As the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) General Assembly meets from September 23 to October 3, 2025, in Montreal, one of the most closely watched issues will be a proposal from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to raise the retirement age for airline pilots from 65 to 67.
IATA put the idea forward in a working paper submitted in late August. The group argues that health data and medical advances support what it calls a “cautious but reasonable step consistent with safety”.
The association says that any crew with a pilot over 65 should also include another pilot under 65 to provide a safeguard against inflight medical risks. IATA added that the change would help airlines to keep experienced pilots in the cockpit, at a time when shortages threaten to limit air travel growth around the world.
ICAO can approve new global standards, but each member country must decide whether to adopt them into their national rules. Even if the assembly approves the higher retirement age, governments will decide how to apply the change, and some may resist.
ICAO last raised the international retirement age in 2006, when it shifted from 60 to 65.
The plan has already met stiff resistance from pilot unions. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represents more than 77,000 pilots in the US and Canada, issued a statement rejecting the idea.
“The United States is the global leader in aviation safety, and we should resist any attempts to arbitrarily make changes to the regulatory framework that has helped us achieve this record,” ALPA said. “The US should continue to provide global leadership on this issue and maintain its current position.”
The Allied Pilots Association, which represents American Airlines pilots, has also raised concerns. Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the group, told Reuters there is “insufficient data regarding what risks would be associated with increasing pilot retirement age. We don’t gamble with safety that way”.
Union leaders argue that, while people are living longer, there is still not enough evidence about the cognitive and medical risks faced by pilots in their late 60s. They also warn that delaying retirement ages could slow promotions, complicate scheduling, and impact training opportunities for younger pilots.
Airlines counter that mandatory retirements are forcing thousands of skilled aviators out of cockpits just as demand for air travel is surging. IATA has also noted that pilots must pass regular medical exams and that some countries already let pilots continue flying past 65 without obvious safety issues.
Commercial airline pilots flying under ICAO rules for multi-crew, scheduled international operations face mandatory retirement at 65, but no such global rule applies to pilots in general aviation or other commercial operations. In the United States, for example, pilots flying under Part 91 and 135 — which covers private as well as non-scheduled commercial flights — can continue flying indefinitely so long as they pass the required medical exams. Internationally, similar frameworks allow business jet pilots and many others to keep flying without an upper age limit, again contingent on medical certification.
Accident data has not shown a clear pattern of higher risk solely due to pilot age in these categories. Instead, regulators point to the medical oversight process as the main safeguard. However, safety experts caution that the scale and complexity of airline operations raise the stakes, which is why stricter limits are needed for airline crews.
At the Assembly, delegates will debate the proposal and could vote to adopt it, amend it, or call for more study. Observers say the outcome could be a compromise — such as gradual adoption with stricter medical checks for older pilots — or a delay while ICAO gathers more data.
9 comments
When I was retired at 65 as a 747 Captain, I was at the top of my game. A few more years would have been great for everyone.
Complete and total bull shit. Top of the pay scale yes, top of your game a complete lie and you know it.
ICAO did a study in the early 2000’s which showed no reason for a mandatory retirement age.
15,000 pilot years were studied.
Pilots over 53 were safer, less likely to have a medical event than those under that age.
There was no risk whatsoever in removing age restrictions on pilots.
However; a new member joined ICAO, from a country where a mandatory retirement age had been introduced to get rid of those who were not of a certain race.
ICAO put a “recommendation” for a mandatory age of 65 in place; going against its’ own studies and policies.
As an example, Canada has not had a mandatory retirement age since the 1950’s.
Canada has a far better aviation safety record than countries with a mandatory retirement age;
A vastly better safety record than the country represented by the member referenced above.
Pilots are the most monitored profession in the world.
Mandatory retirement is simply ageism; it removes the best qualified and experiences persons from the system.
The Unions who support this policy are working against safety and their own members; who will all get older.
Canada has no age restrictions but the unions and airlines do. More bull shit from a greedy boomer
“there is still not enough evidence about the cognitive and medical risks faced by pilots in their late 60s” (ALPA)! Not sure where this wisdom vanished when electing a President in mid-70s holding the nuclear Armageddon button. Yes, march with prudence – start with non-scheduled, business aviation, rotorcraft and other low-altitude flights (but strictly twin-crewed) before transiting to all pervasive airline operations.
To : Editor
AeroTime
By the Conference Meeting of International Civil Aviation Organization and International Air Transports Association for the Retirement Age of a Pilots that in
ACCORDANCE from the different Pilots Association Members & its Officers,Whereas,It was originally agreed
Of ALL Members Pilots Association.My concept is , Whence,The Pilots’ Captain & Its Officers reached on the AGE of 65,They can continue the Aviation Job by working to the Flight Operations Services,as Administration for the Executive Level,for Managing Director and Assistant Director of an Airlines Co.and
On Air Cargo Business Services, until they reached on the of 67 with annual Medical Check-Up.For Flying Schools and Aviation School,as Director and Assistant Director and Manager.From. Time to Time,the Equivalent Ratio of the New Aircrafts’ Pilots Job,to the Numerous Vacant Pilots Captain Job are urgently need on the Flight Routes of an Airlines Services,by Regional and On International Flights Routes Services.It takes 10 years of An Aircrafts’ Pilots Captain by Job Experienced to become a Full Pledge Pilots Captain of a Wide Body Aircrafts’.Thereof,The Flight Operations Planning would recommend the Pilots Training BEFOREHAND to replaced the Promoted Pilots Captain position on distinguished Commercial AIRCRAFTS’
Wrote By: Mr.L.Valencia
ALPA is being sued because they are not representing all pilots. Interesting how this article makes it sound like they are. The public should be more concerned with the Airlines DEI hires than their older pilots Take a look at the recent accidents and near misses and what’s the common denominator? We need the older pilots to stay in place so the under qualified can be weeded out or trained up. Upgrading to CA in less than a year should cause more concern than a medically cleared 65+ experienced pilot should.
Ridiculous to think that a 65 year old pilot is unsafe to operate.
I’ll challenge any 35 year old to do the physical activities I do, but unfortunately in one month I will be deemed to old to continue flying 121.
No one is forced to work, no one should be force to retire, specially if we meet all the requirements to operate safely.
I wish I could upload pictures that show what this 65 year old looks like.
Well in Australia a judge in law faces mandatory retirement is 75 up from 72 in 2018, this is because the nsw government says that they may want to keep working till the drop dead at 93 but could have cognitive health issues but not know or do know but want to work for the $5000+ a week pay so here in NSW once the judge hits 75 she/he must retire but on full pay, so let’s make someone pay these pilots should they be forced to retire while a medical says they are still fit to fly