPAs

Guys out on disability get paid until the mandatory retirement age. A retirement age increase will likely cause an increase in disability costs.

FL370esq

Minor point but you are mixing apples and oranges when you say "USC 49 regulations." The U.S. Code is nothing more than the organizational structure for federal statutes and only Congress can create, amend and/or repeal those statutes, including the provisions of Title 49 (49 U.S.C. xxxx) and it does so by passing legislation. Just like any other legislation, it must be passed by both chambers and then signed by the President. Therefore, if you want to start a change to some provision of Title 49 (the statute), write to your elected Members of Congress suggesting the change and your reasons for it.

Now if you only want to change a regulation (which is not 49 U.S.C xxxx but rather a department regulation like F.A.R. 117 which is really 14 C.F.R. Part 117) you need to write to the Administrator of that Department (in this case, Administrator Dickson). However, if the regulation has limits provided/required by statute, then you need to change the statute first then the regulation can be changed. This (among many other reasons) is why there are so many attorneys/lobbyists in DC.

So, to start a change, you either become your own lobbyist or you find a lobbying group that aligns with what you are seeking to achieve and they can pursue the amendment/addition/repeal on your behalf and that of others. (i.e., ALPA-PAC, APA-PAC, etc...).

sailingfun

You completely omit what had already happened and what was ongoing in the court system. ICAO had moved their retirement age to 65. The FAA approved foreign pilots to fly in the US until age 65. There were multiple lawsuits in the US court system challenging age 65. Once the FAA signed off on the ICAO it was game, set and match for those lawsuits. No way anyone from the FAA could stand up in court and plead age 60 based on safety which is the only thing that can override age discrimination laws. The only question was would judges approve 65, 70 or no age and would pilots be grandfathered.
ALPA did the smart thing to go through Congress and salvage what they could before the courts had a chance to rule. Hence the need for speed. By end running the courts they were able to keep the age to 65 and avoid grandfathering retired pilots. They salvaged what they could from a guaranteed loss in the court system.

BoilerUP

ICAO changed their maximum age from 60 to 65 on 23 Nov 2006.

In Jan 2007, Administrator Blakey publicly said the FAA would raise the mandatory retirement age to 65.

In Feb 2007, ALPA convened its Blue Ribbon Panel which surveyed members about the issue in April/May 2007.

24 May 2007 is when ALPA publicly "changed course" on Age 60 as mandatory retirement age.

11 Dec 2007 (right before the Christmas recess) is when the bill was introduced.

Given that timeline, I'm not quite sure I agree with your concern about judicial input, especially setting a retirement age beyond the ICAO limit.

More than a decade later, there's a reasonable economic argument to be made that the half-decade career stagnation caused by an immediate increase to mandatory retirement age contributed more to today's quote-unquote pilot shortage than the Great Recession.

That's all water under the bridge now, though...

On this topic today, however, ICAO hasn't changed the maximum age beyond 65, just this year EASA reiterated its support for 65 as maximum age, and despite all the interwebs rumors there has been no significant movement from either a regulatory or legislative perspective to change the mandatory retirement age again.

eruption

Just read the pilot in the Kawaii helicopter crash was 69....so 67 is OK!

JamesBond

eruption

I kid....I'm 58 and feeling it!

symbian simian

So, probably the most relevant point on this thread:
It is "An FAA....."

gloopy

As well as exponentially increasing the rate at which pilots go out on disability with little to no notice in the first place. It could also be the catalyst for increased medical and maybe cognitive standards across the board, which will further increase disability cases and cost. Cognitive and medical issues aren't linear with each year of age, they increase disportionately with each year of age. This is far from a silver bullet for any "pilot shortage" and while it may provide some level of short term relief, that relief will only exist for those first 2 years and will come with a permanent cost increase/reduced benefit compared to going from 60-65.