Changing the age to 65 makes it much more likely that you will have to work until age 65 to build a suitable retirement fund. The reason for this is the delayed upgrade to captain that will be incurred for those of us who are FO's combined with the effect of the time value of money on the resulting loss of income.

For example, let's say you would have upgraded to captain at age 40. Now, age 65 passes and your upgrade goes to age 43 instead. Let's assume that the difference between captain pay and FO pay at your airline is $50,000 per year. Well, that means you are losing out on earning approximately 20 years of interest on that additional captain's income you would have earned for those three years. That loss of interest can be substantial and increases the chances that you will not be financially able to retire at age 60 if you want to.

On the face of it, the age 60 rule is unfair. The age limit should be raised. I do agree that it is an arbitrary limit. However, age 65 is no less arbitrary. In my view, what is patently hypocritical is the enthusiasm with which the current generation of older pilots argue for eliminating age 60. Where were their voices 15, 20, and 25 years ago? What is most unfair is that the older pilots who benefited from age 60 when they upgraded and accrued seniority didn't so much as raise a whimper when thousands of senior pilots were forced out during the period of their tenure.

I would be totally in favor of raising the age limit if it included a provision to phase it in. That way, the hypocrites who most vociferously argue today for age 65 would not benefit from it. I would like to see provisions that state the age limit is raised by one year for five years starting in 2012 or 2013.