IATA Calls for Raising Pilot Age Limit to 67
09-14-2025 | 06:48 AM
#611
Bent over by buybacks
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 638
Didn't he get removed (fired) from working on an ALPA lobbying committee for trying to funnel PAC funds to his own campaign when he ran for Congress?
09-14-2025 | 07:20 AM
#612
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,098
Likes: 790
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
They will respond to the political and economic undercurrents. Since that involves multiple nations and multi-national business interests I can't even begin to guess at those.
But I'm comfortable about saying whatever they do is not likely to be influenced at all by pilots or unions either way. They will not raise the age to be "fair" to pilots. They will not fail to raise it because of unions, if that's what the movers and shakers want.
09-14-2025 | 07:30 AM
#613
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2025
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Let Experienced Pilots Fly
NOTAM #17
“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”
September 12, 2025
This update includes:
· Articles published by “View from the Wing” and “Yahoo Finance”
· IATA Working Paper 349 to ICAO
· US Ambassador to ICAO
**Recently, a comprehensive analysis was published by “View from the Wing”. Here is a LINK to the article for you to read. Most importantly, the author writes:
“Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule. Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time.Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age. And the actual risk of in-flight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents.”
Furthermore, the article concludes: “ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.”
**Another article, this one from Yahoo-Finance reports on the effort IATA is making at ICAO. Here is the LINK.
**IATA WP349 (for presentation at ICAO) is attached HERE. A one-page explanation of WP349 is HERE. This paper will be addressed at the 42nd ICAO Assembly held September 23- October 3, 2025. While this WP calls for raising the age to 67, LEPF continues to advocate eliminating/raising the age restriction.
**Retired Delta Captain Jeff Anderson is nominated to be the next US Ambassador to ICAO. He awaits confirmation by the Senate. We are hopeful he will be confirmed in order to attend the ICAO Assembly this month. The US should not abrogate its leadership role at ICAO to China.
Thank you for your continued engagement and support!
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.
Experience Matters!
LEPF
NOTAM #17
“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”
September 12, 2025
This update includes:
· Articles published by “View from the Wing” and “Yahoo Finance”
· IATA Working Paper 349 to ICAO
· US Ambassador to ICAO
**Recently, a comprehensive analysis was published by “View from the Wing”. Here is a LINK to the article for you to read. Most importantly, the author writes:
“Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule. Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time.Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age. And the actual risk of in-flight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents.”
Furthermore, the article concludes: “ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.”
**Another article, this one from Yahoo-Finance reports on the effort IATA is making at ICAO. Here is the LINK.
**IATA WP349 (for presentation at ICAO) is attached HERE. A one-page explanation of WP349 is HERE. This paper will be addressed at the 42nd ICAO Assembly held September 23- October 3, 2025. While this WP calls for raising the age to 67, LEPF continues to advocate eliminating/raising the age restriction.
**Retired Delta Captain Jeff Anderson is nominated to be the next US Ambassador to ICAO. He awaits confirmation by the Senate. We are hopeful he will be confirmed in order to attend the ICAO Assembly this month. The US should not abrogate its leadership role at ICAO to China.
Thank you for your continued engagement and support!
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.
Experience Matters!
LEPF
09-14-2025 | 07:40 AM
#614
On Reserve
Joined: Apr 2025
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Flying Magazine
Opinion: Pilot Groups’ Empty Rhetoric Masking Polyitics
By rejecting ICAO’s age 67 proposal, ALPA and APA expose a double standard.
Friday, September 12, 2025
The Air Line Pilots Association’s (ALPA) latest rejection of ICAO Working Paper 349 —a proposal to raise the upper pilot age limit to 67—is more of the same: hot air from a leadership more concerned with reelection than safety. Its talking points are contradictory and reveal a union trapped by populism, pandering to junior members, and abandoning the very principles on which it was founded.
Most glaring is ALPA’s hypocrisy. Canadian pilots, represented by ALPA, routinely fly beyond age 65 under Canadian law, yet ALPA tells Congress and ICAO that age 67 is unsafe. If ALPA truly believed its rhetoric, it would oppose its Canadian members’ operations. Instead, the union applies double standards: Canadian pilots are acceptable past 65, but U.S. pilots—under identical ICAO and FAA medical standards—must be forced out.
ALPA’s position is echoed by the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which also attacked ICAO WP/349 while representing pilots at American Airlines. Yet APA members fly side by side with ALPA’s Canadian members, who already exceed 65. The intellectual dishonesty is identical. It is not a coincidence: ALPA and APA have been engaged in merger talks for more than a decade, seeking to consolidate leadership power by pandering to the populist demands of their junior majorities.
Hypocrisy and Political Pandering
ALPA claims safety demands a hard age cutoff. Yet the same union supports its Canadian members who fly past 65. The inconsistency reveals the truth—politics, not safety.
Further, Part 135 pilots haul cargo and passengers past 65, and Part 91 engineering test pilots—including those at Boeing and GE—routinely fly stealth fighters, bombers, and new transport aircraft beyond 65. These are the most demanding cockpits in existence.
To claim that an experienced airline captain cannot safely operate a Boeing 737 at age 66, while test pilots are entrusted with first flights of brand-new fighters, is indefensible.
Lack of Substantive Data
When ICAO raised the age from 60 to 65 in 2006, safety performance improved, not worsened. FAA’s own review confirmed no accidents or incidents resulted from the health of pilots aged 60–65. ICAO has already conducted global surveys and member medical reviews through Canada’s Working Paper 106.
ALPA’s Flip-Flops
ALPA first opposed flights beyond 60, then accepted 65 in 2007.
Now it warns of “grave risks” at 67. This obstructionist cycle—fear tactics followed by reversals once change is inevitable—destroys credibility, as shown in U.S. House Aging Committee hearings.
Overwhelming Evidence Supports Raising the Age
ICAO WP/349, like the 2006 process, proposes increasing the retirement age to 67 with safeguards. Canada’s WP/106 determined that age is an outdated measure, emphasizing performance and medical standards as the true indicators. The National Institute on Aging found no medical basis for mandatory retirement. The GAO reported no negative impacts when the age was raised to 65.
ALPA and APA Have Run Out of Ideas
Instead of advancing science-based proposals, ALPA and APA leadership fall back on slogans about “implementation delays.” History proves ICAO alignment can be achieved in under a year, as with the 2006 change. They also repeat hollow mistruths about safety while blatantly ignoring existing data.
Banging the drum of populism and mob rule is its only tool left, even as it abandons intellectual honesty and ethical standards enshrined in its own mission statements, policy manuals, and civil rights commitments to other protected groups. Yet older pilots, the most experienced aviators in the system, are uniquely carved out—not just for exclusion but for outright defamation.
ALPA paid for half-wing airplane ads implying senior pilots are unsafe, and APA’s recent claim that raising the age is “flying blind” echoes the same false narrative.
This rhetoric does real harm. It not only undermines safety by stripping mentorship from the cockpit, but it also actively damages the reputation and employability of senior aviators who have paid union dues faithfully for 30 or 40 years.
How is it representing pilots to attack their livelihoods and smear their competence just because of age?
Worse, APA’s own leadership can’t even get facts straight. The APA president publicly claimed JetBlue had pilots on furlough when it did not, as covered in Reuters. Meanwhile, medical reality shows that most in-flight incapacitations are due to stomach or gastrointestinal issues, not sudden heart attacks, as highlighted in House Aging Committee testimony.
Finally, regarding the future workforce, Boeing’s 2025 Pilot and Technician Outlook confirms that the global need for trained flight crews is growing exponentially. In such an environment, forcing out the most experienced and capable pilots is not just discriminatory, it is reckless and contrary to every operational forecast of the industry.
Chronology of Arbitrary Age Rules
The age 60 rule was not science-based but born from a 1959 appeal by an American Airlines CEO to FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada. Congress later found no medical evidence for 60 or any cutoff age, as shown in House Aging Committee records.
Politics created the rule; data overturned it.
Ignoring Longer Lives and Modern Medicine
Life expectancy and cardiovascular outcomes have dramatically improved, as detailed in Canada’s WP/106. FAA Class 1 medicals already screen every six months after 60. Waivers exist for psychological conditions, alcoholism, and heart surgery—yet age alone remains an unwaivable disqualifier.
ALPA’s and APA’s opposition to ICAO WP/349 is not about safety, it is about politics, populism, and leadership job security. Their rhetoric ignores history, data, and precedent. Raising the age to 67 enhances safety by retaining experience, alleviating shortages, and reflecting on medical reality.
Once branded the “vanguard of safety,” ALPA and APA leadership have abandoned that role, substituting sound policy with empty rhetoric.
Experience is safety. Excluding capable pilots at 65 undermines both aviation safety and the economic security of all line pilots.
https://www.flyingmag.com/opinion-pi...king-politics/
Opinion: Pilot Groups’ Empty Rhetoric Masking Polyitics
By rejecting ICAO’s age 67 proposal, ALPA and APA expose a double standard.
