Bealzebub,
No we didn’t “all sign up to retire at 65” many of us will have expected to retire at 55 or later 60 when we “signed up.” Even then, with the option to retire anything up to 5 years earlier on reduced pensions.
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that's the case. I'm guessing you’re talking about people employed by a certain airline that mandated they retire, from them, at the age of 55 on a very generous pension. They were still able to go on and fly elsewhere until the age of 65 which is the point at which they could no longer hold a medical for commercial ops, hence they signed up to fly until 65 should they wish. Many people did and did very well out of it indeed. All that change achieved was to bring it into line with other airlines.
What we're talking about here is completely different. I'm a long way past my early 20s sadly, and I expect to retire at or before I turn 65. It is unacceptable that a potential change to the medical requirements (allowing people to work past 65) would leave many of us no choice but to do the same, against our wishes. If legal action starts for the former, then I expect BALPA to represent the very large number of its members who would be seriously detrimentally affected by any change. Preventing the career progression of younger pilots, i.e. those not retiring imminently, is also age discrimination, however you look at it. It works both ways.
I would suggest the reason that you don't get many under 40's clamouring to work beyond 65 is that we are pretty much the first generation(s) of pilots who have consistently flown close to 900hrs a year. Many of those approaching 65 haven't, certainly not on shorthaul. No one knows what state we'll all be in when we get to 65, indeed most guys & girls I know that are at or around my age are either talking about going part-time, or have already done so.
Trossie, then they just become FOs. It's quite simple.