Quote:
Originally Posted by Lubicon
Have seen some interesting posts on X by pilots. One that stuck out to me in particular made the observation that it would become very messy and expensive (at least short term) for US airlines if the age were raised to 67. His points were summarized as follows:
1. Age 67 rule would only apply to US, those pilots would not be legal to fly in other countries anyhow.
2. US airlines would need to build schedules to take this into account. ie cannot assign international flying to pilots >65.
3. Generally speaking senior pilots at the US airlines are the ones flying widebody international routes. They would not be able to do this past 65 regardless.
4. would require training (ie $$$) late in the careers of these pilots to transition back to aircraft that normally do most domestic flying.
|
Thanks.
If the US changed to 67, Canada would follow suit. The reason why the manditory retirement age in Canada remains 65 is because of the undue burden that it would put on Canadian airlines. Something like 95% of Canadian flights either enter US airspace or potentially could (as in one of the alternate airports is in the US).
I bet most would follow suit as well.
The reason it's at 65 was to age out pilots from old prop planes are WWII, and have the military trained jet pilots take over the new jet planes without having to retrain the more senior prop plane pilots.
For the record, I'm not aruging for the manditory retirement age to increase. I don't have any skin in the game, it is what it is. I was just curious as I find this REALLY interesting.