IATA Calls for Raising Pilot Age Limit to 67
09-28-2025 | 11:18 AM
#1211
Moderator
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,301
Likes: 1,312
[mod input] Folks, this is starting to go off the rails. Everyone please pull back a notch or two, and continue what little there is left to discuss on topic. Now that the ICAO conference has wrapped up with essentially no 'progress' on the issue, there isn't much that hasn't already been said, but still...
If folks can't do that, we'll close the thread.
If folks can't do that, we'll close the thread.
09-28-2025 | 12:01 PM
#1212
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,608
Likes: 622
The biggest beneficiaries of the age 67 push are politicians getting campaign funds and EPAS/LEPF insiders spending donations under the guise of supporting 67. When the age is raised, the grift is over.
09-28-2025 | 01:55 PM
#1213
Back in the saddle
Joined: Feb 2023
Posts: 55
Likes: 21
From: Gear Actuator
[mod input] Folks, this is starting to go off the rails. Everyone please pull back a notch or two, and continue what little there is left to discuss on topic. Now that the ICAO conference has wrapped up with essentially no 'progress' on the issue, there isn't much that hasn't already been said, but still...
If folks can't do that, we'll close the thread.
If folks can't do that, we'll close the thread.
No one cares and my words are not going to move the needle on this issue or change anyone’s mind, but IMHO (just so it’s clear, I’m against any age increase):
The phrase “the devil we know” comes to mind. I’m an early 40s post-COVID hire and fully appreciate the rapid advancement in seniority not afforded to my seniors. I’m sympathetic to the twists and turns that this industry has taken on those seniors approaching retirement and understand the desire to keep doing what they’re doing—they’re enjoying the best seniority they’ve ever held and, by and large, they are healthier than their predecessors were at the same age.
With that being said, there’s very little chance that any increase in the retirement age does not come with a corresponding increase in medical scrutiny, which is (to me, at least) a major sticking point. While, yes, in a vacuum, we would have the additional two years as well, the increased medical scrutiny could find previously undetected issues that cause us to medical out at 55, 60, or what have you—thereby not, in fact, granting us two additional years, but costing us 5 or 10 as the case may be. Those at the end campaigning for the two additional years can likely easily absorb an unforeseen loss of medical due to the shorter time horizon.
Additionally, as has been noted countless times in this thread, no chance that the airlines continue to contribute to our 401Ks at current rates if the age increases—at least not without a significant quid in contract negotiations. “You can work longer” will almost certainly be their answer. That impact to retirement is another significant concern for those around my age—no one I know honestly believes that social security will exist at the time we reach the age to collect, so we are relying on our retirement savings.
Nothing that we say on this forum will change anyone’s mind, and nothing we say on this forum will change whatever decision is eventually made. I do think both sides would do well to at least make an effort to appreciate the other’s perspective (insults and name-calling notwithstanding).
Just my $0.02. Y’all have a great day!
09-28-2025 | 02:19 PM
#1214
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2023
Posts: 440
Likes: 80
[mod input] Folks, this is starting to go off the rails. Everyone please pull back a notch or two, and continue what little there is left to discuss on topic. Now that the ICAO conference has wrapped up with essentially no 'progress' on the issue, there isn't much that hasn't already been said, but still...
If folks can't do that, we'll close the thread.
If folks can't do that, we'll close the thread.
09-28-2025 | 02:42 PM
#1215
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,715
Likes: 45
Agree that the future cost to all pilots will vastly outweigh the benefits to a few. We all knew the rules coming in.
Been furloughed twice, planned accordingly and kept spending under control. Looking forward to punching out at 65 which is not that far for me.
Been furloughed twice, planned accordingly and kept spending under control. Looking forward to punching out at 65 which is not that far for me.
09-28-2025 | 03:39 PM
#1216
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 645
Likes: 57
From: Doggy
But you never know, do ya.
09-28-2025 | 03:39 PM
#1217
On Reserve
Joined: May 2024
Posts: 197
Likes: 107
I was waiting on this. Long time listener, rare caller.
No one cares and my words are not going to move the needle on this issue or change anyone’s mind, but IMHO (just so it’s clear, I’m against any age increase):
The phrase “the devil we know” comes to mind. I’m an early 40s post-COVID hire and fully appreciate the rapid advancement in seniority not afforded to my seniors. I’m sympathetic to the twists and turns that this industry has taken on those seniors approaching retirement and understand the desire to keep doing what they’re doing—they’re enjoying the best seniority they’ve ever held and, by and large, they are healthier than their predecessors were at the same age.
With that being said, there’s very little chance that any increase in the retirement age does not come with a corresponding increase in medical scrutiny, which is (to me, at least) a major sticking point. While, yes, in a vacuum, we would have the additional two years as well, the increased medical scrutiny could find previously undetected issues that cause us to medical out at 55, 60, or what have you—thereby not, in fact, granting us two additional years, but costing us 5 or 10 as the case may be. Those at the end campaigning for the two additional years can likely easily absorb an unforeseen loss of medical due to the shorter time horizon.
