Wow, this is a tough room! Here goes anyway. Quite an emotional subject for a great many pilots fighting in the war that is a flying career. With such a history of economic turmoil and political maneuvering by the various interest groups involved, it's no suprise to me that the presentation of misinformation and disinformation are used by interest groups as a convenient tactic to support an argument they want to win for their own economic reasons. The history of the age 60 rule in the US is just one such example. No credible scientific body of evidence has ever suggested that arbitrary retirement ages for airline pilots yield any measurable safety benefit to the public. Not in 1959 and not now. If an objective test of cognitive function and piloting skills existed and was used to establish individual qualification for duty, the results would likely create a state of chaos in the industry. (as if that were not allready the case!) Age 65 is just as arbitrary as age 60 or 55. Some pilots want to work longer for their own economic or personal reasons. Industry generally wants these guys out for their own economic and other business reasons. Younger pilots want these guys out of their chairs so they can have a turn. Difficult to imagine which position would most benefit the unions. The starter of this thread recognizes that the members may be able to affect the union position. Good luck. So with these competing interests all having their say, hoping to benefit themselves, who do you believe? Whichever position you feel provides the greatest benefit to yourself, of course! What else? Since I have always been a believer in the merit system, I would favor an objective qualification system and eliminate the age reference entirely. If others view it differently, that's understandable for the aforementioned reasons. The important part of this from a public safety standpoint is "can we feel confident in your ability to do the job?" So public relations will probably have as much or more to do with the outcome of the age 60 rule as scientific or competitive business interests. Who will win the
PR battle?
Best wishes to all,
Westhawk