The International Civil Aviation Organization has reportedly rejected raising the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots to 67 from 65. According to Bloomberg Government, the decision was made on Thursday at the ICAO’s general assembly in Montreal. A formal request was made by the International Air Transport Association to make the change, saying it would ease the pilot shortage. IATA represents 350 airlines flying 80 percent of the world’s routes. It was one of nine requests made by the group.
The U.S. backed the proposal, and the ICAO decision will complicate a bill introduced in the House that would increase the retirement age. As it stands, if that bill passes, pilots could fly domestic routes but not go overseas. Since many pilots that age are long-haul pilots, the impact on any pilot shortages would be muted at best. The bill was only introduced last week and has a long way to go to become law.
Although airlines and some governments support the move, pilot unions are generally opposed. The Air Line Pilots Association has been vocal in its opposition. But some key government representatives want to see the change, including Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz, who has recently suggested that upper limits on airline pilot age be abolished.
At what age does incompetence overcome experience?
It’s fantasy to believe that age, per se, is the most predictive factor.
There is a good reasons to leave the retirement age at 65. It allows younger pilots to move up in a hierarchical organizations. The retiring pilots can go enjoy life elsewhere. I know there is a pilot shortage but when airlines furlough pilots, they have a place to go. I suspect the change for the age is a cost savings for the airlines for retirement funds and training costs.
Oh, you can bet that there’s money involved. ANY age for mandatory retirement is an arbitrary age, just as the minimum age to get a driver’s license is arbitrary and varies by state. But there are plenty of statistics available on the relative safety of both activities correlated for age. The fairest approach would be to require more frequent demonstrations of ability at both extremes of the age spectrum. Obviously, someone driving a big rig (over-road or airborne) needs to be tracked more closely, but the use of an arbitrary age is, by definition, sub-optimal and unfair.
As I’ve mentioned before, no more age increase without an angiogram. Amazing how many of us are wandering about, and flying, with major heart blockage. My opinion. You might even get a PSA blood work done too. Catch it while repairable, both items.
I’ve only known a few airline pilots who did not constantly complain about their company, their schedule and now retirement age.
Tim Kern,, in an effort to answer your question, and I hope I do not misrepresent your comment.
Please review the South Korea crew that shut down the good engine then attempted a go-around instead of landing straight in at 500 feet killing all on board less 2. This was not an experienced crew action or decision.
Shortly there after, the upside down landing in Canada with hard landing that lost the wing. Fortunately, no lives lost.
I trust experienced crews with saving lives and aircraft. Current airline crews seem to have single agendas that are not based solely on safety.
After my safe career in aviation with flights to every corner of the world including a double engine failure during take off on a B737, I don’t worry about the small stuff of retirement age or when a low time SICs will get his upgrade.
At some point in your career, you may realize that we aviators are in the business of providing safety, FIRST and foremost. The other crap of retirement age and how quickly a SIC will upgrade is not critical to a safe operation.
All the best and I hope our industry will consider priority to make safety as number one priority and everything else last place priority.