Pilots are forced into mandatory retirement at age 65 in the United States, regardless of their health or ability. This is appalling, and it’s time to change this rule.
- In 1919, the mandatory retirement age for a commercial pilot was set at 45 years old by the International Commission for Air Navigation.
- ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, required mandatory retirement at age 60 from 1947 until 2006.
- IATA, which represents about 350 airlines, has been pushing to raise the mandatory retirement age to 67 for some years. Here’s this year’s working paper.
U.S. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford calls the age 65 limit “arbitrary” and a rule that “doesn’t seem like the right answer…[it is] pretty clear that we have really experienced pilots that still have a lot of gas in the tank…and a lot of mentoring that they can bring to the table for the younger workforce that we’re developing for the future.” He is correct.
Pilots Can Actually Keep Flying After Age 65, As Long As They’re Willing To Take Less Pay
There’s nothing unsafe about a 66 year old flying, and the law allows it – as long as they’re flying charters (part 135) rather than commercial airlines (part 121). That means older pilots are flying around the United States, with passengers onboard, every single day and in large numbers. They are just forced out of their high paying jobs to make room for young pilots to move up the seniority list.
Pilots Around The World Are Flying Later
Since last year, Argentina has allowed pilots to fly up to age 68 as long as there’s more than one pilot in the cockpit. But Argentina is hardly alone.
Australia has no age-based mandatory retirement. When they’re over 60, they have to get more frequent medical exams. Past age 65 they’re mostly restricted to flying domestic and trans-tasman routes because the countries they’d be flying to don’t allow commercial pilots over age 65.
New Zealand also has no age-based mandatory pilot retirement. They issue Part 61 pilot licences “for the lifetime of the holder.” You keep flying if you pass competency checks and hold the required medical. This is tied to New Zealand’s Human Rights Act which includs an age discrimination.
Japan allows pilots to fly commercial until their 68th birthday, though at age 66 and 67 they too are mostly limited to domestic flying because of the rules of other countries.
There’s been no real issues in Japanese, Australian or New Zealand aviation.
Competency-Based Retirement Is Better
Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule.
Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time. Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age.
And the actual risk of inflight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents. Plus, thanks to ALPA lobbying, two pilots are still required in the cockpit.
The Arguments For Mandatory Age 65 Requirement Are Specious
So what are the arguments against a higher retirement age?
- Age 65 retirement ages exist elsewhere. Since some countries have age 65 retirement, all countries should, otherwise pilots can’t fly everywhere and that complicates scheduling. The most senior captains would mostly have to fly domestic routes, and this shouldn’t be allowed because reasons. This begs the question, though, since ICAO should raise the mandatory retirmeent age as they have done in the past mostly eliminating the discrepancy between countries.
Since this disrupts seniority bidding there’d need to be changes to colective bargaining and schedule bidding systems. But why should the government ban airlines and pilots from adjusting these things?
- Older pilots are risky Overall risk is very low but age correlates with health risk. That’s also true for 65 versus 60! It’s very odd to suggest age 65 is the exact right number and that hasn’t changed, and that better medical calibration can’t tailor retirement to individual fitness.
It’s even stranger for ALPA to argue for two pilots in the cockpit, and for mandatory retirement. Mandatory retirement reduces the need for two pilots in the cockpit!
- Not enough data. Aviation is so safe now we just don’t have a lot of safety incident data to base decisions on.
Here’s Why The Rule Sticks
It’s sort of strange for the Air Line Pilots Association to mandate that its own members stop working. But the self-interest is clear. It benefits the vast majority of its members now, at the expense to its oldest members.
- Moves old people out of the way. Airline pay, equipment, base, schedule, and captain upgrades are seniority‑driven. A hard age cap guarantees predictable churn, faster upgrades, and earlier access to widebody/left‑seat pay for the majority of members. Extending retirements slows that flow (“seat blocking”).
- Wage leverage from scarcity. A tighter pilot labor market strengthened bargaining power and accelerated wage gains. Keeping the cap (and opposing measures that ease supply) preserves some of that leverage.
ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.
Not sure what’s the right decision. A major airline pilot should have enough money to retire comfortably at 65. While some could keep flying with no issues until 67, at some point there’s a greater chance of age related decline. There are probably some safe pilots in their 80s, but a higher chance of finding someone impaired at 84 then 64. I don’t think that’s age discrimination just biological reality.
If 67 is the cut off, why not 69? Or 72? At some point you’ll get to a scenario where aviation become like the U.S. Congress or Supreme Court. With the seniority based system there’s a big incentive to never leave.
At the heart of this issue is overall fitness. At 65 some might be past prime, but not the majority. Airlines want whatever benefits them most at the moment.
