US Age 67

[Junkflyer]

Just curious as to what those across the pond think about the possibility of airline mandatory retirement age being raised to 67.
Always see a lot of well thought out and researched replies here unlike some other forums which tend to get emotional.

[hunterboy]

Mandatory? In what sense ? You have to work to 67 to get a pension? This seems to be the UK governments answer to its pension deficit. Alternatively, it would be nice to have the ability to stay working to age 67 if necessary, as some pilots will find a couple of years gap between mandatory retirement from work and the ability to start drawing a UK state pension.

[RandomPerson8008]

Not sure if above response was tongue in cheek, but: in the US almost no airline employees get a pension anymore, so that has nothing to do with it. It's mandatory in the sense that you can't work any longer when you reach age 67, even if you wanted to. It was being lobbied for by the US airlines to reduce the training costs associated with recruiting and training new joiners.

I don't believe it's wise or necessary to increase the mandatory age to 67. The much touted "pilot shortage" will be staved off by the somewhat perilous present economic situation; cargo carriers are now struggling and some low cost carriers like Spirit are on the brink of bankruptcy. Furthermore, on average (yes, there are exceptions), physiological characteristics such as endurance, reflexes, and capacity for learning undoubtedly decline with age. Selecting pilots to remain past 67 would probably necessitate increased medical examination scrutiny if present safety levels are not wished to be eroded.

Lastly, yes, many pilots already had to sit through 5 years of seniority stagnation 15 years ago when the mandatory retirement age was raised from 60 to 65. This also ocurred during an economically unpleasant time. The experience of junior pilots during this time perhaps inadvertantly contributed to the present alleged "pilot shortage", as many pilots became burnt out and likely dissuaded younger acquantainces from pursuing the profession. Why repeat that ordeal just to appease the perceived very slight training cost reduction for the US airlines which are brib....I mean lobbying the US congress to get this passed again?

[WillowRun 6-3]

When I'm 6-4

Sometimes an interested observer (well, as interested as an SLF/attorney might be) takes in information about an issue like this one, and sees - or tries to see - "both sides." What is there to break the impasse, especially if it appears to be a close question?

So, then, sometimes one looks at "who" happens to be the few most strident and loudest advocates on each side of the issue. Those pressing for raising the age didn't improve their standing in today's House Aviation Subcommittee hearing, as I observed it. Badgering the Administrator (yeah, I know it's how the game is played) on this issue approached bad faith. Members should be grateful that such a highly qualified and experienced person accepted the nomination and has got up to speed remarkably quickly, and in several other respects gone a long way to instill renewed confidence in the agency and the NAS for which it is responsible. One must display a great deal of extra respect before reaching the level of obsequiousness, but only a little disrespect can be enough to beome disreputable.

On the other hand, probably the strongest voice against increasing the mandatory retirement age is the largest of the pilot labor organizations (ALPA). Some say they're just trying to protect their livelihoods. Well, it's an iron law, "thou shalt not mess with another person's livelihood" and the union's opposition on that basis isn't bad faith. Most significantly, though, when the question is the proper chronological point at which to yield to natural progressions which accompany increases in chronological age, who better to listen to than the men and women who have made the pointy end of the aircraft not only their livelihood, but their career - and for many, their Professional calling?

And yes, other ICAO Member States have raised their domestically applicable age of mandatory retirement. But let's not try to have things both ways - if we believe the United States can, and deserves to, be the ephemeral "gold standard", then let's not justify poor policy ideas on the basis that it is what other countries do.

Not least, it was beyond ordinary hypocrisy today for Members to attack the Administrator with regard to migrant encampments on airports - when their political party based opposition to the prior FAA Adminstrator nominee on his having only airport management experience. (Slight apology for thread drift but the age issue is before the Congress, after all.)

I belive, I would vote No.

