IATA Calls for Raising Pilot Age Limit to 67
09-01-2025 | 08:29 AM
#291
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2022
Posts: 589
Likes: 170
The “greed on both sides” argument grows tired and falls short of reality. For example, with the realistic timeline of the age change to 67, I’ll be a widebody Captain and will only benefit financially, yet I’m staunchly opposed.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
It's one thing to want to raise it, but it's a whole other level to actively be working with people/groups that are staunchly anti-labor and will do untold damage to the profession, and willing to burn it all down( how many started pushing single pilot ops after 67 failed) to be able to get their personal agendas accomplished.
[MOD EDIT]
Last edited by rickair7777; 09-01-2025 at 08:36 AM. Reason: Civility
09-01-2025 | 08:38 AM
#292
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,107
Likes: 793
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
The “greed on both sides” argument grows tired and falls short of reality. For example, with the realistic timeline of the age change to 67, I’ll be a widebody Captain and will only benefit financially, yet I’m staunchly opposed.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
09-01-2025 | 08:56 AM
#293
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 216
Likes: 46
The “greed on both sides” argument grows tired and falls short of reality. For example, with the realistic timeline of the age change to 67, I’ll be a widebody Captain and will only benefit financially, yet I’m staunchly opposed.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
If they hate the union so much, remove them. Surely this goes against the bylaws. And they are all public figures and easy to identify.
09-01-2025 | 09:34 AM
#294
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,107
Likes: 793
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
It's one thing to have internal discussions and disagreements, but wholesale public opposition is different animal.
But they'd probably sue for age discrimination.
09-01-2025 | 09:37 AM
#295
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 3,265
Likes: 941
From: Blue Juice Taste Tester
I've seen a lot of chatter not very long ago in other forums about LEPFers pushing to stop paying ALPA dues. If they willingly want to leave a Union they think doesn't represent them anymore, we should let them.
09-01-2025 | 09:40 AM
#296
On Reserve
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 89
Likes: 13
The “greed on both sides” argument grows tired and falls short of reality. For example, with the realistic timeline of the age change to 67, I’ll be a widebody Captain and will only benefit financially, yet I’m staunchly opposed.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
09-01-2025 | 11:45 AM
#297
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 536
Likes: 140
The “greed on both sides” argument grows tired and falls short of reality. For example, with the realistic timeline of the age change to 67, I’ll be a widebody Captain and will only benefit financially, yet I’m staunchly opposed.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
The safety argument isn’t measured in whether “planes are falling out of the sky” in countries that have already raised the age. The overwhelming majority of drunk driving events get home safely, without incident or arrest, yet driving drunk is still less safe. The reality of our industry is that we don’t have an adequate means of measuring cognitive decline built into our work, training/evaluation, or medical process. I have a family member 7 years into an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that can still pass cognitive tests, appear to have nothing wrong, etc, depending on the day. This doesn’t mean someone becomes unsafe on their 65th birthday, but the statistical reality of decline and the absence of an adequate safety mechanism to catch it in our industry remains a safety obstacle that is worthy of discussion.
I respect the opinions of those like Symbian, who disagree with my position yet aren’t actively undermining our union. What I find detestable, and what we all should find detestable, are the members and leaders of organizations like LEPF, who work to significantly damage ALPA’s credibility, who are actively trying to force more stringent medicals on 100% of us, who attempted this change that would have greatly reduced our leverage in the heat of a collective bargaining cycle, who aren’t respectful of what the collective group of their peers has directed via polling and union resolution, etc. At my company, such LEPF “leaders” include a guy who spent years 0-37 of his tenure silently fine with and benefitting from the retirement age until finally taking issue with it during years 38-39. Another was a former ALPA rep, staunchly vocally opposed to age 65, only to now be advocating for no retirement age now that he’s a senior 777 captain. It’s hard to respect people like this, and promoting a false equivalency of “greed on both sides” with such anti-union behavior is unhealthy.
New pilots to this industry look to have promising careers. They’ve enjoyed early upgrades and good pay at some carriers. But I don’t know what downturns will face them later on. Even if they have none and enjoy a textbook, perfect career path, that and no other excuse justifies undermining our union.
I’ve never seen a study that shows anything but accelerating cognitive decline as we age. Lepfers please post any study to the contrary if you have it. Their most recent study, despite its obvious bias mentioning “severe pilot shortage” in its summary, shows cognitive decline in pilots already beginning in the 61-64 range. Worse yet, these numbers get worse with age.
09-01-2025 | 11:57 AM
#298
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 615
Likes: 148
Well said, and I’m in the same position - already maxed out for pay, but am thinking of others and what’s best for the industry as a whole - imagine that Lepfers? I’ve never had a 67 proponent tell me they’re doing New Hire Pilot mentor work. Please raise your hand if you are.
I’ve never seen a study that shows anything but accelerating cognitive decline as we age. Lepfers please post any study to the contrary if you have it. Their most recent study, despite its obvious bias mentioning “severe pilot shortage” in its summary, shows cognitive decline in pilots already beginning in the 61-64 range. Worse yet, these numbers get worse with age.
I’ve never seen a study that shows anything but accelerating cognitive decline as we age. Lepfers please post any study to the contrary if you have it. Their most recent study, despite its obvious bias mentioning “severe pilot shortage” in its summary, shows cognitive decline in pilots already beginning in the 61-64 range. Worse yet, these numbers get worse with age.
09-01-2025 | 06:14 PM
#300
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,430
Likes: 124
From: Window seat
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