Additionally, as has been noted countless times in this thread, no chance that the airlines continue to contribute to our 401Ks at current rates if the age increases—at least not without a significant quid in contract negotiations. “You can work longer” will almost certainly be their answer. That impact to retirement is another significant concern for those around my age—no one I know honestly believes that social security will exist at the time we reach the age to collect, so we are relying on our retirement savings.
Nothing that we say on this forum will change anyone’s mind, and nothing we say on this forum will change whatever decision is eventually made. I do think both sides would do well to at least make an effort to appreciate the other’s perspective (insults and name-calling notwithstanding).
Just my $0.02. Y’all have a great day!
No one cares and my words are not going to move the needle on this issue or change anyone’s mind, but IMHO (just so it’s clear, I’m against any age increase):
The phrase “the devil we know” comes to mind. I’m an early 40s post-COVID hire and fully appreciate the rapid advancement in seniority not afforded to my seniors. I’m sympathetic to the twists and turns that this industry has taken on those seniors approaching retirement and understand the desire to keep doing what they’re doing—they’re enjoying the best seniority they’ve ever held and, by and large, they are healthier than their predecessors were at the same age.
With that being said, there’s very little chance that any increase in the retirement age does not come with a corresponding increase in medical scrutiny, which is (to me, at least) a major sticking point. While, yes, in a vacuum, we would have the additional two years as well, the increased medical scrutiny could find previously undetected issues that cause us to medical out at 55, 60, or what have you—thereby not, in fact, granting us two additional years, but costing us 5 or 10 as the case may be. Those at the end campaigning for the two additional years can likely easily absorb an unforeseen loss of medical due to the shorter time horizon.
Additionally, as has been noted countless times in this thread, no chance that the airlines continue to contribute to our 401Ks at current rates if the age increases—at least not without a significant quid in contract negotiations. “You can work longer” will almost certainly be their answer. That impact to retirement is another significant concern for those around my age—no one I know honestly believes that social security will exist at the time we reach the age to collect, so we are relying on our retirement savings.
Nothing that we say on this forum will change anyone’s mind, and nothing we say on this forum will change whatever decision is eventually made. I do think both sides would do well to at least make an effort to appreciate the other’s perspective (insults and name-calling notwithstanding).
Just my $0.02. Y’all have a great day!
09-28-2025 | 07:02 PM
#1219
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,265
Likes: 941
From: Blue Juice Taste Tester
09-29-2025 | 02:06 AM
#1220
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 13
If you thought the initial updates from LEPF/EPAS were out of touch, you’ll love this one. A complete fabrication of wishful thinking. ICAO doesn’t want an age change, the secretariat spoke against it. They will not make a move without data and standards. But let’s make 2 pages or word salad to inspired the 64 year olds and keep the $ coming.
EPAS ICAO ASSEMBLY UPDATE – MONTREAL
The 42nd ICAO Assembly has confirmed progress and momentum toward raising the international pilot retirement age. Working Paper 349 (WP349), sponsored by IATA, has been formally accepted and advanced to the ICAO Council for action. This is a clear win and positions us for the decisive next phase.
Current Status
1. WP349 is accepted and advancing.
2. A majority of states support raising the age, with no negative evidence presented (ICAO WP106, 2024; ICAO Assembly Technical Commission Summary, 2025).
3. WP291 on medical reporting complements WP349 but does not delay it (ICAO WP291, 2025).
4. The ICAO Council will decide. This 36-member body is divided into:
◦ Part I – Chief Importance in Air Transport (10): Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States (ICAO Council States, 2025).
◦ Part II – Major Contributors (12): Argentina, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland (ICAO Council States, 2025).
◦ Part III – Geographic Representation (14): Africa, Latin America, Asia, Middle East (ICAO Council Elections, 2025).
And it is this group of ten, led by the United States, that is the driving force in ICAO decision-making. These members will guide ICAO policy for the next three years. Six of the Part I states have already voiced support for raising the age (ICAO WP106, 2024; ICAO Assembly Floor Debate Report, 2025).
Why This Matters
• Evidence is established. Pilots over 65 already fly millions of hours safely worldwide (GAO Report, 2009; Transport Canada, 2024). Training centers and carriers validate this daily.
• Global alignment is building. Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and others already operate safely with pilots over 65 (EASA, 2019; Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, 2023).
• U.S. leadership is decisive. Once the U.S. Ambassador to ICAO is confirmed, the United States can move this to completion (Senate Nomination Records, 2025).
• ALPA put the “WHO in it.” In pandering to younger, less experienced pilots and those it seeks to protect politically, ALPA demanded that the “who” be considered. But that demand exposes the truth: the real “who” in this debate are the seasoned aviators who have the strongest safety record in the industry.
◦ FAA: requires six-month medical renewals and recurrent simulator checks for older pilots (FAA, 2025).
◦ EASA: review of European operations found no increase in accidents after raising the age limit (EASA, 2019).
◦ Canada: already permits airline pilots to fly past 65 with no safety issues (Transport Canada, 2024).
