Since the other two have been miserably unsuccessful, I’m starting a new age 67 advocacy group called, “Senior Captain And Broke”.
I ask that everyone use the full name and not an acronym. Please send $, we are indeed broke.

 

It's probably the other way around... Elderly Pilots Avoided by Spouses

 

I'm sure at this point in their marriage the hatred is mutual

 

Entitled Phinincially Acephalic Sextagenarians

 

Yea give her my Venmo to pay me the baby sitting bill, thx. “Don’t know what Venmo is”

 

Make it 67 so those of us who want the option can take it…….
and when we get tired of being $crewed over we can throw the badge in the trash and walk wherever we may be!

 

65 all the way!!

 

Notam 21

UPDATE on ICAO 42nd Assembly and ALPA/APA Statements

October 7, 2025

This update includes:

· Update on IATA’s WP349/696 at ICAO 42nd Assembly

· ALPA and APA Statements and IFALPA’s Position

**Contrary to what some media outlets and unions have reported, the efforts to raise the pilot retirement age at ICAO continue. IATA is fully committed to see the age raised, and LEPF is in step with them, as well. During the ICAO Assembly, IATA’s WP349 was introduced and assigned to the Technical Commission (TC). Among other issues considered in the TC, was WP349. The TC submitted their report to the Assembly under WP696, in plenary with the recommendation from the TC.
Here is the excerpt from WP696:

“24.19 The Commission reviewed A42-WP/349, presented by IATA, which proposed to raise the multi-pilot commercial air transport pilot age limit to 67 years, provided that another pilot is under 65. The Commission supported continuing work on pilot age limits and acknowledged that the current medical science is inconclusive regarding the increase in upper age limit. It recognized the diverse State practices and capacities, data challenges and deficiencies identified in the age survey and discussed in the Air Navigation Commission. The ongoing work within ICAO regarding harmonization of data collection and analysis was further noted. The Commission expressed, broad support for efforts to enhance data generation and collection, as well as for strengthening the aviation medical system in alignment with the No Country Left Behind initiative, and in a manner that could safely support consideration for a future A42-WP/696 P/59 Report on Agenda Item 24 24-7 increase in the age limit. The Commission further urged States and aviation stakeholders to support ICAO in these activities and agreed that the content of the working paper should be referred to the relevant expert groups for their consideration.”
WP349 is also being discussed at the Medical Provisions Study Group (MPSG). We applaud IATA in their continued efforts to raise the age. We will continue to collaborate with them in our joint quest to raise the age.

While a quick passage and change of ICAO’s SARPs to raise the age would have been the right thing to do, we are not slowing down our fight on the Hill. Our focus on getting a Senate Bill reintroduced is as strong as ever.

Our work is heavily reliant on process. We want our members to know the process, so that rumors, supposition, conjecture can be dispelled and you will know the facts and can share them with others. We only deal in facts.

**The Allied Pilots Association (APA) have joined ALPA in misrepresenting what actually happened in Montreal. Their reporting that ICAO “resoundingly rejects rising the retirement age” is simply not true.

As reported above, from official ICAO documents, raising the recommended retirement age at ICAO is a work in progress, as they are following their internal process. APA/ALPA’s headlines are nothing short of wishful thinking.

APA President says “raising the retirement age would mean flying blind”. He also claims that the FRMS and FAR117 FTDT were “based on safety studies for a workforce capped at 65”. That is patently false and he knows it. If he doesn’t know that, then he should not be leading a pilot union.
FAR117 never based their studies on any age or cap. The studies were all based solely on fatigue, and its impact on a pilot’s fitness for duty.
ALPA claims that pilots over 65 increase the safety risk in aviation, and went as far as stating that pilots over 65 would be like flying an airplane with one wing.

APA and ALPA’s aspersions are reckless, irresponsible, baseless, and insulting to the professional pilots they espouse to represent.
If you are in the senior ranks of APA and ALPA, this is a direct attack on your professional performance and technical ability, as well as a personal attack on you as an aviator.
Clearly, APA and ALPA leadership DO NOT represent the interests of ALL of their members.

They shamelessly cast aside their most senior members, who have paid the most dues, covered pilots’ health insurance premiums during furloughs, took pay cuts to prevent furloughs during COVID, and endured loss of pension, bankruptcies, strikes, etc., and did the heavy lifting during the challenging decades.
Yet those very union members that today enjoy the fruit of the most senior members’ labor, are too quick to cast aside those that provided them with today’s riches. APA and ALPA leadership are also quick to divide the membership on this issue, in spite of their chants “We are stronger together”.

Both union leaders have publicly cried, falsely claiming, the potential increase in cost to management. When did you ever hear a labor union arguing on management’s behalf? If you are an APA or ALPA member, you should ask your leadership three questions:

1- We are a labor union, why are you making arguments on management’s behalf?

2- Why are you choosing to represent junior pilots at the expense of senior pilots?

3- Don’t you have a legal duty to fairly represent ALL members?

Then ask yourself, how will you be treated/represented the day you become senior?
Another act of duplicity is IFALPA’s (International Federation of Air Line Pilot Associations) position. IFALPA represents 10 countries’ airline pilot unions that currently fly over the age of 65.
Is IFALPA stating that those country’s pilots are less safe? They need to answer this!

ALPA, the largest pilot union member of IFALPA, represents half of their pilot groups (Canadian pilots) who fly over the age of 65. They need to answer the same question: Is ALPA stating that half of their membership is unsafe?

IFALPA and ALPA cannot have it both ways. The issue is not safety. The issue is discriminationagainst their most qualified, experienced, senior, and seasoned aviators, in exchange for political gain of their leadership.
The burden of proof should be on the agencies that restrict the pilot license privileges at a certain age, to justify why they do so, because EXPERIENCE MATTERS!

In Unity,

Let Experienced Pilots Fly

 

sounds like a bunch that’s deeply interested in safety,
not just getting more money

 

Like a bad penny, they won't just go away
LEP FU is their motto.