Forced to retire at 55

[knavesmire]

Could someone please confirm that all BA flight crew will be made to retire at the age of 55, even though new EU legislation which is effective from Oct 2006 states that no company will be allowed to discriminate and should therefore raise the retirement age to 65. Rumour has it that BA are trying to do a deal which would make them exempt from enforcing the law, but are having difficulty in convincing the government.Apparently, the way the tide is flowing with age discrimination & people working later in life it may well be a pill that BA will have to swallow. They haven`t told existing staff whether they will implement the law,this is unbelievable, especially for those who are due to retire shortly after the 2006 legislation is introduced.

[Hotel Mode]

I dont remember being forced at gunpoint to sign my 55 contract. To my knowledge none of the companies that retire at 60 have announced their plans yet becasue the legislation is by no means guaranteed.

[Notso Fantastic]

They haven`t told existing staff whether they will implement the law..... ....answers your question. Bearing in mind:
Nobody knows the shape of the new legislation yet-
Nobody knows what, if any, exemptions will be allowed-
Nobody knows whether it can be introduced by Oct 2006-
We all await with bated breath in as much ignorance as you. Trouble is the Euro MPs probably know no better as well!

[knavesmire]

Although people may not have been forced at gunpoint, if you re-read my post, I`m posing the question of BA`s avoidance of the law.To quote the Financial Times Dec 15 2004 "many companies have retirement ages below 65 and will, therefore, have to raise them." This was taken from an article that was defining the new retirement legislation, that WILL be here for all to abide by.

[Notso Fantastic]

Yes, I've reread it, and I repeat, how can anybody 'confirm' when we don't know exactly what the EU legislation is, we don't know what, if any, private deals any company may be trying to reach. The EU Working Hours Directive, funnily enough, specifically excluded Health and Transport workers. But you have to see you are asking a question for which nobody knows the answer!

[Diverse]

Taken from British Council website

In October 2000, the Government supported the European Directive on Equal Treatment and committed to implementing age legislation by 2006. A 6-year implementation period was agreed to allow time for the preparation of clear, workable and beneficial age legislation, formulated in close consultation with individuals, employers and expert groups. The government is also engaged in tackling age discrimination by actively promoting the non-statutory Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment.



Link to it here (http://www.britishcouncil.org/diversity/age_legislation.htm)

Also some information here www.manpower.co.uk (http://www.manpower.co.uk/news/legislation/main_age_legislation.asp)

[Tandemrotor]

knavesmire

The oversimplified questions you are asking seem to suggest you are not following the extensive discussions on this subject, over on the BALPA web site, and also in correspondence from them.

Perhaps you aren't a member?

For example, you suggest the legislation seeks to increase CRAs from 55 (in BA) to 65. This of course is not true. Should the legislation (not yet finalised) be implemented, a retirement age of 65 would be every bit as illegal, as one of 55!

If you want to, have to, must; you may work 'til you drop/ fail a medical.

I suspect you may have a reason for wanting the law to be implemented promptly. This being the case, I suggest you refer to BALPA.

[GlueBall]

From what has been said, it appears to be painfully obvious that not everyone at BA can afford to retire at age 55. :ooh:

[Red Snake]

And how about the ban flying over France aged 60 or more - will that change too?

[Notso Fantastic]

...Glueball you could say not everyone at BA wants to be forced to retire at 55!

And how about the ban flying over France aged 60 or more - will that change too? ....to that you would have to ask the French! It does seem to me somewhat 'ageist' in the sense it contravenes the EEC's proposed rules on that sort of thing, but as the 'hard core' of Europe, they only pay lip service to EEC rules anyway! When pilots are forced out of a job because they are not allowed to fly over France for age reasons, I would expect they have a highly valid case for sueing the French Government for compensation!

[cwatters]

New law due 2006....


http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age.htm

EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING

On 14 December 2004, Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, announced how legislation outlawing age discrimination in the workplace would approach employers' mandatory retirement ages.

Following extensive consultation last year, the Government has concluded that legislation should:

set a default retirement age of 65, but also create a right for employees to request working beyond a compulsory retirement age, which employers will have a duty to consider;
ensure close monitoring of the retirement age provisions so that evidence is available for a formal review of age discrimination five years from implementation;
allow employers to objectively justify earlier retirement ages if they can show it is appropriate and necessary.
Click here for the full text of the statement to Parliament.

