Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

FAA Set to Raise Retirement Age

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
So what you're saying is it's all about the money?

Gup

August 1, 2025

Dear Herb,

Love ya mean it send the final check to the Virgin Islands. Thanks for the memories. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed the past 28 years. I'll never forget the first time I stepped into a Red Bellied War Machine. I've had my fun - now it's time for the next generation to enjoy a little Southwest Hospitality.

If you need to reach me I'll be in D.C. blitzing to get this age discrimination abolished so I can come back but for now I'll be on the boat.

Thanks again,
Gup
 
Last edited:
FAA Set to Raise
Retirement Age
For Pilots to 65

By ANDY PASZTOR
December 11, 2006; Page A3

The Federal Aviation Administration, moving away from its longstanding policy that airline pilots must retire at age 60, wants to let them work in the cockpit as many as five years longer, according to industry and government officials.
The agency's emerging support for raising the mandatory retirement age to 65 comes as foreign airlines and regulators are adopting similar changes. If left unchanged, the current rules over the next decade will require thousands of passenger and cargo commercial pilots -- some projections total more than 30,0000 aviators -- to retire at age 60, regardless of their health, according to industry officials.

... and all aviators under the age of 23 will still not be able to obtain their ATP certificate - regardless of their knowledge or skill.

hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Sincerely,

B. Franklin
 
I started like everyone else, day one. Paid my dues and took my turn when it came up. I also progressed observing those who turned 60 that did not retire with $X,XXX,XXX in their portfolio. Circumstances encountered by the industry we all work in did not workout in their favor. Would have been nice to see them have the opportunity to earn a little more while they still could.

I'm not trying to be too hard on you old timer, but I have to take issue further. How about you write those retirees a check? No different than what you want every junior pilot to do for you!

My airline pilot father lost a fully funded pension in his late 40s, and lost his Class 1 at 53. I was 16, the oldest of four. We managed. I learned the hard way: You plan for the worst, you hope for the best. More than half the guys I fly with that want this age changed are 55+ and still have huge mortgages on huge houses, and all other manner of conspicuos consumption. Normally, this is none of my business. But since this crowd wants to get into my earnings, guess what? It's my business!

You want to tackle the big issues? Here's one: Pensions. Our overly regulated, "de-regulated" industry is more than deservant of a guaranteed pension just like the railroad gives. We more than meet the standards of being critical to the economy, and harshly treated by the same "robber barron" type CEOs. Every single pilot who puts in ten+ years FAR 121 flying, deserves some sort of pension that a mgt clown can't steal! Look into that would ya?
 
pension reform, couldn't agree more. As far as your earnings, it is their earnings too and this buys you time if you need it. Nice to have, may not use.
 
My question . . . If it's age discrimination to force retirement at age 60, wouldn't it still be discrimination to force retirement at age 65?

Seems that the age discrimination argument has no validity unless you argue for NO "Mandatory" retirement.
 
My question . . . If it's age discrimination to force retirement at age 60, wouldn't it still be discrimination to force retirement at age 65?

Seems that the age discrimination argument has no validity unless you argue for NO "Mandatory" retirement.

Pay the man Shirley.

FJ
 
pension reform, couldn't agree more. As far as your earnings, it is their earnings too and this buys you time if you need it. Nice to have, may not use.

Instead of APAAD, we should ALL be working together in Congress to get airline workers the same benefits railroaders have. It's pretty interesting. The total numbers seem to fall short of what an average majors retirement plan provides (if we even know what that really is anymore!). But the benefits are rock solid and include refined unemployment, full survivor benefits and early retirement eligibility.
 
My question . . . If it's age discrimination to force retirement at age 60, wouldn't it still be discrimination to force retirement at age 65?

Seems that the age discrimination argument has no validity unless you argue for NO "Mandatory" retirement.

This is the truest statement yet....You can't have it both ways guys. If it is about age discrimination, and it is your God given right to work until whenever you want, then there should not be an mandatory retirement age. How do you justify jumping up and down yelling "Age discrimination-Age Discrimination" yet you are setting an age of 65??? Face it, just like us younger guys, it's all about the money. Plain and simple. We won't claim you are more dangerous as long as you don't claim age discrimination any more!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top