The airline pilot (part 121 flight operations) retirement age has recently been increased from 60 to 65 because of the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act. Many people, mainly the pilots who fly for these part 121 operators, agree that this is a good thing. These pilots get to fly for an extra five years, therefor earning an extra five years worth of pay. However, other people, such as the general flying public, may argue to say that a person of that age should not be able to fly because of safety reasons.
How should retirement age for pilots be determined? The current 65 rule sounds nice, but it takes no consideration of ability. Just because a person has reached their 65th birthday doesn't mean that they are immediately unsafe to fly an aircraft. That could happen many years down the road, or even before reaching the age of 65.
It is a well know idea in the aviation industry that expertise comes with experience. This means that a pilot of the age of 60 will have more experience, thereof more expertise in the skill of piloting an aircraft. This brings up a valid reason why pilots should be able to fly longer than the age of 60. However, if all these pilots are able to work for an additional 5 years, what does that mean for all the new pilots looking for jobs? Well that means their will be a lot less of them.
Another benefit to the increase in age, as said by LeftSeat.com, is that these extra five years of work will help pilots recoup some extra money to offset some of their decreases in pensions.
I personally have mixed feelings about the increase retirement age regulation. On hand, I know this means finding a job will be a much more difficult task. On the other hand, These men and women over the age of 60 have a right to work just like an other human being. I also know that people over 60 can be perfectly capable of piloting aircraft.
At what age does piloting an aircraft become unsafe? I don't think specifying 65 years is going to determine that. We may see certain exceptions to this rule in the future.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the underlying reason for this rule's existence? If there was a safety issue, wouldn't this rule be applied under part 67 rather than part 121?
ReplyDeleteYou're sentence saying "Just because a person has reached their 65th birthday doesn't mean that they are immediately unsafe to fly an aircraft" reminds me of the age requirement to buy and consume alcohol. Haha! Plus shouldn't doctors say whether or not a pilot is fit to fly or not when they go for their medical exam? If that were the case we might have 85 year olds still flying.
ReplyDeleteI really think you make a good point about pilot age and retirement. In just about every other major career field, people look for a retirement age so they can look forward to it. In aviation, having this age be mandatory retirement has no bearing on the person's ability to fly...only as an age discrimination. People much younger or much older may, at that point, reach the inability to fly. That should be the determining factor, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete