Brothers and sisters please review our updated post, APA has now chimed in and revealed their intellectual dishonesty so we felt we had to update our post.
1. Please read and review. Be able to teach it.
2. Print it out and get into ops and and the cockpit. Insert it on forums.
3. Actively seek pilots to register on EPAS, we are the largest coalition of part 121 pilots supporting this issue in United States.
4. Truth, academic honesty, ethical principles and fraternal line pilots will win this fight. Get in the fight !
ALPA and APA’s Opposition to ICAO WP/349: Empty Rhetoric Masking Politics
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. Their 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 (EPAS Talking Points, 2025).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 (EPAS Where’s the Beef Article, 2025).
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 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 (EPAS Strategic Talking Points, 2025).
1. Hypocrisy and Political PanderingALPA 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 (EPAS Master Talking Points, 2025).
2. Lack of Substantive DataWhen ICAO raised the age from 60 to 65 in 2006, safety performance improved, not worsened (GAO, 2009). 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 (ICAO WP/106, 2024).
3. ALPA’s Flip-FlopsALPA 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 (Age Discrimination Hearing, 1985).
4. Overwhelming Evidence Supports Raising the AgeICAO WP/349 parallels the 2006 process, proposing 67 with safeguards (ICAO WP/349, 2025). Canada’s WP/106 concluded age is an outdated proxy, and performance/medical standards are the true metric (ICAO WP/106, 2024). The National Institute on Aging found no medical evidence for mandatory retirement (NIH/NIA, 1981). The GAO confirmed no adverse impact when raising to 65 (GAO, 2009).
5. ALPA and APA Have Run Out of IdeasInstead 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 (GAO, 2009). They also repeat hollow mistruths about safety while blatantly ignoring existing data.Banging the drum of populism and mob rule is their only tool left, even as they abandon intellectual honesty and ethical standards enshrined in their 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 and 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 (EPAS Truth and Safety, 2025). Meanwhile, medical reality shows that most in-flight incapacitations are due to stomach or gastrointestinal issues, not sudden heart attacks as ALPA and APA fearmonger (Age Discrimination Hearing, 1985).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 (Boeing, 2025 Pilot & Technician Outlook).
6. Chronology of Arbitrary Age Rules
The Age 60 rule was not science-based but born from a 1959 appeal by American Airlines’ CEO to FAA Administrator Elwood Quesada (Age Discrimination Hearing, 1985). Congress later found no medical evidence for 60 or any cutoff age. Politics created the rule; data overturned it.
7. Ignoring Longer Lives and Modern Medicine
Life expectancy and cardiovascular outcomes have dramatically improved (ICAO WP/106, 2024). 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 (EPAS Master Talking Points, 2025). ConclusionALPA’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 (EPAS Strategic Talking Points, 2025).