How about the US govt entity, which theoretically can back up pensions (you might bring in only US $30,000/ year under their rules, even as a career airline pilot).
The PBGC admitted on Yahoo Airline News, today, that their rules are based on people working until they are 65.
Therefore, the age 60 retirement rule is another contradiction, within the same federal government.
As little as a career pilot flying 737, 757, then 744-400 might get from the PBGC, if an airline pension plan totally disappeared, the PBGC would even reduce their own modest pay, and leave you not too far above the povery line, because it would have been based upon retirement at 65, not the FAA's age 60 rule.
The FAA uses age discrimination, even in the face of this. They could have required AMEs (approved doctors) decades ago, to give a more thorough exam. Read on Pprune about what is required in Japan and Europe/Britain etc. Who has always designated the US requirements? The FAA. Who else can they blame, if they feel that ( their) very basic medical examinations, which are the same whether you are 25 or 59 (except for an EKG each 12 months or so...), prevented AMEs from properly evaluating a specific pilot's ability to fly until age 62 or 63 etc?
Don't get me wrong. I'm for whatever can bring back pilots who are laid-off, or about to get laid-off a second time after one year or less back on the job.
But this is a separate topic from an academic debate over medical qualifications. With several large US airlines in Chapter 11 and maybe one more to follow, plus the fact that US airline pensions were never fully funded, pilots in other countries would understand the situation better if their laws tolerated severe under-funding of pensions. What if Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavian lands etc tolerated this? How would you guys/gals then feel?