[dnx]

I'm close to "mandatory retirement". Just a few months to go.
I'm in good health. Both mentally and physically.
I'm sure I would be able to crew an aircraft or airliner as well for the next two years as I've been doing for the past 45.
However, there is no way I would even consider continuing past my 65th even if the law changed tomorrow to allow me to continue till 67.
I do feel the impact of time-differences, jet-lag and long intercontinental flights a bit more severe than only a few years ago.
I know very few colleagues of my generation who would like to go on for 2 or more years.
BUT - having said that - here in the EU the legal retirement age has been increased steadily over the past decade so that as such I will not receive pension until the age of 67 years and 3 months (my particular case). However, EASA and International law forbid me to practice my profession in a few months.
THIS is not fair. Nobody - Unions or members of parlement ever considered this gap in income that pilots will have to endure.

[VariablePitchP]

Originally Posted by dnx

I'm close to "mandatory retirement". Just a few months to go.
I'm in good health. Both mentally and physically.
I'm sure I would be able to crew an aircraft or airliner as well for the next two years as I've been doing for the past 45.
However, there is no way I would even consider continuing past my 65th even if the law changed tomorrow to allow me to continue till 67.
I do feel the impact of time-differences, jet-lag and long intercontinental flights a bit more severe than only a few years ago.
I know very few colleagues of my generation who would like to go on for 2 or more years.
BUT - having said that - here in the EU the legal retirement age has been increased steadily over the past decade so that as such I will not receive pension until the age of 67 years and 3 months (my particular case). However, EASA and International law forbid me to practice my profession in a few months.
THIS is not fair. Nobody - Unions or members of parlement ever considered this gap in income that pilots will have to endure.

The counter argument would be that you can just get a job as a not-pilot in that two year gap. Should you have to? Debatable. But you can definitely still work.

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by Junkflyer

Just curious as to what those across the pond think about the possibility of airline mandatory retirement age being raised to 67.
Always see a lot of well thought out and researched replies here unlike some other forums which tend to get emotional.

Junk,

The mandatory retirement age for Part 121 ops is just the age at which you must leave; it's not necessarily the age at which you can leave. The age at which you can leave (with some money) will vary from one labor contract to another as well as whether said amount of money is enough. There is no one answer.

There's no way to say where this effort to raise the mandatory retirement age will go. Government is involved...always a wildcard there. But emotional it is among the worker bees: the young guys are mad because it delays the old guys getting out of their seats and some old guys want to work longer for a variety of reasons.

[BFSGrad]

In today’s testimony before the House Aviation Subcommittee, Whitaker’s position on age 67 was essentially the FAA will implement whatever Congress mandates. When asked about the incongruence between the 121 age 65 limit and 91/135 no age limit for pilots flying high-performance aircraft in the same airspace as 121, Whitaker again defaulted to the position that the FAA will do what Congress mandates.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Originally Posted by BFSGrad

In today’s testimony before the House Aviation Subcommittee, Whitaker’s position on age 67 was essentially the FAA will implement whatever Congress mandates. When asked about the incongruence between the 121 age 65 limit and 91/135 no age limit for pilots flying high-performance aircraft in the same airspace as 121, Whitaker again defaulted to the position that the FAA will do what Congress mandates.

Additionally there was a series of q&a, initiated mostly by a certain Congressman from Texas, about a letter the Administrator had sent just days ago to the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over aviation matters and policies, and where the reauthorization bill has been hung up. (A big problem for the bill as passed by the House is its modification of the 1500 hours rule, which is vehemently opposed by at least one Senator on the Committee.)

In the recent letter the Administrator stated, "As Congress considers policies that affect the pool of pilots that may serve Part 121 commercial operations, we strongly encourage preceding that type of change with appropriate research so that the FAA can measure any risk associated with that policy and define appropriate mitigations." (The Hill, Feb. 6, 2024 "FAA Warns Congress about higher pilot ages", by S. Fortinsky)

The Texas Congressman asserted that the increased mandatory retirement age in other countries provides all the answers that the research, to which the FAA Admin's letter referred, would produce. Apart from the abject, if not also laughable, hypocrisy relative to this country setting the "gold standard", there's another problem with this assertion. As anybody following the issue already knows, ICAO rules prohibit operating international flights past age 65. Critically important to note is the fact that all of what ICAO does is based on each Member State's sovereignty. It is the bedrock principle of the Chicago Convention of 1944. To this SLF/attorney, to assert that the FAA should waive, release, and otherwise disregard its assessment that more research is needed for the purpose of determining risk mitigations, is to impinge upon, and actually violate, United States sovereignty. Respectfully, the assertions by which the Congressman from Texas badgered if not berated the Administrator on this point were, taken together, a dog that don't hunt.

