To cope with increase demand for pilots, and following already successful extension of retirement age to 64 in 2004, Japan MLIT has announced it will immediately raise the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots from the current 64 to 67 years.

Under the new rules, pilots between ages 64 and 67 may only operate up to 80 hours monthly, and must fly with crew member younger than 60 and also under go more frequent medical check up.

Govt. to raise pilots' retirement age
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20150221_21.html

=

As I understand it several other nations (Netherlands, Germany, China) are themselves considering such moves now that ICAO is also kicking around revised guidance of age 67 as well.

[Edited 2015-02-23 16:32:25]

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter): To cope with increase demand for pilots, and following already successful extension of retirement age to 64 in 2004, Japan MLIT has announced it will immediately raise the mandatory retirement age for commercial pilots from the current 64 to 67 years. Under the new rules, pilots between ages 64 and 67 may only operate up to 80 hours monthly, and must fly with crew member younger than 60 and also under go more frequent medial check up.

Seems like a good move to me.

If the pilots are fit to fly and pass the required medical checks then I don't see anything wrong with extending the retirement age to 67.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 1): Seems like a good move to me.

  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 1): If the pilots are fit to fly and pass the required medical checks

Like Hulk Hogan??

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter): As I understand it several other nations (Netherlands, Germany, China) are themselves considering such moves now that ICAO is also kicking around revised guidance of age 67 as well.

Nothing stopping these countries filing a difference. Here we have no mandatory retirement age. With restrictions other countries have, we no longer have any longhaul pilots over 65 but plenty (including some over 70) on domestic and trans tasman operations (Australia too has no mandatory retirement age).

Quoting Miami (Reply 2): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 1): If the pilots are fit to fly and pass the required medical checks Like Hulk Hogan??

Hahaha.

I was thinking Arnold Schwarzenegger, but he is now 67  

Is Hulk type rated on any types operated in Japan?  

Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with raising the age of retirement to 67 - good move as long as the checks and balances are in place to ensure that the pilots are medically fit to fly - and it seems as if that will be the case.

Let's hope the FAA doesn't want to raise the age in the USA to 67! It was a disaster for many of our careers when it was raised from 60 to 65. Another 2 years would be another mess!

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 5): Let's hope the FAA doesn't want to raise the age in the USA to 67! It was a disaster for many of our careers when it was raised from 60 to 65. Another 2 years would be another mess!

Don't worry, the FAA isn't interested in Age 67, they are heading for Age 70 (or higher!).  

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 6): Don't worry, the FAA isn't interested in Age 67, they are heading for Age 70 (or higher!).

I know right? I wonder if ALPA will be against it again, before they're for it?      

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 5): It was a disaster for many of our careers when it was raised from 60 to 65.

I don't really keep up with the labor aspect, so can you explain why?

Genuinely curious.

A marathon is a designated 26.2 miles. Would you enjoy setting out on that marathon and at various points throughout the race, the distance that you have to run is extended? Then to make matters worse, everyone ahead of you, who were going to beat you in the race, stayed in the race. By staying in the race, they therefore prolong your opportunity to finish this marathon. Doesn't sound like much fun does it?

[Edited 2015-02-23 17:41:01]

Anybody else care to explain their stance on it... but in actual/relevant metrics, as opposed to weird jogging analogies?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 10): Anybody else care to explain their stance on it... but in actual/relevant metrics, as opposed to weird jogging analogies?

Ummm... okay, sorry that you can't draw the parallel with the analogy. Many of us started as an airline pilot with the end game being 60. It was also everyone else's end game. Some would leave earlier, most would stay to the end. Then, the end game was moved to 65. That meant THOUSANDS of pilots in the business would stay in the game for 5 more years. At an individual airline, since seniority rules most aspects of ones quality of life, those that stay flying for 5 more years, instantly stifled the advancement for everyone below them and stagnated their careers. All of this happened in the midst of a major downturn in the industry. If the 65 end game gets moved again, the cycle repeats itself. An airline pilot counts on continued retirements by those senior to them throughout their career, to aid in their advancement. Nobody likes it when the goal post is moved do they?

[Edited 2015-02-23 18:03:54]

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter): Under the new rules, pilots between ages 64 and 67 may only operate up to 80 hours monthly, and must fly with crew member younger than 60 and also under go more frequent medical check up

This got me thinking. A few years ago, and ANA B737 basically flew upside down after the captain tried to enter the flight deck after using the restroom and the FA pushed the wrong lever. At this time, it was reported that the captain who tried to reenter the flightdeck was 70 years old.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 10): Anybody else care to explain their stance on it... but in actual/relevant metrics, as opposed to weird jogging analogies?