Friday, September 12, 2025
The Air Line Pilots Association’s (ALPA) latest rejection of ICAO Working Paper 349 —a proposal to raise the upper pilot age limit to 67—is more of the same: hot air from a leadership more concerned with reelection than safety. Its talking points are contradictory and reveal a union trapped by populism, pandering to junior members, and abandoning the very principles on which it was founded.
Most glaring is ALPA’s hypocrisy. Canadian pilots, represented by ALPA, routinely fly beyond age 65 under Canadian law, yet ALPA tells Congress and ICAO that age 67 is unsafe. If ALPA truly believed its rhetoric, it would oppose its Canadian members’ operations. Instead, the union applies double standards: Canadian pilots are acceptable past 65, but U.S. pilots—under identical ICAO and FAA medical standards—must be forced out.
ALPA’s position is echoed by the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which also attacked ICAO WP/349 while representing pilots at American Airlines. Yet APA members fly side by side with ALPA’s Canadian members, who already exceed 65. The intellectual dishonesty is identical. It is not a coincidence: ALPA and APA have been engaged in merger talks for more than a decade, seeking to consolidate leadership power by pandering to the populist demands of their junior majorities.
Hypocrisy and Political Pandering
ALPA claims safety demands a hard age cutoff. Yet the same union supports its Canadian members who fly past 65. The inconsistency reveals the truth—politics, not safety.
Further, Part 135 pilots haul cargo and passengers past 65, and Part 91 engineering test pilots—including those at Boeing and GE—routinely fly stealth fighters, bombers, and new transport aircraft beyond 65. These are the most demanding cockpits in existence.
To claim that an experienced airline captain cannot safely operate a Boeing 737 at age 66, while test pilots are entrusted with first flights of brand-new fighters, is indefensible.
Lack of Substantive Data
When ICAO raised the age from 60 to 65 in 2006, safety performance improved, not worsened. FAA’s own review confirmed no accidents or incidents resulted from the health of pilots aged 60–65. ICAO has already conducted global surveys and member medical reviews through Canada’s Working Paper 106.
ALPA’s Flip-Flops
ALPA first opposed flights beyond 60, then accepted 65 in 2007.
Now it warns of “grave risks” at 67. This obstructionist cycle—fear tactics followed by reversals once change is inevitable—destroys credibility, as shown in U.S. House Aging Committee hearings.
Overwhelming Evidence Supports Raising the Age
ICAO WP/349, like the 2006 process, proposes increasing the retirement age to 67 with safeguards. Canada’s WP/106 determined that age is an outdated measure, emphasizing performance and medical standards as the true indicators. The National Institute on Aging found no medical basis for mandatory retirement. The GAO reported no negative impacts when the age was raised to 65.
ALPA and APA Have Run Out of Ideas
Instead of advancing science-based proposals, ALPA and APA leadership fall back on slogans about “implementation delays.” History proves ICAO alignment can be achieved in under a year, as with the 2006 change. They also repeat hollow mistruths about safety while blatantly ignoring existing data.
Banging the drum of populism and mob rule is its only tool left, even as it abandons intellectual honesty and ethical standards enshrined in its own mission statements, policy manuals, and civil rights commitments to other protected groups. Yet older pilots, the most experienced aviators in the system, are uniquely carved out—not just for exclusion but for outright defamation.
ALPA paid for half-wing airplane ads implying senior pilots are unsafe, and APA’s recent claim that raising the age is “flying blind” echoes the same false narrative.
This rhetoric does real harm. It not only undermines safety by stripping mentorship from the cockpit, but it also actively damages the reputation and employability of senior aviators who have paid union dues faithfully for 30 or 40 years.
How is it representing pilots to attack their livelihoods and smear their competence just because of age?
Worse, APA’s own leadership can’t even get facts straight. The APA president publicly claimed JetBlue had pilots on furlough when it did not, as covered in Reuters. Meanwhile, medical reality shows that most in-flight incapacitations are due to stomach or gastrointestinal issues, not sudden heart attacks, as highlighted in House Aging Committee testimony.
Finally, regarding the future workforce, Boeing’s 2025 Pilot and Technician Outlook confirms that the global need for trained flight crews is growing exponentially. In such an environment, forcing out the most experienced and capable pilots is not just discriminatory, it is reckless and contrary to every operational forecast of the industry.
