Interest to have some younger pilots is to maintain some transmission of knowledge. Younger people are there to learn to be able to replace the older one when the latter retire with their experience.
Degradation of formation and of morality is a big issue with youth. We often see 20 years old boys and girls ignoring definition of pressure, or logarithm and having unsafe life claiming they want to get pilots and chosing to buy fake licenses if possible and accepting fraud to get and keep the job. It is not only in India or Vietnam. Older people know it is dangerous, want to stay alive for their family and have a greater sense of responsibility. They know they are not God, and they will still do failures as everybody. Young people think they will never do mistakes and were living less meteorologic extreme conditions.
"And it is better to be an old pilot (who was able to survive) than a good pilot (having overconfidence in himself)"

Desert185,

Correct, if you stayed as an F/E past 60, on the date of the age 65 rule, you could bid back to Captain. How many F/Es were there at the passenger carriers in 2007? Not bloody many, perhaps ZERO. If you turned 60 the day prior to the change, you were retired and not coming back.

As to flyboyike, we just hired a guy into corporates from 121 RJs, no seniority here, he'll probably make captain in two years, regardless. All are guys are captains and when ready fly and are paid as such. So, Ike, put your money where your fingers are.

Jebus - the level of bitterness I'm picking up is not only worrying, but genuinely depressing.

Look - I may not be a pilot, but in my industry I'd be considered in my prime in terms of age and experience. But nevertheless I'd be a complete fool to disregard knowledge and advice whether it comes from those who are more experienced or from those who are relatively new to the game. I'd be very surprised if it worked differently in your area of expertise.

It certainly needed to be said DW :ok:

GF, just because I call a spade a spade doesn't mean I want to get out of the airlines. There's nothing in the world I'd rather be doing, which is why I haven't quit so far, when many people probably would have and did.

Corporate flying is not for me, I'm not that kind of guy. In your particular case, I think you'll agree with me that your operation is far from typical, both with regards to the equipment you operate and the kind of flying you do. Incidentally, one of my airline's divisions does some flying sort of similar to yours with E-190s.

The knowledge and advice are not the issue here, DW, although you'd be surprised how often it is in aviation that age and experience don't bring wisdom, but just show up by their lonesome. I've flown with some very experienced people who were/are consummate aviators, and I've flown with others whom I wouldn't trust with a Yugo, despite their fat logbooks. In fact, I, too, would be very surprised if in YOUR area of expertise there weren't at least some gummers who are about as incompetent as a bag of hammers. That's just life.

I'm a pretty long serving FO now. I, personally, don't want to retire at 65, I would like to keep flying as long as I can pass the medicals, 1) because I enjoy it and 2) because I'll probably need the money.

Therefore yeah, although my own career progression has been affected by this age 55 to 60 to 65 retirement age increase, and yes of course I'd love to get my hands on the LHS right the hell now, it would be hypocritical of me in the extreme to slag off at the captains who have been given the chance to occupy it for another few years. Because realistically, if I was in their shoes, of course I'd do exactly the bloody same, and tell any FO's who whinged about it to cry me a river.

Lucky break for you guys, well done, enjoy the extra years.

Couple of points - yes, I've encountered experienced folks who can be a liability - not to mention relative newbies who could run rings around me! But I hope I retain enough humility to know that generalising on that basis alone would be wrong-headed prejudice born of arrogance on my part. The smart approach is to treat every colleague on an individual basis and not make assumptions.

Secondly, you seem like an intelligent guy. Surely you can see that the bitter and dismissive attitude you're displaying here smacks of all the characteristics you find so abhorrent in those you're criticising!

I certainly can see it. You told me yourself that "I'd be a fool not to take the advice etc...of the elder sages...", so I'm taking it by the bucketful, the good and the bad, like the good little whippersnapper I am.

It's really a question of budgeting, isn't it? My personal rule is that if I can't afford it on first- or at best second-year F/O salary, I don't do it. I figure I'll be on first and second-year pay a few times yet, so I don't want to dig myself a hole I will need to age 65 and beyond to dig myself out of. Then again, I came out of the Soviet system, so I don't need that much. One house, one car (although presently I fully disclose that I own three), food, uniforms and some casual clothes, and I'm good to go.

I fully realize some people have more expensive tastes/habits, I know quite a few.

One ex-wife is a mistake. Two or more are an expensive habit. ;)

Tell you what, FBM, why not set an example and volunteer to retire at 60?

I would love to retire at 60 if I could b. well afford to live on what I would then be obliged to do.

Unfortunately, I've watched my supposedly "low risk" pension funds going well down the tubes over the years, and also my 25 year mortgage payments fail to pay off the house, too (let alone provide a useful lump sum in addition). Even so, tbh I'm probably better placed than some, being still with the original wife after over thirty five years.

Many of us would have been better off stashing loose change in the mattress. I've recently been informed that I now can't get my state pension till the age of 66. The government are possibly hoping a few will pop their clogs by the end of the extra year, reducing the load on the younger generation.

So I'm going to have to carry on trucking for as long as my health allows me to, and I will. But don't worry, in my branch of aviation the captain sits in the right hand seat, so it won't affect you one bit.

I worked in ops at an small airline for a while and we had a few Capts at or over 60. I know this isn't always the case but I don't think any of them needed the job. They all seemed to own multiple properties and some even had second sources of income (small business).

Where I come from if you have even moderate assets you don't qualify for the state pension. Saying they have to stay until pension age won't work here.

On another thread someone wrote, "Capt John Smith of BA" won't retire because then he will just be "John Smith".

Worst thing that happened to me is the compulsory retirement age going from 60 to 65.
Her in doors says why give up the money!
B**er:(

Whether they need the job or not is irrelevant to EVERYONE except the "worker".

Works for me. Clears the line at the Aldi when I announce "I'm Captain Bloggs!". They even get out of the way when I'm not in uniform. Dunno how I'll go when I retire...maybe I'll just tell a fib and still call myself Captain...

You greedy old bugger, Claret! :E

Here's the takeaway: It's all whose ox is being gored….

I'll be gone long before that, especially if this next decade is anything like the last. Scraping the bottom may be fun now, but I highly doubt I have the intestinal fortitude for 27 more years of it (or even 23). In fact, once my house is paid off (should be by the time I'm 50), I may give up on the idea of full-time employment in general.

WTF
 

When this thread was started I thought that the pilot community might actually debate the scientific merits of the restrictions rather than the selfishness accusations of both old and young alike.

Young pilots accuse older pilots of losing their skills and abilities while older pilots suggest the young need to gain experience. Both could be right. Personally I have witnessed both young and old pilots who should not be in the game any longer.

If this change is not to be discrimination in disguise then the questions we should be examining are

(1) Is there sufficient evidence that 65 is the age that ability reduction and health risk in pilots changes to an unacceptable level?
(2) Did the decision makers base their decision on sound scientific research?
(3) If the age at which ability reduction and health risk varies among individuals is there a way to manage variable retirement ages to ensure discrimination is avoided.

Safety should be the only prerogative for the ICAO decision makers.

Financial and welfare factors of individuals may be a consideration for those approaching early retirement but not for imposing limits. Promotion opportunities for younger pilots should also not be a consideration

Yes, well good luck. i once said, in the naivety of youth, that I'd do the same. The realities of life got in the way of that cunning plan.