Seeking Data re Mandatory Retirement Ages

[Raymond767]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Skies:

I am a B777 Captain with Air Canada, and coincidentally legal counsel to over 50 Air Canada pilots and former pilots whose cases of termination of employment at age 60, pursuant to the provisions of the applicable collective agreement provision forcing mandatory retirement, have been referred to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for adjudication.

In Canada, under the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act, mandatory retirement is currently exempted from the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age found within that statute, provided that the termination of employment, in the words of the statute occurs at "the normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work."

As everyone knows, "normal age of retirement" these days is a moving target, so far as airline pilots throughout the world are concerned. My hope is to describe the location of that target at the present time.

I therefore am humbly seeking your assistance in providing me with factual information to assist in determining the current mandatory retirement ages for pilots at various carriers throughout the world, other than in Canada and the United States, be they pilot employees or contract airline pilots. Is there a different age for Captains or pilots-in-command versus First Officers and/or augment pilots at the airline?

It would also be extremely beneficial if I might obtain a ballpark figure of the number of pilots employed and thus subjected to the mandatory retirement age at each of the carriers.

Any assistance that you might be able to provide me would be very greatly appreciated.

Airline /
Approx. No. of Pilots /
Current Mandatory Retirement Age, if any

Does any carrier based in the European Union still adhere to Age 60?

[Longhitter]

Raymond,

Air France: 60, no exceptions that I know of.

KLM: normally 56, maximum 60 if working part time for a certain period before reaching age of 56.

Both these carriers do not employ contract pilots, no difference between FOs and skippers, pilot numbers in the thousands (KLM about 2800, AF far more).

Maximum legal retirement age is 65 for all JAR-states. A heated debate is now erupting since there is mounting pressure from governments and managements to raise retirement age. In Holland there has already been a clash between some pilots wanting to work longer (claiming age discrimination) and the Dutch ALPA defending the retirement age as it is. In France the government recently raised the maximum legal retirement age to 65 from 60, provoking a 4-day strike by AF pilots (retirement age of 60 in AF was not at stake. Yet, that is...)

Good luck,

LH

[Checkboard]

In Australia, pilots won a case against mandatory retirement at any age, under age discrimination legislation. Pilots may keep their positions as long as they can pass the medical and their sim checks. I flew with guys over 65 in Ansett - which doesn't exist now (financial failure after Sep 11), but it was a major airline with 13,000 employees, and about 1000+ pilots.

[ETOPS]

British Airways

3300 pilots

Mandatory retirement at age 65.

[Raymond767]

With the maximum age raised in France, effective November 18th, with the passage of the law by the Senate, do Air France pilots now have the legal right to continue to age 65 if they so choose, or is there some other constraint within the process that would allow the employer to still terminate their employment.

Ditto for KLM. Can individuals exercise their legal rights to go beyond 60, or is that a matter of negotiation between the carrier and the pilot association?

Do you have any knowledge of the subject at Lufthansa? Apparently, there was a legal challenge some months ago by three pilots wanting to stay beyond age 60. Has that been resolved, or is there still a dispute between the individual pilots, their Association and the employer?

[Huck]

In Holland there has already been a clash between some pilots wanting to work longer (claiming age discrimination) and the Dutch ALPA defending the retirement age as it is.

Where does one obtain such a union.....

[Long Haul]

Ditto for KLM. Can individuals exercise their legal rights to go beyone 60, or is that a matter of negotiation between the carrier and the pilot association?

The courts in the Netherlands have ruled that the KLM contract is overriding, so individuals do not have the right to work there past 56 (or up to 60, if they have flown part-time before retirement)

[Raymond767]

Longhaul:

Would you happen to know the dates of those court decisions? Specifically, did they occur prior to the implementation of the EU Directive on Employment Law, required to be implemented as law by all EU member states prior to December 1, 2006, that foreclosed age discrimination by companies in the EU?

If so, wase the contract or legal decision of the courts challenged before the European Court of Justice, as being contrary tot he EU Employment Law Directive?

Two recent decisions of the EU Court of Justice have upheld the right of countries to employ mandatory retirment, specifically at age 65, but only when justification is provided. It would be difficult, I believe to argue effectively that it is justified in one country when it is allowed in all other countries in the EU.

