The Air Line Pilots Association’s (ALPA) latest rejection of ICAO Working Paper 349 —a proposal to raise the upper pilot age limit to 67—is more of the same: hot air from a leadership more concerned with reelection than safety. Its talking points are contradictory and reveal a union trapped by populism, pandering to junior members, and abandoning the very principles on which it was founded.
Most glaring is ALPA’s hypocrisy. Canadian pilots, represented by ALPA, routinely fly beyond age 65 under Canadian law, yet ALPA tells Congress and ICAO that age 67 is unsafe. If ALPA truly believed its rhetoric, it would oppose its Canadian members’ operations. Instead, the union applies double standards: Canadian pilots are acceptable past 65, but U.S. pilots—under identical ICAO and FAA medical standards—must be forced out.
ALPA’s position is echoed by the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which also attacked ICAO WP/349 while representing pilots at American Airlines. Yet APA members fly side by side with ALPA’s Canadian members, who already exceed 65. The intellectual dishonesty is identical. It is not a coincidence: ALPA and APA have been engaged in merger talks for more than a decade, seeking to consolidate leadership power by pandering to the populist demands of their junior majorities.
Hypocrisy and Political Pandering
ALPA claims safety demands a hard age cutoff. Yet the same union supports its Canadian members who fly past 65. The inconsistency reveals the truth—politics, not safety.
Further, Part 135 pilots haul cargo and passengers past 65, and Part 91 engineering test pilots—including those at Boeing and GE—routinely fly stealth fighters, bombers, and new transport aircraft beyond 65. These are the most demanding cockpits in existence.
To claim that an experienced airline captain cannot safely operate a Boeing 737 at age 66, while test pilots are entrusted with first flights of brand-new fighters, is indefensible.
Lack of Substantive Data
When ICAO raised the age from 60 to 65 in 2006, safety performance improved, not worsened. FAA’s own review confirmed no accidents or incidents resulted from the health of pilots aged 60–65. ICAO has already conducted global surveys and member medical reviews through Canada’s Working Paper 106.
ALPA’s Flip-Flops
ALPA first opposed flights beyond 60, then accepted 65 in 2007.
Now it warns of “grave risks” at 67. This obstructionist cycle—fear tactics followed by reversals once change is inevitable—destroys credibility, as shown in U.S. House Aging Committee hearings.
Overwhelming Evidence Supports Raising the Age
ICAO WP/349, like the 2006 process, proposes increasing the retirement age to 67 with safeguards. Canada’s WP/106 determined that age is an outdated measure, emphasizing performance and medical standards as the true indicators. The National Institute on Aging found no medical basis for mandatory retirement. The GAO reported no negative impacts when the age was raised to 65.
ALPA and APA Have Run Out of Ideas
Instead of advancing science-based proposals, ALPA and APA leadership fall back on slogans about “implementation delays.” History proves ICAO alignment can be achieved in under a year, as with the 2006 change. They also repeat hollow mistruths about safety while blatantly ignoring existing data.
Banging the drum of populism and mob rule is its only tool left, even as it abandons intellectual honesty and ethical standards enshrined in its own mission statements, policy manuals, and civil rights commitments to other protected groups. Yet older pilots, the most experienced aviators in the system, are uniquely carved out—not just for exclusion but for outright defamation.
ALPA paid for half-wing airplane ads implying senior pilots are unsafe, and APA’s recent claim that raising the age is “flying blind” echoes the same false narrative.
This rhetoric does real harm. It not only undermines safety by stripping mentorship from the cockpit, but it also actively damages the reputation and employability of senior aviators who have paid union dues faithfully for 30 or 40 years.
How is it representing pilots to attack their livelihoods and smear their competence just because of age?
Worse, APA’s own leadership can’t even get facts straight. The APA president publicly claimed JetBlue had pilots on furlough when it did not, as covered in Reuters. Meanwhile, medical reality shows that most in-flight incapacitations are due to stomach or gastrointestinal issues, not sudden heart attacks, as highlighted in House Aging Committee testimony.
Finally, regarding the future workforce, Boeing’s 2025 Pilot and Technician Outlook confirms that the global need for trained flight crews is growing exponentially. In such an environment, forcing out the most experienced and capable pilots is not just discriminatory, it is reckless and contrary to every operational forecast of the industry.
Chronology of Arbitrary Age Rules
The age 60 rule was not science-based but born from a 1959 appeal by an American Airlines CEO to FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada. Congress later found no medical evidence for 60 or any cutoff age, as shown in House Aging Committee records.
Politics created the rule; data overturned it.
Ignoring Longer Lives and Modern Medicine
Life expectancy and cardiovascular outcomes have dramatically improved, as detailed in Canada’s WP/106. FAA Class 1 medicals already screen every six months after 60. Waivers exist for psychological conditions, alcoholism, and heart surgery—yet age alone remains an unwaivable disqualifier.
ALPA’s and APA’s opposition to ICAO WP/349 is not about safety, it is about politics, populism, and leadership job security. Their rhetoric ignores history, data, and precedent. Raising the age to 67 enhances safety by retaining experience, alleviating shortages, and reflecting on medical reality.
Once branded the “vanguard of safety,” ALPA and APA leadership have abandoned that role, substituting sound policy with empty rhetoric.
Experience is safety. Excluding capable pilots at 65 undermines both aviation safety and the economic security of all line pilots.
This op-ed was written by the EPAS Leadership Team. Experienced Pilots Advancing Safety (EPAS) is a nonprofit of active and retired aviators working to end arbitrary pilot retirement ages and base qualification on performance and medical fitness.
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FLYING Magazine.
