I was told today that the rule should be toast by this fall, following ICAO in their new age of 65. Is it true that there are house and senate bills ready to be voted on? If any of you are following this, what's the real story here? Is Age 60, in fact, soon to be dead?

HR 65 has 39 supporters in the House to raise the age to 65. SB 65 has left the committee and is on the Senate floor for voting to raise the age to 65, it so far has 30 supporters. You can go the US Senate web site to read the actual bill.

Maybe not this year, but in the next few years most likely.

Immediately prior to 9/11, age 65 proponents had enough votes to pass an age 63 compromise, but they held out for 65 and it didn't quite make it.

Realistically, improvements in lifestyle and preventive medicine over the past 45 years have made age 65 feasible for many of us. The only downside I see is that a certain percentage of pilots will not be able to cerify past age 60, but they will still have to suffer the seniority affects of those who do.

The immediate effect of increasing the retirement age will be a slowdown in airline hiring. Currently about a fifth of all legacy pilots will retire in the next 5 years due to age. Increase the retirement age to 65 and you'll see stagnation in new hires for the next five years. Good in the long run for everyone, bad in the short term for those at the bottom of the barrel.

Who is bringing this legislation to the table? The same guys who brought us the "B" scale.

I'm all for an increase in the age if we can implement it fairly. Increase the retirement age one month a year. This method allows the new guy getting into the profession the opportunity to realize the rules of the game when getting into this career.

What if the age does increase to some larger number and you go out early? I guarantee you will be penalized severely.

What are the odds you won't make it to the higher retirement age? I guarantee you the odds are against you every year past 60.

I used to be against raising the age but now I favor 65 primarily because I will need to be working over 60 to pay for my dismal retirement savings program and because I will have kids in collage at that time. I don't know where I heard the statistic but a great percentage of pilots don't make it to 60 let alone 65. I don't think upgrade will be delayed 5 years. Something like 2 or 3 is more likely. Bad, yes, but the difference will be made up in the pilot's last years assuming he can make it there. I do think there should be some sort of "grandfather" clause to let some guys retire at 60 w/o penalty.

I think the increase has to be timed well to coincide with an upward cycle. Currently, if you increase the age the upgrade times and new hiring across the board will slow down to a point where the desperate will become even more desperate and this will result in further erosion of the working conditions for all.

Wasn't there some sort of integration period for the commuter guys when they lowered the seat cert. on FAR Part 135? When it went to what ever it is now? Used to be 30 seats and below. We had a few guys well over sixty flying PIC. When the rule was passed, seemed if you were 58 or less, you were done at sixty. If you were 59 or older, you got 2 years. I just can't remember exactly, but one would think it would be some sort of integration.

What retirement?????Ain't gonna be any!

Boeing is supposed to have done a study which showed a significant "penalty" in life expectancy for each year worked beyond age 55. It dropped from the mid 80s (retiring at 55) to the late 60s (retiring at 65). One study doesn't prove anything; the early retirees may have been the type who live a long time anyway; pilots are medically screened; etc. etc. Nevertheless, there may be something to it.

The study was posted on our DALPA forum which, as a retiree, I can't access. Perhaps someone on this forum has a copy.