The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to increase the mandatory pilot retirement age from 65 to 67 as part of a larger aviation bill. The decision has its share of opinions, with some unions warning of pilot displacement while regional airlines support the decision to retain senior captains.
Retirement age 67*
With the bill heading to the Senate, many might think the provision simply allows pilots to continue doing the same job until 67. However, ICAO provisions require pilots on international routes to be less than 65, meaning the last two years will be served out on domestic US routes only. This has become a point of contention, with the Air Lines Pilot Association (ALPA) coming out against the increase in age.
ALPA noted in a statement that,
“Increasing the retirement age will have significant unintended consequences and will displace pilots. When age 65+ airline pilots return to domestic-only flying, they will then displace more junior pilots and both cohorts may require training on different aircraft, adding to the training costs of air carriers.”
However, in a statement to Reuters, the Regional Airline Association supported the decision, saying,
“[Increasing the retirement age] allows retention of more experienced captains, who can in turn fly alongside and mentor new first officers, helping to stabilize attrition.”
ALPA noted that most regional pilots leave that industry far before 65, moving to lucrative mainline or low-cost carriers instead, making this a small group affected. Moreover, the move will open up a new contract negotiation for these once-retiring pilots to be flying on domestic routes for two years.
However, the House doesn’t seem to agree and has pushed the bill through to the Senate for approval, after which it will land on President Biden’s desk.
No one fully satisfied
While thousands of pilots will be rejoicing at the idea of continuing the profession they love, the bill didn’t achieve everything once hoped. The White House was pushing for measures to provide passengers with compensation for delayed or canceled flights, a measure the US has resisted for decades despite Europe’s rules. Minimum aircraft seat sizes were rejected as well after concerns over comfort and safety were considered.
Delta’s proposal to allow more flights in and out of DC’s Ronald Reagan Washington Airport (DCA) did not make the final cut as well. However, the bill contains a provision requiring airlines not to charge to seat families together, an important change to uneven policies across airlines.
Notably, the Delta-supported proposal to allow more long flights out of DCA, expanding the ‘perimeter rule’, was opposed by rivals United, Alaska, and American due to its effect on operations and timeliness. Lawmakers were also concerned about the impact on Washington Dulles (IAD), the facility that handles nearly all international and long-haul services for the capital.
For now, the bill still has to make its way through Congress and could see more changes before the President signs the provision into law.
Source: simpleflying.com