For a few years now, there have been serious discussions about raising the retirement age for airline pilots. This was initially proposed in 2022, as air travel demand started to recover after the pandemic, leaving us with a major pilot shortage (given all the pilots who accepted early retirement packages).
Ultimately nothing actually came of this, but we’re now seeing this issue raised once again. Given that there’s a new administration in the White House, I can’t help but feel like chances of this concept getting approved may have just increased considerably.
In this post:
Trump urged to back older retirement age for pilots
Reuters reports that Ted Cruz, the Republican Chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, is urging President Donald Trump to support international efforts to increase the pilot retirement age to 67. This request came in a letter that asked Trump to support these efforts at this week’s opening of a United Nations aviation meeting in Montreal.
Cruz argued that “America should lead on the international stage in support of raising, or even abolishing, the pilot retirement age,” and argued that the current policy is “forcing thousands of highly qualified and experienced pilots into early retirement every year.”
Currently, international rules prohibit airline pilots older than 65 from operating international flights, and many countries (including the United States) apply these same rules to domestic flights. Let me emphasize that in the United States, this applies specifically to airline pilots (Part 121 operators), so it doesn’t apply to other types of operations (like Part 135 operators).
The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents 350 airlines, has argued that raising the pilot retirement age by two years can be done without compromising safety. This proposal has also won support from a variety of countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. However, up until now, the United States hasn’t supported this concept.
This proposal is opposed by unions, though, with Jason Ambrosi, the President of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), arguing that “the United States is the global leader in aviation safety, and we should resist any attempts to arbitrarily make changes to the regulatory framework that has helped us achieve this record,” and “that’s why Congress rejected making a change to the pilot retirement age just last year.”
Back in 2022, Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and Republican Texas Congressman Chip Roy introduced the “Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act,” intended to raise the pilot retirement age to 67. This gained support from several Senators, including Democratic Arizona Senator Mark Kelly (who is also a former Navy pilot and astronaut).
Under this proposal, the pilot retirement age would’ve been raised to 67, and pilots over 65 would’ve had to undergo a rigorous medical screening every six months. This would have been the second time in the past couple of decades that the pilot retirement age is raised. Back in 2007, the commercial airline pilot retirement age in the United States was raised from 60 to 65.
That not only reflects that people are generally living longer, but it was also at a time when airlines were on the brink of liquidation, and many pilots lost some of their pensions and took huge pay cuts during bankruptcy proceedings. The extra five years was almost intended as a way for them to earn back some of the money they lost.
Ultimately the legislation a few years back didn’t prove successful, but as you can see, a different approach is being taken this time around, with a more coordinated, global effort.
Does raising the pilot retirement age make sense?
On the surface, raising the pilot retirement age to 67 makes sense to me:
- Pilots have to undergo recurrent training and medical exams, and they’ll only continue to be able to fly if they’re deemed to be fit to do so
- Many people don’t actually want to retire at 65, so after they’re forced to retire from the airlines, they go fly for private jet operators (where the same retirement age doesn’t apply)
- Forcing “fit” people to retire at an arbitrary age just seems silly to me
The challenge here is that you have conflicting studies as to what impact raising the retirement age for pilots would have on safety. Those in favor of this proposal have pointed to studies that show this wouldn’t impact aviation safety, while those opposed to this proposal have pointed to studies suggesting that this would impact aviation safety, given the higher risk of health issues when you’re 65+.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that someone who is 66 is more likely to have health issues than someone who is 46. I think the question comes down to whether that impacts aviation safety in a meaningful way, given that there are always two pilots at the controls of aircraft.
Pilot unions are universally opposed to this change. Then again, keep in mind that they were also vehemently opposed to raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 many years back, and in retrospect, I don’t think many people would argue that negatively impacted aviation safety.
Individual pilots are more split on this, with a majority of pilots being opposed to raising the retirement age, but certainly not all pilots feeling that way. If anything, the downside would be for more junior pilots, since they wouldn’t gain any extra seniority for around two years (and with seniority comes aircraft and captain upgrades, which translates to more money).
In fairness, I think it’s important to acknowledge that being a pilot can take a major toll on your health in the long run. It’s often the most senior pilots flying the biggest planes and longest flights (since it’s all seniority based, and those are most lucrative). Working a 15 hour flight at the age of 65+ can’t be easy.
Bottom line
A few years back, there was a widespread campaign in the United States to raise the airline pilot retirement age from 65 to 67. That ultimately didn’t prove successful, but we’re now seeing this gain traction again.
