The aviation industry has been grappling with a perceived pilot shortage for years, driven by
factors such as increasing global demand for air travel, retirements, and the high cost of pilot
training. In response, some stakeholders, including senators and representatives, have recently
proposed raising the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots in the United States,
which is currently set at 65 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Proponents argue that
allowing pilots to fly longer could help retain experienced aviators and alleviate staffing
pressures. However, this approach is one that doesn’t fully meet the needs for longer-term pilot
staffing and, in some ways, actually creates other consequences.
The pilot shortage is a complex issue with multiple contributing factors. The global demand for
air travel has surged, with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) projecting a need
for 34,000 new pilots annually through 2030 to meet growth and replace retiring pilots. In the
U.S., the situation is affected by expected retirements, as many pilots hired during the 1980s
are reaching the FAA’s mandatory retirement age of 65. Raising the retirement age is often touted as a quick solution to keep experienced pilots in the cockpit. However, this overlooks critical operational, regulatory, and economic realities that limit its effectiveness.
One of the primary reasons raising the retirement age will not significantly alleviate the pilot
shortage lies in the scheduling practices of senior pilots. In the airline industry, scheduling is
governed by seniority-based bidding systems, where pilots with more years of service have
greater control over their routes, aircraft types and work hours. Senior pilots, typically those
nearing retirement, often leverage their seniority to bid for less demanding schedules, such as
longer flights that make them fly fewer trips per month, domestic flights that are between better
city pairs and have fewer stops in a day, daytime routes, or trips with better layovers.
These schedules reduce fatigue and allow for a better work-life balance, which is particularly appealing pilots in their 60s. For example, a senior captain at a major U.S. airline might choose to fly only a few trips per month, prioritizing routes like New York to Los Angeles or Miami to Seattle, which are less taxing. Some captains might choose longer international routes, say, Detroit to Shanghai or Chicago to Barcelona. This gives them longer flight legs in each trip and makes them have to fly fewer trips to hit their desired hours of work each month (or year). Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that pilots over 60 often work reduced hours—sometimes as few as 50–60 hours per month—compared to the industry average of 75–80 hours. This trend is driven by both personal preference and the physical realities of aging, and the fact that many are less concerned with work hours to earn wages as their pay rates increase with experience. They prioritize quality of life in their schedule in ways that younger pilots who are working at lower pay scales may not do earlier in their careers.
If the retirement age is raised to, say, 67 or 70, these senior pilots are unlikely to increase their
flying hours significantly. They would continue to bid for lighter schedules, contributing only
marginally to the airline’s overall capacity. This behavior undermines the argument that retaining
senior pilots would substantially boost the available pilot workforce. Instead, it perpetuates a
system where highly experienced pilots occupy coveted slots without addressing the broader
shortage of pilots willing to fly more demanding schedules.
Another critical limitation of raising the retirement age is the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) regulations, which govern international flights. ICAO standards prohibit
pilots over 65 from operating as pilot in command or copilot on international commercial flights,
except in specific multi-crew operations where at least one pilot is under 60. While some
countries have adopted more flexible rules, many adhere strictly to this limit, meaning U.S. pilots
over 65 would likely be restricted to domestic routes.
International flights, particularly long-haul routes such as transatlantic or transpacific flights,
require significant staffing to maintain schedules, especially for major carriers like Delta, United,
or American Airlines, which operate extensive global networks. If senior pilots over 65 are
barred from these routes due to ICAO restrictions, their contribution to addressing the pilot
shortage is further diminished. Instead of filling critical gaps in international operations, they
would be limited to domestic flights, where their reduced schedules (as discussed above) would
have minimal impact on overall capacity. They might even displace younger pilots from some of
these routes.
Moreover, the inability of older pilots to fly international routes could create logistical challenges
for airlines. Scheduling systems would need to account for age-based restrictions, potentially
complicating crew assignments and increasing operational costs. This fragmentation of the pilot
workforce—where older pilots are confined to domestic routes—reduces the flexibility airlines
need to manage their schedules efficiently, further undermining the case for raising the
retirement age.
