The GMA update makes multiple references to increasing retirement age to 65 due to local age discrimination laws (due to "on-shoring"):
As each base goes on-shore, the crewing company will have to comply with the relevant local labour laws. Every country where we have crews based, except Hong Kong, has some form of age discrimination legislation which prevents employers from retiring employees at 55 or reducing employees’ terms and conditions on the basis of age. Once we go on-shore, we will have to comply with these laws. This legislation will also require us to increase retirement age from 55 to 65. Therefore, age 65 will be incorporated into each base area’s version of CoS.
This is not true. A very recent case in Canada, (one of the base areas) on August 17, 2007, has just set the precedence to age discrimination for airline pilots in Canada (A few retired Air Canada pilots complained that AC had discriminated due to their age. The court ruled against them):
The Tribunal finds that age 60 is the normal age of retirement, within s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA for persons working in positions similar to the positions of the complainants.
Just like the CX normal retirement age is 55.
The gist is that the retirement age is what our COS says they are. Local age discrimination laws will not force CX to change our retirement age to anything else.
I expect most western countries (where CX has bases) would follow a similar conclusion.
CX management is using this as a smoke screen. The real issue is expansion plans. They figure this is the best way to crew their aircraft without attracting new pilots or keeping current pilots because that would require a
decent pay raise (i.e. not 3% or on some bases, 0%).
RA65 will have a
massive impact on the careers on junior officers.
The link to the Air Canada court case is below:
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/vi...=_e&isruling=0