Commercial airline pilots looking to retire at 65 might have to defer those plans for a couple of years, if House transportation lawmakers have their way.
On Wednesday, the House Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure unanimously passed its FAA Reauthorization bill, which includes a provision to increase the retirement age for commercial pilots from 65 to 67.
While the amendment narrowly made it through the committee in a 31-32 vote, it remains unclear if it will be struck from the package during July’s full House floor vote. Meanwhile, the Senate is marking up its version of the reauthorization bill without the pilot retirement language included.
Lawmakers have been debating the issue for several months as some believe raising the retirement age would alleviate the current shortage of pilots.
In advocating for the change, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) pointed to Part 135 operations in which there is no mandatory retirement age. “While commercial airline pilots are currently mandated to retire at 65, these same pilots that are forced to retire can still fly corporate and charter jets beyond the age of 65,” Nehls said.
The measure has also received support from Regional Airline Association (RAA) officials, who maintain the shortage of airline professionals is hurting small community air service.
In past hearings on the matter, RAA president Faye Malarkey Black warned of a “tsunami of pilot retirements” to hit the workforce in coming years. In her statement to Congress, she noted at least 50 percent of pilots will reach the mandatory retirement age of 65 within the next 15 years.
Black applauded the passage of the FAA bill, known as the Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act, and the notion to raise the retirement age.
“It’s a modest increase, but that gives us some time for long-term solutions to take shape,” she said.
However, not all are on board with the pilot age proposal. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the largest airline pilot union in the world, vehemently rejected the idea.
“The rash decision to move an amendment on changing the statutory pilot retirement age, without consulting agencies responsible for safety, or studying potential impacts of such a change as has been done elsewhere, is a politically driven choice that betrays a fundamental understanding of airline industry operations, the pilot profession, and safety,” ALPA said in a statement.
The union also put out a call to action urging its members to contact Congress on the matter. ALPA contends the proposal would displace younger pilots, introduce risk into the system, and increase air carrier training costs while further complicating the pilot training backlog.
On the Senate side, lawmakers are also torn on the issue. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), chair of the committee’s Aviation Safety, Operations and Innovation subcommittee, said the provision wouldn’t address airline pilot problems as most senior pilots fly long-haul international routes, rather than domestic hops to smaller cities. Even if the proposal passes, international rules would still prevent pilots older than 65 from flying in most countries outside of the United States.
“You’re not actually going to be solving the problem that we’re having with regional carriers,” Duckworth said at a press conference.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) pointed to the last time the U.S. raised the retirement age in 2007 from 60 to 65, saying “the sky did not fall.”
Congress has until September 30 to pass a bill before the current FAA authorization is set to expire.