One issue when this first came up was that if the pilots that were approaching retirement at age 60 (which planning ahead regarding the recruiting of new pilots was also based on) were allowed to fly on for another 5 years that would mean the newer / younger pilots would have to wait longer until they could move up the ranks and even make it harder for them to find a job after training as fewer pilots would be leaving the workforce because of age than previously expected.

I say good on the FAA for giving the career pilots who are fit and capable and want to fly on another 5 years. 65 is not that old anyway so I would hope to see that age extended again.  

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 11): okay, sorry that you can't draw the parallel with the analogy.

Meh, I could, I just thought it was rather pointless.... so stopped reading after the first line, and figured I'd ask for something that didn't seem like it was ghostwritten by an 8-yr-old. Glad to see you could oblige.  

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 11): Nobody likes it when the goal post is moved do they?

I'd imagine that the ones who benefit from it, would.
Otherwise, why would they stay-- didn't many, if not most, of the airlines offer attrition during the downturn?

[Edited 2015-02-23 18:36:27]

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 14): Quoting azjubilee (Reply 11): Nobody likes it when the goal post is moved do they? I'd imagine that the ones who benefit from it, would.

  

Especially the pilots nearing age 60 at the time that wanted to keep on earning an income by doing what they love doing for longer  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 13): I say good on the FAA for giving the career pilots who are fit and capable and want to fly on another 5 years.

Sorta my thoughts on it as well: why should a good pilot be mandated to go, if he doesn't want to, because some younger person thinks that he's entitled to that guy's job/position?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 13): 65 is not that old anyway so I would hope to see that age extended again

  

This is reaching limits, though. Past age 65, and especially past age 70, drivers have poorer vehicle control, poorer vision and slower reflexes. They get momentarily confused and make mistakes. By 75, this is very clear in auto insurance data.

Some 67 year olds are fit as a fiddle and ready to fly. Others are physically 75 already. And that is too old for the job.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 16): Sorta my thoughts on it as well: why should a good pilot be mandated to go, if he doesn't want to, because some younger person thinks that he's entitled to that guy's job/position?

Because cognitive abilities are among the things not examined in an FAA medical, and they deteriorate at a greater rate with age, to include the late 60s.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 16): Sorta my thoughts on it as well: why should a good pilot be mandated to go, if he doesn't want to, because some younger person thinks that he's entitled to that guy's job/position?

  

Exactly.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): This is reaching limits, though. Past age 65, and especially past age 70, drivers have poorer vehicle control, poorer vision and slower reflexes. They get momentarily confused and make mistakes. By 75, this is very clear in auto insurance data.

We are talking about airplane pilots, not car drivers. How many car drivers can get from point A to B on auto-pilot if they want? I'm not trying to talk down the great ammount of skill being a pilot involves, but with the lack of hand-flying and ammount of automation nowadays, flying a large commercial airplane until age 70 - *if you are medically fit to do so and meet all requirements* - should not be an issue IMHO.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): Some 67 year olds are fit as a fiddle and ready to fly. Others are physically 75 already. And that is too old for the job.

And I'm sure that there are also some 70 year olds that would pass the required checks and be deemed fit to fly if age was not an issue  

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 15): Especially the pilots nearing age 60 at the time that wanted to keep on earning an income by doing what they love doing for longer

An airline career is great when you fly from the US to Europe three times a month and collect $200k per year. It's not so much fun when you are making $25k, commuting on all of your days off and eating ramen noodles because you can't afford real food. Unfortunately, having the guys at the top extend their enjoyment also forces the guys at the bottom to extend their misery. Without the retirements at the top, there is no advancement for anyone else.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 16): Sorta my thoughts on it as well: why should a good pilot be mandated to go, if he doesn't want to, because some younger person thinks that he's entitled to that guy's job/position?

And, not expectedly, you've pissed the point. I don't feel entitled, far from it. I and many others simply don't appreciate the stagnation and slower advancement when the rules are changed.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 15): Especially the pilots nearing age 60 at the time that wanted to keep on earning an income by doing what they love doing for longer

Haha, pie in the sky. The folks I've flown with that are reaching retirement can't wait for the day they hang up their hat and wings. It's generally a bitter sweet moment, but many leave on a high note and many before 65. Not because they don't love it, but because it's time. For many, a long storied career has its final chapter. What's the point of working hard and doing what you love to do if you can't enjoy the fruits of your labor afterwards? Flying, especially long haul flying takes a toll. It takes a toll on the body, on the family and on ones life. Nobody wants to work until the day they die, no matter how much they love their job.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 13): I say good on the FAA for giving the career pilots who are fit and capable and want to fly on another 5 years. 65 is not that old anyway so I would hope to see that age extended again.

