For what it’s worth: I fly both long-haul international and multi-leg domestic trips. For me it’s the long-haul schedules that are the more fatiguing and demanding. Short-haul flying has its hassles and annoyances, but overall it’s easier, even with more legs.

Also, more senior pilots can usually avoid those multi-leg days. Many of our domestic trips are quite civilized, with no more than one or two flights per day, decent layovers, etc.

For international flights Australian pilots have to comply with ICAO (age 65) but for pure domestic routes pilots can fly forever (age 99 if they’re fit enough) due to anti discrimination laws. As long as they can pass a medical and pass sim checks it would be illegal to discriminate against them.

A problem that arises is by by age 65 a lot of pilots have seniority to be flying long haul wide body aircraft on international routes, so to continue flying past age 65 they need to transfer back to narrowbody domestic aircraft. This means a total shift from flying on long sector once or twice a week to flying 3 or 4 short busy sectors per day. And potentially a move from Boeing to Airbus. The different aircraft and busier schedules is something a lot of pilots over 65 can’t cope with. Air New Zealand had an issue with this several years ago finding a lot of pilots at age 65 were failing training courses (and who couldn’t be told they weren’t competent enough to fly safely):

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/81195647/elderly-pilots-claim-air-new-zealand-shafted-them-over-airbus-training

Personally I think I’ll have better things to do at age 67 than multi sector days through busy airports in bad weather with tech write ups, passenger issues and constant aircraft swaps and disruptions.

If the current periodic medical testing is insufficient (which some recent news suggests it may be), it should be improved. Individual health and rates of aging vary widely so this is the key factor in safety and ability to keep flying.

(And amen whoever said there should be a mandatory retirement age for politicians, especially those in the highest leadership positions!)

Julia

Let me guess: you’re a young new-hire making in your first year or two what it took me 20 years to make. You’ve never been furloughed, never will be furloughed, and you skated safely through COVID. Yet you’d begrudge your colleagues the chance to work an extra two years to make up what they lost during layoff and bankruptcy. What a swell guy.

Am I wrong?

And, you call people “boomers” who’re actually Gen-X demographic or younger. Baby boomers are people in their 60s and 70s. Bill Clinton is a boomer. Most are retired already.

But rather than we just snipe at each other, let me ask you this:

What are your reasons for OPPOSING the age 67 rule? You imply that mine are selfish; let’s hear yours and see how different they are.

And yes, I was mostly opposed to the age 65 thing back in 2007. The difference is, I was 40 years-old and just back from furlough, with almost no money to my name. I’d already been through a five-year layoff and two airline bankrupcties. I was not a twentysomething new-hire making six figures with 45 career years ahead of me.

Then why are you in favor for it now? Could it be because now you are at the highest seniority you’ll ever hold, and then you weren’t?

I love the way in which you unintentionally and unironically undressed your own logic in the above ridiculous screed.

Well said sir, well said. You’re one of the best when it comes to articulating the thoughts of many.

One of the best pilots I’ve ever flown with, too.

Greg

🙂

Andreas Lubitz was 27.