Raising the retirement age may have unintended consequences for junior pilots. The seniority-
based system means that junior pilots might be assigned less desirable schedules, such as
overnight flights, regional routes, or reserve duty. It might also force junior pilots to be
responsible for flying the international routes.
If senior pilots remain in the workforce longer, they will continue to occupy prime domestic
routes, effectively “bumping” junior pilots from these opportunities. For example, a senior
captain who stays past 65 might hold onto a desirable narrow-body aircraft assignment (e.g.,
Boeing 737 or Airbus A320) on a high-frequency domestic route. This delays the progression of
first officers and junior captains, who would otherwise move into those roles. The ripple effect
could extend to regional airlines, where pilots hoping to transition to major carriers face longer
waits due to reduced turnover.
This displacement has significant implications for morale and retention. Junior pilots, already
facing lower pay and grueling schedules, may become disillusioned if career progression stalls.
The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) has noted that prolonged time in regional airlines has
historically contributed to pilot attrition, as some leave for better opportunities outside aviation.
While raising the retirement age offers limited operational benefits, it provides a significant
financial windfall for airline pilot unions. Unions like ALPA, the Teamsters Airline Division, and
the Allied Pilots Association rely on dues, which are typically calculated as a percentage of a
pilot’s salary, often 1.5% to 2%. Senior pilots, who command salaries upward of
$200,000–$300,000 annually for captains at major airlines, contribute substantially more in dues
than their junior counterparts, who may earn $60,000–$100,000.
For example, a captain earning $250,000 per year might contribute $3,750–$5,000 annually in
dues, compared to $900–$1,500 for a first officer earning $60,000. If hundreds, or even
thousands, of senior pilots remain in the workforce for an additional two to five years, the
cumulative financial impact for unions is significant. For a union with 10,000 members, retaining
just 500 senior pilots for an extra two years at an average dues contribution of $4,000 could
generate an additional $4 million in revenue. This financial incentive is of obvious interest for unions, which may advocate for raising the retirement age under the guise of addressing the pilot shortage, while the primary benefit is increased revenue.
Beyond the issues outlined above, raising the retirement age fails to address the structural
causes of the pilot shortage. The high cost of training, limited access to flight schools, and
unattractive working conditions at regional airlines are far more significant barriers to building a sustainable pilot workforce. Increasing the retirement age is a short-term patch that delays
retirements without increasing the supply of new pilots or improving retention.
Raising the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots is an appealing but flawed
solution to the pilot shortage. Senior pilots’ preference for less demanding schedules, combined
with ICAO restrictions on international flights, limits their contribution to addressing staffing
needs. Meanwhile, retaining these pilots risks displacing junior aviators, stalling career
progression, and potentially worsening retention issues. The primary beneficiaries of this policy
would be pilot unions, which stand to gain significant revenue from high-earning senior
members.
Rather than relying on a temporary fix, the aviation industry should focus on long-
term strategies—such as subsidized training, better pay, and improved working conditions—to
build a robust and sustainable pilot workforce. Only by addressing the root causes of the
shortage can airlines ensure a stable future for air travel.
I am in no way saying we shouldn’t increase the mandatory retirement age for airline service as
a pilot in the United States. Medical standards continue to improve, and pilots of good health
should not be barred from flying longer if they are healthy, sharp, and want to keep working in
their career.
But we also shouldn’t be misled into thinking the only reason for raising the pilot retirement age
is to solve a perceived pilot shortage or that it is a complete solution to any such challenges.
There will be other effects if we raise the retirement age, both positive and negative, to the
shortages of pilot availability or senior pilot mentorship in our industry. There is a lot more to the
matrix of having enough qualified, experienced, and well-trained pilots for our commercial
aviation transportation system needs.
Retirement age is about medical suitability.
How about this, reexamine the entire policy of mandatory retirement age; if medicals and performance monitoring aren’t trusted to weed out the no longer qualified perhaps the monitoring system itself needs to be addressed.
