Benefits to the Government?
So changing the 'Age 60' rule will not benefit the Government (footnotes to last post). Who cares? It should benefit me, and anyone else no longer enjoying that first flush of youth!
I was amused to see some sort of safety case raised, by pointing out that there have been no age-related accidents since the 'Age 60' rule was imposed. Gee, were there a whole lot of them before the FAA imposed that rule? I don't think so! I have never seen anything to refute the notion that it was imposed without any particular case being made for it, perhaps even as a big favour to the head of American Airlines by the then-head of the FAA for whatever reason other than safety.
If we want to get all ageist then perhaps we should cut waaay back and start yanking licences at age 50, say. After all, look at all those (relatively) young guys out of work, thanks to 9/11 or perhaps bad management or even a simple over-supply of pilots. Human nature being what it is a 30 year-old would be thrilled to see the over-50s get the chop, for at least 20 years! The logical conclusion to this process would be for anyone a bit younger to have the automatic right to replace anyone a bit older if you accept that age taken by itself is a risk factor. We could end up with a pilot population in its 20s!