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.
The last two US presidents show exactly what happens when there’s no mandatory retirement age.
Both have told you that they are at the top of their game and extremely experienced.
There’s always the need for two pilots in the cockpit. For reference why, see Germanwings.
If it’s alright for the US President to be in charge of the country in their 70’s and 80’s, then why limit a pilot to 65? POTUS are responsible for making decisions for 350K Americans, but pilots typically are only responsible for about 300 passengers. As long as medical exams are in place, there is NO reason to have such an age restriction. Social Security doesn’t even kick in at max benefit until 70, so pilots are being cheated out of getting max SSA benefits when they are FORCED to retire! Not all pilots make 500K/year!!!!! Many earn far less, and if they have/had family expenses, they may not have saved as much for retirement as they need. Due to many pilots going through divorce, due to the strains of the job, they may have less to live on than many people might think. If a pilot is unhealthy, they lose their license at any age. So, if they are healthy, why not let them fly? Older pilots have SO MUCH m ore knowledge and experience than younger pilots… it should not be a matter of letting younger pilots replace them. The whole age thing is ludicrous as long as provisions are put in place to insure that older pilots are capable of doing their job. How about we consider whether or not Biden, or Trump are capable of running a HUGE country first, then turn to pilots???????????
Great article! Back when it was age 60 I flew with several Captains that were no where near ready to retire. And looking at them they were more fit than many of the younger FOs walking through the concourse. I learned a lot from those guys on how to fly the airplane better, at the time 757 and 767, and also about leadership from the captains position. Things I use these days as captain. The past few years has seen a massive influx of younger pilots. Many have never been a captain at their previous companies. The mentoring that the”old guys” provide is extremely valuable. Even more valuable with hiring at all time highs that’s supposed to continue for the next several years.
@Mary
Biden should have never been President to begin with. His handlers put him in the basement and the press and liberal media ran cover for him. Trump does laps around the previous administration every day. Kamala was a perfect fit for Biden. Dumb and Dumber come to mind.
@Scott
You are absolutely correct.
As a former pilot (F-14), and now AME ( was a trauma surgeon) … I have to say as I do medical exams there are some that should not be flying at age 40 due to medical conditions and I have plenty of folks who fly for companies that are above 65 who are quite fit, and not even on simple medications such as blood pressure medications. So as an AME I think the age rule for anything needs to be taken out and then look at each person individually and that means if a more stringent requirement such as COG screening, stress testing etc should be done that way we can keep our very qualified people in the cockpit and continue to educate the younger people. I am all for ALWAYS … keeping two people in the cockpit for many reasons such as redundancy, safety and relying on each other. I have had many times had emergencies where two people were needed because of flying the aircraft, navigating and communicating. The same goes for surgery… never go do surgery alone without a backup plan… you all get my drift! I’ve been involved with aviation now for over 40 years and in medicine / surgery now for over 33 years.. I think I know what I’m talking about and if anyone in congress is reading this… find me and I will tell you some good sea stories about why we need to increase the age and always have two people in the cockpit when flying passengers!
This article is ridiculous. Retired pilots fly charter with far less danger and demanding schedules. Pilots are dying in the cockpit at a great rate since raising the age from 60. It’s a health and safety issue. But there’s a glut of baby boomer pilots who want artificial too pay and seniority while the junior pilots baby sit them from the co pilot’s seat.
This is a tough one. I fly with individuals who are mentally sharp at 65. Then I fly with those who need to go due to mental decline.
Contrary to what people say on here, there is NO WAY to weed the ones with mental decline out. They probably pass their evaluations at the bare minimum. However, they still pass.
Do you want to be in the back when I’m yelling, “Your going down the wrong taxiway”?
Do you want to be in the back when we need a time critical decision, but the processing will take a while?
The airlines are fortunate that due to the law of averages, that a critical situation doesn’t occur with a marginal pilot at the controls. Add 67, and the probability will become more certain.
No thanks. I’d rather have a better chance to survive my plane flights. There is no anti-aging wonder drug that gives humans the cognitive and motor skills of a 35 yr old to those twice that age. Please, stop it with the entitled bullshittery, and homespun anecdotes. The rest of us are tired of it. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
@ Coffee Please
You forgot to take your meds….or you took too many. Either way, you’re EXACTLY what Putin wants in an American. Any other NewMax talking points you’d like to add?
Wow Matt S, talk about drinking the Kool-Aid from the socialist party (Democrats), along with the traitorous mainstream media, and a healthy dose of TDS. Any more CNN talking points you’d like to add?
@Matt S
No meds for me. I don’t watch Newsmax but it is obvious you are a fan of The View.