Each airline/contract agreement can deal with logistics of crew make up for routes and retention management as much or as little as they want, some new policies may address what it takes to stay on the books. Like every other industry, increased compensation is the labor demand signal. In times of surplus, military pilot and CFI retention issues will be alleviated.
RichR, I’m with you. Author Blair demonstrates a good command of the subject with his cogent arguments, but either the shortage is real or it isn’t. If we need more pilots, we should save the ones who demonstrate fitness every six months instead of arbitrarily tossing them into forced retirement. Why have an arbitrary age at all? Why not let each individual pilot, in concert with his/her AME, make the decision?
Holy smoke! 34K new pilots a year for the next five years! And it seems like age seven oh is about the time we start to find arterial blockages more frequently. An angiogram, easy now and through the wrist, should become a part of a physical once. You’d be surprised what can be found. I was 90% blocked, runner, with practically no symptoms at all. Ready to drop dead any minute. My hanger neighbor did just that, retired FedEx Capt. I personally think 65 is about as far as we should go.
Your article, while thoughtfully written, focuses on the pilot shortage. Doing so does a disservice to your readers and omits one important perspective.
Why advocate for a forced retirement simply because a pilot reaches an arbitrary age limit?
Would you agree that neurosurgeons should be also forced to retire at that age? Air Show pilots? Bus drivers? Steel workers? All of these jobs have safety implications–perhaps to a larger degree than the airline example due to the immediate availability of a fellow pilot to assist. Yet they are not forced out at a given age, a decision not based on evidence but a capricious variation of the original age 60 rule.
As one who was forced to retire at the age of 65, I know the arguments. Quite frankly they are all self-serving in one way or another–junior pilots wish to advance, senior pilots wish to leverage their seniority and enjoy a profession for which they trained.
When it comes down to it, we force one segment of the pilot population to stop doing what they love simply because of the number of circles they’ve done around the Sun. It has nothing to do with ability. It’s just another calendar landmark.
Would the pilot shortage be fixed by allowing pilots to fly past their 65th birthday? No. But it would help bridge the gap. And it would be a far more fair proposition for people who desire to practice their hard-earned profession.
I’m with Jason on this. Along with his well-articulated arguments against raising the retirement age, I would suggest that those advocating for it will not suffer from it.
Over a hundred years ago, H.L. Mencken said, “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”
This one qualifies.
No, I think we should expend more effort on improving airline pilot specific training with far far more time devoted to LOFT scenario training, perhaps on the order of several hundred hours and less time using older pilots to kick the solution can down the road. If we are trying to buy time for autonomous drone operations of airliners, then it’s a disservice to entice young people into the profession only to see it pulled out from under them.
Older pilots can get the job done for the most part, but any honest pilot will tell you it’s a young man’s (or woman’s) game.
If you’re fit, go fly. End of story.
The fix isn’t raising the age, it’s the pipeline. More students finishing, lower costs, more DPEs, more scholarships. Build that up and we’ll have plenty of pilots without arguing about birthdays.
“such as subsidized training, better pay, and improved working conditions—to build a robust and sustainable pilot workforce. ”
Added this quote to note my agreement with your thought. Pilot shortage may be connected to pilot retirement in a way that would say, more pilots are leaving the industry then are coming in…why? One very basic reason is cost. When I started my PPL in the mid 90’s the cost of training, total, was $55 wet hour. I was a middle class Programmer making decent money so I was able to pay my own way and I did this, not as a reason to be a commercial pilot, but because I just loved to fly (I dis have thoughts of going further, but cost/life stopped me).
Now, here I am, 30 years later thinking I’d like to reclaim my PPL and go have fun flying around so I looked up costs and the minimum was $170 wet hour (not even sure it was training costs included). I did the math and thing was, if you factored inflation, that price was about right over the course of time, but what did not rise was my income adjusted for inflation.
Many young people may have a passion or love for flying, but they cannot afford even the basic fee to enter the game. We older folk talk about how we could hang out at the airport hoping to “help out” for a ride, or save enough for a lesson whereas today, chain links surround most airports and GA is getting older and smaller (as well as planes getting older and more expensive). How do you pull young people in with those challenges.
