Sorry guys, but this is just nonsensical. If the legislated retirement age is 65, then how can it be one rule for flight deck crews and another for the rest of the population?
As far as flying past 60 is concerned, I think it's a great idea. I know many pilots who are over 60 - some
well over 60 - and they are as fit and sharp as some 40 year olds. I also know a number of much younger guys who are seriously unfit and have slow reactions - so age really doesn't enter into the fitness debate. If there's a genuine concern, then make medicals mandatory every 6 months.
On the other hand, I don't think it should be
mandatory to work past 60, either. If you want to, fine. If not, equally fine - you can take your existing pension and fly off into the sunset.
However, I do think it very strange that ALPA (and BALPA, for that matter) support early retirement - surely to the detriment of the very people who have contributed the most, financially, to those organisations? The IPA, on the other hand, supports extended working life - yet another reason to join them when they (finally!) get their act together and become a recognised union!
There's allegedly a serious pilot shortage at the moment. So why are we trying to stop our most experienced pilots from working??
Bl**dy strange to me, mate!