Why would you want to see it extended? How would you benefit? Just curious. Have you ever taken an FAA medical? The fact that you don't draw a parallel between driving and flying proves to me how much you really have no idea what goes on in the flight deck. Decision making skills, quick reactions and the ability to constantly learn new things are mandatory until the last day on the line. If you can't correlate age and the reduction of cognitive skills and how it relates to flying airplanes, than you really are off base with your comments.

[Edited 2015-02-23 18:59:46]

Quoting silentbob (Reply 20): An airline career is great when you fly from the US to Europe three times a month and collect $200k per year. It's not so much fun when you are making $25k, commuting on all of your days off and eating ramen noodles because you can't afford real food.

Most people considering a career as a pilot are aware of this and the pain / costs early on during one's career. They are also aware that they might never make it to a major airline or end up flying small planes their entire life. If they aren't prepared to accept this then they should perhaps look for a different career? Having said that, I can understand why some were annoyed at the time the age limit was raised (as that might not have been expected) and consequently had their career progress slowed down but that is life. To see the senior pilots be given more time in a seniorority based industry did not surprise me one bit especially how young the retirement age of 60 was to start with.

Quoting goboeing (Reply 18): Because cognitive abilities are among the things not examined in an FAA medical, and they deteriorate at a greater rate with age, to include the late 60s.

But to play Devil's Advocate: since all people do not start out on a equal (cognitive) playing field, nor do they deteriorate as such.... then if the authorities aren't testing for it, how do they know that the cognitive function of any pilot is at a satisfactory level, sufficiently to use that factor as the threshold of exclusion?

Quoting silentbob (Reply 20): Unfortunately, having the guys at the top extend their enjoyment also forces the guys at the bottom to extend their misery. Without the retirements at the top, there is no advancement for anyone else.

How's that their problem?

Since when do tenured bigwigs at any given company, care about the advancement of rookies???

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 22): Having said that, I can understand why some were annoyed at the time the age limit was raised (as that might not have been expected) and consequently had their career progress slowed down but that is life

So then you understand precisely why myself and most pilots would NOT want it extended again. You've acknowledged it and can understand it would be annoying... so why on earth are you a proponent, like you've got a dog in this fight anyhow? That's life? Yeah... it's MY life. My friends life. My colleagues life. We pay the bills, feed our families and educate our kids and with this career we love. So when it's threatened, stagnated and/or jeopardized, we tend to take offense to those who drop simple minded comments with little knowledge or facts such as yours. Alas, this is airliners.net after all. I'm not even shocked.

[Edited 2015-02-23 19:10:11]

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 21): I don't feel entitled, far from it

One sure wouldn't know it, from reading what you're written.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 21): I and many others simply don't appreciate the stagnation and slower advancement when the rules are changed.

Why would any of those who now have the opportunity to continue their job, rather than have it forcibly taken from them.... care? What, you going to tell us that when it's your turn at the pinnacle, you will?

In that case, why not quit now-- that'll help someone else's advancement, wouldn't it?  

[Edited 2015-02-23 19:15:37]

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 6): Don't worry, the FAA isn't interested in Age 67, they are heading for Age 70 (or higher!).

I believe the plan is to just handcuff pilots to the yokes (Boeings) or sidesticks (Airbus). You can check in any time you want, but Skipper - you can never leave!

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 21): The folks I've flown with that are reaching retirement can't wait for the day they hang up their hat and wings. It's generally a bitter sweet moment, but many leave on a high note and many before 65. Not because they don't love it, but because it's time.

Having an age limit does not mean that pilots have to fly on until that age. It means that those who want to and can are able to. That's all. IMHO 60 was too young to say 'you must retire now'. 65 or 67 now in Japan is a bit more reasonable IMHO for those that want to choose to fly on. Nobody is making people fly until that age...

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 21): Why would you want to see it extended? How would you benefit? Just curious.

I wouldn't benefit. But I don't only think about myself. I think about those who have done the hard yards and are still fit, capable and willing / want to fly on.