Chronology of Arbitrary Age Rules
The age 60 rule was not science-based but born from a 1959 appeal by an American Airlines CEO to FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada. Congress later found no medical evidence for 60 or any cutoff age, as shown in House Aging Committee records.
Politics created the rule; data overturned it.
Ignoring Longer Lives and Modern Medicine
Life expectancy and cardiovascular outcomes have dramatically improved, as detailed in Canada’s WP/106. FAA Class 1 medicals already screen every six months after 60. Waivers exist for psychological conditions, alcoholism, and heart surgery—yet age alone remains an unwaivable disqualifier.
ALPA’s and APA’s opposition to ICAO WP/349 is not about safety, it is about politics, populism, and leadership job security. Their rhetoric ignores history, data, and precedent. Raising the age to 67 enhances safety by retaining experience, alleviating shortages, and reflecting on medical reality.
Once branded the “vanguard of safety,” ALPA and APA leadership have abandoned that role, substituting sound policy with empty rhetoric.
Experience is safety. Excluding capable pilots at 65 undermines both aviation safety and the economic security of all line pilots.
https://www.flyingmag.com/opinion-pi...king-politics/
09-14-2025 | 07:41 AM
#615
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 137
Let Experienced Pilots Fly
NOTAM #17
“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”
September 12, 2025
This update includes:
· Articles published by “View from the Wing” and “Yahoo Finance”
· IATA Working Paper 349 to ICAO
· US Ambassador to ICAO
**Recently, a comprehensive analysis was published by “View from the Wing”. Here is a LINK to the article for you to read. Most importantly, the author writes:
“Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule. Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time.Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age. And the actual risk of in-flight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents.”
Furthermore, the article concludes: “ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.”
**Another article, this one from Yahoo-Finance reports on the effort IATA is making at ICAO. Here is the LINK.
**IATA WP349 (for presentation at ICAO) is attached HERE. A one-page explanation of WP349 is HERE. This paper will be addressed at the 42nd ICAO Assembly held September 23- October 3, 2025. While this WP calls for raising the age to 67, LEPF continues to advocate eliminating/raising the age restriction.
**Retired Delta Captain Jeff Anderson is nominated to be the next US Ambassador to ICAO. He awaits confirmation by the Senate. We are hopeful he will be confirmed in order to attend the ICAO Assembly this month. The US should not abrogate its leadership role at ICAO to China.
Thank you for your continued engagement and support!
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.
Experience Matters!
LEPF
NOTAM #17
“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”
September 12, 2025
This update includes:
· Articles published by “View from the Wing” and “Yahoo Finance”
· IATA Working Paper 349 to ICAO
· US Ambassador to ICAO
**Recently, a comprehensive analysis was published by “View from the Wing”. Here is a LINK to the article for you to read. Most importantly, the author writes:
“Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule. Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time.Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age. And the actual risk of in-flight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents.”
Furthermore, the article concludes: “ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.”
**Another article, this one from Yahoo-Finance reports on the effort IATA is making at ICAO. Here is the LINK.
**IATA WP349 (for presentation at ICAO) is attached HERE. A one-page explanation of WP349 is HERE. This paper will be addressed at the 42nd ICAO Assembly held September 23- October 3, 2025. While this WP calls for raising the age to 67, LEPF continues to advocate eliminating/raising the age restriction.
**Retired Delta Captain Jeff Anderson is nominated to be the next US Ambassador to ICAO. He awaits confirmation by the Senate. We are hopeful he will be confirmed in order to attend the ICAO Assembly this month. The US should not abrogate its leadership role at ICAO to China.
Thank you for your continued engagement and support!
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.
Experience Matters!
LEPF
09-14-2025 | 08:06 AM
#616
Bent over by buybacks
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 638
wow! Those are some *well-written* issue papers. I think you've got it in the bag now!
You guys gonna picket at the ICAO assembly? Maybe bring the Delta geezer's brother in Congress? I think that's a winning formula and will put you over the edge.
You guys gonna picket at the ICAO assembly? Maybe bring the Delta geezer's brother in Congress? I think that's a winning formula and will put you over the edge.
09-14-2025 | 08:34 AM
#617
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 66
The link does not work. Who was the author of this article?
09-14-2025 | 08:35 AM
#618
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2024
Posts: 969
Likes: 261
Let Experienced Pilots Fly
NOTAM #17
“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”
September 12, 2025
This update includes:
· Articles published by “View from the Wing” and “Yahoo Finance”
· IATA Working Paper 349 to ICAO
· US Ambassador to ICAO
**Recently, a comprehensive analysis was published by “View from the Wing”. Here is a LINK to the article for you to read. Most importantly, the author writes:
“Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule. Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time.Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age. And the actual risk of in-flight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents.”
