Panel Splits on Raising Airline Pilot Retirement Age
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...3GXOo&refer=us


Could someone please explain to me how and why it is discriminatory to force a pilot to retire at age 60 but it is not discriminatory to force that same pilot to retire at age 65?

I find it perplexing that a group calling themselves Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination would support replacing one number with a different number.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but isn't this still age discrimination? Wouldn't retirement based on ones ability to pass a Class I physical be the only true non-discriminatory policy?

Perhaps this group should call themselves Airline Pilots Against Age Discrimination for Age 60 Pilots but in favor of Discrimating Against Those Older Than Age 65?"

Tipsy

True its still discrimination, but I don't really want a healthy 75 year old with inch thick glassed driving me or my family around. I also don't want to be that 75 year old.

It's not really that perplexing. It's called Politics. It's called tit-for-tat. It's called give-and-take. I'm sure they would like to get any age reference to forced airline retirement eliminated. But, they also know that for now, that's quite impossible. So they are backing an age that might perhaps be a stepping stone for what you suggest, the passage of a real FAA Class I physical, and possibly other cognitive tests to make sure that they will not just taxi an airplane out on the tarmac and forget why, or worse. But they have to start somewhere. At least that's my impression. Might be right, might be wrong.

Would you rather have a healthy 75 year old with normal vision, excellent health and a lifetime of experience flying you around or the 45 year old that is overweight and barely able to pass the medical exam flying you around..? Whatever happened to common sense? We have testing and screening for a reason. Let it function. Away with arbitrary and unreasonably discriminatory rules.

Wow, you just resurected an 11-year old thread... :eek:

A bad case of thread-necrophilia.. How appropriate... :D

Nice first post APAAD Deux !

Not yet quite 60. While carding some of the lowest rounds of my life, albeit from white tees, have to admit the obvious; in no way the same motor vehicle operator I was at 30. Where and how does the system draw the line?
There may be no perfectly fair answer.

Simple. You draw the line where the pilot no longer meets the required performace criteria. Medical, or recurrent training. I for one, am very healthy, and can run a lot of pilots 10-15 years younger than me, into the ground. After 17 years of no pay in this industry, I am finally this year, making what I consider good money. If I have to retire at 65 then so be it. If there is an option to continue I might just stay. If you want to kick 65 year old pilots out for a loss of cog skills under the guise of safety, then you should hold the same standard for 55 and 60 year olds. Just my opinion.

At age 65 one must hang up the goggles for part 121 operations. However, that same pilot who turned age 65 today can fly the same jet the next day under parts 125, 91 and 135, baring the payload restrictions under 135, and contracts under 125. Go figure.

Better yet some countries in the South Pacific did not adopt the ICAO age 65 age retirement either.

Good point.

My god I saw this thread at the top and I thought 67 was on the way