Actually, perhaps I might benefit by having a more experienced pilot in command of my flight - especially during an emergency  

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 21): The fact that you don't draw a parallel between driving and flying proves to me how much you really have no idea what goes on in the flight deck. Decision making skills, quick reactions and the ability to constantly learn new things are mandatory until the last day on the line. If you can't correlate age and the reduction of cognitive skills and how it relates to flying airplanes, than you really are off base with your comments.

See below:

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 19): I'm not trying to talk down the great ammount of skill being a pilot involves

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 24): So then you understand precisely why myself and most pilots would NOT want it extended again. You've acknowledged it and can understand it would be annoying... so why on earth are you a proponent, like you've got a dog in this fight anyhow? That's life? Yeah... it's MY life. My friends life. My colleagues life. We pay the bills, feed our families and educate our kids and with this career we love. So when it's threatened, stagnated and/or jeopardized, we tend to take offense to those who drop simple minded comments with little knowledge or facts such as yours. Alas, this is airliners.net after all. I'm not even shocked.

See, you only think about yourself and those in a similar position.

What about those older pilots who have dedicated their entire career to flying and have worked just as hard if not harder to get to were they are today to be told: "sorry you are too old now that you are 60"???

I don't have a problem with 65 - you too can fly until 65 if you like, so you get an extra 5 years too  

If the retirement age is extended by X years it also means that the newer pilots will also have X more years.

Have a bit more patience.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 25): Quoting azjubilee (Reply 21): I don't feel entitled, far from it One sure wouldn't know it, from reading what you're written.

  

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 8): Quoting azjubilee (Reply 5): It was a disaster for many of our careers when it was raised from 60 to 65. I don't really keep up with the labor aspect, so can you explain why? Genuinely curious.

ALPA polled it's members and overwhelming majority were opposed to raising the age from 60 to 65. ALPA
committed that it was going to oppose legislation to raise the age. Then something happened on the way to the forum and ALPA was being led by a pilot that he himself would benefit from the rise in the age. A new survey was conducted of ALPA pilots with questions geared to skew the results. As I recall one question "If the age were to change would you want ALPA to be part of the process?" Of course dues payers wanted their dues dollars spent on this IF the legislation was changed. ALPA spun this as "ALPA pilots support age 65". It was a farce and one of the big reasons I stopped contributing to our PAC fund. ALPA used the termination of the defined pensions in the BK at the legacy carriers to also support raising the age. I am retiring in a few years at age 60. I have met my financial needs for retirement and don't have to keep working. Although I know plenty of pilots that will still be broke if they raised the age to 100. ALPA has a lot of egg on its face as a result of age 65. Wonder what their position will be with this one? How old is the new chairman?


I will fully admit the longhaul flying is tougher on me the older I get. No way I want to spend the years I have left commuting and trying to sleep in the middle of the day for a 15 hour all night flight. I would much rather be doing things I enjoy with my family and friends.

Quoting goboeing (Reply 18): Because cognitive abilities are among the things not examined in an FAA medical, and they deteriorate at a greater rate with age, to include the late 60s.

Got a credible source for that? Although its getting on past a decade since I did the psychology of ageing for my masters degree, there was no credible research to support that assertion, provided there was no physical cause such as Alhimzers or dementia. Regulatory bodies may have to include the symptions of such physical conditions in medical reviews as pilots get older, but so what?

Gemuser

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 28):

Good grief. Don't lecture me on selfishness and being patient. You have no idea what my career has been like and don't even know me. This discussion is a waste of my time and energy and is over with you.

[Edited 2015-02-23 19:46:18]

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 29): ALPA polled it's members and overwhelming majority were opposed to raising the age from 60 to 65. ALPA committed that it was going to oppose legislation to raise the age. Then something happened on the way to the forum and ALPA was being led by a pilot that he himself would benefit from the rise in the age. A new survey was conducted of ALPA pilots with questions geared to skew the results. As I recall one question "If the age were to change would you want ALPA to be part of the process?" Of course dues payers wanted their dues dollars spent on this IF the legislation was changed. ALPA spun this as "ALPA pilots support age 65". It was a farce and one of the big reasons I stopped contributing to our PAC fund. ALPA used the termination of the defined pensions in the BK at the legacy carriers to also support raising the age. I am retiring in a few years at age 60. I have met my financial needs for retirement and don't have to keep working. Although I know plenty of pilots that will still be broke if they raised the age to 100. ALPA has a lot of egg on its face as a result of age 65. Wonder what their position will be with this one? How old is the new chairman?

Yeah, they stewed us all when they flip flopped. I wouldn't expect anything less next time around.