In any other situation this would be age discrimination. ALPA could care less. Nothing to do with safety. Has to do with younger union pilots want the seasoned experienced pilots gone to take their jobs
Complete propaganda. Pilots are not “forced” to retire; the mandatory age has always been part of the career path, known well in advance. This isn’t some sudden surprise. In fact, age limits have been in place for over 100 years in aviation for a reason. To keep pushing that limit higher is to test it until it breaks. If a mandatory age is supposedly wrong, then why stop at 67? Why not 70, 75, or beyond?
Experience certainly matters, but it doesn’t increase indefinitely. At some point, performance begins to decline. Think of it like eventually taking the car keys from grandma. Today’s airline environment—saturated airspace, increasingly complex weather systems, and ATC challenges—demands sharp mental agility. These are fast-moving, dynamic conditions that expose age-related decline long before it shows up behind the wheel of a car.
I’m a retired military pilot and current Part 121 airline pilot, with years of experience as an instructor and evaluator. The safety concern in aviation isn’t the younger pilot; it’s the aging pilot who has passed his prime. Everyone around them sees it—except the individual themselves. On top of that, decades in the industry often lead to complacency. Contrary to the narrative, the best mentors are not always those in their 60s who’ve simply been in the seat the longest. The greatest mentors are the ones at their peak—energized, engaged, and performing at the highest level mentally and physically.
Another reality rarely mentioned: older pilots are the least adaptable when it comes to new technology. They often fly today’s highly advanced jets as if they were the classic aircraft of decades past. Airline leadership knows this too, because it becomes a very real leadership challenge every time new technology is introduced into the fleet. The result? Younger first officers often find themselves compensating—quietly covering required tasks because their senior captain can’t (or won’t) adapt. Add to this the truth about FAA medical exams: they are not the rigorous safety screen the public imagines. They are minimal, largely self-disclosed checkups. If you paid your family doctor for such a “physical,” you’d probably fire him.
And then there’s leadership. Current FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford has shown a pattern of misrepresentation—at one point even suggesting he was a commercial pilot, which was proven false. He has also played coy about protecting the 1,500-hour rule, a rule born directly from tragedy after underqualified junior pilots crashed Colgan 3407. Major airlines have never considered 1,500 hours a “high bar”—it is simply a baseline for competence. Yet Bedford refuses to commit to maintaining that standard. Now this same figure is sympathetic to raising the retirement age? Society can play these games in many industries, but aviation will not forgive it.
From inside the industry, it’s clear that the best pilots in their 60s are already looking forward to retirement at 65, with many voluntarily leaving earlier. The push for 67 doesn’t come from this group. It comes from a very vocal minority of poor decision-making pilots who are financially unprepared for retirement—those with failed investments, multiple divorces, expensive toys, and heavy debt. They want to extend their careers out of personal necessity, not because it benefits aviation safety.
And as for the “passing down wisdom” argument—it’s a false premise. But even if it were true, there’s already a perfect avenue for it: the airline training department, where simulator instructors are hired to do exactly that. If these senior pilots truly want to mentor the next generation, nothing is stopping them from applying.
This is exactly why pilot unions oppose raising the age. We see the reality from the inside. This debate isn’t about safety or mentorship—it’s about a minority trying to change the rules for their own survival, at the expense of the flying public.
I like this @Matt S fella; riling up the right-wingers. How exciting!
@Coffee Please — You know me, nightly Gutfeld! watcher… and, c’mon who doesn’t like a little Whoopi now and again… all good fun, I’m sayin’…
At 64 and 7 months, I just passed my medical and my most recent training. I safely operate our largest aircraft internationally several times per month. Truth Teller’s claims of “safety” are a false premise. It is no different than during Covid, when I was safe to fly unjabbed on Sept. 27, but unsafe to fly (per my CEO) on Sept. 28. Many of the younger pilots I fly with have more health issues than I do. Other countries, as discussed in the article, have pilots that still fly safely and competently many years after 65. Forced retirement at age 65 is age discrimination, plain and simple.
At 64 and 7 months, your response makes the motivation behind this push very clear. This isn’t about safety or fairness across the industry; it’s about a small group of pilots who voluntarily accepted this career fully aware of the mandatory retirement age, and now, as they approach that line, want to move it for their own benefit. The “newfound outrage” over age discrimination only appears once personal finances and retirement readiness collide with the rule. It was never a problem when the job was accepted knowing the age limit was part of it. Suddenly, with 65 around the corner, it becomes “unfair.”
Pointing to foreign airlines doesn’t strengthen your case. U.S. aviation is the gold standard for safety and proficiency. Other nations simply don’t maintain the same rigor or consistency at any age, which is why they are not our example. America leads precisely because we don’t dilute our standards to match weaker systems abroad.
