Just because Canadians change their pilot retirement age does not mean that we will follow their example. I do not see our current pilot retirement age changing unless the ICAO changes their pilot retirement age to something other than 65.

I have read that currently, Europeans (senior wide body CAs) are pushing for increasing the pilot retirement age to 70.

I do agree that age 65 rule directly caused major pilot career stagnation across the board for the junior pilots and double furlough at UAL. I have a friend who has been furloughed from UAL for over 10 years.

I understand that line of thinking but absent the age change, all of those planes could have been parked with zero furloughs.
TK has essentially been shuttered for the last 4 years. How many pilots would be required to fill the training pipeline if there were 250 retirements/yr? Every pilot retirement created a minimum of four training events. I'd estimate that alone reduced pilot manpower needs by ~500 pilots.

The biggest impact resulting from the change in retirement age was on the prospective hiring of replacements for those pilots who were scheduled to retire. However, the consequences of the change and the impact it had on the furloughing of pilots are debatable. By virtue of the numbers involved, it may be valid to posit that those who were not forced to retire at age 60 versus those who had recently been hired played a part in the upgrade progression, but there were also other calculations that came into play. In times of economic uncertainty, department managers are told to do more with less. Employees in all departments were being laid off so those in positions of power figured why should “flight ops” be exempt? The merits of whether or not the downsizing and outsourcing that the airlines foisted upon its employees were of sound business decisions or nefarious actions on the part of executives can be questioned, but it must be remembered the people in charge have a fiduciary responsibility to stockholders. While they may want to continue to hire and provide stable employment, they have a business to run. It is not a non-profit endeavor; they are not running hospitals or churches.

The fallacy of the “for every pilot who stayed beyond 60 there is a counterpart who was consequently put on the street” argument is that industry wide the number of pilots who were approaching 60 were significantly less in number than those who at the time were actually furloughed. Substantiating the fact that there was not a one to one relationship, there had to be other reasons for the furloughs. The increase in retirement age of five years would have a phased in effect, and those retirements would not happen en mass. However, the perceived efficiencies that a furlough would yield were immediate. In the case of UAL, a large number of those furloughs were the result of parking the 737 fleet and the immediate need to right size the company for a future merger.

It was unfortunate for the 140 at CAL who were furloughed because any savings that resulted were negligible. Also the chronic spats of disruption that ensued have proven those who were furloughed were necessary for an efficient and proper staffing for the flying schedule that was demanded by marketing. But since when do “bean counters” and their managers care about disruption? They are told to look for efficiencies and history has shown if it will make them look good in the eyes of their superiors, they will jump over dollars to save a dime. So to blame the change in retirement age that had a phased in effect of a relatively small annual number of retirees (who had every right to continue to work in their chosen career), for the thousands of furloughed pilots is intellectually dishonest.

Like it or not the age of the workforce is increasing and the evidence of this is everywhere, not just in the recent ruling from Canada. This fact of reality and the phasing out of an unjust and outdated law the airline industry once labored under will not exempt those who are unable to cope. In early 2006 the ICAO age for retirement was 60. Later that same year it was changed to 65. We are almost 5 years into the “age 65 deal” and the pilots affected are still passing physical exams, the scrutiny of increased line checks, and successfully completing their recurrent training. The next ICAO requirement that will be relaxed is the international flight requirement for the presence of a qualified crewmember under 60. In the not so distant future, look for the ICAO mandatory retirement age to be changed to 67 or maybe eliminated completely. Better get used to it and plan your career accordingly.

The “Age 60 Rule” was born out of the best tradition of smoke-filled-room and political thuggery and should have been repealed generations ago. It was the result of an apparent quid pro quo. General Elwood R. Quesada, Administrator of the FAA received from longtime friend and associate American Airlines founder and CEO C. R. Smith a personal appeal asking for what became the “Age 60 Rule”. Upon Quesada’s retirement from the FAA, he was immediately elected to American Airline's Board of Directors.

I'm 99% certain Otto is a CAL guy. The 100 airplanes parked at UAL had no effect on his displacement.

Yes, I'm a CAL guy. We have our own issues with moving backwards. You are not alone. I was displaced twice since the age change. :(

The training pipeline was shut down. What you are describing, more furloughs than anticipated retirements, is due to shutting down the training pipeline.
How many pilot man years do you think it takes to fill a training pipeline with both students and instructors that needs to account for four training events per retiree times 250 retirees per year?

I love it when young guys refer to Age 65 as selfish.

The ONLY reason the age limit changed was to bring the U.S. in line with ICAO.

Individual selfishness had NOTHING to do with it.

There was a decent amount of military medical data that was used to come up with 60. I know that oft-repeated story involving CR Smith and Quesada but it doesn't hold much water when one reviews all of the documents involved in the age 60 decision.
Did you know that they debated between mandatory retirement at 55 vs 60?
And was 60 any less arbitrary than 65?
16 for a driver's license?
18 to vote?
21 to drink alcohol?
23 for an ATP?
35 to be President?
62 for early social security retirement?
65 moving to 67 for normal social security retirement?

Exactly, the training pipeline was shut down because due to the change of the retirement age there was no longer a need to hire replacements; before UAL can furlough they must first hire. The only thing man power planning cares about is the number of pilots required to fly the schedule. UAL is not a flying club nor should they be expected to run a jobs program for instructors and unemployed pilots.

PBGC helped - there was a group trying to get 100% at 60 from the PGGC instead of having to wait until 65. I forget who was sponsoring it.