CBreezy

There's nothing to own up to. It's not a matter of opinion. It's just facts. You can argue that it's not altruistic of new generations to not want to lose money to give money to senior pilots. But wanting to keep money that is, for all intents and purposes, theirs is not a money grab. It just isn't no matter how loud or often you say it.

ThumbsUp

We really need to start looking at what someone was making in the 1940’s, correcting that for wage growth and dividing by earnings power, corrected for inflation. That’ll show ‘em.

OpieTaylor

False, some arguments are money grabbing, and some are authentic proper governing.

Pointing out past transgression’s of government are not a viable reason to shoot from the hip.

The FAA signed off on a waiver for the MAX 8 & 9 engine cowling they are refusing to sign the waiver for max 7.

So the max 8-9 is currently rolling off the assembly line with a wavered cowling to be fixed at a later date that the max 7 cannot receive.

Traditional linear thought determines that either the current ones be grounded or the max 7 also gets the waiver not a mix of yes and no.

Age 60 and 65 were written into law under political pressure not proper review. That does not de facto mean future changes should skip proper review.

The max cowling is an example of inconsistent application of governing in a higher pursuit of safe governing and is not a money grab by anyone.

Opposition to age 67 can be a money grab, or can be commitment to proper governing, you wouldn’t know which until you listen to oral arguments.

I personally haven’t heard any arguments that fast tracking age 67 on the FAA Reauthorization bill is a commitment to proper governing over a money grab.

I have only heard it was advertised as a political solution to canceled flights due to a pilot shortage, which has since seemed to lose its urgency.

If the urgency for age 67 continues past the urgency of preventing canceled flights for the consumer then it tends to show a biased for self serving urgency, unless a better argument is made.

RJSAviator76

I agree with some of this stuff. Since you brought up MAX 7, it was actually used to re-certify MAX 8, but MAX 7 itself is still not certified. FAA logic, huh?

And yes, you're right about Age 60 and 65 were both written into law under self-serving political pressure without so much as a simple smell test. Think about it... you can obtain FAA Class 1 medical as a 65 year old, even 70 year old. You can even fly the same type of aircraft (EMB-135) for a commercial operation like JSX. But if you're 65 years old, you can fly it for JSX under FAR 135, but you cannot fly that same exact jet under FAR 121 for Commutair because of your age.

There are more political pressures other than just individuals with a self-serving agenda. There are airlines who would find themselves in a pickle if ICAO did not raise the retirement age due to training issues, and also paying out LTD claims as most big airlines are self-insured.

And then we have the hypocrite social justice warriors who supposedly fight the good fight against any perceived discrimination, except when it ends up being self serving and they completely embrace the blatant age discrimination for their own benefit. More self-serving hypocrisy on that side of the fence, and also the FAA... either the Class 1 medical is good enough or it needs a revamp.

You're right... it's all improper and inconsistent governing.

Jdub2

There is no issue with reading comprehension in this thread, just critical thinking and ability to understand core concepts. We support status quo, that is not an ask, an argument, or justification. The ask is changing status quo, thus the burden of argument is on those proposing the change.

We have been playing by the same rules on the playground for how long now? All of us together. Now a select minority want to change the rules they have been benefiting from for their entire career, to benefit even more at the cost of harming everyone else. It is not selfish or hypocritical to ask them to not screw us. To do the same as generations of pilots before them and hang the hat up when we all knew we would have to. (+5 years too!) To extend the same courtesy they were extended for decades. To pay it forward as it was paid forward to them.

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in. What does it say when a small group refuse to plant any more trees? Disgusting.

Hiding behind a faint veil of agnosticism on the subject is not fooling anyone. As is your arguments that we do not hold the ethical, and I would also argue moral, high ground.

OpieTaylor

This isn’t as inconsistent as it seems because tons and tons of parts are life limited on a 135 and a 121 that are allowed to run to failure operating part 91.

The pilots are actually treated the same as the engines which is consistent.

A pilot service life is artificially shortened at age 65, the same as most all critical parts when the plane is on a certificate.

Pilots and engines are simply allowed to run to failure part 91 and it is considered unacceptable risk 135 and 121.

Just because parts and pilots sometimes fail prematurely doesn’t mean that service limits are ineffective and aren’t based on safety.

Just because engines and pilots receive annual inspections doesn’t mean the inspection and not service limit doesn’t catch failures before they happen.

If inspections were grounding too many engines and pilots then that would mean the inspection intervals are too far apart or service limits are too generous.

If you are relying too heavily on an inspection it becomes a single point of failure like the jackscrew crash. There is no redundancy for inspections unlike some mx procedures that require a QC check.

CBreezy

I think the most fair thing is to commission a scientific study to determine how much risk is introduced into the system by extending the age 2 years and if it's acceptable. Then, after it has determined it is, start the new retirement age for any pilot whose ATP is issued on or after that date. And while we are at it, start a a national seniority list then too. If we are going to go big, go big.

Stretch45

Bingo, both sides have their own personal, self serving reasons why they are for/against. There is no "right answer".That's not to be confused with why Congress will raise the age to 67.

StoneQOLdCrazy

weak trolling, bud. but Cruz has got a couple more issues in the bill that he wants more than 67. So he's going to jettison the geezers. Sorry

TransWorld

Understood. But a high percentage of 121 is passenger.