History
Lots of comment about past history on this issue; much of it appears uninformed.
At one time, Canada had a limit of 45 on flying "for hire and reward" (and no women permitted)
Pilots retiring from Air Canada in the early 70's told me they had been hired under that age 45 limit; but they flew on when the rules changed, and no-one expected them to go at the age in force when they joined.
Pilots hired when no-one could fly with various medical conditions such as monocular vision, diabetes, heart problems etc, did not leave when they got those conditions, despite the rules in place when they were hired.
There was no mention of 60 in the Contract at AC till the mid eighties; the union of the day opposed fixed retirement. 60 was slipped into the contract in response to Ross Stephenson fighting 60. 60 was not "negotiated", nothing was gained for it, and those hired prior to its appearance in the contract cannot be said to "have agreed to it when they were hired".
Various pilots did speak out about mandatory retirement prior to approaching 60. They (myself included) were discounted as "not understanding" the system. Same results as when they questioned other things like no women. Some have been consistent in questioning this issue throughout their careers. Ross Stephenson had supporters; some of whom now deny that support.
As one of the posters above points out; there are many who have supported this change, but they are shouted down if they speak out, and ACPA has lost an opportunity to manage the change to the benefit of its members.
One benefit advocated was to use pension savings from those working past 60 to allow others to go early with less or no penalty. ACPA's own committees reported to the MEC that an age change from 60 was "neutral to positive", but the MEC decided to fight rather than manage the change; further, ACPA did not educate the members before calling a vote on the issue.
ICAO looked at the numbers before changing its age recommendations. Older pilots are safer, and less likely to have a disabling medical event. Medical events causing incapacitation typically occur earlier than 60 or much later than 65; peak period for males is in the forties. ICAO recommended the change to 65, because they looked up to that age. 65 is not cast in stone, nor is the "over/under" rule. Canada has no age limit on pilots; the "over/under" rule does not apply in Canada or the U.S. Other Canadian carriers do not have Age 60 retirement; nor do they have any problem with the "over/under" rule.
Another misconception is that persons retiring early live longer. Large studies show otherwise. There is bogus information on the net about Boeing employees; that fabrication showed persons working to 65 dying at 65.2 years! Boeing itself countered with the actual numbers about its retirees. Those retiring at 55 die earlier than those who retire at 60 or 65. There is no significant difference in death rate for retirees or those who work beyond60. Shell published a similar study with similar findings.
The Tribunal and the courts will decide this issue; the decisions may not be popular with some, but the results will be real. It is generally better to manage change than to fight it; that opportunity appears to have been lost here.