I too challenge your editorial (Flight International, 24-30 September) on the pilots' retirement age of 60. You state: "The age issue is one neither of industrial nor of automatic human rights." I maintain the issue is one of health and flight safety, not age.
Notice the preponderance of grey heads in the halls of Congress or Parliament that the electorate chooses to govern them. Could it be that age generally means more experience and an attendant higher level of wisdom, understanding, knowledge and even fortitude?
The covert challenge of the age 60 rule under the 1968 Civil Rights Act (paralleled by the 1998 Human Rights Act) based on a tortuous misrepresentation that may have misled Congress is one of the liberties that your previous editorial policy would have supported. I was surprised, shocked even when your editorial scorned the pilots who deserve your approbation.
We all have vested interests. Mine is to continue with my pilot profession to give my people a smooth, safe ride and to get paid properly for it. Pilots unions are composed of mostly young men who want to see left seats open up. Airlines want to get rid of high priced senior pilots. What's yours?
Tom Friedrich
Isle of Islay, Scotland
Source: Flight International