Click here for the press statement.

Next steps

In 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry will be consulting on draft age legislation covering this and the remaining areas, as highlighted in last year's Age Matters consultation (see below).

The legislation is scheduled to come into force on 1 October 2006.

<snip>

The article continues and links to more documents including...


http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/errs18.pdf

Which mentions that...

... legislation prevents people over 65 holding commercial pilots’ licences and all commercial pilots are subject to medicals every six months. International legislation prohibits international commercial flying by pilots over the age of 60.

and this one that has a brief response from BALPA....

http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age_matters_con_resp.pdf

[ BALPA (a professional association for UK airline pilots), noted its opposition to a default retirement age and felt that
a higher ‘normal retirement age’ would merely encounter the same problems and inconsistencies as a lower one.

[36050100]

The 55 issue is a red herring. Take care to separate 'retirement' from being 'required to leave a company'.

The BA contract requires to leave the company at 55; they are then free to either not work any more (if they can afford it) or look for another job (if they need to).

There are many comapnies that have 'benefitted' from the experience brought by ex BA golden oldies on their own personal top up scheme.

It seems to me to be disingenuous to want to stay on at BA (with however many years seniority and increments) and deny the flow that the seniority system is built upon.

Move along Claude, and let someone else have a crack at the senior jobs !!

The real issue is lack of consistency in european airspace that makes it difficult for a pilot to remain a jet Captain after age 60, making over 60's unable to continue to earn at the appropriate rate for someone at the top of their respective position. Unlike lawyers and doctors, pilots are effectively legislated out of their jobs at 60. I'm all for people being able to work beyond 60 (if they want/need to) but licensing legislation needs to change to allow pilots a fair crack of the whip.

Thank You.

[antonovman]

i remember reading an interview with Rod Eddington about this subject
his response was
"The employees unions fought for and won the right to retire at 55. It was their decision and their choice "
Reading between the lines it sounded like he was saying they wanted this, got it, and its staying.

[Gunner B12]

The 55 issue is a red herring. Take care to separate 'retirement' from being 'required to leave a company'.

The BA contract requires to leave the company at 55; they are then free to either not work any more (if they can afford it) or look for another job (if they need to).

There are many comapnies that have 'benefitted' from the experience brought by ex BA golden oldies on their own personal top up scheme.

It seems to me to be disingenuous to want to stay on at BA (with however many years seniority and increments) and deny the flow that the seniority system is built upon.

Move along Claude, and let someone else have a crack at the senior jobs !!


Please get over it

I had typed a much longer version but it crashed when I tried to post it.

Talk about ageist and discriminatory. just because a contract forces the employee "to leave the company at 55" doesn't make it right or get the company around the fact that the contract is discriminatory. If the young guns can't take the jobs away from the oldies by ability then they don't deserve them. which other industry has such draconian rules.

Perhaps we should apply this to other professions? but it's amazing how many people (for example) preferr to see an older doctor than the young whizz kid who knows all the latest tricks. I for one preferr to fly with an older (and by association, more experienced) pilot, any day. Other countries and companies have older allowable ages but don't seem to have increased problems attributable to age so what is the basis for this discrimination? Especially as other companies are benifiting so much from this wasted experience.


:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Erwin Schroedinger]

You should'nt have accepted the job if you did'nt want to retire at 55.

If you accepted the terms offered with the position then don't moan when you have to stick by that decision.

It could be worse. You could work for one of the less decadent employers who make you long for retirement ASAP!

[keep_pushing]

As usual, there is much hyperbole on this subject. This does not help those in search of information.

An EU directive is an instruction to member states to implement the aims of the directive (in this case, the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of age) by means of domestic legislation. This directive requires the domestic legislation to be in effect by late 2006.

The UK legislation required to satisfy this directive has yet to be published, hence anyone purporting to state what will or will not happen in 2006 is speaking through an orifice not normally associated with that function.

What is known, is that the directive will have no effect on the French over 60 ban (national retirement ages are permitted by the directive).

The government has also intimated that certain occupations will be exempt from the legislation. The example given was ATCOs. No-one knows if pilots will be exempt, and if so, to to what extent.