[frogville]

If anyone in this thread knows about this subject of pilot age rules in depth, and would like to help me write an article on it, please let me know! Questions I'm trying to answer:
1. Who actually sets the rules for pilot age limits? The country that issues the pilots license? The country where the aircraft is registered? Or whatever the country is that the pilot happens to be flying in?
2. Which countries have not applied the ICAO rules on age limits?
3. These rules are for commercial flights. Does that include charter flights?

I have a few more, but these are the main ones. Thanks!

[Gordomac]

Why should there be any age limit? Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Teachers, etc, etc, don't have one. Of course, Human cognitive skills, medical fitness, etc, etc, decline with age. In place, should be a rigorous screening process to ensure one is fully competent. Enhanced medical criteria, levels of competency in regular Base, I/R, Line, Sim, etc,etc,etc should be the norm (even for driving a vehicle) over agreed maximum age limits. But all the other professions soldier on, if they wish, witn zero mandatory monitoring, until they drop.

My local GP is 83. Is theer just for the money. Is useless and has no interest. He thinks "bed side manner" is the name of the local Air BMB ! BUt I see no-one checking on his levels of competency. For example. He will keep going until there is a really serious issue. Of course, I am changing DR.

For pilots, there will be commercial & admin & cost reasons for imposing mandatory age retirement. BA( former BOAC/BEA) had 55 for ages. Many pilots just left at age 55 and joined someone else with a different paint scheme until age 60. Now it has gone to 65.

Approaching 60, I was part of the change to 65. One doesn't immediately become incompetent on one's 61st birthday but obstacles were put in place to deny fully capable pilots to extend service to age 65. The medical alone would have qualified one to join the NASA Space Cadet Programme. With an excellent medical record through 40 years of piloting, I was suddenly told that at age 60, I had diabetes (Company quack).. Company just didn't want top-end, high salary, seniority blocking folk.THAT is the real reason folks.

If truly unfit for any reason, I would not want to fly anyway. BUt given full fitness and the personal choice, let ME exercise that sovereignty.

[parabellum]

"Lastly, yes, many pilots already had to sit through 5 years of seniority stagnation 15 years ago when the mandatory retirement age was raised from 60 to 65."
That is a very novel way of putting it, '5 years of seniority stagnation'. For most of my flying career the retirement age in the UK was 65, then quite suddenly, overnight almost, with no discussion with pilots and no lead time before implementation allowed the law was changed, arbitrarily, by the UK minister responsible, to a mandatory retirement age of 60, with no valid reasons given. Personally I lost five years of earnings at a near to top rate for a B747 captain, It may be called 5 years of stagnation for some, but to the industry as a whole it was five years of valuable experience overlooked. whilst for many of the pilots effected it was a torpedo right through the middle of our retirement plans..

[WillowRun 6-3]

Originally Posted by frogville

If anyone in this thread knows about this subject of pilot age rules in depth, and would like to help me write an article on it, please let me know! Questions I'm trying to answer:
1. Who actually sets the rules for pilot age limits? The country that issues the pilots license? The country where the aircraft is registered? Or whatever the country is that the pilot happens to be flying in?
2. Which countries have not applied the ICAO rules on age limits?
3. These rules are for commercial flights. Does that include charter flights?

I have a few more, but these are the main ones. Thanks!

ICAO's Air Navigation World 2023 event included a panel on "Age Limitations". On the Organisation's website, its ICAOTV provides access to recordings of events; this panel discussion is Episode 19. (There was a similar conference in Singapore - be sure to select the Montreal event.)

The content of this panel was thoughtful and didn't attempt to impose any viewpoints on anyone's thought process (as I experienced the discussion, at least).