And clinging to the “I just passed my medical” line is baffling. That fallacy was already addressed in my earlier post — FAA medicals are minimal, self-disclosed, and hardly proof of peak performance, or even good performance. You ignored everything I laid out about the shortcomings of these physicals, offered no coherent rebuttal, and instead tried to present a routine medical sign-off as if it were a virtue that justifies rewriting federal law. That lack of reasoning and inability to engage with information already provided is exactly what I’m describing: a pattern that shows up in the flight deck and leaves first officers compensating to keep the operation on track. Your honor, I submit this person as Exhibit #1.
This desperation is not accidental. It’s born from the shrinking window of time as certain pilots rapidly approach 65. Financial readiness collides with reality, and being unprepared for retirement at this point in life is usually the result of undisciplined, even outrageous spending habits or poor life decisions. That’s not an industry problem; that’s a personal one.
Another reality rarely discussed is the staffing imbalance. Airlines don’t staff an even split of captains and first officers — they maintain a surplus of captains, despite their higher cost. One of the biggest reasons for this is the higher rate of sick calls and medical absences among older captains. Airlines know it, plan for it, and absorb the cost. Extending the retirement age would only increase that burden while placing more fatigued, less reliable pilots in the left seat.
And one final point: if this were truly about age discrimination, then there could be no age limit at all. Yet there is no legislative platform, no pilot group, and no credible voice arguing for unlimited flying ages — because intuitively, everyone knows the truth. There has to be a line. And it’s telling that the arguments shift depending on the audience. On public platforms, the talking points are weak: “I passed my FAA physical,” “other countries do it,” and the trigger word they hope will carry them across the finish line, “discrimination.” But on internal pilot boards, where their peers overwhelmingly oppose them, the arguments change: “I endured furloughs, market downturns, and mergers that hurt my seniority, so I deserve a couple more years.” Two radically different faces to the same push — yet both equally poor arguments.
This isn’t age discrimination. It’s the preservation of the standard that has kept U.S. aviation the safest in the world. The current rule works, and it needs to be left alone.
There are currently two conflicting factors:
1. Currently, COVID and manufacturing delays have flattened demand for pilots.
2. Future outlook forecasts the need for 640,000 to 679,000 pilots over the next 20 years. (There are 1.5 to 1.9 million commercial pilots globally – a ~one third growth over two decades). Retiring pilots are a significant contribution to the looming shortage.
Seems like a phased increase in mandatory retirement age would thread the needle and resolve the government interagency disparities: I can’t collect full social security benefits until five years after the FAA forces me to retire. How does that make sense? (Sorry, I lost my head there, trying to interject logic into governmental behavior.)
I find it interesting that pilots advocating for the retirement of pilots at age 65 might change their tune as they approach the same age. It’s likely that the unions will suddenly argue that people are living longer and that the retirement age should be raised – but only when it benefits their members financially. This potential shift in stance would reveal the unions’ self-interest and hypocrisy.
I was also an individual who’s livelihood was taken from me by Congress. Pissed was an understatement but I can only imagine the guys before me that got cut at 60. Nasty Nancy, ole Bernie, and bullet head Biden can sit on the thrones of power and look down at the great unwashed and say obey slave. Not one could ever do or would put in the time to graduate to the job I did.
I flew another eight years after sixty five in a Gulfstream and a Falcon only to be sent home again by the insurance carrier. I don’t do it for the money. I flew my ass off and saved and invested for forty nine years. There were some guys so smart I felt like a pig looking at a watch I like flying and being around highly successful people. I flew with some guys and gals that shouldn’t be in the cockpit. All died prematurely from heart attacks and cancers. Not surprised. The FAA Medical is kind of a joke. DEI is another story. DIE is more applicable.
Being led by fools that don’t understand anything about aviation is and has created many more fatalities in every area. But putting competent Pilots on the sidelines lets a new crop of people get into the career.
It was a great time in my life and feel fortunate to have pursued it.
I met, flew with,,became life long friends with incredible people. I also did the same with others I hope I never see. lol
All of these posts are interesting to me. I wish all of you the best.
The problem is not the age and fitness but lack the workforce. Now, that problem is because companies want to pay less for more work and thus there is less people willing to apply for that kind of a job.
40 years ago you could retire with 55 and half hours of what 55 year old has now but triple the money(worth).
It’s all about the money and profits…safety has been secondary for decades
Good article, great debate in the comment section!
Thanks for posting (time for an update…;-)
Jb. (63)
It isn’t about hand eye motor skills. It’s about experience in how to avoid problems that can incidiously build and how to handle problems that pop up. An airliner is an exotic machine that doesn’t always work perfectly. Weather is very seldom perfect or as forecast. Personnel and passengers don’t always do what you expect. Experience guides pilots on how to handle these issues that a sh@t hot pilot out of school has never seen.
