Pilot unions all over the world are gearing up to fight an international effort to set the airline pilot retirement age at 67. Last week, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents most of the world’s airlines, formally petitioned the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to change its recommended retirement age from 65 to 67 to alleviate a pilot shortage. The ICAO’s General Assembly will consider the issue at its Sept. 23 meeting in Montreal. It argues it would help solve a labor crunch without affecting safety. Each country sets its own age limits and any action by the ICAO would not be binding, but it’s expected many would follow the guidance. The U.S. now uses the ICAO recommendations as the basis for its retirement policies. The U.S.-based Air Line Pilots Association International said ICAO should leave well enough alone.
“The United States is the global leader in aviation safety, and we should resist any attempts to arbitrarily make changes to the regulatory framework that has helped us achieve this record,” ALPA said in a statement. “The US should continue to provide global leadership on this issue and maintain its current position.” The union has been a vocal opponent of raising the retirement age, saying it will do little to increase the pilot supply and the risks are unknown. Other unions are less strident in their views although there is consensus that medical fitness should have more weight than calendar age.
“Medical fitness” cannot be determined with current system.
Does not matter if the pilot is 23 or 73. Reality sucks, but reality is real.
This issue always seems to me to be more one of politics than of scientific credibility. I find it interesting that the pilots’ unions are opposed to the increase in spite of the fact that it would give them another two years of dues from high wage earners. It also appears to be a band aid approach to a long-term problem. While most of my airline pilot friends who “aged out” at 65 were healthy and capable, I can see why the FAA favors an age limit rather than a medical capability standard for pilots. For one thing, it gives them a “date certain” to allow for future planning on pilot population. A medical standard makes it difficult for them, and the airlines, to know what future staffing levels are needed. It also relives them of setting what medical standards are appropriate in all cases – something government does not do well. Not saying I support the age standard, just that I can see why the FAA prefers it.
Ageism makes another appearance. Raising the age limit to 67 makes good sense and a smart step in removing age barriers in this industry.
Bumping it to 67 is just a band-aid. We’ve already said it. The real fix is building the pipeline, not squeezing a couple more years out of folks.
Insurance becomes a challenge at age 70 in GA flying.
At my 121, folks AVERAGE age 63 for retirement, whether loss of medical or by their own choice.
67 will get little from the squeeze. Lifestyle is a balance ocompensation and freedom. It WILL add risk, it is not free. The career, like so many, is far below where we started ours, that is the problem. Supply and demand attacked by politics is not a real fix.
Talking to a sample of ONE 121 pilot friend. Many of the older pilots at his airline don’t want more years – or promotion – or getting to fly new types. They feel safer with types they are established, and well practiced in. Learning a new type or promotion near the end of the career is seen by many as unsafe as they have to adjust their older cognitive and muscle memories (as well as a lot of hard work for very small return). This from an ex Air Force Instructor turned civilian pilot.
I think this post from @mcccanm, an account on X, says it best. Gentlemen is a retired KC10 driver and current 737 captain.
****************************
I thought the debate on moving the mandatory retirement age for pilots to 67 (currently 65) was over.
Apparently not.
I personally think it’s a terrible idea. The unions & airlines are also opposed. Here’s why:
• Something like 30% of pilots over the age of 60 are not available to fly at any given time due to health issues. Many are on Long Term Disability (LTD) after losing their medical & some will never come back.
(Rep Troy Nehls from TX is among the sources pushing this change, as his brother – a Delta pilot – is nearing retirement age, has reportedly been on LTD for years & would like that to continue for another two)
• LTD is a great program (you get a portion of your pay when unable to work due to a medical issue, which suspends your license) but it’s not designed for this…LTD suddenly having to pay an extra two years would put the program in jeopardy & likely raise the cost for the rest of us (how it’s funded varies by airline, but many, if not most of us, pay into it in some form).
• Most countries don’t allow pilots over 65 to fly commercially. Changing it in the US would not change it elsewhere.
• Because most countries don’t allow pilots over 65 to fly, many, if not the majority, of these pilots would have to be removed from the widebody, international jets they currently staff & put onto narrowbody, domestic fleets…a training footprint that would be a nightmare (the airline might honestly find it better to just pay them to stay home for 2 years…a cost passed on to passengers).
• The requirement to involuntarily move pilots from their fleet would require the whole concept of seniority & all pilot contracts to be renegotiated between the unions & airlines, which would be chaotic at best. There is currently no mechanism in the contracts to do any of what I just described.
• The change would also interrupt the expected “normal” pilot career progression, as “movement” would stall…this happened the last time congress changed the retirement age from 60 to 65, contributing to a period pilots now refer to as “the lost decade”.
There are debates on this and many pilots feel differently than I do. I can’t speak for anyone but myself. Nevertheless, this push feels rooted in self interest & greed. These pilots knew what the retirement age was; if they want to keep flying, they can, just not for the airlines.
The effects will be neither as good nor as bad as the supporters or detractors claim, just the new normal. However, age 67 is just as arbitrary as age 65 or age 60, so it’ll be attacked sooner or later as more ageism, which it is. If you can still pass the first class medical and recurrent training, then you can and should be able to work regardless of age. Age 67 is mere incrementalism. Sooner or later someone will have to be bold and seriously propose doing away with any age limit.
Don’t judge all by the infirmities of a given few. Because some want to hang up their hat (or are debilitated) by early 60s doesn’t mean that desire or happenstance is applicable to everyone. Why diss the few to make others feel better?
On the other side of the coin, insurance companies note the proclivities of youth to impetuousness and the “Hold My Beer” Syndrome. Why not also institute a policy of minimum hiring age of say, 33 so that those with pre-adult mindsets be barred from imposing the dangerous actions of youth from harming customers? Tit for Tat.
I’m thinking back to when I was 65, and if I had a pension that paid what the airlines’ programs do, I’d have been gone like a shot. Only reason I’m still working is I couldn’t afford to keep my Tiger if I didn’t.
No, a real solution to the pilot shortage needs to come from making training more pertinent to the job and making each qualifying hour more relevant. That I’ll come from a major increase in the use of simulators in scenarios. Simulator based training might last 2-3 years over hundreds or thousands of training hours. It would be very line oriented with perhaps 50-60 % of sorties having no failures at all, then during a late night fatigue inducing session, a major event can be introduced. This is far superior to simply watching students do touch and goes and an occasional instrument cross country.
Airlines may just prefer to run out the clock with the current crop of pilots before replacing them with much much cheaper drone technology. In that case, it’s a fraud to lure them into a career that promises high pay but only lasts until the drones are certified.