Nice to see the overreactions to the post from LHR Rain. Some of what he says is absolutely applicable to the thread. There are two different but related topics here. One is the age to which we should be able to fly aircraft (medically based sounds fine with me), the other topic is the retirement age at the respective airline (company) you work for.
For example, at my airline they have never been in synch (we retire at 56, while the mandatory retirement age is now 65, it used to be 60). Since the change in Europe to 65 most companies are out of synch. In the USA it is only a matter of time before the 60 rule will be changed.
The pilots who want to fly past their company's retirement age want to do so at their "own" company in the position that they hold at that particular time. In all probability heavy command. If they were allowed to do so, this would put a heavy burden on all the guys below them on the seniority list. The junior guys time to command would increase and there would be a delay in hiring the next generation of pilots to replace them. What LHR Rain pointed out is absolutely legitimate, although undiplomatically put. The motives for these people to continue to fly vary greatly, and range from the admirable (in love with their jobs) to total self interest based on financial needs. The people who tend to talk about increasing the length of their career at my airline would mostly be in the latter column. I tend to think this would be the case for most of the people who are so emotively posting in this thread.
I appreciate that life sometimes throws curve balls at people which make their carefully laid out financial planning go south. The asinine retirement schemes in mostly Anglo-Saxon countries plays a large role here as well (United, US Airways, Enron etc, etc). The retirement benefits in the USA don't seem to be worth much more than the paper they are printed on. All legitimate reasons to want to extend ones career to make ends meet. Becoming a door greeter at Wallmart isn't as sweet as it sounds. None of these arguments would change my mind about increasing the retirement age at my company. You knew the age when you signed, it is time to go when that date comes, the generation who was ahead of you did the same thing and survived.
Now the beauty of it is, all you do is retire from the company you have worked for. In Europe at least there is nothing stopping you from flying for another airline (probably low-cost, or charter) until the ultimate age (for the time being) 65 comes up. I know of plenty of examples of people who have done this. And if you have worked for an honorable and good company you get your pension and the wage from your next job. You take with you a wealth of experience, and probably a type-rating. A win-win proposition.
Being a wide-body captain myself I don't talk from the position of a nervous junior pilot who sees his chances of career advancement under threat. I sympathize with the people who are genuine in their wish to fly past a company's retirement age, but most of these people don't belong in that category, these people need to look in the mirror and acknowledge to themselves the true motives behind their wish. Not hide behind high minded principles, it is just self interest. A self interest that has severe implications for the people sitting next to them in the right seat, and the generation coming up.
Lastly if their company's were allowed to increase the retirement age to the legal limit it would have severe repercussions on the cost structure for the company (all in the company's benefit). In the least the retirement benefit costs would be reduced right down. You would now be working five years longer (giving you and the company five extra years to save for your pension), and as an added bonus you would be drawing out of the fund five years less (because you would hopefully still make it up to the right old age you were going to reach, working for five extra years is unlikely to increase your longevity). A simplistic calculation would see a minimum of ten years benefit from the retirement scheme's savings.
So lets realize that in Europe we are already in a position that moots most arguments, and the USA will follow in the next little while. But the argument of having your cake, and wanting someone else as well holds no water with me. Even it the USA ups the 60 rule I would be dead set against the companies being allowed to automatically follow (chapter 11 is doing enough harm to the industry for now). And for some reason the whole exercise becomes a lot less attractive to these people if they need to switch employers and learn a new company's methods.
Greetings O.