It's amazing how often and how easily "requirements" get changed by need. In my own case, I work for a government agency. We were told for years that working from home was not even a point of discussion due to security concerns and technological limitations. Then COVID hit. We went from 100% working in the office to 100% working at home in less than a month. And we still are to this day.
A 500 hr pilot should be plenty as a second officer if they are trained in a military style setting as to disipline and rigor. There are lots of 2nd and 1st LTs flying as second officer in demanding situations and they have much less than 1500 hrs. Airlines just don't want to grow their own.
It’s not about the cost of training, or the skill required, it’s about the job turmoil in aviation. The airlines, as companies, are not stable. Why would young people chose to work there when there has been a reduction in pilots over the years, job security is questionable, and then there is the cost and being away all the time.
The 1500 hour requirement was a knee-jerk reaction to a Dash 8 crash where both pilots were ATP. Lufthansa trains pilots from zero hours. Air Canada used to do this. It's the training not the hours. It's not realistic for pilots to achieve 1500 hours to sit right seat. Plus most airlines want a degree also. It's not worth it. Then there is the issue of vax injuries.
Good points, it all depends on your FAA medical and choice to continue. Majority pilots want to retire at 65. I believe if pilot is healthy and have FAA first class medical should be given a choice to continue.
Hi Max. Congratulations on your first 'real' post on this channel. Excellent topic. I'm 62. There is no way I'm going to work to 67. Furthermore, the only absolute condition to waiting until 65 is because that's when Medicare is available. I still love the flying, but I want to do other things like building more models, trying to bring my woodworking skills up to par, and most importantly spending more time each week with my wife. BTW, I always thought the 65 extension was helped along by pilots wanting to recover from setbacks resulting from 9/11. Looking forward to more topics.
@@tonylam9548 The 67 concept will offer options to some. I just won’t be one of them. I didn’t say it shouldn’t be adopted. I feel like I struck a nerve. Sorry.
In the 1970's the Airlines were asking for pilot applicants to be fairly young. (Age 28 was pushing it!) To have a 4 year degree. To have 1,000 hours flying time. And a Commercial Cetificate with Instrument and Multi-engine ratings. And the biggest proportion of "new hires" had just left the military. So, standards have always been pretty high here in the States.
You have 35 and 40 year olds dropping dead in the cockpit. I flew with a 73 year old DPE and he was sharp as a razor. Mariusz Pudzianowski at 46 could destroy most 20 year olds. Age is the dumbest metric to measure health.
Being forcedly retired by a stroke by the age of 37 I can see that a pilot with a fine health objects to retire age the age of 65 - if he wants to keep working. I miss working.
You present some very good points here. Thank you. I retired 3 years ago just prior to my 63rd. birthday. I never had planned to nor did I want to work beyond age 60 but things were pretty darn good for me prior to covid so I decided to go to 63. Fortunately, the timing of the pandemic was perfect and I couldn't pass on an attractive "early out" benefit from my airline especially when I was quite ready to leave anyway. With plenty more new ATP pilot certifications than the number of pilots leaving the airlines one would think that there would be no shortages. Whether they actually want the airline job is subject for another discussion, however. A couple real problems for extending the retirement age here in the USA is that it will not coincide with an ICAO (worldwide) age increase. Suddenly all those senior international pilots at the airlines can now only fly domestically. This could cause a financially unacceptable cascade of required training to these pilots to fly domestic equipment and scheduling complexities for the airlines. Also consider the number of senior pilots who are at any given time on short or long term medical leave or who historically call in sick at higher percentages. Every pilot who is allowed to fly beyond 65 will certainely not be flying the line anyway. Also costly for the airlines.
Not sure you can use the older pilots on sick leave as a reason not to raise the age. If the airlines have a policy that doesn’t allow retirees to be paid for the accrued sick leave then I would guess many pilots will use that sick leave just prior to retiring. Why walk away from all that money that they earned as a benefit?
@@timothypropst238 That is correct and I have seen it happen at the Airline I worked for. No pay to retirees for accrued sick time. A rather large amount on an actual short or long term medical leave as well.
I don't see any point to having a mandatory retirement age so long as the pilot can still get through the medical without too many issues. On the other hand the insurance companies might dictate an absolute age limit and they are already are for single pilot turbine ops over 70. It would also be highly beneficial if the senior folks close to retirement could mentor and line instruct the junior folks.
