Senator Ted Cruz, chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee, has formally asked President Donald Trump to potentially abolish mandatory retirement age requirements as U.S. policy at the General Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal this week. Cruz, who also sits on the aviation panel of the committee, said in a letter to Trump that the current retirement age of 65 needlessly forces “early retirement” of thousands of highly experienced and qualified pilots every year. “America should lead on the international stage in support of raising, or even abolishing, the pilot retirement age,” Reuters quoted the letter as saying.
The International Air Transport Association, which represents almost all airlines, will formally request ICAO raise the mandatory retirement age for pilots flying internationally from 65 to 67. The rule applies to all pilots flying international routes but does not cover domestic flights although most countries, including the U.S., apply the same standards to domestic aviation. So far major aviation nations including Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan, New Zealand and the U.K. have backed the IATA proposal, but the U.S. has not announced a position. Trump won’t be at the meeting but both Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford will be, and whatever position they take will likely carry a lot of weight. Just last year Congress rejected a proposal to raise the age after the FAA said it needed more time to study the potential impact.
The Air Line Pilots Association is stridently opposed to the proposal, citing potential safety concerns. “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 told Reuters. “That’s why Congress rejected making a change to the pilot retirement age just last year.”
Other countries can set their retirement rules as they see fit, but our situation is different. In the U.S., raising or abolishing the age limit won’t fix the shortage. It only slows the line, senior captains stay longer, first officers wait longer, upgrades stall. The real shortage begins much earlier. About 85,000 students are in training, yet only 26,000 finish each year. If half made it through by lowering costs, adding examiners, and expanding training slots, more than 42,000 would move into the system. If the age extension happens, treat it as a short-term patch. The real solution is fixing the pipeline.
Senator Cruz may be right. If not, then go back to a fixed retirement age.
Cruz sugests getting rid of the retirement age, but ICAO rules still cap international pilots at 65. That means he either missed that detail or thinks ICAO will cave to U.S. pressure. Neither is likely. Even if the age goes up, it only kicks the burden down the road. The extension may buy time, but it does not fix the real problem. Regionals need steady upgrades to keep flying, and when that flow stalls the whole system feels it. We have already seen this. In 2022 and 2023, American’s regionals Envoy, PSA, and Piedmont had about 150 aircraft sitting idle. PSA alone parked 15. SkyWest, Mesa, and others also had jets grounded, and by early 2023 nearly 500 regional aircraft across 11 carriers were out of service. Pilot shortages, especially a lack of captains ready to upgrade, were a major factor, though in some cases economics and other issues played a role.
Rules:
1. Senator Ted Cruz knows best and is never wrong!
2. Should this not be the case, refer to 1.
At some point in the aging process, a one time angiogram should be required. I discovered at age 72, with practically no symptoms I felt, I was 90% blocked. My hanger neighbor, a retired FedEx Capt to whom I had given a flight review recently, fell over dead while waiting to get the oil changed at the local Ford dealership. (Maybe they showed him the bill). But in any case, he had been flying for a long time with major blockage. Many of us have that unknown blockage waiting to kill us. If you’re going to fly part 121 older and older, then a test to that level is necessary. My opinion.
Either or…either medicals are valid and there’s no need for mandatory retirement age, or medicals are window dressing which should be abolished.
My vote is to rely on pilot self-assessment backed up by valid med screening, sim/check performance and 360 degree crew assessment.
Let’s leave the pilot supply out of the medical competence question.
Until last year, I flew with an 84 year old pilot in our private BBJ. I attended training with him, and flew next to him for hundreds of hours, worldwide. I never had any issue with his age. He was as good (or even better) than I.
It seems to me that many more accidents happen with younger Captains than older Captains. The crash in South Korea was not an old Captain when the good engine was shut down and they tried to make a go-around. They were set up for a straight in landing when one engine failed. I bet my bucks on an older Captain landing straight ahead since they were all set.
If an older Captain passes his physicals and passes his check rides and the other pilot is under 65, I don’t see any issues. However, two young pilots with minimum experience should be reason for concern.
I have flown with young pilots who are brilliant and others who should not be in the flight deck.
Three questions comes to mind:
1. How many other public-safety-critical professions have upper bounds on the age of their practitioners, and is there any data to support their validity?
2. What is the mandatory retirement age of members of Congress? (OK, that’s rhetorical.)
3. Should there be?
Why doesn’t this retirement age thing come up in discussions about ATC?
There are really two issues here: raising the age from 65 to 67, which has support and might pass, and abolishing the age limit, which is unlikely. The headline focuses on abolishing, but the real debate is only about 65 vs. 67.
Let’s say there are about 7,000 pilots between 65 and 67. Take out the ones already retired, or thoe with wallet candy certificates, not current, or not healthy, and you’re left with maybe 2,000–3,000 who could still fly. And that number drops even more with the six-month medicals knocking some out every check. That only buys the airlines a few weeks when they need 12–14,000 new pilots a year.
The real shortage starts in ab-initio training and continues through upgrades. Too many drop out, too few finish, and when upgrades stall the whole system backs up. Keeping a few older pilots flying doesn’t fix that. The ‘abolishing’ talk is just political noise, the real issue is only 65 vs. 67.