Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 3669884)

60 percent? Top 50 percent of lineholders is the contractual answer which is about 40 percent. 45 percent is probably more accurate. Might be a little more junior now due to holiday pay.

Originally Posted by TED74 (Post 3669933)

As an academic discussion, it would be worth defining “slow down”. I’d argue just about everyone slows down in their march toward their seniority zenith. And of course if one is already at or near their zenith (let’s call them the cash-grabbers if they are the advocates), they will get a pause of up to two years in that prime spot.

People keep trying to console themselves with current movement, and I’d suggest that’s a dangerous distraction. The real and most destructive effect of 67 is to drag the promised land (which is different for everyone) two years to the right. Only if you’re already there is that a good thing.

Say you’ve been projecting yourself to be in the top 6-9% of seniority in your last two years with the company, and you like the prospects of where that puts you in your desired category… You can still have that, but you’ll wait two extra years to achieve it. That fact will never change no matter how much hiring we’re doing now, and no matter how much you do or don’t feel the effects of age 67 right now. And if you’re not going to “participate” in age 67 because you’ve planned and/or budgeted to walk at 65, your last two years will instead be perhaps 9-12% with corresponding hits to seniority and earnings potential. That could also affect your budgeting, of course. Perhaps you were going to be happy walking away at 60 because you’ll have TRICARE and your final two years were possibly going to be as a WBA plug or top-5 in some WBB seat? Now you’ll never touch WBA and you might instead sit 30 seats lower at WBB.

Don’t take your eyes off the ball because the sting is delayed, folks. Age 67 (and beyond) is crushing to the future you. Don’t give in while there’s still a fight to be fought.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 3669940)

Agree with everything you say except: Age 67 (and beyond) is crushing to the future you. I don't think it will be that bad except for the guys knocking on the WB A spots.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Dayzzofff (Post 3669942)

It won’t have any effect on the WBA slots. ICAO doesn’t allow flying above age 65. That’s going to be a future mess between the union and the company.

Pilots wishing to fly in other countries that allow flying above 65, are limited to narrowbody categories and domestic flying. I believe that will be the reference case in our scenario.

Originally Posted by Extenda (Post 3669944)

I can’t imagine the disaster this will be for flight ops until (big if) ICAO raises it too. The company is just going to buy off entire 350/330 lines for every single pilot over 65 for their last 2 years? How in the world is this going to work? On the 320 at 64 and a half years old? You’d be an idiot not to bid 350/330A after this goes down.

Maybe Ed and his counterparts are screaming bloody murder to their DC contacts about this? Major airlines aside from southwest must hate this development.

Originally Posted by Dayzzofff (Post 3669942)

It won’t have any effect on the WBA slots. ICAO doesn’t allow flying above age 65. That’s going to be a future mess between the union and the company.

Pilots wishing to fly in other countries that allow flying above 65, are limited to narrowbody categories and domestic flying. I believe that will be the reference case in our scenario.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 3669948)

Yes - unless the ICAO rule changes which will happen sooner or later. Does anyone know the current age in Japan?

Scoop

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 3669948)

Yes - unless the ICAO rule changes which will happen sooner or later. Does anyone know the current age in Japan?

Scoop

Originally Posted by PilotBases (Post 3669946)

Why should they get bought off? If I bid for intl and forget my passport, I can’t fly and get sent home. There JFK LAX for the 764 crews to fly.