At age 64 years, 51 weeks and 6 days at 23.30H, I could fly an approach in my A320 in severe turbulence, land with a 38kt crosswind and taxy in to the gate. Once I got there and filled in the tech log, I’m now too old to ever fly a public transport aircraft again. It’s completely, totally and utterly arbitrary, and stupid.
as you say 67 is a stopgap resolution and most pilots are ready to hang up the job at 65. No easy answer to the problem and modern commercial aircraft aren't getting any less complicated to fly.
I think if the government won’t give us the retirement benefits we’ve paid for until 67 because they feel we can still earn a living, then the airline unions should at the very least strongly consider this ability to work in the same way.
Hey Man, Enjoyed Your Commentary & 600 Hours In Military Jets Absolutely Beats 2,000 In An Underpowered Trainer! I'd Take A 65 Year Old Over A 30 Year Old With The Same Number Of Hours In Type, Any Day. Certain Things Come With Age & That Can't Be Taught. Thank You.
I met a kid who is with an airline now and I believe he told me he had been flying just two or three years. He flight instructed his ass off. For those who have the will they will find a way.
I’m for it but the problem with the age 67 rule as it stands is it only increases the age domestically for airline pilots in the US while the rest of the ICAO flying world would still uphold the 65 rule . This would complicate airline seniority systems and increase pilot training costs as airlines would have a create a domestic seniority division for senior pilots turning 65 . Also unions would loose negotiation leverage that’s been longed for so many years . My opinion is waiting for ICAO to catch up and for hiring to stabilize before voting that in
As long as a person is medically fit and trained in their job they should not have to retire at a specified age. As long as they are not a danger to others and themselves they should not have to retire at a specified age. Some people who are fit and capable do not want to retire, at least fully. With the advancement of the technology of aircraft it is easier in most aspects of flying an aircraft. In addition older pilots can be partnered with younger second officers. As well a lot of senior (older) pilots could be used on short haul runs which should be easier all around. As for pilotless planes a big NO. As for only one person in the cockpit for the bigger commercial and freight flights, again a big NO. With all the automation available in he aircraft industry I was surprised that there was such a large shortage of pilots. There is also another reason for many businesses wanting to raise the retirement age; and that is pensions. Companies with underfunded pension plans would like to delay new payouts for a couple of years; and the same goes for government pensions.
With all the bad publicity in the news media these days about ill-tempered passengers on flights (including a lot of exaggeration, I'm sure), as well as the reports of poor working conditions for some pilots along with the high cost of (non-military) training, I guess only the truly dedicated individuals will consider a career as a pilot.
Lots of upper class guys that went into flying for a job don't need to work anymore... Thanks to Reaganomics now they all have a Trust Fund and don't have to work...why become a pilot?
I have been traveling on Saudi Arabia airlines a month ago. I noticed the pilot was young and really fat. I don't know how did he pass medical test?? very strange.
The 1500 hour rule is very intimidating. I know a lot of people that would love to fly but they can’t give up their well paying jobs to get 1500. Most other counties have nowhere near that much required for airline pilots and they are doing just fine
The FAA raised the hours from 1000 to 1500 after the BUF ? crash to make it look like they did something. Quality of flying hours also matter, that means some of those hours should be in multi engine and IFR , better still, turbine, and not all C172 hours.
It's also very stupid. I was a better pilot the day I passed my check ride when I was doing maneuvers every other day as opposed to now when I'm only flying for fun and less often.
I hope it's extended to 67. I am not able to fly that much with special needs son. When he's grown ill have a couple years left to fly. Extension to 67 will give me a couple more .
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
It's amazing how often and how easily "requirements" get changed by need. In my own case, I work for a government agency. We were told for years that working from home was not even a point of discussion due to security concerns and technological limitations. Then COVID hit. We went from 100% working in the office to 100% working at home in less than a month. And we still are to this day.
Is that why I've been waiting almost a year to have my passport renewed?
I love flying...but I would never work for an airline. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
A 500 hr pilot should be plenty as a second officer if they are trained in a military style setting as to disipline and rigor. There are lots of 2nd and 1st LTs flying as second officer in demanding situations and they have much less than 1500 hrs. Airlines just don't want to grow their own.
