There is no other data set for the 65 and older crowd in a controlled environment than fractionals and charter.

You can look at an apples-to-apples comparison, and see if there's an uptick in incidents and ASAPs as pilots get older.

Smelling your own farts and saying 121 won't have issues because "we're better" is not an honest look at the issue.

 

Anyone with enough of screw loose to want to fly past 65 (or even 60 for that matter) doesn't belong near any airplane.

 

Go ahead and punch out at 60. I’ll take your 2-3 million for the last 5 years or 7 years. Enjoy your early retirement bud.

 

Not sure why a bunch of professional pilots would support increasing the mandatory retirement age to 67 with 0 data or science backing up the seemingly arbitrary decision. It's like hopping in an airplane to go fly without filing a flight plan.

From reading through here and other comments on various social media platforms it has become increasingly clear that the supporters of age 67 aren't interested in data and facts. They're only interested in screaming their slogan, "LeT eXpErIenCeD pIlOts Fly!" ...Experienced pilots want to fly to fly to Milan and Brussels every other Tuesday. Not to Cleveland, New York, and Des Moines on 3 and 4-leg /day trips every week. There is no indication that ICAO is going to raise the age from 65 to 67 if the U.S. does.

This scenario is entirely different than age 60-65. It could lead to displacements for junior pilots, reopening up recently-inked contracts with potentially less favorable economic winds, and generally increasing costs for the airlines and for passengers, which can impact profit sharing.

Why aren't we being professionals and calling for studies to be conducted to see what a proper retirement age might be? Maybe its 70? We just don't know because we aren't studying it, and those who hold the flying public's trust the most are advocating for arbitrary changes. Doesn't seem very professional to me. Reeks of greed and a self-serving agenda.

 

I'll play devil's advocate with you.

Age 60 was arbitrary. Age 65 was arbitrary. Age 67 is also arbitrary. Where's your "data or science" (as though those are highly regarded or at all reliable in a highly politicized post-Covid world...) that supports any given fixed retirement age at all?

 

Neither side looks at science unless it supports their argument. For those who support raising the age, the real argument is that they don’t want to get forced off of the gravy train like those before them. For those against raising the age, the real argument is that they don’t want to fly longer, yet they also want to avoid having their seniority progression cut by another 2 years.

 

this^^^ and I fully admit I’m in the latter camp.

 

Let me guess... AOPA member with "passion for flight"... Sad.

 

Awe did I touch a nerve. I apologize for that sincerely. You live your life and I’ll live mine. Nobody is forcing anyone to work until the set retirement age. This Bullsh*t argument about career progression being delayed 2 years is IMO a myth perpetuated by the pilots fresh into the majors. Everyone that is currently under 65 will have the same 2 years of extra innings if they so choose. Sans any loss of license or Class 1 medical the choice to stay with a cleared medical is up to the individual. Not an AOPA member btw. Sounds like the “I want it all and I want it now crowd” cant deal with life’s curveballs very well. I really love baseball!

 

Yes. It's ALL been politics, with age 65 the closest to legit since it simply corrected the blatant political maneuver which resulted in age 60 in the first place. If you REALLY want to do science on this you have to overhaul the entire system system from top to bottom with a clean slate.

Determine what number is acceptable for pilot incap and performance failures (such as wrong taxi turn because eyesight is bad). Keeping in mind that zero or extremely close to it is practically and economically unattainable.

Then you have to analyze stats and determine what the root causes of medical-related failures have been. Then you have to set standards and screen/test for those failure points. That can vary by age, and as you get older age itself is a major factor.

That might be a big can of worms, and the danger is starting with a goal and then only later learning where the chips fall... you might need higher standards, and more stringent screening even for younger pilots. Case in point, the FAA a few years tried to set medical standards related to BMI which would have basically branded 30-50% of the pilot population with a presumptive sleep apnea diagnosis, with all of the attendant evaluations and treatment. Lobbyists intervened on that, and maybe some congress folks? Don't recall exactly who.

So they kind of prefer to muddle along with the current system, which at least they have 10 years of empirical data for both age 65 and the ATP rule. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Adding two years might be considered a minor tweak, and they can observe and see what happens.