Senator Cruz is asking President Trump to support a proposal to raise the retirement age, and we’re now seeing a global approach taken, as this is happening before the United Nations aviation meeting in Montreal. Many countries support the proposal to raise the retirement age for pilots, but a coordinated effort is needed, given that these are international regulations.
Personally, I think that as long as pilots are getting their regular medical exams, raising the retirement age to 67 doesn’t seem unreasonable. Or at least I think pilots should be given the option to work to 67, if they’d like to (since some pilots support this proposal).
We’ll see what comes of this, though I imagine that the current administration might be a little more supportive of this than the previous administration.
What do you make of the prospect of the pilot retirement age being increased?
Ben, Lucky or whatever name you choose to use today, I find it necessary to respond to something which you have written, that being:
“I don’t think anyone would disagree that someone who is 66 is more likely to have health issues than someone who is 46”.
Do you have any collaborated evidence to support your statement? I know of none whatsoever, furthermore, it is my submission that today the 46 year old pilot...
Ben, Lucky or whatever name you choose to use today, I find it necessary to respond to something which you have written, that being:
“I don’t think anyone would disagree that someone who is 66 is more likely to have health issues than someone who is 46”.
Do you have any collaborated evidence to support your statement? I know of none whatsoever, furthermore, it is my submission that today the 46 year old pilot may well be suffering from far more mental/substance or alcohol health issues that his older colleagues.
Physical health issues are far easier to diagnose and treat than any of the mental/substance or alcohol abuse related disorders.
It is called Life expectancy tables, and there is a whole industry, life insurance, that works on the corroborated assumption that a random 66 y.o. person will be in worse shape than a random 46 y.o. person, and so consistently and over millions of random pickings.
If we change "random person" to "random pilot" , this assumption will hold.
My dad at 86 still managed to drive 1,500 miles in 2.5 days without killing...
It is called Life expectancy tables, and there is a whole industry, life insurance, that works on the corroborated assumption that a random 66 y.o. person will be in worse shape than a random 46 y.o. person, and so consistently and over millions of random pickings.
If we change "random person" to "random pilot" , this assumption will hold.
My dad at 86 still managed to drive 1,500 miles in 2.5 days without killing anyone, but we will have a serious talk when he will try to repeat this drive (one he has done once or twice a year over the last 30 years) come October.
I'm 66 and have ZERO health issues. Don't go to a doctor. Do long distance hiking. Now can I do the physical things that I did at 46? No. My eye site has naturally deteriorated, particularly with a life of staring at a screen.
Truthfully, since I'm not a pilot I can't comment on skills needed to successfully fly a plane during stressful situations. That should be left to the professionals.
Absolutely George, I know far more capable veteran pilots who I would trust to fly with than the alternative.
@Lucky says:
'I don’t think anyone would argue that someone who is 66 is more likely to have health issues than someone who is 46.'
I was flabbergated to read that, given that almost all of the time, Lucky's positions are sober and well-reasoned if maybe not well-researched.
It's inevitable that someone who's passed more than three-quarters of their expected lifespan (80 years, for simplicity, give or take) will have significant health issues and most...
@Lucky says:
'I don’t think anyone would argue that someone who is 66 is more likely to have health issues than someone who is 46.'
I was flabbergated to read that, given that almost all of the time, Lucky's positions are sober and well-reasoned if maybe not well-researched.
It's inevitable that someone who's passed more than three-quarters of their expected lifespan (80 years, for simplicity, give or take) will have significant health issues and most likely more than one in addition to things that can't necessarily be described as 'health issues' but nonetheless are very important when flying a plane, such as decreased motor skills and reaction times.
A cursory Google search would have turned up plenty of research, much of which is from legitimate, well-respected sources not selling anything, that indicate this is so. I'm not familiar with Lucky's links policy or I would have posted a few, but they're easily found for anyone who cares to look.
@ Gentleman Jack Darby -- Whoops, that was a typo on my part, thanks for catching it. I meant to write "I don't think anyone would disagree," but instead wrote "I don't think anyone would argue." Fixed now!
It's obvious that you are unfamiliar with the FAA Medical and its inherent conflict of interest. It clearly does not provide the means for differentiating between mentally fit and unfit pilots. Therein lies the problem.
Erik & David,
Ted Cruz almost every congressional session he’s been in has introduced a bill to add term limits to congressmen, including as recently as this year. Now, does he seem to want to abide by serving a limited number of terms? His reelection campaign would suggest otherwise.
Ted Cruz wants to abolish term limits, go figure
What we really need is a mandatory retirement age for Congress.