It’s not about the cost of training, or the skill required, it’s about the job turmoil in aviation. The airlines, as companies, are not stable. Why would young people chose to work there when there has been a reduction in pilots over the years, job security is questionable, and then there is the cost and being away all the time.
Can we retire all members of Congress at age 65 and spare the public from the dangers they represent?
The 1500 hour requirement was a knee-jerk reaction to a Dash 8 crash where both pilots were ATP. Lufthansa trains pilots from zero hours. Air Canada used to do this. It's the training not the hours. It's not realistic for pilots to achieve 1500 hours to sit right seat. Plus most airlines want a degree also. It's not worth it. Then there is the issue of vax injuries.
Good points, it all depends on your FAA medical and choice to continue. Majority pilots want to retire at 65. I believe if pilot is healthy and have FAA first class medical should be given a choice to continue.
Hi Max. Congratulations on your first 'real' post on this channel. Excellent topic. I'm 62. There is no way I'm going to work to 67. Furthermore, the only absolute condition to waiting until 65 is because that's when Medicare is available. I still love the flying, but I want to do other things like building more models, trying to bring my woodworking skills up to par, and most importantly spending more time each week with my wife. BTW, I always thought the 65 extension was helped along by pilots wanting to recover from setbacks resulting from 9/11. Looking forward to more topics.
I agree
That is just you, you cannot speak for the rest of the pilots. Some like the options .
@@tonylam9548 The 67 concept will offer options to some. I just won’t be one of them. I didn’t say it shouldn’t be adopted. I feel like I struck a nerve. Sorry.
In the 1970's the Airlines were asking for pilot applicants to be fairly young. (Age 28 was pushing it!) To have a 4 year degree. To have 1,000 hours flying time. And a Commercial Cetificate with Instrument and Multi-engine ratings.
And the biggest proportion of "new hires" had just left the military.
So, standards have always been pretty high here in the States.
You have 35 and 40 year olds dropping dead in the cockpit. I flew with a 73 year old DPE and he was sharp as a razor. Mariusz Pudzianowski at 46 could destroy most 20 year olds. Age is the dumbest metric to measure health.
Being forcedly retired by a stroke by the age of 37 I can see that a pilot with a fine health objects to retire age the age of 65 - if he wants to keep working. I miss working.
Sorry to hear that. I am feeling ready to retire in my 60s but 37 is way too young.
@@maxsmodels Yeah. It sucks but this way I can tend to my hobbies.
You present some very good points here. Thank you. I retired 3 years ago just prior to my 63rd. birthday. I never had planned to nor did I want to work beyond age 60 but things were pretty darn good for me prior to covid so I decided to go to 63. Fortunately, the timing of the pandemic was perfect and I couldn't pass on an attractive "early out" benefit from my airline especially when I was quite ready to leave anyway. With plenty more new ATP pilot certifications than the number of pilots leaving the airlines one would think that there would be no shortages. Whether they actually want the airline job is subject for another discussion, however. A couple real problems for extending the retirement age here in the USA is that it will not coincide with an ICAO (worldwide) age increase. Suddenly all those senior international pilots at the airlines can now only fly domestically. This could cause a financially unacceptable cascade of required training to these pilots to fly domestic equipment and scheduling complexities for the airlines. Also consider the number of senior pilots who are at any given time on short or long term medical leave or who historically call in sick at higher percentages. Every pilot who is allowed to fly beyond 65 will certainely not be flying the line anyway. Also costly for the airlines.
Not sure you can use the older pilots on sick leave as a reason not to raise the age. If the airlines have a policy that doesn’t allow retirees to be paid for the accrued sick leave then I would guess many pilots will use that sick leave just prior to retiring. Why walk away from all that money that they earned as a benefit?
@@timothypropst238 That is correct and I have seen it happen at the Airline I worked for. No pay to retirees for accrued sick time. A rather large amount on an actual short or long term medical leave as well.
I don't see any point to having a mandatory retirement age so long as the pilot can still get through the medical without too many issues. On the other hand the insurance companies might dictate an absolute age limit and they are already are for single pilot turbine ops over 70. It would also be highly beneficial if the senior folks close to retirement could mentor and line instruct the junior folks.