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 29): I will fully admit the longhaul flying is tougher on me the older I get. No way I want to spend the years I have left commuting and trying to sleep in the middle of the day for a 15 hour all night flight. I would much rather be doing things I enjoy with my family and friends.

Indeed. But try explaining this to anyone around here!

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 24): So then you understand precisely why myself and most pilots would NOT want it extended again. You've acknowledged it and can understand it would be annoying... so why on earth are you a proponent, like you've got a dog in this fight anyhow? That's life? Yeah... it's MY life. My friends life. My colleagues life. We pay the bills, feed our families and educate our kids and with this career we love. So when it's threatened, stagnated and/or jeopardized, we tend to take offense to those who drop simple minded comments with little knowledge or facts such as yours. Alas, this is airliners.net after all. I'm not even shocked.

You can always tell the folks who actually work in the industry from the fanboys on this site.

Simply put, the change from 60 to 65 has done significant damage, perhaps irreparable damage, not just to individual pilots but to the entire profession going forward. To be fair, you can't lay that exclusively at the feet of the age change - the fact that there was a recession going on as well played a part. But most of it was the five years of stagnation.

The effect of this on individual pilots has been documented already in this thread, and the hurt is very real. A whole generation of pilots got screwed by the change (I'm among them, though I'm toward the tail end of that generation and so didn't get hurt as badly). But I'm going to talk about the collective industry angle: an industry where there is a risk of not advancing can be viable, but an industry where there is a guarantee of no advancement for five years out of your career isn't going to attract anybody. The regional carriers, supposedly a quick stepping stone that one has to go through, became a career position for people. Prospective pilots see that and are understandably turned off. We're seeing the consequences of that now, in airlines hurting for pilots but not being able to find enough people. That means flight cancellations, cities losing service, etc., all because the airlines got addicted to what they could do with an artificially disadvantaged labor force, and are now passing their withdrawal symptoms on to the flying public.

Things are finally starting to pick up for the profession to the point where in a couple of years we might be able to have a developmental pipeline that can support the industry's needs again. Allowing another age extension would destroy all that progress, and we'd deeply regret it in due time. It doesn't help passengers, and it doesn't help the broader pilot community (though it does help some). The industry needs turnover to be viable long-term, so the retirement age needs to be kept where it is.

-Mir

In my opinion this is good news. At the moment pilots are being forced into retirement before they're ready, when the fact remains that they have a good number of years flying they could give.

I think this is due to the very low birth rates in the country.

[Edited 2015-02-24 05:45:22]

Quoting Luftymatt (Reply 35): In my opinion this is good news. At the moment pilots are being forced into retirement before they're ready, when the fact remains that they have a good number of years flying they could give.

They're not being forced to retire, just to stop flying. There are lots of other ways they could contribute if they want to. They could also fly corporate or charter, or do work within the industry outside their airline. Lots of opportunities out there for a creative mind. And if they don't want to do that, well...

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 22): that is life

-Mir

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 32): Indeed. But try explaining this to anyone around here!

You professional pilots are fools to get into a debate with a group that knows so little about aviation but thinks they know so much just because they hang around a website. Give it rest and save your blood pressure from going over the top.

[Edited 2015-02-24 08:02:28]

LongHaul flying until 67, HURRAY can' t wait for it to happen.
The problem is, the people in charge and making the regulations have no clue about they are talking.
I flew with 60+ Captains and they didn' t get a single ATC call during a night shift back home.
I also flew with some very good ones but in average I have to say the average 50y CPT is performing a lot better then the
average 60+ CPT!

Quoting Mir (Reply 34): Simply put, the change from 60 to 65 has done significant damage, perhaps irreparable damage, not just to individual pilots but to the entire profession going forward.

No question that a generation got screwed. But that is what happens as the median voter in a union gets older. The young get screwed on pay, benefits and career development. The baby boom was going to screw the next wave no matter what. Consider schoolteachers and UAW workers and adjunct professors vs tenured, similar thing. At worst, there are A-B scales not unlike mainline vs regional. A-scale makes six figures and pension while B-scale is hourly and makes 40% of that with no benefits or security. The dark secret is, B-scale will never be A-scale, it's just generational screwing, not a career path.

One factor in favor of age 65 is that it is easier to financially manage retirement, especially if a generous pension is not being provided. At 60 don't have Medicare yet. This is something that "in theory" will help the screwed generation, enjoying 5 additional years of peak earnings at the tail end.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 40): One factor in favor of age 65 is that it is easier to financially manage retirement, especially if a generous pension is not being provided. At 60 don't have Medicare yet. This is something that "in theory" will help the screwed generation, enjoying 5 additional years of peak earnings at the tail end.

