The International Civil Aviation Organization struck down two major proposals at its 42nd General Assembly, being held September 23 to October 3, 2025, by declining to raise the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots from 65 to 67, and by voting down Russia’s bid to reclaim a seat on ICAO’s 36-member governing council.
The retirement age issue had been put forward by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), which argued that the two-year increase would help relieve pilot staffing pressures without undermining safety. The proposal was backed by a global airline group seeking to raise the age from 65 to 67 for multi-crew international operations. But according to multiple industry sources, ICAO delegates elected not to adopt the change, effectively keeping the global limit at 65. That decision preserves the status quo: pilots over 65 remain barred from international airline operations under ICAO rules.
The US Senate’s Commerce Committee Chairman, Ted Cruz, had urged President Trump to back the change, describing the age limit as “arbitrary” and a barrier to retaining experienced pilots. But pilot unions strongly objected. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) warned of health and cognitive risks to older aviators and questioned whether sufficient safety data supports extending the age limit.
Russia’s effort to return to ICAO’s governing body failed by a slim margin. It secured 87 votes, six shy of the 93 needed. Russia had lost its seat in 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine and the seizure of leased aircraft. After the vote, Russian delegates called for a second ballot, but the assembly declined. Many countries, led by the US and European delegations, opposed Moscow’s return citing ongoing airspace violations, GPS interference, and concerns over aviation safety.
The dual outcomes signal that member states in ICAO remain wary of big shifts, especially around safety and geopolitics. Keeping the pilot retirement age at 65 preserves a conservative rule that has stood for years. The rejection of Russia’s bid shows continued global resistance to giving Moscow influence in international aviation governance after its aggressive actions in Ukraine.
For the US, the decisions carry domestic and legislative implications. Even if Congress were to pass a law raising the domestic age limit, US airline pilots over 65 would still be blocked from international routes unless ICAO rules also changed. The failure of the ICAO motion likely complicates efforts in Washington to press ahead with pilot retirement legislation in Congress. Separately, Russia’s rejection further isolates Moscow in the global aviation community at a time when it seeks relief from sanctions and access to aviation parts and overflight rights.
18 comments
The most senior, most experienced pilots flying in the skies… comprising some 30+% of the ALPA are under attack from Jason Ambrosi and ALPA! These pilots are the finest, safest, and most accomplished, and are being stonewalled by unions (that they’ve been forced to pay dues to for their entire careers), over politics. Let’s be abundantly clear. This has nothing to do with “safety”. It is about union thuggery of less experienced pilots taking turf that does not belong to them to advance their political power. Follow the money!
100% Correct. Ambrosi is a disgrace. How can a so called “Union” raise questions about the cognitive and physical abilities of age 65 pilots and still represent pilots flying over age 65 in Canada? They will happily take Union dues from those over 65 pilots in Canada, and then try and stab them in the back in the process. Follow the money.
Retirement age is arbitrary, but that is the way it is. Yes there is a pilot shortage problem, but if the senior pilots stay on, where are the younger pilots going to get their break. The fact that a major airline & the US government had backed this proposal, says who the winners are going to be if this proposal was adopted.
Why, as long as the medical requirements are met, should a pilot NOT continue after 65? Because he is not the fastest anymore? That is an advantage as more accidents have happened with to fast actions to do something. Experience comes with age. Further more , I see sometimes cabin attendants that announce that they are there for the passengers safety but I really doubt it. Is there any info age limit for them?
No other professionals such as surgeons, doctors, engineers, architects, lawyers, judges or even politicians require a medical and mental health clearance every 6 months, to continue work, and often till very old age! And yet an airman, holding an unrestricted class 1 medical and undergoing a thorough proficiency check twice a year, is stopped because of a number: 65. How stupid!
How stupid indeed!!
Pilots in favor of raising the age to 67 simply want to collect a paycheck for two more years. They will not be productive and will be calling in sick to burn their sick time. These pilots also have six weeks of vacation annually and are the highest percentage out on Long Term Disability. It’s an attempt to maximize their seniority while freezing junior pilots of any advancement all while there is a downturn in passenger travel. This decision should be based on Science and not Economics.
You seem to be talking about burnt out pilots who have been stuck in the same job for too long. I doubt that they’d volunteer to stay on longer. I for one, have had a varied career, still love my job, and would like to work as long as I’m fit. My sick days are way below average. I don’t have 6 weeks of holidays because I haven’t been at the same company for that long.
There are many, many pilots like me. I haven’t seen many burnt out pilots in the companies I have been flying for.
lol, a bunch of salty old wide body boomers. If you really want to “mentor” then allow for 67 and beyond working for regional airlines. Mentor the inexperienced.
Mentoring a 20 year first officer on a A350 is kind of pointless and if they need mentoring then that’s a whole another issue at hand. Give it up old dudes, enjoy retirement and if you want to keep flying part 91 and 135 are more than eager to take you “experience”.
