The mandatory retirement age for U.S. airline pilots is back in the headlines. A push is underway to raise the limit from 65 to 67, but this is not a simple matter. Congress set the current age in law and would have to change it. Meanwhile, the global standard still caps international multi-pilot airline operations at 65, and a proposal to lift that to 67 is being debated this week in Montreal.
That tension is exactly what the current debate exposes. Raising the age buys short-term staffing relief and preserves valuable experience. It also risks swapping a clear, uniform rule for a patchwork of waivers, one-offs, and operational compromises, especially if ICAO does not move in lockstep with Congress. The result could be the worst of both worlds: complex scheduling limits for older pilots on international trips, additional medical and training oversight costs, and continuing uncertainty for pilots planning their careers.
It’s not that I’m opposed to raising the age from 65 to 67…I think in most cases it would be no problem and as I’ve experienced when flying private or on Part 135, these older pilots are sharp and professional. But I do think a bright-line rule has to exist. Those calling for totally abolishing any mandatory retirement age underestimate the cost of increased monitoring that would be necessary for older pilots, if for nothing other than libality reasons.
A great solo travel tip spotted this week on Live and Let's Fly.
