The rest of your comment was motivated by your greed, but this first part touches on something that will have to be dealt with: how do we know when "it's time to go"?
Age, by itself, is obviously not the determinant. Performance is.
There are already several performance checks that all pilots (regardless of age) are subjected to:
Sim checks.
Line checks.
FAA physicals.
I.O.E's.
The problem is that in the past, these were more "Pro Forma" than functional. We can all tell stories about the FAA designated docs who are blinder and deafer than the pilots they are supposedly checking. We have all seen pilots pass Sim checks that were abortions from begining to end. We have all see pilots fresh off their IOE's who couldn't locate the cockpit.
These mechanisms for quality control are already in place, but they need to become meaningful and now that the age 60 rule isn't in place, they probably will. The downside is that if you are a sub-performer, you might find yourself "gone" way before age 60.
To arbitrarily choose an age to force ALL pilots to retire is capricious and discriminatory; it doesn't get at the root of the problem. One age does not fit all.
Yes! There is a point at which we need to stop flying; there is a point at which we need to stop driving; there is a point at which we need to start wearing Depends, but performance is the criterion, not age.
Let's move on from the dark ages of the "age 60 rule" and refine how we define and check pilot performance. The age 60 rule short circuited this process and kept it from evolving all these years. Now we must catch up and develop modern metrics to evalutate PERFORMANCE.