Yea, but you have Obama care. What could go wrong?

As has been pointed out above, many 67-year-olds are 50-equivalents while many are 75-equivalents. I think this presents some logistical issues for the airlines. It isn't really much of an issue with 50-year-olds -- or even 60-year-olds. But 67-year-olds (and, arguable, 65-year-olds) are constantly running on the borderline of being medically unfit to fly. A super fit 67-year-old is statistically more likely to develop a serious medical condition than a super fit 50-year-old. It's strictly an age thing.

If a 65-year-old's cataracts get bad enough that he can't pass the medical, does it make sense for the company to give him time to get them fixed so he can go back to flying until he reaches 67, hoping that as soon as he does go back he doesn't come up with a heart condition, Parkinson's, etc?

(Disclaimer: I am 67.)

Quoting Mir (Reply 37): Lots of opportunities out there

At the current retirement age? I disagree. There should be, but there aren't.

Any further discussion about raising the retirement age for pilots in the US has to come with a serious reevaluation of medical standards and pilot training/checking. FAA medical exams are far less stringent than those conducted by the JCAB or Chinese authorities. If we are serious about allowing pilots to fly into advanced age, that needs to change. This needs to be seriously considered, because many pilots in their 40's and 50's may end up being medically disqualified with increased scrutiny. A classic case of be careful what you wish for. Also, many of the oldest and usually most senior pilots at a given airline may be line check airmen or extremely friendly with members of the training department due to their long years of service. This can create a bias where underperformance can be allowed to pass. Cognitive ability does decline past age 60 and without objectivity in the evaluation of these pilots, we may be placing a burden on their fellow crew members who have to pick up the slack. Just a prospective from someone who does this for a living.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 9): A marathon is a designated 26.2 miles. Would you enjoy setting out on that marathon and at various points throughout the race, the distance that you have to run is extended? Then to make matters worse, everyone ahead of you, who were going to beat you in the race, stayed in the race. By staying in the race, they therefore prolong your opportunity to finish this marathon. Doesn't sound like much fun does it?

If you honestly see this as a marathon, you should have stopped and changed career a looong time ago.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 11): Nobody likes it when the goal post is moved do they?

While I feel the your marathon analogy is quite misplaced, I can accept and understand your goal post argument; this one is a good solid basis for discussion.

So here is what I can offer to the discussion: while it might suck to have your goal post moved, about every lower and middle class worker in this country has seen his/her "goal post: been moved by a very considerable portion over the last 5 - 10 years. So why would/should pilots be excluded from that economic correction (as some would put it), as long as safety is not affected in any meaningful way?

Rgds,
PW100

A Japanese flight physical is nothing like an FAA physical so what works over there probably will not work under the current FAA. Be careful what you wish for 

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 28): I don't have a problem with 65 - you too can fly until 65 if you like, so you get an extra 5 years too

That's great if you are already a 777 captain. For a guy who was an RJ F/O, raising the age to 65 meant an extra 5 years as an RJ F/O. Given the lack of extra 401K savings in the early years and the time value of money, age 65 may well have cost a junior pilot money.

I miss some obvious points in the argumentation here. It is a mandatory retirement age. That means they HAVE to work until that age- not that they CAN work until that age.
Here in Germany - retirement for LH as well as ATC still is at 55- for a good reason. Prolonging that age is not a good idea at all. First of all it is screwing the employer of an earned benefit. It means taking away money from him. It means that younger colleagues are not employed, or have to wait longer for a promotion.

For some it might be OK, but for most things don´t get better at an older age. We are talking of a high level stress work with very tight safety margins. So, in my opinion , forcing people to have to work two years extra (with 65 already being too much) is dangerous and negligent.

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 48): I miss some obvious points in the argumentation here. It is a mandatory retirement age. That means they HAVE to work until that age- not that they CAN work until that age.

I think you misunderstand. In the USA the mandatory retirement age is the age at which point you are no longer allowed to fly for an air carrier (Part 121). There is no requirement for any pilot for a US carrier to fly to that age. Even those carriers who still have defined retirement plans still allow for retirements before 65.

Prior to increasing the age to 65 at the company I retired from, a pilot could earn a "full retirement" after reaching 50 years of age and having 25 years of service. With the defined plans that most were transitioned to one could leave at almost any time since the plans are in the name of the individual. Of course with much less money.