[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  KC-10 Driver ✈️ 👨✈️ B-737 Wrangler [@MCCCANM](/creator/twitter/MCCCANM) on x 32.4K followers Created: 2025-07-17 20:55:40 UTC I thought the debate on moving the mandatory retirement age for pilots to XX (currently 65) was over. Apparently not. I personally think it’s a terrible idea. The unions & airlines are also opposed. Here’s why: • Something like XX% of pilots over the age of XX are not available to fly at any given time due to health issues. Many are on Long Term Disability (LTD) after losing their medical & some will never come back. (Rep Troy Nehls from TX is among the sources pushing this change, as his brother – a Delta pilot – is nearing retirement age, has reportedly been on LTD for years & would like that to continue for another two) • LTD is a great program (you get a portion of your pay when unable to work due to a medical issue, which suspends your license) but it’s not designed for this…LTD suddenly having to pay an extra two years would put the program in jeopardy & likely raise the cost for the rest of us (how it’s funded varies by airline, but many, if not most of us, pay into it in some form). • Most countries don’t allow pilots over XX to fly commercially. Changing it in the US would not change it elsewhere. • Because most countries don’t allow pilots over XX to fly, many, if not the majority, of these pilots would have to be removed from the widebody, international jets they currently staff & put onto narrowbody, domestic fleets…a training footprint that would be a nightmare (the airline might honestly find it better to just pay them to stay home for X years…a cost passed on to passengers). • The requirement to involuntarily move pilots from their fleet would require the whole concept of seniority & all pilot contracts to be renegotiated between the unions & airlines, which would be chaotic at best. There is currently no mechanism in the contracts to do any of what I just described. • The change would also interrupt the expected “normal” pilot career progression, as “movement” would stall…this happened the last time congress changed the retirement age from XX to 65, contributing to a period pilots now refer to as “the lost decade”. There are debates on this and many pilots feel differently than I do. I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Nevertheless, this push feels rooted in self interest & greed. These pilots knew what the retirement age was; if they want to keep flying, they can, just not for the airlines.  XXXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [airlines](/topic/airlines) [retirement](/topic/retirement) [wrangler](/topic/wrangler) [Post Link](https://x.com/MCCCANM/status/1945950553512812940)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
KC-10 Driver ✈️ 👨✈️ B-737 Wrangler @MCCCANM on x 32.4K followers
Created: 2025-07-17 20:55:40 UTC
I thought the debate on moving the mandatory retirement age for pilots to XX (currently 65) was over.
Apparently not.
I personally think it’s a terrible idea. The unions & airlines are also opposed. Here’s why:
• Something like XX% of pilots over the age of XX are not available to fly at any given time due to health issues. Many are on Long Term Disability (LTD) after losing their medical & some will never come back.
(Rep Troy Nehls from TX is among the sources pushing this change, as his brother – a Delta pilot – is nearing retirement age, has reportedly been on LTD for years & would like that to continue for another two)
• LTD is a great program (you get a portion of your pay when unable to work due to a medical issue, which suspends your license) but it’s not designed for this…LTD suddenly having to pay an extra two years would put the program in jeopardy & likely raise the cost for the rest of us (how it’s funded varies by airline, but many, if not most of us, pay into it in some form).
• Most countries don’t allow pilots over XX to fly commercially. Changing it in the US would not change it elsewhere.
• Because most countries don’t allow pilots over XX to fly, many, if not the majority, of these pilots would have to be removed from the widebody, international jets they currently staff & put onto narrowbody, domestic fleets…a training footprint that would be a nightmare (the airline might honestly find it better to just pay them to stay home for X years…a cost passed on to passengers).
• The requirement to involuntarily move pilots from their fleet would require the whole concept of seniority & all pilot contracts to be renegotiated between the unions & airlines, which would be chaotic at best. There is currently no mechanism in the contracts to do any of what I just described.
• The change would also interrupt the expected “normal” pilot career progression, as “movement” would stall…this happened the last time congress changed the retirement age from XX to 65, contributing to a period pilots now refer to as “the lost decade”.
There are debates on this and many pilots feel differently than I do. I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Nevertheless, this push feels rooted in self interest & greed. These pilots knew what the retirement age was; if they want to keep flying, they can, just not for the airlines.
XXXXXX engagements
Related Topics airlines retirement wrangler