Those are some bold assumptions. Do you have any scientific data to back up those claims? Any number you choose is arbitrary. How is 65 scientific? The key is that 60 was the number all the incumbent beneficiaries of the change were hired under.

Many lost their pensions but they have had some rosy B fund contributions and should have made some smart decisions. Unfortunately the average line pilot spends money like he is in HKG bordello in almost every faction of his life. The only exception I can think of is when the bill is passed around the table on a international layover. Otherwise it is boats, cars, wives ++, sets of children with different wives, airplanes, franchises that fail etc. Money is no object and they did not or don't alter their lifestyle spending as they approached age 60. Many of my collegues are now over 60 and there has been no slowdown in spending. Two of my closest friends are over 60 and they both lost over 50% of their B funds last year. They did not alter their investments to minimize the risk and rode the market to the bottom and are nowhere near being able to leave before 65.

Many want to paint this as a mirror policy of the ICAO rule and it flatly is NOT the case. We have the addendum that allows over 60 Capt and over 60 F/O to fly in the same cockpit. That is NOT the ICAO rule. In fact we must alter the crew stations on international flights to assure a F/O is in the flying seat on an augmented flight when the Capt is over 60. Are we really mirroring the ICAO policy with this reduced level of safety?

This was not an inevitable outcome and instead was a power grab by the ALPA Chairman that was facing his own retirement. Shame upon ALPA/Prater for failing to represent the desires of its pilots.

L