Age discrimination
Good Sunday morning .. pruners,
I've been tasked by LOOP Publishing to produce a piece on the above 'Age Discrimination' subject and in particular the Captain Ian Evans Tribunal hearing in London.
I'd like to have some 'word-bites' from colleagues who have a rational view, (publishable!) on this subject, especially from those who are affected or will be shortly. I need an indication of the financial implications and domestics of being unable to fly PT and where the next step, if any, for income is likely to be.
Also IF any AME's or medical practices would be willing to offer a view. I won't be averse to contributions from any pprune legal eagles.
I expect most of you know that the 'Over Age 60' ruling originates from the European Council Directive 2000/789/EC which has a cut-off age for single pilot PT ops at 59 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 seconds.
You will also know that on 1st October 2006, the EU 'Age Discrimination' Act became law in the UK, but this European Council directive does allow different age treatment by a member state, providing such difference is a "genuine occupation requirement and that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportional."
The CAA take the view that increasing age is a determining factor relative to possible pilot incapacitation but have based this judgment solely on statistics for the general population. The CAA say that a more detailed study of individual aircrew competency, including medical fitness is, "extremely complex and resource intensive." ... and on this basis have decided overall to retain its over 60 rules under the allowed 'different age treatment' of the EU directive.
It is interesting that to comply with the law and following the introduction of the 2006 Age Discrimination Act, the CAA increased its retirement age to 65, including pilot staff.
SO ... I would like to know IF pprune aircrew feel that this CAA position is considered proper or justified OR whether it is felt that the authority has a greater duty to the aviation industry perhaps ... and should embark on such a study.
Do aircrew think for example, that the 'intensive resources' requirement referred to is presently met by the existing CAA medical charges and staff or perhaps could be met by the introduction of a higher charge for a more stringent medical on an individual basis?
I have to note, that there are very many further considerations for both sides, and my intention is to cover these from both positions in the resultant article which will be published in the April issue of LOOP.
I'll be happy to respond privately to any PMs on the subject.
Thanks to all,
Dennis Kenyon.