Now that the election is over and it appears that the Democrats will control both the House and Senate, I think that it is safe to say that the legislation to change pilot retirement to age 65, in its current form, is dead. It is highly unlikely that an omnibus appropriations bill will be passed in the 109th and I don’t see HR 5576 slipping through the Senate with S 65 attached as an amendment. I would also say that if it is proposed as phrased in S 65/HR 65 in the 110th Congress, it’s also dead.
I want to be perfectly clear that I am opposed to any change in the current rule unless there will be no decrease in safety. In spite of my reservations, I think that a compromise position can be reached IF the pro-change crowd would alter the proposed change as outlined in S. 65/HR 65.
I suggest that the pro-change crowd push for the following change:
1) Change the rule from age 60 to 62 (minimum age to collect social security). After that has been in effect for 2 ½ years, increase retirement age by 6 months every year until reaching 67, the future full retirement age – we’re kidding ourselves if we think that this change will stop at 65. This proposal would allow those who are financially unable to retire at age 60 to immediately collect social security after retirement at age 62. It also allows for a smoother transition to increased retirement age (slows down movement but doesn’t kill movement) and allows the FAA to stop any increase if they feel that safety is being compromised.
2) No over 60 pilot may act as Pilot in Command. Since there has to be one pilot below the age of 60, it only makes sense that this pilot is the Pilot in Command.
3) Increase medical standards and enforcement of those standards for all pilots, not just over 60 pilots.
4) All over 60 pilots retain their seniority within the company.
5) Restrict all over 60 pilots from flying more than 75 hours per month.
I oppose changing the retirement age because I think that we will be compromising safety. No one can logically deny that, as we age, our physical and cognitive abilities decline. I will also state that age alone is a poor criterion to use in order to decide who has the physical and cognitive abilities to fly commercial aircraft; everyone ages at differing rates. I have looked for but have not found any way to inexpensively or easily test one’s physical and cognitive abilities. While the use of a specific age is a poor measurement within individuals, it is a valid measurement within groups of people. Until a better method of measuring physical and cognitive abilities is devised, an age criterion is the best method that we have to ensure safe operation of commercial aircraft.
An issue that is avoided in most discussions is the economic impact of a change. If the law changes, there will be some winners and many losers. This will not be a positive sum game nor will it be a zero sum game; it is a negative sum game for pilots. The reason that I say this is because pilots’ compensation packages are based on the fact that we retire at age 60. If we (pilots) retire at a later date, there is less reason for our employer to provide a retirement package that will support us until we are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. The fact that the number of active pilots would increase due to an age change will also cause downward pressure on wages – this is Econ 101, supply and demand. I have not crunched any numbers, but I suspect that any pilot under the age of 50 when a change takes place will earn less during his career in earnings than he would have had without a change in the law in spite of working an additional five years. Make no mistake about it – any change in pilot retirement age will have a negative financial impact on pilots as a group. But the economic aspect of any change should not be a consideration; it is the safety aspect of any change that needs to be addressed.
With the change of power in Washington, it is highly unlikely that there will be any change in pilot retirement age with the 110th Congress. While this issue is front and center for commercial pilots, it is not even on Washington’s radar screen. And don’t hold your breath waiting for the FAA to make a regulatory change. For those that desire to change retirement age, it would be prudent to reassess their position and approach any change from a different angle. If the pro-change crowd tries to have the law change to 65 in one fell swoop and try to retain their position as Pilot in Command, they will face a very tough uphill battle to get a change passed. It may happen eventually, but it is much likelier to happen if they are willing to stake out a compromise position.
I want to be perfectly clear that I am opposed to any change in the current rule unless there will be no decrease in safety. In spite of my reservations, I think that a compromise position can be reached IF the pro-change crowd would alter the proposed change as outlined in S. 65/HR 65.
I suggest that the pro-change crowd push for the following change:
1) Change the rule from age 60 to 62 (minimum age to collect social security). After that has been in effect for 2 ½ years, increase retirement age by 6 months every year until reaching 67, the future full retirement age – we’re kidding ourselves if we think that this change will stop at 65. This proposal would allow those who are financially unable to retire at age 60 to immediately collect social security after retirement at age 62. It also allows for a smoother transition to increased retirement age (slows down movement but doesn’t kill movement) and allows the FAA to stop any increase if they feel that safety is being compromised.
2) No over 60 pilot may act as Pilot in Command. Since there has to be one pilot below the age of 60, it only makes sense that this pilot is the Pilot in Command.
3) Increase medical standards and enforcement of those standards for all pilots, not just over 60 pilots.
4) All over 60 pilots retain their seniority within the company.
5) Restrict all over 60 pilots from flying more than 75 hours per month.
I oppose changing the retirement age because I think that we will be compromising safety. No one can logically deny that, as we age, our physical and cognitive abilities decline. I will also state that age alone is a poor criterion to use in order to decide who has the physical and cognitive abilities to fly commercial aircraft; everyone ages at differing rates. I have looked for but have not found any way to inexpensively or easily test one’s physical and cognitive abilities. While the use of a specific age is a poor measurement within individuals, it is a valid measurement within groups of people. Until a better method of measuring physical and cognitive abilities is devised, an age criterion is the best method that we have to ensure safe operation of commercial aircraft.
An issue that is avoided in most discussions is the economic impact of a change. If the law changes, there will be some winners and many losers. This will not be a positive sum game nor will it be a zero sum game; it is a negative sum game for pilots. The reason that I say this is because pilots’ compensation packages are based on the fact that we retire at age 60. If we (pilots) retire at a later date, there is less reason for our employer to provide a retirement package that will support us until we are eligible for Social Security and Medicare. The fact that the number of active pilots would increase due to an age change will also cause downward pressure on wages – this is Econ 101, supply and demand. I have not crunched any numbers, but I suspect that any pilot under the age of 50 when a change takes place will earn less during his career in earnings than he would have had without a change in the law in spite of working an additional five years. Make no mistake about it – any change in pilot retirement age will have a negative financial impact on pilots as a group. But the economic aspect of any change should not be a consideration; it is the safety aspect of any change that needs to be addressed.
With the change of power in Washington, it is highly unlikely that there will be any change in pilot retirement age with the 110th Congress. While this issue is front and center for commercial pilots, it is not even on Washington’s radar screen. And don’t hold your breath waiting for the FAA to make a regulatory change. For those that desire to change retirement age, it would be prudent to reassess their position and approach any change from a different angle. If the pro-change crowd tries to have the law change to 65 in one fell swoop and try to retain their position as Pilot in Command, they will face a very tough uphill battle to get a change passed. It may happen eventually, but it is much likelier to happen if they are willing to stake out a compromise position.
Last edited:
Wait a few weeks
