Perhaps I should elaborate a little. My original argument still stands but I do have empathy for those pilots whose careers have been interupted by bankruptcy and liquidation. I flew with a guy that was with Eastern for twenty years before he went out on strike. He started over at my airline and was a captain for only a few years before having to retire. He had to continue working as a sim pilot to keep his kids in college. Had I been in his shoes I would have had the same attitude. A large majority, however, of the pilots pushing for new legislation are pilots that have had solid and financially stable careers. They want to keep flying because they don't have anything better to do. It seams very selfish to want a change a rule that has been to your benefit right up till the end.
I don't think there are any professional pilots, at least in the States, that started their careers before the mandatory age 60 rule. I think that changed in 1958 or 59.
As for my age determining my attitude. Trust me, If I could I would go right now. September 11 changed this industry for ever.

A ton of pilots were employed by the so-called "commuter" airlines when they were operated under Part 135. Part 135 has no age limit for pilots. But, after the Roselawn Illinois crash of an ATR-42, virtually all scheduled Part 135 operations were forced to comply with Part 121, including the age 60 rule. Many pilots were forced to retire because of age. I remember a press conference wherein the DOT secretary stood in front of the wreckage and declared that he was going to require a higher level of safety by making all commuter aircraft operate under the "big airline" rules. The strange part is that the ATR-42 that crashed was being operated under Part 121 at the time of the crash. Ain't politics wonderful?

All I can say ladies and gentlemen is to fight your case in the European Court as it will be keeping future lawyers such as me with lots of flying money.

In the USA one cannot begin to collect Social Security (Government Pension) benefits until age 62, so it would be reasonable to extend any mandatory retirement age in any industry to that.

We can talk ad infinitum about the ethical case for changing retirement age. The reality is that happens will be a result of the interaction of government legislation with what is economically convenient for the airlines. In the case of BA, I have had it from the horse's (kangaroo's?) mouth that, although the status quo will not change until the law does (to avoid employees suing the airline), they will not put up a fight when told to change the 55 limit. What this will then move to is another matter, but my guess is that whatever the answer is, it is likely to be the same for all UK airlines. BA have a huge pension problem and anything which defers liability is bound to be welcomed.

I hope eventually some sense will prevail.................. such a dreamer..........I am wondering where the reference for the company who has the French restriction raised comes from...My current employer would be very interested in exploring that avenue..........Any one who has information on this please post SOON...........

if you're still alive,breathing and competent,you should be allowed to fly.Its just like any other job really,i mean you could just as well make doctors retire at 55 or whatever on the same grounds that those who want pilots to retire use to justify it. after all,if you are for example a doctor, you are required to execise the same standard of care and you need your physical faculties,yet the age limits for them are apparently migh higher.so there should be no set age limit.

As this age 60 rule only applies for the heavy iron on commercial one should remember that there is lot of life left on private sector for the pilot who wish to keep flying. If he wish only to hang on his well paid seat in majors then tough s:mad: t. Let others have a change as well!
At least I dont see myself getting any better with age....
Blues:E