◦ Boeing and Airbus: performance data from advanced training centers confirm that older pilots fly safely and reliably (Boeing Training Data, 2023; Airbus Flight Training Report, 2023).
◦ Public Support: AARP, with 55 million members, and AMAC, with 4 million members, have endorsed raising the age (AARP House Letter, 2023; AMAC Policy Statement, 2024).
• ALPA’s strategy has turned against its own. By demanding new data and procedures, ALPA is building a process that will ultimately harm the very group it claims to protect—its younger, less experienced pilots. By turning a safety issue into a populist campaign strategy, the current leadership risks long-term damage to these “protected” groups in exchange for short-term political gain. For decades, ALPA prided itself on defending all its members. Today, this leadership team has abandoned fairness, sacrificed unity, and prioritized re-election over representation.
Path Forward
The Assembly outcome was expected: WP349 alive, accepted, and in motion. The issue is no longer whether to raise the age, but how quickly. EPAS will press for expediency by:
• Delivering existing data through proper ICAO channels (ICAO Council Guidelines, 2024).
• Reinforcing that no new studies are needed; the safety record is already established (GAO Report, 2009).
• Supporting U.S. and allied leadership in the Council phase (DOT, 2025).
Conclusion
The global direction is set: the retirement age will rise. With majority support established, WP349 advancing, and U.S. leadership soon in place, the focus now is speed.
Bottom line: This is a win. The path is open, the majority is with us, and the timeline is in sight.
EPAS Leadership Team
The 42nd ICAO Assembly has confirmed progress and momentum toward raising the international pilot retirement age. Working Paper 349 (WP349), sponsored by IATA, has been formally accepted and advanced to the ICAO Council for action. This is a clear win and positions us for the decisive next phase.
Current Status
1. WP349 is accepted and advancing.
2. A majority of states support raising the age, with no negative evidence presented (ICAO WP106, 2024; ICAO Assembly Technical Commission Summary, 2025).
3. WP291 on medical reporting complements WP349 but does not delay it (ICAO WP291, 2025).
4. The ICAO Council will decide. This 36-member body is divided into:
◦ Part I – Chief Importance in Air Transport (10): Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, United States (ICAO Council States, 2025).
◦ Part II – Major Contributors (12): Argentina, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland (ICAO Council States, 2025).
◦ Part III – Geographic Representation (14): Africa, Latin America, Asia, Middle East (ICAO Council Elections, 2025).
And it is this group of ten, led by the United States, that is the driving force in ICAO decision-making. These members will guide ICAO policy for the next three years. Six of the Part I states have already voiced support for raising the age (ICAO WP106, 2024; ICAO Assembly Floor Debate Report, 2025).
Why This Matters
• Evidence is established. Pilots over 65 already fly millions of hours safely worldwide (GAO Report, 2009; Transport Canada, 2024). Training centers and carriers validate this daily.
• Global alignment is building. Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and others already operate safely with pilots over 65 (EASA, 2019; Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, 2023).
• U.S. leadership is decisive. Once the U.S. Ambassador to ICAO is confirmed, the United States can move this to completion (Senate Nomination Records, 2025).
• ALPA put the “WHO in it.” In pandering to younger, less experienced pilots and those it seeks to protect politically, ALPA demanded that the “who” be considered. But that demand exposes the truth: the real “who” in this debate are the seasoned aviators who have the strongest safety record in the industry.
◦ FAA: requires six-month medical renewals and recurrent simulator checks for older pilots (FAA, 2025).
◦ EASA: review of European operations found no increase in accidents after raising the age limit (EASA, 2019).
◦ Canada: already permits airline pilots to fly past 65 with no safety issues (Transport Canada, 2024).
◦ Boeing and Airbus: performance data from advanced training centers confirm that older pilots fly safely and reliably (Boeing Training Data, 2023; Airbus Flight Training Report, 2023).
◦ Public Support: AARP, with 55 million members, and AMAC, with 4 million members, have endorsed raising the age (AARP House Letter, 2023; AMAC Policy Statement, 2024).
• ALPA’s strategy has turned against its own. By demanding new data and procedures, ALPA is building a process that will ultimately harm the very group it claims to protect—its younger, less experienced pilots. By turning a safety issue into a populist campaign strategy, the current leadership risks long-term damage to these “protected” groups in exchange for short-term political gain. For decades, ALPA prided itself on defending all its members. Today, this leadership team has abandoned fairness, sacrificed unity, and prioritized re-election over representation.
Path Forward
The Assembly outcome was expected: WP349 alive, accepted, and in motion. The issue is no longer whether to raise the age, but how quickly. EPAS will press for expediency by:
• Delivering existing data through proper ICAO channels (ICAO Council Guidelines, 2024).
• Reinforcing that no new studies are needed; the safety record is already established (GAO Report, 2009).
• Supporting U.S. and allied leadership in the Council phase (DOT, 2025).
Conclusion
The global direction is set: the retirement age will rise. With majority support established, WP349 advancing, and U.S. leadership soon in place, the focus now is speed.
Bottom line: This is a win. The path is open, the majority is with us, and the timeline is in sight.
EPAS Leadership Team
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