At age 64 years, 51 weeks and 6 days at 23.30H, I could fly an approach in my A320 in severe turbulence, land with a 38kt crosswind and taxy in to the gate. Once I got there and filled in the tech log, I’m now too old to ever fly a public transport aircraft again. It’s completely, totally and utterly arbitrary, and stupid.
as you say 67 is a stopgap resolution and most pilots are ready to hang up the job at 65. No easy answer to the problem and modern commercial aircraft aren't getting any less complicated to fly.
I think if the government won’t give us the retirement benefits we’ve paid for until 67 because they feel we can still earn a living, then the airline unions should at the very least strongly consider this ability to work in the same way.
Hey Man, Enjoyed Your Commentary & 600 Hours In Military Jets Absolutely Beats 2,000 In An Underpowered Trainer! I'd Take A 65 Year Old Over A 30 Year Old With The Same Number Of Hours In Type, Any Day. Certain Things Come With Age & That Can't Be Taught. Thank You.
You have to treat this like a religion and sell your soul, most are not willing to do that, as the 1,500 hour rule will never go away.
Did you sell your soul to the airline or the union?
I met a kid who is with an airline now and I believe he told me he had been flying just two or three years. He flight instructed his ass off. For those who have the will they will find a way.
@@scottw5315flight instructors never actually fly.
Im a GA guy.
PIC time my man. @@christopherhand4836
I’m for it but the problem with the age 67 rule as it stands is it only increases the age domestically for airline pilots in the US while the rest of the ICAO flying world would still uphold the 65 rule . This would complicate airline seniority systems and increase pilot training costs as airlines would have a create a domestic seniority division for senior pilots turning 65 . Also unions would loose negotiation leverage that’s been longed for so many years . My opinion is waiting for ICAO to catch up and for hiring to stabilize before voting that in
I’m all for raising the number, but as a FO, not a CA.
Your body do not care about your title.
As long as a person is medically fit and trained in their job they should not have to retire at a specified age. As long as they are not a danger to others and themselves they should not have to retire at a specified age. Some people who are fit and capable do not want to retire, at least fully. With the advancement of the technology of aircraft it is easier in most aspects of flying an aircraft. In addition older pilots can be partnered with younger second officers. As well a lot of senior (older) pilots could be used on short haul runs which should be easier all around. As for pilotless planes a big NO. As for only one person in the cockpit for the bigger commercial and freight flights, again a big NO. With all the automation available in he aircraft industry I was surprised that there was such a large shortage of pilots.
There is also another reason for many businesses wanting to raise the retirement age; and that is pensions. Companies with underfunded pension plans would like to delay new payouts for a couple of years; and the same goes for government pensions.
I concur
With all the bad publicity in the news media these days about ill-tempered passengers on flights (including a lot of exaggeration, I'm sure), as well as the reports of poor working conditions for some pilots along with the high cost of (non-military) training, I guess only the truly dedicated individuals will consider a career as a pilot.
Lots of upper class guys that went into flying for a job don't need to work anymore...
Thanks to Reaganomics now they all have a Trust Fund and don't have to work...why become a pilot?
Spoken like a true commie...
I think the age 65 rule is a great rule for all of those in congress and the white house.
I have been traveling on Saudi Arabia airlines a month ago. I noticed the pilot was young and really fat. I don't know how did he pass medical test?? very strange.
Chuck Schumer 80
The 1500 hour rule is very intimidating. I know a lot of people that would love to fly but they can’t give up their well paying jobs to get 1500. Most other counties have nowhere near that much required for airline pilots and they are doing just fine
The FAA raised the hours from 1000 to 1500 after the BUF ? crash to make it look like they did something. Quality of flying hours also matter, that means some of those hours should be in multi engine and IFR , better still, turbine, and not all C172 hours.
Oh well you must think low time is great. How about you fly ona plane with 500 hour guys. Good luck fool
@@tonylam9548 With lots of dark and stormy night flying.
It's also very stupid. I was a better pilot the day I passed my check ride when I was doing maneuvers every other day as opposed to now when I'm only flying for fun and less often.
I hope it's extended to 67. I am not able to fly that much with special needs son. When he's grown ill have a couple years left to fly. Extension to 67 will give me a couple more .
Don’t increase the age
@Pilotsandpropwash-me6vq >>> Great video...👍
Cool, thanks!
@@Pilotsandpropwash-me6vq>>> You're Most Welcome.