From the panel discussion, the logic of the age line is that decline is certain but uncertain as to its onset for any individual or generalized demographic, and although decline does not occur uniformly across any occupational group, the risk factors are well-documented in general terms. The logic, therefore is essentially practical, to minimize the risk of increasing and in some cases accelerating loss of health factors, even at the cost of excluding some whose capacities would not decline for some additional years. In other words, as I recall the panel no one understood the age line as representing a functional equivalent of falling off a cliff. There also was significant recognition that pilots are probably the least likely occupational group to continue working if any question exists in a given individual's mind about his or her capacity. But systemic rules have to generalize - at least under the current overall regulatory and legal scheme worldwide.

One point on the merits, to the extent that over-65 pilots could not operate international flights under existing ICAO rules, and to the further extent that many if not most senior captains by age 65 typically are operating wide-body aircraft on international routes, then for their careers to continue they would need to qualify on types operated domestically. I had understood this to be a big disadvantage to extending the mandatory age limit. Not sure how seniority works in that situation, whether the captain extending a career "bumps" other captains on the roster for those domestic operations.

This all being said, something else I took away from the Age Limitations panel in Montreal last summer was that indeed, other countries have taken the step to extend the mandatory age line. Perhaps the solvency in this problem area is to be found in modifying the ICAO rule (candidly I don't recall if it is set out in a SARP or some other form of Organisation pronouncement). Which is not to say that the controversy and debate at the ICAO level would be less contentious. For every 65-class pilot, isn't there at least one, probably more than one, much younger pilot whose interest is in having the top of the roster open up?

And to clarify an earlier post, I would not vote for the change as it is stated in the pending FAA reauthorization on the basis that FAA states that before the change is made, better research is needed to understand sufficiently how to mitigate risks if and when the change is made. The ICAO Air Navigation World 2023 (Montreal) panel noted in this post pointed out the complexity of this issue and, at least to my non-aviator, non-medical mind, it's an open question.

[RandomPerson8008]

Originally Posted by parabellum;[url=tel:[phone]

11592069[/url]]"Lastly, yes, many pilots already had to sit through 5 years of seniority stagnation 15 years ago when the mandatory retirement age was raised from 60 to 65."
That is a very novel way of putting it, '5 years of seniority stagnation'. For most of my flying career the retirement age in the UK was 65, then quite suddenly, overnight almost, with no discussion with pilots and no lead time before implementation allowed the law was changed, arbitrarily, by the UK minister responsible, to a mandatory retirement age of 60, with no valid reasons given. Personally I lost five years of earnings at a near to top rate for a B747 captain, It may be called 5 years of stagnation for some, but to the industry as a whole it was five years of valuable experience overlooked. whilst for many of the pilots effected it was a torpedo right through the middle of our retirement plans..

ok, I didn’t know that happened in the UK but it sounds stupid. Why do politicians enjoy ******* with our careers so much?

[Meursault]

How about an age limit of 67 for US presidents? Seems the greater risk right now.

[WillowRun 6-3]

14 - 13

Committee vote against raising the mandatory retirement age. Projecting ahead, assuming the House will accept the Senate version (and that the Senate passes the bill reported out by Committee first), the age of mandatory retirement stays as it is.

Which leaves a pretty significant problem. If a principal barrier - according to opponents of raising the age level - is the ICAO rule, how is anyone who supports raising the mandatory retirement age level rationally expecting progress to be made at ICAO while the United States has not had a Permanent Representative at ICAO with rank of Ambassador since Sullenberger resigned, way back in..... oh, never mind.

[kangaroopilot]

Hi,
I’m not that educated in US process as I live in Australia. So the fact that the Senate committee voted 14 to 13 to oppose the bill, what does that actually mean.Does it mean that the bill is dead and buried?
I note in an article in the news, on the subject, it says that the bill will now move to the full senate.So does that mean that the full senate votes on this particular bill?
Thanks in advance.
KP

[Wizofoz]

In Australia we have pilots flying airliners well into their 70s, and it hasn't caused any great saftey concerns.
If an individual is fit, able and willing to fly over 65, why shouldn't he?

[VariablePitchP]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

In Australia we have pilots flying airliners well into their 70s, and it hasn't caused any great saftey concerns.
If an individual is fit, able and willing to fly over 65, why shouldn't he?

Agreed, but the US industry is built on protectionist rules like the 1500 hour rule, there to ensure Ts&Cs protection.

IALPA won’t let it go without a fight, and why shouldn’t they.