The UK government has indicated that it may introduce a default retirement age of 65. If this comes to pass, employees over this age will not be eligible to claim discrimination if made to retire. The government has also suggested that employers will be able to continue to enforce a retirement age of less that 65 if this can be justified (by the employer). This means that BA will be able to continue to enforce a retirement age of 55 if they can justify it.

Whether or not employees will be able to mount a legal challenge against their employer’s retirement age remains to be seen as, again, the legislation has yet to be published.

The legal world is full of suggestions that the government’s proposals, if implemented as intimated, will not comply with the directive. One thing that is certain is that employees will not be able to use the directive as a basis to challenge their employers – EU law forbids this. The only remedy would be an action against the UK government for failure to comply with the directive. The last time that this was tried (successfully, in the Spanish Trawlers dispute), it took eight years to resolve.

Looks like a good time to be a lawyer…

[newt]

Glad to see the argument still rolls on. I was forced to retire from BA at age 55 and apart from 6 months with a cargo outfit have been unable to find a flying job. So all of you who think that being out of work is easy then please think again! While I can sympathise with younger guys who want a command in quick time I suggest they look at getting the seniority system changed to a merit system and let us oldies enjoy a decent standard of living and improve their pensions for a happy retirement.:* :*

[ShotOne]

When you say you were "forced" to retire at 55, what did you think the retirement age was when you took the job? Did you miss that line on your contract?

[Jet II]

If retiring at 55 is such a bad deal, one has to wonder why the Pilots Union fought long and hard, against Management resistance, to bring it in. :rolleyes:

[Tandemrotor]

What pay point did you retire on newt?

I assume you were APS, and not NAPS.

[Blackball]

You have my sympathy Newt but were you a member of BALPA and if so did you lobby for an increase in retirement age? Also if you are only 55 then on the IPA members Jobs page you will find plenty ofsuitable jobs available. Many outfits are crying out for 747,77,767,737,Airbus Captains as well as F/Os. Mark you, it does mean that you would have to join the IPA at a cost of £6.00 per month to view the pages concerned.

[HZ123]

As a BA trainer that delivers E & D it is annoying to see this use of the word 'forced'. As many have made clear that was the age of retirement on your contract which you or BALPA or CC unions fought for. There are many others within the industry that would like the age of retirement to be 55. As far as we have been told after 2006 those of 55 and over FC & CC will be able to remain in BA's employ till 60 providing they pass annual medical.

By 2010 it is hoped that the EU, Government (UK) directive will clarify exactly at what age people must retire. Whatever, that does not stop anyone retiring at the age stated on there joining contract.

Much of the hype is caused by the lack of direction from the UK government once again. Presently in the pilot community surely the ones that will lose out will be FO and SFO's.

Of other cobcern to your community is the fact that 'seniority' may also be deemed illegal as that in itself is presently 'discriminatory'.

The other issue is as to how that will effect pensions and where the monies will come from to support 35 plus years pensions with new joiners earning less and less.

[Wingswinger]

As a BA captain who will reach 55 in March 2006 after only 17 years in the company, may I make a few comments:

1. My contract does not actually stipulate an age at which I must retire. It uses the phrase " agreements from time to time in force".
The only document I have which does mention the CRA being 55 is the guide to the BA pension scheme which I was given on joining.

2. I knew this before I joined and I was not entirely happy about it but, given the political climate changes and demographic trends, I expected that it would change. On balance, I thought BA offered a better life-style than Britannia which is where I would have been otherwise. I took a gamble on CRA changing before I reached 55. It almost certainly is going to change but not soon enough for me, alas.

3. Whether or not CRA at 55 is a good thing depends entirely on one's length of service. Provided one's age at joining was 26 or less, "crystallisation" at 50 was an option and AVCs were started before the rule change in 1987, it is an unrepeatable, outstanding deal.

4. Those of us who do not have 20+ years in BA and who are members of the inferior NAPS scheme are not looking at a crock of gold, even if we have a pension from elsewhere. Many of us will need another job post 55. My sympathies are with newt.

[36050100]

Gunner:

If the young guns can't take the jobs away from the oldies by ability then they don't deserve them. which other industry has such draconian rules.

Are you saying that you got the job based on merit rather than seniority ??

Personally, I don't care which system (seniority or meritocracy) an airline uses to determine who gets promoted, I'm happy to have taken my chances with either method, but having set off with one system, I still think it's disingenuous of you to want to change it when you reach CRA.

