It surely also begs the real question about why exactly - when we as a society are far more aware of what can be done against deliberate unlawful discrimination - that the current young ones aren't arguing to uphold the law, or to support the old one in upholding it.
A point of information if I may?
Specifying a retirement age for pilots, of 65 years. Is of course “discrimination”, and unarguably “deliberate”. However what it most definitely (currently) is
NOT, is “unlawful”!
Indeed, quite the opposite is true. There are various protected characteristics. Only one of which is age. However, unlike all other protected characteristics, discrimination on the basis of age, most definitely
CAN be legal. This is because certain Objective Justifications can be used to back up such things as compulsory retirement ages for certain professions. By all means research this if you are interested.
However, back to the above quote. It is actually the “current young ones” who
ARE arguing to uphold the law. It is actually “the old one” seeking to
change it. Having of course benefitted from the previous compulsory retirement of all his/her elders!
Which makes this quote rather interesting?
Maybe you know better than both the elders and the lawmakers. You shouldn't be afraid of questioning the judgement of the former sat in a LHS, but the latter? That's not something I would think would normally be seen as a good quality in a professional pilot at any rate!
I couldn’t agree more!