Cheers, oh and I’m 41 with 10,000 hours, I stayed my 121 career with 250 hours. I have plenty of experience and will retire about 60 to enjoy my life with my family.
Sounds like you’ve had a pretty cushy career so far. Talk to us in 19 years when your airline has had problems, furloughed and had a concessionary contract, and you are on your 3rd marriage. Though I hope that does not happen you, the odds are good in this business. Those that want to work and can pass the FAA medical should be allowed to work. Otherwise this is nothing more than age discrimination, and ALPA should be sued like when at 60 was the rule and another arbitrary age was picked to kick the can down the road. I know many 70 year old pilots who will captain a plane like few can, and many pilots in their 40s and 50s who should be no where near a plane, but still manage to somehow pass an FAA class one.
Cheers back at you, oh and I’m 62, retiring next year because I was very very lucky in this business, I have over 5000 hours of military and test pilot time, over 200 hours of combat time, started my part 121 career at age 37 and have over 13000, hours of part 121 time.
A history lesson is required. Most of the pilots now reaching 65 have had careers during the most unstable time of the airline industry. 20+ years of stagnation, airline bankruptcies, bad mergers, pay cuts, loss of pensions, benefits and seniority. I think that those that have sacrificed the most so jobs are here now for the younger pilots should have the choice of a few more years to try and recoup years of losses. And maybe actually have a retirement.
Hear hear.
Only now I am able to save properly. I only have 8 years to go. I wish it could be 10. I still love my job.
On top of that, most western countries are increasing retirement age to 67. If a doctor can work until 67, why not a pilot?
SC you’re 100% accurate. I started my major career with Pan Am, furloughed twice before the liquidation. Started over at TWA after 11 years there, I was furloughed by American. Finished up at Jetblue after reaching 65. I lost 2 pensions and had to restart my career 4 times. But apparently if I wished to fly to age 67 I’d be considered greedy.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rejected a proposal to increase the mandatory retirement age for international airline pilots from 65 to 67 at its 42nd General Assembly in September 2025.
The decision to maintain the global limit at age 65 was supported by pilot unions who cited safety concerns, while airlines and some regulators pushed for the increase to address staffing shortages and retain experienced pilots.
Proposal:
A proposal, backed by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), sought to raise the age to 67 for multi-crew international operations.
Arguments for the increase:
Proponents argued the change would help alleviate pilot staffing pressures, retain experienced aviators, and address what some consider an “arbitrary” age limit.
Arguments against the increase:
Opponents, primarily pilot unions, voiced concerns about safety and argued that a global increase should be based on more comprehensive safety and medical data.
Current status:
The ICAO’s decision keeps the global mandatory retirement age for international pilots at 65.
Implications:
Pilots over 65 can continue to fly in domestic operations in some countries where national laws have been changed, but they are barred from international flights under ICAO rules unless the global standard is raised.
The discussion around extending the pilot retirement age is complex. ICAO and aeromedical experts highlight important safety considerations, similar to the strict age limits already applied to Air Traffic Controllers. If the goal is to keep valuable experience in the cockpit, perhaps the focus should also be on creating sustainable career paths and supporting the next generation of pilots through proper investment and training.
That’s disappointing because I got started late, since raising a family was my priority. I’m 60 now and just about to get my PPL. My plan is to train all the way to ATP, start flying for a major airline as a regional FO as soon as I get my hours, and I was hoping that someday I’d make Captain at least on the regionals, and if the age limit gets extended, maybe even mainline. But now that hope is going away except… Maybe there will be another effort to raise the retirement age limit and that time it will work. I have no doubt that the age limit is arbitrary and has nothing to to with safety. That is what medical tests are for and they happen every 6 months, so obviously that is not the issue. I think I know what the issue is and it lines up with what others have alluded to.
Absolutely disappointing to see how politics gets in front of progress. What does a number have to do with health? I’ve just turned 65 and sad to be forced out of the industry by politics, after 45+ years of Flying. If health is the issue, I’m happy to challenge that, I cycle over 1000 km per month and run over 300. My biggest challenge over the years in passing my aviation medical has always been my low heart rate.
This has nothing to do with age but discrimination again in a industry that should be much more mature by this day and age. If no other office in the World is regulated by age, why is this so difficult for regulators to understand.
The headline is a misleading. ICAO hasn’t rejected the proposal, but decided that more supporting evidence is to be gathered before a decision is made to indrease the retirement age for pilots.
The proposal is not per se rejected.
I reckon that the proposal will reappear at the next ICAO gathering.
I am reminded of a dinner conversation with two active practicing Ophthalmic surgeons on this matter. One aged 70 and the other 72. Learned medical men said they thought 65 was reasonable for pilots because of the hand eye coordination required. When I coughed and suggested that eye surgery was possibly more delicate than flying an airliner they agreed, not having thought of it that way before.
These decisions are fine as long as they don’t affect the decision maker personally.
I believe the main driver for maintaining 65 is ambition in younger pilots to achieve promotion earlier.