Originally Posted by JohnBurke

Postage stamp increases aren't arbitrary; they're driven by costs, revenue, and market influences that impact revenue.

Age 67 isn't an arbitrary number that's been picked out of the ether. It's a small number; a small incremental increase. Certainly as the human body ages, we see diminishing or changing factors that involve joints, eyesight, breathing, circulation, etc. We see increasing instances of cancers, etc. Consider a sample of a set 65-67, and one of 65-75, and you'd see not only a total aggregate increase in health issues, but a statistically significant increase not just related to the number of pilots. You'd see fewer and fewer capable of passing a medical, working, or possibly willing to work.

67 is a small increment. It's not an ambitious increment. It's possible with an increase to 67, a drive to move to 68 or 69 might occur in the future, once a determination that 67 didn't have the negative impact that the sky-is-falling crowd believed. (Same thing occurred with age 60 to 65). Moving the age to 67 is a reasonable, conservative change in the regulation. There's no valid reason that age 67 should not be enacted as the retirement age, for now.