Does no one ‘want’ to retire anymore? Clearly, like most things, it must be about money, because companies don’t want to pay more for experience, and many used to fund pensions (until we allowed the ‘free market’ to decide profits were more important than people), and most folks didn’t used to live as long as they do not (thanks science and medicine). Anyway… 67 seems fine by me.
The President of the US should have an expiration date of 67, maybe 70 at the oldest. So if they are elected at 65, they can serve one full time and a little of a second term.
Presidents can kill a lot more people than one pilot can.
Thank you for this excellent article pointing out the true facts regarding the Age 65 mandatory retirement opposition by the pilot unions. It is a travesty that they fail to equally represent all of their members. The flying public has no idea how much we need to retain highly experienced aviatiors in our nations’s cockpits. The IATA and ICAO recognize this and Congress needs to immediately pass legislation to raise the age!
Now let’s first get rid of all the senority crap!!! Best check ride, peer review, and test scores go to the top….
Look for…. the Union Label….
@Craig Jones — You remembered!
@derek — I’d love to see ‘a new generation of leadership,’ but voters keep picking geriatrics… *sigh*
Yes, the rule is arbitrary. Who makes the rule? Congress. There are 69 senators over the age of 65 and there are over 257 us representatives that are over 60. Our president is over 75, and the list goes on for people that make decisions about our lives. I know multiple pilots forced out and they are all healthy. It’s a shame.
Just to be accurate, FAA certificates (loosely called “licenses”) are also issued for the “lifetime of the holder” in that they don’t have expiration dates. An exception is instructor ones, good for two years but relatively easy to renew. Medical certificates are required for most pilotage work but there are exceptions (it’s complicated) and those do expire. But they are separate from certificates issued when a person passes their proficiency exams for a “license”. I agree about the needlessness of the age 65 rule, but the FAA is like most government agencies in history, slow and risk adverse, only it is more so.
Craig Jones comment indicates an ignorance of the airline industry in general and the airline pilot profession specifically.
When flying on a commercial airline, I feel safer flying with a 70-year-old pilot-in-command (PIC) who has accumulated over 20,000 logged flight hours, averaging 800 to 900 hours per year as an airline transport pilot (ATP). This level of experience is much more reassuring to me than that of a 23-year-old pilot with only 1,500 logged flight hours, which is the minimum requirement set by many aviation authorities such as the FAA.
Employees don’t cause or create unions, bad managers do.
Outstanding article! The American traveling public deserve the most experienced pilots in control of their aircraft. 65 is arbitrary and needs to go!
No other non-federal profession has a mandatory retirement age. As long as a pilot passes their medicals and qualification check rides, they should be permitted to work.
The retirement decision should be made by the individual pilot, not Congress.
@Ken A — I prefer Nathan Fielder, 737 pilot, and star of season 2 of The Rehearsal, because he’s not afraid to talk about mental health up front…
As the article stated. It has nothing to do with age. It’s the ALPA clearing out left seats for the kids. Tail wags the dog. The union doesn’t care about the minority but they’ll sure cash your dues check in bloody hurry.
In reading this blog, two incidents come to mind. How about the United DC-10 that was able to crash land in Iowa, with most lives on board saved because the old man piloting the plane was of a generation that didn’t need a computer to fly the plane for him. And Sully did a pretty damn job of “landing” on the Hudson River.
Then I think about fatal crashes that needn’t happen like the Air France Airbus that crashed in the South Atlantic because the youngsters didn’t trust their instruments.
Are people this naive?? The old pilots don’t give a sh*t about “mentoring” the younger generation, It’s about the money. They’re at the top of the pay scale and they want more time there, simple as that.
@Matt S
You are right about one thing. It is about the money and that’s why the young guns want the old guys out. I get it. Just remember the young pilots have never done a day of B scale, or gone through long periods of stagnation, bankruptcies, etc. Looks like the Spirit pilots are getting a taste of that old pilot medicine and don’t be surprised if it happens throughout the industry again. Management would love nothing better than to cut up contracts.
I was forced out at 65 and at the top of my game. Not only was I safe because of my experience, I could pass on advice to first officers I flew with to make them more informed to avoid or formulate a resolution to problems. That experience went to nothing when forced to retire. Every high time pilot forced to retire loses that experience.
“Pilots are forced into mandatory retirement at age 65 in the United States,…” is incorrect. FAR Part 121 air carrier pilots are required to retire. Many retired airline pilots go on to successful FAR Part 91 and FAR Part 135 operations. I know several pilots over the age of 65 who still fly for FAR Part 121 carriers in other capacities within the airline. Those exceptions do not operate under the FAR Part 121 “banner”. With today’s medical technology, I can appreciate the want to raise the maximum age for US carrier pilots to extend their career with strict guidelines for that privilege.