Furthermore, the article concludes: “ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.”
**Another article, this one from Yahoo-Finance reports on the effort IATA is making at ICAO. Here is the LINK.
**IATA WP349 (for presentation at ICAO) is attached HERE. A one-page explanation of WP349 is HERE. This paper will be addressed at the 42nd ICAO Assembly held September 23- October 3, 2025. While this WP calls for raising the age to 67, LEPF continues to advocate eliminating/raising the age restriction.
**Retired Delta Captain Jeff Anderson is nominated to be the next US Ambassador to ICAO. He awaits confirmation by the Senate. We are hopeful he will be confirmed in order to attend the ICAO Assembly this month. The US should not abrogate its leadership role at ICAO to China.
Thank you for your continued engagement and support!
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.
Experience Matters!
LEPF
NOTAM #17
“EXPERIENCE MATTERS”
September 12, 2025
This update includes:
· Articles published by “View from the Wing” and “Yahoo Finance”
· IATA Working Paper 349 to ICAO
· US Ambassador to ICAO
**Recently, a comprehensive analysis was published by “View from the Wing”. Here is a LINK to the article for you to read. Most importantly, the author writes:
“Medicine and monitoring have gotten better. Airline Transport Pilot medicals every six months address health concerns, and Aviation Medical Examiners guidance plus neuropsych evaluations (e.g., CogScreen) allow case‑by‑case determination of fitness to fly instead of a blanket age rule. Safety checks are continuous, not one‑time.Part 121 pilots must pass recurrent proficiency checks and line checks on set intervals That infrastructure supports individualized competency decisions independent of age. And the actual risk of in-flight medical events is extremely low. FAA data show inflight medical event rates on U.S. airline pilots around 0.058–0.059 per 100,000 flight hours, with events rarely leading to accidents.”
Furthermore, the article concludes: “ALPA lobbyists claim it’s safety, but it’s not. It’s self-interest. There’s no data that suggests safety is best served by forcing pilots out of the cockpit at exactly 65 (and not 68 or 60). Older pilots fly every day in the United States and around the world. The true safety play is medical science, not age discrimination.”
**Another article, this one from Yahoo-Finance reports on the effort IATA is making at ICAO. Here is the LINK.
**IATA WP349 (for presentation at ICAO) is attached HERE. A one-page explanation of WP349 is HERE. This paper will be addressed at the 42nd ICAO Assembly held September 23- October 3, 2025. While this WP calls for raising the age to 67, LEPF continues to advocate eliminating/raising the age restriction.
**Retired Delta Captain Jeff Anderson is nominated to be the next US Ambassador to ICAO. He awaits confirmation by the Senate. We are hopeful he will be confirmed in order to attend the ICAO Assembly this month. The US should not abrogate its leadership role at ICAO to China.
Thank you for your continued engagement and support!
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.
Experience Matters!
LEPF
09-14-2025 | 09:28 AM
#619
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 934
Likes: 122
Opinion, authored by "EPAS leadership team" [sic]. As if there was suddenly some credible voice out there to reinforce how mean ALPA is to them. Have a little dignity.
09-14-2025 | 10:41 AM
#620
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,365
Likes: 146
Age 67 would have a lot of side-effects...
You'll see more younger pilots reporting older pilots for deviations and mental lapses.
You'll see more pilots at all ages going out on disability due to failing any new tighter medical screening, especially mental agility testing.
You'll see pilots out on medical leave at some airlines simply continuing to receive loss of license disability insurance for an extra 2 "free" years.
There are costs to everything. I predict age 67 will cost a lot, both in terms of money and in terms of people who currently can keep flying under current medical exams but may not pass tighter screening. And don't forget, anyone who fails tighter screening will then get disability payments to 67.
You'll see more younger pilots reporting older pilots for deviations and mental lapses.
You'll see more pilots at all ages going out on disability due to failing any new tighter medical screening, especially mental agility testing.
You'll see pilots out on medical leave at some airlines simply continuing to receive loss of license disability insurance for an extra 2 "free" years.
There are costs to everything. I predict age 67 will cost a lot, both in terms of money and in terms of people who currently can keep flying under current medical exams but may not pass tighter screening. And don't forget, anyone who fails tighter screening will then get disability payments to 67.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
