Cockpit conversations at cruise altitude run the gamut from flying stories to career aspirations to family life. Very rarely do discussions with colleagues make mention of great-grandchildren. Considering the possibility that legislation may be reintroduced to lift the ceiling on mandatory airline pilot retirement age, that topic of cockpit conversation may not be uncommon.
Why?
If you're not already a subscriber, what are you waiting for? Subscribe today to get the issue as soon as it is released in either Print or Digital formats.
Subscribe Now
In a letter sent on November 20, 2024, addressed to then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), a group of five bipartisan senators strongly urged that the U.S. should increase maximum pilot retirement age past 65 or eliminate it completely. The senators were adamant that we shouldn’t “spend the debate sitting on the sidelines” while other ICAO member countries have already taken the initiative.
Not too long ago in a congressional galaxy not very far away, was the specter of a “pilot shortage.” Pilot unions and lawmakers had both sounded the alarm. A handful of bipartisan senators deemed age 67 as the magic bullet to solve the problem through the Let Experienced Pilots Fly Act of 2023. The theory of raising the mandatory retirement age from 65 to 67 would give airlines a two-year attrition buffer so the fever pitch of training new pilots could catch up to demand while more experienced pilots remained on the job.
In July 2023, the act attached to the FAA reauthorization bill, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, but failed to gain traction in the Senate. Although the usual partisan politics squashed the legislation, a good portion of its failure involved the unequal divide among airline pilots for and against the act. Not surprising, senior pilots wanted to remain on the job longer in order to maximize retirement funds at their higher pay rates, and junior pilots wanted senior colleagues out of their seats sooner rather than later.
That divide among airline pilots still exists today. A well-ripened joke begins with the question, “What do you do if your captain dies in flight?”
Answer: “Get him out of your seat.” Although the humor is tongue in cheek, a hidden undercurrent of truth is behind the sentiment.
In a November newsletter, Let Experienced Pilots Fly Inc., a group consisting mostly of Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) members, claims that 34 percent of the union is in favor of the age 67 legislation or is in favor of eliminating a maximum retirement age—period. The organization assumes these pilots are over the age of 55 and are high on their airline’s seniority list.
Because ALPA has publicly resisted increasing the retirement age, the Raise the Pilot Age Coalition has initiated a lawsuit against ALPA for “breach of the duty of fair representation under the Railway Labor Act,” which governs airline pilot unions.
Prior to 1960, no maximum retirement age existed. Although it’s a colorful story, ripe with questionable political ethics, the maximum retirement age for U.S. pilots operating in a Part 121 environment was arbitrarily established at 60 and remained so for 47 years until it was changed to 65 in 2007.
- READ MORE: Making the Great Escape
In 1959, the CEO of American Airlines, C.R. Smith, publicly convinced the first FAA administrator, Elwood Quesada, that after age 60, pilots begin to suffer disqualifying medical issues, notwithstanding being significantly challenged in the transition from props to jets. No substantive studies, medically or otherwise, were presented for such arguments. Privately, Smith was simply attempting to reduce the number of higher-paid older and more senior pilots.
It would seem that the same strategy of a medical argument is repeating itself in the current environment. Although some truth exists as to aging pilots succumbing to more ailments and requiring the use of more sick time leave, past studies indicate that sudden incapacitation, such as a cardiac arrest causing an accident, is highly unlikely. Because of initial screening and continued FAA medical exam scrutiny, the airline pilot population trends healthier than the general population. As for cognitive skills, the argument has often been made that pilots who demonstrate successful performance during recurrent training cycles in a classroom and in a simulator are definitive proof of mental capabilities.
The November 2022 Jumpseat column I wrote for FLYING argued not to raise the mandatory retirement age to 67. I stand by those reasons because, at the time, the justification for raising the age by two years was a Band-Aid solution to solve the issue of a perceived pilot shortage. In the short term it would cause more problems than it solved. But now with the hiring process showing evidence of supply catching up to demand, some of the major airlines have stopped recruiting, at least for the moment, so the urgency doesn’t appear to be as intense.
One of the larger hurdles is the fact that ICAO rules still restrict pilots over 65 to fly internationally. But based on recent ICAO agendas, it would seem the organization is seriously considering lifting the ceiling. If ICAO’s research studies bear out that airline pilots’ above-average health does not pose a risk to the flying public even in cases of sudden incapacitation, why have a ceiling at all? Why establish another arbitrary age?
Not having a mandatory retirement age is a hard pill to swallow after years of acceptance. Most airlines have established compensation and pensions bargained for in labor contracts based on a cutoff age. These benefits would have to be renegotiated, although many airlines still maintain pay scales and retirement utilizing age 60.
Pilots flying under Part 91 and Part 135 operations have no age restrictions. They fly in the same environment as airline pilots, so the only justification seems to be that those operations put less people at risk per flight. With some exceptions, air traffic controllers still must retire at age 56. Why would a healthy controller be any different than a healthy airline pilot to continue on the job?
If airline pilot mandatory retirement age has no ceiling, recovery from sudden pilot incapacitation should be a training requirement. Recognition is key, especially during critical phases of flight like takeoff or landing. Perhaps as was initially instituted for age 65, a restriction for pairing pilots in the same cockpit at certain ages should be considered. Can the public, let alone airline pilots, embrace two 75-year-olds on the same flight deck?
My retired colleagues flying GA airplanes are aware that airplane insurance companies are either charging astronomical premiums or not underwriting at all for pilots over age 70 despite our flight time and experience. Although most airlines self-insure, certainly the GA situation would have some influence in the Part 121 world.
My argument for mandatory airline pilot age is simple. If no substantive study with accurate data quantifies a particular age whereupon medical and cognitive issues indicate enough of a decline to create a risk to the flying public, then why define another arbitrary age?
My apologies to junior pilots. Indeed, they will suffer the consequences of seniority stagnation. Hopefully, they will not harbor resentment toward their senior colleagues. Unfortunately, the joke mentioned earlier may elicit a grimace rather than a grin.
This column first appeared in the April Issue 957 of the FLYING print edition.
