IATA Calls for Raising Pilot Age Limit to 67
09-29-2025 | 04:15 AM
#1221
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 934
Likes: 122
Wait, so now if medical standards get more strict, it's ALPA's fault for opposing the change? 🤣
09-29-2025 | 04:53 AM
#1222
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 216
Likes: 46
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.
this is delusional
09-29-2025 | 04:59 AM
#1223
Bent over by buybacks
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 638
Not even the goofballs at LEPF could spin that wp349 was successful or that there was a path forward for them in the next three years.
These EPAS guys are orbiting in the bozosphere.
These EPAS guys are orbiting in the bozosphere.
09-29-2025 | 05:53 AM
#1224
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2024
Posts: 451
Likes: 94
“Just send more money we are almost there, we need the money to travel to important meetings”.
Nevermind that all these EPAS people are airline pilots who have plenty of time off already and can already travel for free.
A look at the books would be fascinating.
09-29-2025 | 08:31 AM
#1225
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2023
Posts: 232
Likes: 52
Why don't we just raise the age by 1 month a year for the next 36 years? Kind of balance the different needs. You know, compromise?
09-29-2025 | 08:52 AM
#1226
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 257
From: A320 FO
09-29-2025 | 09:11 AM
#1227
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,106
Likes: 793
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
But it would almost certainly be illegal under equal protections. Once it's determined that 67 is safe, you cannot allow some folks (kids) to go to 67 but cap others at 65.083. Federal law cannot supersede equal protections (constitution).
Might be a work around, ie claim that for safety reasons you want to slow roll the age increase and monitor the results carefully over time. It would be challenged but might hold up OK.
09-29-2025 | 10:14 AM
#1228
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 257
From: A320 FO
As I've said that's my preference (maybe a bit faster than 36 years though).
But it would almost certainly be illegal under equal protections. Once it's determined that 67 is safe, you cannot allow some folks (kids) to go to 67 but cap others at 65.083. Federal law cannot supersede equal protections (constitution).
Might be a work around, ie claim that for safety reasons you want to slow roll the age increase and monitor the results carefully over time. It would be challenged but might hold up OK.
But it would almost certainly be illegal under equal protections. Once it's determined that 67 is safe, you cannot allow some folks (kids) to go to 67 but cap others at 65.083. Federal law cannot supersede equal protections (constitution).
Might be a work around, ie claim that for safety reasons you want to slow roll the age increase and monitor the results carefully over time. It would be challenged but might hold up OK.
09-29-2025 | 10:25 AM
#1230
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 1,590
Likes: 372
But it would almost certainly be illegal under equal protections. Once it's determined that 67 is safe, you cannot allow some folks (kids) to go to 67 but cap others at 65.083. Federal law cannot supersede equal protections (constitution).
Might be a work around, ie claim that for safety reasons you want to slow roll the age increase and monitor the results carefully over time. It would be challenged but might hold up OK.
Might be a work around, ie claim that for safety reasons you want to slow roll the age increase and monitor the results carefully over time. It would be challenged but might hold up OK.
Anyone can argue that any age limit violates equal protection, but in reality they exist and courts have held they are valid.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
