Should Airline Pilots Fly Past 65? Debates Over Raising to 67

(MONTREAL, CANADA) The battle over whether airline pilots should keep flying past age 65 is reaching a high point in Montreal this week, where the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is weighing a proposal to raise the global retirement age to 67. The rule, which affects who can fly commercial airline operations across borders, sits at the heart of a wider clash between safety advocates, labor unions, airline groups, and lawmakers in the United States 🇺🇸 and Canada 🇨🇦.

For now, nothing has changed: the mandatory retirement age for commercial airline pilots remains 65 under U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules and ICAO’s international standard. Any shift to 67 would need broad agreement to avoid chaos in international scheduling and crew assignments.

Timeline and context

• The ICAO Assembly meeting runs from September 23 to October 3, 2025, and is expected to set the tone for what comes next.
• IATA (the global trade group for airlines) is pushing for 67, arguing that modern medical screening and long experience make it safe for healthy captains to keep working if they fly with a co-pilot under 65.
• Some countries, including Canada and Australia, support the change at ICAO.
• The United States has not taken a formal position at ICAO; domestically, the U.S. House passed a bill to raise the age to 67, but the U.S. Senate and the FAA have withheld support pending stronger safety data.

The core disagreement

Two camps drive this debate:

• Supporters (IATA, some airlines, and groups of pilots):
  • Argue that careful health checks, strong training systems, and real-world experience since the last age increase in 2007 support a modest extension to 67.
  • Cite acute pilot shortages and say two extra years for experienced captains would stabilize operations while new pilots progress.
  • Propose pairing pilots over the limit with co-pilots under the limit as an added safety measure.
• Opponents (ALPA and other unions):
  • Say safety must come first and claim there isn’t enough peer-reviewed science to justify changing the rule.
  • Warn about increased medical and cognitive risks that can come with age.
  • Raise fairness concerns: older pilots staying longer can slow promotions, delay pay rises tied to upgrades, and complicate pension and bidding systems.

“The burden of proof should be on those who want to change the rule,” say union leaders, who emphasize the need for stronger, peer-reviewed evidence before altering retirement ages.

Operational and international impacts

• If the United States moves to 67 without a matching ICAO standard, pilots over 65 would be barred from international flights, even if fully qualified domestically.
• Practical airline responses would include:
  • Reshuffling crews and keeping older pilots to domestic routes only.
  • Adjusting training plans, seniority bidding systems, reserve lines, and vacation planning.
  • Potentially higher costs as carriers juggle schedules to meet mismatched rules.
• When ICAO and national rules align, cross-border crew movement and international scheduling are smoother. When they don’t, the result is fewer pairing options, more limited stationing choices, and a narrower pool of pilots for international legs.

Legal and regulatory status (U.S.)

• Current rule: airline pilots performing commercial operations for U.S. air carriers under Part 121 must stop flying at 65.
• The international norm is the same: ICAO’s standard sets the upper age at 65 for multi-crew airline operations.
• The proposed change to 67 remains only a proposal. The FAA has not adopted it and ICAO has not voted it into force.
• Labor contracts in the U.S., built around the age-65 rule, remain in place. The last change (from 60 to 65 in 2007) followed a measured process and global alignment.

See the current regulation: 14 CFR 121.383(c) on eCFR.

Safety data and procedural requirements

• The U.S. Senate and FAA want more robust evidence that raising the age would not increase cockpit risk or affect the complex chain of operations around every flight.
• Many expect a future move to 67 (if it happens) to follow the previous path: data review, stakeholder input, and ICAO alignment so pilots can fly across borders without mismatched rules.
• Supporters propose safeguards:
  • Strict, frequent medical evaluations (including ECGs and targeted stress tests where indicated)
  • More simulator checks and line checks
  • Pairing pilots over the threshold with younger co-pilots
  • Ongoing collection of health and performance data
• Opponents demand that such data be established before any rule change, citing the need for longitudinal studies tracking real-world performance by age.

Workforce, contract, and career effects

• Supporters argue the extension would:
  • Ease pilot shortages caused by baby-boomer retirements and long training pipelines
  • Help transfer experience to newer pilots and stabilize upgrade chains
• Opponents point out:
  • Contractual and pension implications; many agreements are structured around 65
  • Potential delays in promotions and upgrades for younger pilots
  • Need for fresh bargaining over seniority lists, upgrade timelines, and displacement pay

Practical case examples

• Scenario 1: If the U.S. adopts 67 but ICAO stays at 65, a 66-year-old U.S. captain could fly domestically but would be barred from a Montreal–Paris or New York–London leg. The pilot would lose access to higher-paying international trips and the airline would need to rebuild lines to cover those routes.
• Scenario 2: If ICAO and the U.S. both adopt 67, airlines could retain senior captains for two additional years, helping training departments by slowing the rate of cascading upgrades and allowing time to build capacity.

What happens next

• If ICAO approves 67 in Montreal:
  • National regulators still must write their own rules and coordinate domestic changes.
  • Airlines and unions would negotiate contract impacts and operational safeguards.
• If ICAO keeps the limit at 65:
  • Pressure shifts back to the U.S. Senate and the FAA to demand more safety data before any domestic change proceeds.
  • No immediate changes to flight deck staffing rules are expected.

For planning purposes, experts advise assuming the current 65 limit will remain until formal rule changes and international alignment occur.

Key takeaways (facts to guide planning)

1. The mandatory retirement age for airline pilots is 65 in the United States and under ICAO’s international standard.
2. The proposal to raise the retirement age to 67 is under debate at the ICAO Assembly in Montreal and in the U.S. Congress, but no change has been implemented.
3. The U.S. House passed a bill to move to 67, while the U.S. Senate and the FAA want more safety data.
4. If the United States raises the age without an ICAO change, pilots over 65 would be barred from international flights, forcing airlines to keep those pilots on domestic flying only.
5. The last change (from 60 to 65 in 2007) followed international alignment and a major safety review.

The shared objective for all parties: safe, reliable air travel supported by well-trained crews and consistent international rules.

Practical advice for stakeholders

• Pilots approaching retirement:
  • Stay in close touch with company leadership and union representatives.
  • Understand carrier plans for any future change and options for non-Part 121 roles after 65, where allowed.
  • Review contract provisions that may shift if the rule changes.
• Younger pilots:
  • Watch how your airline’s training pipeline adjusts and how any rule change might affect upgrade timing.
• Travelers:
  • Expect no immediate schedule changes tied to this issue; any policy shift will be phased in.

Closing perspective

Delegates in Montreal know a misstep could disrupt international flying and spark disputes across borders. That is why both sides frame arguments around real-world operations as much as politics. Whether the number stays at 65 or moves to 67, the most important outcome will be a single standard that airlines can plan around and pilots can trust.

The coming days may not deliver a final verdict, but they will mark a milestone. A measured process—based on data, strong medical oversight, and firm international alignment—helped the world move from 60 to 65 nearly two decades ago. The same approach will decide whether 67 is the next step. Until then, the rule is unchanged, the debate is intense, and crews continue flying under the familiar age-65 standard.