Those that push back the hardest on raising the retirement age never mention their own age, but we all know where it generally falls. You could make a similar age prediction for those who desire to fly past 65. There is an interesting dynamic that takes place when a pilot is 5 or 10 years away from retirement, vs. only 1 year away. The young(er) studs will boldly proclaim, “Oh, I plan to retire well before 65. I want to enjoy an active retirement”. But then guess what, they never do. Instead, those young studs eventually reach the “T-1 year” mark away from retirement, and experience the age 64 epiphany! And unless there is a medical grounding, or some compelling crisis taking place in their personal life, they’ll all, with rare exception, fly to age 65. I’m already retired, but what’s been stated in the article is really the bottom line for me. Tailor the medical standards for the 65+ age demographic – i.e., cognitive tests, stress tests, tighter parameters on other vitals, and then let “natural selection” take place, where either a medical grounding or a proficiency fail becomes auto-eliminating instead of elimination by an arbitrary number. I smirk and laugh at the same time when I consider having flown 300 souls across the ocean, safely and competently on the day before I turned 65, but then one day later, I’m considered dangerous, high risk and incompetent!
This argument is exactly why Millennials and Gen Zers hate the Boomer generation. They come up with excuse after excuse to continue to hang on to their top tier salaries instead of letting the natural progression of things take their course and (finally) bow out of the workplace.
This is not about mentoring or making aviation safer, it is one hundred percent about ego and finance. By age 65, most pilots have had close to 40 years to prepare themselves financially for retirement. If they want or need to continue flying after that, for whatever reason, fine. Go do it in the charter or corporate world and let the younger pilots have the same chances for advancement and opportunity that you were given.
@J Johansson – “This argument is exactly why Millennials and Gen Zers hate the Boomer generation.”
How terrible that old people won’t just go away!
And here you clearly admit it’s about “finance” – wanting the government to push people aside so younger pilots get the left seat sooner. Of course the beef here could just as easily be with the seniority system itself…
The Millennials and Gen Zers hate the Boomer generation because they just like to hate. Boomers and Gen Xers have had to wait their turn to get to the highest paying positions. I didn’t stick around to get a higher paying position myself. I played my cards right and retired 8 years ago, before 60. 30 years at the career job was enough. By retiring, a position opened up for a person at a much lower wage. Over time, they will work their way up, too.
When I took flying lessons in the 90s the reason for the mandatory retirement was a dramatic loss of night vision by age 60. The article didn’t mention that nor have any of these comments. I did a quick search and at 60 you need 3 times the light as a person in their 20s. And my medical didn’t test night vison that I remember. Has something changed in this regard? I
Cognitive decline is not black and white, it’s subtle. No pilot wants his career to end unexpectedly because he can’t cut it anymore and he busts a checkride or fails a physical. It’s not solely a matter of protecting seniority or age discrimination. It’s in the flying public’s interest. Your argument about pilot shortages doesn’t hold water. The supply stabilizes once pilots begin to reach the new higher retirement age as was the case with the change from 60 to 65. Pilot supply is more determined by airline growth or shrinkage due to market forces. If you’re so concerned about age discrimination, why don’t you focus on air traffic controllers. They are forced out at age 56. And they don’t fly anything but a desk.
I retired after 34 years as an American Airlines pilot. 60 years of age I thought was too early. In the big scheme of things, I think 65 is a good middle ground. I flew with some Captains that I thought should have retired in their 50’s. Almost all Captains I flew with up to their mandatory retirement age of 65 did a great job. I’m sure there are many pilots that could probably stay until they are 80 years old and do a great job. Our current process of evaluated pilots I think comes up short on catching age related issues. I hated to leave, but I believe 65 with our current chechride and every 6-month physical schedules provides a safer environment. BTW, if 65 is arbitrary, then what number would be OK? This reminds me of older senior citizens getting upset if they think you don’t want them to drive anymore. How do you tell them no more driving if the can pass a state test?
Commercial pilots used to have to retire at 62, which was devastating if their pension failed. I’ve always advocated that we put those pilots to work flying wildfire tankers. Thousands of commercial planes are mothballed in the Arizona desert that could be converted to tankers in hours- planes these pilots are already certified on. Thanks to climate change, we are seeing major increases in wildfires that quickly get out of control and put lives and homes at risk. Home insurance costs are skyrocketing. Sure some wildfire is natural and even beneficial for forests, but that’s before climate change. Lets put these pilots on standby, ready to extinguish any man made or natural wildfire. Put the ‘hotshots” to work clearing the forests by hand and burning that material in controlled conditions.
Since the FAA mandates it, then the same rules should apply for all members of Congress, the SCOTUS and the POTUS.