I read more about flight schools promoting programs from Discovery to Commercial, but then shutting down taking students’ monies with them. Young people can look at colleges, but when done may have $100K in debt and a strong uncertainty about constant employment, and while some airlines may offer programs for new pilots (I watched a BBC show on one), pilots are locked into one company and praying it also does not go under.
Increasing retirement won’t help in dealing with airlines increasing flights because of demand; what will is figuring how you attract young people who did not grow up in the young days of aviation ( or even early middle like me) and have a very different view of what it means to be a pilot and how they approach life. Crazy notion, how about asking those young people what they need…they answer won’t surprise you.
Justin, you nailed it. Costs are eating paychecks and shutting the door for a lot of young people. Fix the entry, not the birthdays, and the pilots will come. Keep flying.
65 ers entered the profession set at age 60. You set us back and forced us to go 5 extra. Shifted the goal posts for all and pulled up the ladder on some
At some point, it isn’t about the individual. No supply problem if the pay and QoL strike a price. Pilot shortage bandaids or tech shifts in the cockpit are not the solution.
That said- age discrimination has been a defining part of the profession. So is medical. Changing both at once is a risk.
Half the pilots can still work at 65. Some we must take the keys from prior. It is a sharo brain job, not hard labor work. Others leave on their own terms prior or lose medical. Over 65 you are at best 3/5s a normal pilot, with seniority and vacation maxed out, if lucky. I would not want you around if I was mgmt or insurer. As your cohort, I hope to see you retire healthy, prepared and on your own timing. 65 is right for the majority I see instructing. The real threat, mask it per your chosen bias, is no one likes to take your keys and we like less having them taken.
In Europe/UK its the same, I left the airlines at 55.. hated all the nights and the airline looked in danger of going bust ( it did ) and went back to the corporate world, much better for my health! The pay system here is different to the USA ( with a few exception) you get a salary and some expences to cover meals and thats it. I wasnt ready to stop at 55 but was at 65, some will be happy to continue past 65 ut I’m definitly not as sharp now as I was in my 40’s or 50’s.
I stopped at 65 and now do a bit of instructing and display flying as well as owning an RV8 but I can see that coming to an end, which brings the next discussion of when is it ime to stop flying!
I agree with you Bob, I was blessed to have a great career that lasted 39 years with the airlines. I made the cut to fly until 65 and was happy I did. It was more the financial loss many of us experienced after the 9-11 years that made the 5 extra years appealing, than the love of flying that I still have. We took losses in pay and pensions to hold the airlines together during a time when many went bankrupt. About the time we reached 60 things started upward and there was the concern of filling positions. So age 65 was passed. Ironically those of us who made those huge sacrifices in salary and pension didn’t reap the benefits of the massive increases in salaries of the Covid subsidies. Another story.
My AME would tell me often during physicals that international flying was taking time off my life and to retire as soon as I could. Sobering, but I found out after retirement he was more right than I realized. A regular schedule does wonders for one’s health.
Eleven years later I still fly regularly in my own RV-8 and keep my CFI current so I can occasionally give FR and mentor free as a means to give back to an industry that gave me so much.
My suggestion would to be to work on affordable entry. Do we really need to start prospective pilots out in $500k 172’s. Do they need to spend $175 an hour to do touch and goes. Get back to basics and build from there. There are a lot of really good pilots out there that just can’t afford to get a foot in the door. Aviation over the years has been catering to those with above average means. It has become increasingly a rich man’s sport leaving many behind. Make it more affordable to get into the industry and in my opinion you will solve at least some of the problem. Maybe the airlines should start looking at providing scholarships to potential employees. Or flight training from ground up. If the military can take a kid from zero to Mach one or higher and landing on a carrier, I’m sure the airlines could do the same, with flying passenger jets. Tom S
Ask any of the thousands of 1500hr+ guys who are at ATP minimums if there is a pilot shortage. The hiring boom of a few years ago is long gone at this point. Right now there is a massive surplus. Its so bad that some flight schools are firing CFIs once they get to 1500hrs so the can make good on the promises made to new students who are just getting their CFI tickets and need to build time.