Well I'd be curious to see what people in the industry on CP have to say, as the aviation industry is something I've really only just dipped a toenail into at this point.
So I'll avoid getting too anecdotal, but I've been reading pilot's reaction to this and there's been quite a few stories shared about babysitting an old guy who has no business being in the cockpit anymore. The health tests also don't test mental function, they're just physicals
My understanding is a lot of the pilot shortage is almost artificial. Like most labour shortages that the media talks about, the places that are struggling are the ones that pay poorly and/or treat people like crap. Regionals that pay $50k a year seem to be the ones struggling to retain pilots, whereas where these old 60+ year old pilots are flying are largely legacy carriers, they have no shortages.
Plus if it really was something they wanted to address, they could always remove some of the entry barriers and/or subsidize training, like every other industry would. Raising the max-age seems like a solution in search of a problem
(Plus the purely selfish angle: Get out of my way, boomers)
The common refrain I've read many times before is that "McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money": it was essentially a "reverse takeover" by McDonnell Douglas executives, and they remade the company to be more like McDonnell Douglas than pre-merger Boeing. Similarly the merger between McDonnell and Douglas in the '60s was a de facto McDonnell takeover. The Boeing Company such as it is today is basically McDonnell Aircraft masquerading as Boeing, having previously sucked all the life out of Douglas Aircraft along the way.
Book suggestion if y'all haven't already...I'm half-way through Flying Blind: The 737 MAX Tragedy and the Fall of Boeing.
Well I'd be curious to see what people in the industry on CP have to say, as the aviation industry is something I've really only just dipped a toenail into at this point.
So I'll avoid getting too anecdotal, but I've been reading pilot's reaction to this and there's been quite a few stories shared about babysitting an old guy who has no business being in the cockpit anymore. The health tests also don't test mental function, they're just physicals
My understanding is a lot of the pilot shortage is almost artificial. Like most labour shortages that the media talks about, the places that are struggling are the ones that pay poorly and/or treat people like crap. Regionals that pay $50k a year seem to be the ones struggling to retain pilots, whereas where these old 60+ year old pilots are flying are largely legacy carriers, they have no shortages.
Plus if it really was something they wanted to address, they could always remove some of the entry barriers and/or subsidize training, like every other industry would. Raising the max-age seems like a solution in search of a problem
(Plus the purely selfish angle: Get out of my way, boomers)
Have seen some interesting posts on X by pilots. One that stuck out to me in particular made the observation that it would become very messy and expensive (at least short term) for US airlines if the age were raised to 67. His points were summarized as follows:
1. Age 67 rule would only apply to US, those pilots would not be legal to fly in other countries anyhow.
2. US airlines would need to build schedules to take this into account. ie cannot assign international flying to pilots >65.
3. Generally speaking senior pilots at the US airlines are the ones flying widebody international routes. They would not be able to do this past 65 regardless.
4. would require training (ie $$$) late in the careers of these pilots to transition back to aircraft that normally do most domestic flying.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Have seen some interesting posts on X by pilots. One that stuck out to me in particular made the observation that it would become very messy and expensive (at least short term) for US airlines if the age were raised to 67. His points were summarized as follows:
1. Age 67 rule would only apply to US, those pilots would not be legal to fly in other countries anyhow.
2. US airlines would need to build schedules to take this into account. ie cannot assign international flying to pilots >65.
3. Generally speaking senior pilots at the US airlines are the ones flying widebody international routes. They would not be able to do this past 65 regardless.
4. would require training (ie $$$) late in the careers of these pilots to transition back to aircraft that normally do most domestic flying.
Thanks.
If the US changed to 67, Canada would follow suit. The reason why the manditory retirement age in Canada remains 65 is because of the undue burden that it would put on Canadian airlines. Something like 95% of Canadian flights either enter US airspace or potentially could (as in one of the alternate airports is in the US).
I bet most would follow suit as well.
The reason it's at 65 was to age out pilots from old prop planes are WWII, and have the military trained jet pilots take over the new jet planes without having to retrain the more senior prop plane pilots.
For the record, I'm not aruging for the manditory retirement age to increase. I don't have any skin in the game, it is what it is. I was just curious as I find this REALLY interesting.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Canadian pilots don’t have to retire at 65, they just can’t fly into US airspace. There are pilots (over 65) that can only do domestic flying at WJ. I believe AC has a mandatory 65 retirement, but it’s a company policy that is part of their collective agreement, not a national rule.
Not raising it in the US isn’t based on ability or science. Skills do erode as people age, of course, but I am not aware of any data to support 65 over 67.
The issues against raising it in the US (or creating a maximum in Canada) are mostly peripheral. I believe unions likely had a significant voice in the defeat in the US, because if you allow people to retire later, then the companies would then want pilots to work to that maximum instead of the 65 as it currently is. So you quickly go from allowing pilots to work longer if they want, to forcing them to work longer. As well, more junior pilots want senior captains to ‘move along’ so that they can get their upgrade to captain.
Also, there is most definitely a pilot shortage. Good for us who are pilots, allows advancement far faster than has happened in the last 50 years. It provides leverage for better pay and working conditions at all levels, from first jobs to top airlines.
The downsides are more inexperienced pilots at all levels, including new first officers at major airlines. Of course the best jobs will be in the best position to find more pilots, but there is no doubt they have far less experience than we saw not long ago. And it is very difficult for other levels of aviation, to find people and keep them for any length of time, as they can move to better jobs faster, including getting on with an airline as soon as possible for many.
Last edited by Ryan Coke; 02-09-2024 at 10:57 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ryan Coke For This Useful Post:
Ryan touched on pretty much all of it quite beautifully. There are contractual and legal headaches presented by raising the age to 67, as well as a bit of pushback on any sort of slippery slope that will continue enabling older and older active crew members to occupy important seats. As he mentioned, it also behooves aviation's biggest labour groups to resist such short term increases to the pilot supply. The industry got itself in to this mess with decades of piss-poor wages and is now finally paying a bit of penance for it, and many pilots aren't eager to simply allow airlines to rectify this mistake by raising retirement ages or reducing crew member requirements on long-haul flying (another prevalent movement in some parts of the industry).
Also, a quick note on all the 737 MAX talk. It's true that Boeing's been exposed for some shoddy practices (rightfully so) and that they need to reign certain aspects of their operation in, but on the whole the product is still solid. Air Canada operates a diverse widebody/narrowbody fleet and of that entire fleet the 737 is the most reliable on a day to day basis in terms of nuisance maintenance issues that affect serviceability. Some of that can be attributed to them being newer than much of the fleet, but it's also due to the MAX being built on a time-tested (albeit dated) foundation. By comparison the A220, for example, has been riddled with engine issues that have kept airframes in the barn for varying lengths of time over the course of their lifespan.
__________________ Is your cat doing singing?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Max Cow Disease For This Useful Post:
