ANOTHER article written by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. $ will solve any pilot 'shortage'. Period.

His recommendation of again raising the retirement age is completely incorrect. Quote:
"Another helpful action would be to increase the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots. Japan has already raised its maximum age to 67. In 2009, after several comprehensive studies, the FAA raised the U.S. age limit to 65 from 60. As a research psychologist in the FAA’s Office of Aviation Medicine, I reviewed much of the data used to modify this regulation.
There appears to have been little if any impact on airline safety since that change was implemented. Raising this age to 70, perhaps in increments, should now be considered."

He states that Japan has raised the age to 67. Well, sort of. You can fly there until you reach age 68. In other words, you can fly the entire year that you're 67. IF he's accepting that as a maximum age, then he needs to change his sentence stating the US limit changed to 65 from 60.
Either state 68 for Japan or state US limit as 64/59 to use same terminology.

Secondly, the change to age 65 violates the 1% rule (aviation medicine), which would result in an airline pilot being denied a medical certificate if their risk of a medical incapacitation (e.g. heart attack, convulsion, stroke, faint etc) was determined as being greater than 1% during the year.
That threshold (1% rule) is already crossed with age 65; mortality (which is lower than incapacitation) rate for a 64 year old US male is 1.46%. At age 69. mortality rate is 2.22%; my guess is that incapacitation rate is around 4% for a 69 year old.
Translation: if your captain is over 60, there's a greater chance of him stroking out or having an epileptic seizure (epileptic seizure risk rises above age 50). If he's over 65, the odds are around double of a 60 year old.

After they raise the retirement age this time, I'm expecting sim checks to include incapacitation scenarios. Because incapacitations have risen with the change to 65 and the frequency will climb again with another age change.



The MCP license is just a way to circumvent the requirement for every part 121 pilot to have an ATP. While I don't have a problem with going back to simply requiring a commercial pilot license, I expect this MCP concept to be less safe at the regional level if there's an acute pilot shortage. Why? Because if there are so few qualified pilots, the best regional pilots will not stick around past 3000 hours. So the new pilots will be flying with regional captains who can't move on to a major due to their checkered past.
If they were to implement this type of program, they would need to restrict the captains to more stringent requirements than merely logging 3000 hours.