If you were serious about changing it, you could have introduced it for pilots joining the Company on the new money purchase pension scheme.

[newt]

Thanks Wingswinger! Suspect you are in a similar position to myself. I did lobby hard with BALPA whilst I was a member but the whole argument was hijacked by younger members who apparently threatened to resign from the Union if it supported an increase in CRA. I just hope for their sakes that when the change to CRA is introduced it will not be compulsory. In the mean time do enjoy your time left in BA. Life after BA is fine and I enjoy being a landscape gardener!!

[WeLieInTheShadows]

Funny how not all BA flying staff are required to retire at 55 though.

Ex Dan pilots and crew (including those on ex EOG contracts) don't have to retire until 60.

I met an ex B.Cal PSR who retired at 60 so I don't know if it's the same deal for ex B.Cal pilots?

To put real icing on the cake if you have an ex CFE contract at EFLGW and are crew (don't know if deal is same for the pilots), they all retire at 65!!!:ugh:

But the question does occur to me sometimes....do you not want to give up work? Surely home life is not that bad? I want to go 75% and I've just turned 30. Retiring by 40 would be brilliant, working my socks off to 60 would not be my idea of fun. I want to spend time with my kids/wife etc and live life with them while I can still kick a ball or walk to the shops without a stick.

Just a thought though and I'm sure sitting at home with family, a glass of brandy and a good book isn't everyones idea of bliss. :confused:

[Taildragger]

My understanding (This is a rumour network after all) that BA are reviewing the situation, and the 55 retirement age may be extended in the future. IF it is (A big IF) Pilots will be able to continue flying, at the same rank, AND draw their Pension which is payable at 55. Is that a deal or what.?
How about a confirmation from somebody closer to Fort Fumble -Waterside.?

[ShotOne]

It is interesting to contrast the title of this thread with an item in todays (UK) BBC evening news, "Health workers to be forced to work until 65"

At present, staff in the National Health Service (NHS) retire at age 60 which they regard as a hard fought for privilege. They are up in arms and considering strike action over proposals which would see this age increased.

[Crash1]

I don't know if this is really an appropriate time to bring this up but how exactly would a merit system work in such an industry.

I will freely admit that there are some outstanding operators and also a few that sometimes have to work much harder to come up to scartch. However the vast majority are all within the same skill level. BA operate a points scoring system for checks and I would hedge my bets that a survey of the average would put 80-90% of us in the same boat.

That aside the thought of flying with people older than my grandad really scares me!!(just kidding)

[Tandemrotor]

Me too!

But let's not get too carried away, it may never happen!

[MercenaryAli]

And yet many would not hesitate to climb on a train with a driver of 60 who rarely, if ever, undergoes any kind of medical let alone a 6 monthly aircrew medical; or perhaps a bus driver who has NEVER had a medical; or then there is the taxi driver who hasnt even got a licence (except a TV licence!) . . .

Think about it!.....:ok:

[ecnalubma]

If I'm 55 and they want me to retire, offer me a good pension, I'm out on the first thing smoking, show me the way to the golf course, have a cold beer waiting when I'm through 18, life couldn't be better. Sign me up boys.

[M.Mouse]

And yet many would not hesitate to climb on a train with a driver of 60 who rarely, if ever, undergoes any kind of medical let alone a 6 monthly aircrew medical; or perhaps a bus driver who has NEVER had a medical

Not true in the UK, both initial and recurrent medicals are required. Age at which they occur and frequency vary.

[ShotOne]

It's funny how the government statements on pensions are all worded in the language of fighting discrimination. Unfortunately it is nothing to do with that. The simple fact is they need to FORCE (deliberate choice of word) people to work longer because there is not enough cash in the pensions pot. Part of the reason is demographic -folks living longer, which is not the govt's fault, and part due to the loss of confidence in pensions caused by, amongst other things, Gordon Brown's (UK chancellor) huge tax raid on pension funds. Either way it's nothing to do with equal rights for older people, however it may be dressed up.

[BOAC]

That aside the thought of flying with people older than my grandad really scares me!!(just kidding)..............yeah - try flying with someone 10 yrs younger than your younger son (snap!:D )

[Fangio]

BOAC

Mike,
0nly 10 years younger than your son! you should be so lucky, I've flown with them 20 years younger than mine.

I was lucky enough to fly until I was 65, and enjoyed every minute of it.