This discussion was helpful and civilised until AKADA started his extreme and silly comments. As he has such difficulty with rational thought it would probably be best to ignore him (or her?). However there may be more rational people who share his view that pilots should clear off from the work place when they reach 60, so that others can take their places. My response to this would be "But, why?" We don’t treat anybody else in this way. We don’t say to successful barristers, "You make lots of money so you should be pretty well-off by the time you are 55, so you can retire at that age and let someone else take your place". We don’t say to managing directors, "You can make heaps of money what with your bonuses and special deals and share options, so you can retire at 50, because lots of other people would like to have a go at being MD". Obviously not, and it is just as foolish to use such logic with pilots.
AKADA produced a link to an American site that supported the 60 limit. Following the link I could find no logical arguments, just statements and rhetoric.
If I had, say, a pension available on retirement equal to two thirds of my income then I would be happy to retire, but I don't. I see no obligation to explain my lack of wealth, but it is a fact, and I have a number of family dependent on my income. Another 5 years of working income would be enormously helpful to my family, to me and in a small way to my country. (As a worker paying taxes and spending money I am an asset to my country.)
As there are important safety considerations it seems to me that pilots retirement age should be determined by medical experts and by considerations of competency. Well, it has been. And the decision is 65.
May I invite Americans to try to justify the FAA position? Aren't you supposed to champion people's rights? What about my right to work when I am 60? Expert aviation doctors say I am safe to fly a plane. What right do your officials have to say that I can't?
As for France, someone recently told me that they thought that France classifies pilots similarly to artists, and they get some sort of favourable tax treatment. My informant thought that if they wanted to work until 65 they would lose this advantage. French pilots, could you let us know if this is true? As a founder member of the EU, does France not have a moral duty to comply with a reasonable EU regulation rather than put first the preferences of a particularly well-off group of French workers, or should I say non-workers?
I personally believe the arguments for 65 are clear. However officialdom in France and certain other countries have legislated otherwise. But do we know who made these decisions? If this is democracy shouldn’t it be rather more open?