[Longhitter]

Under Dutch labour law, a collective labour agreement is legally binding if the government endorses it. As far as I know, it has been challenged by pilots wanting to work longer but they lost their courtcase. I'm not sure if the government could force a later retirement age on pilots, since the collective labour agreement is between a company or group of companies in the same sector and the unions. As long as these two don't come up with something that's outside the general rules and labour law the government will not intervene (e.g. they can agree to a retirement age lower than the legal maximum, but not higher). The retirement fund for KLM pilots is for KLM pilots only, is independent from the company and government and financially sound (oversight by the Dutch national bank, as for every pension fund in Holland). KLM and it's pilots pay high premiums to keep it that way. This construction allows for politics to be kept out of play to some degree in case of discussions on retirement age. NB: the discussion is on age discrimination here, not money.

Raymond: courtcase against KLM / Dutch ALPA was concluded by Dutch supreme court in October 2004, I don't know if the case was subsequently brought to the European Court. If you speak Dutch:

Rechtspraak.nl - Zoeken in uitspraken (http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelzoeken=true&searchtype=kenmerken&vrije_tekst=pensioen+leeftijdsdiscriminatie), look for LJN: AP0425, Hoge Raad , C03/133HR

Good luck,

LH



In the case of AF: the raising of the legal retirement age has no direct effect on the collective labour agreement yet, but there could be severe indirect implications due to the way retirement for aircrew is arranged in La Douce France. Here there is a national retirement fund for all aircrew (pilots and cabin crew from all French airlines). For the moment this pension fund is coping fairly well compared to other funds in France, but since retirement for pilots (60) and cabin crew (55!) is quite early compared to other professions it is only a question of time before trouble will arise. The general situation in France was that people needed to contribute to their respective pension fund for 40 years to get a full pension, with exceptions for certain professions, e.g. railway workers (37.5), pilots and cabin crew. Since the official working week is only 35 hours and there is a generous amount of paid holidays (I think it's 31 days) the retirement system is rapidly becoming too expensive, as is the social security system and state healthcare. The Sarkozy government, desparately short of cash, has introduced measures to combat this. Amongst other things working more than 35 hours became legal (and untaxed), but only on a voluntary basis. The 'regime speciale' for railway workers was abolished under heavy protests (and strikes of course!). Previous governments have promised the French pilots union not to change the law or their pension system without consulting them first, so they were severely p*ssed off when the legal retirement age was raised to 65 overnight. They see it as the opening artillery barrage on their age 60 retirement right, so stand by for more skirmishes on this one! NB: the discussion is on money here, not age discrimination.

[Raymond767]

Longhitter:

Many thanks. Very helpful indeed.

The date is pivotal, because the EU law (which is enacted as a law within the country by amending the individual country's laws) supercedes the prior law. Members of the EU cannot opt out of the Directive--their laws must be consistent.

However, there is flexibility within the Directive for some adjustment and interpretation depending on the needs of the country. But those differences must be justified in each case.

The recent decisions of the EU Court of Justice have indeed verified that the EU Directive is controlling, and that exceptions must be justified in each case.

It would be good to hear from someone from KLM who is conversant with the existing application of the law to the specific contract--especially, were any modifications to the contract made in respect of the above decision, as a result of the need to be compliant with the EU Directive? OR did the age just get raised to 65?

[backofthedrag]

I believe SAS has kept the retirement age at 60 despite EU legislation ( certainly for Swedish pilots ) and has won court cases contesting this.
My understanding is also that Singapore Airlines retire at 62.

[MAKOLO]

as from jan 01 2010 max retirement age for pilots will be 65 in Air France.

[Longhitter]

Raymond, check PM.

[Raymond767]

Makolo:

Are you saying that despite the law in France being passed by the Senate on November 18th, that the law will not come into effect to raise the mandatory retirement age to 65 until January 1, 2010?

[Raymond767]

Backofthedrag:

Has nobody filed a challenge to the age before the European Court of Justice, to your knowledge?

[Longhitter]

France is notoriously slow in implementing international law / agreements. While one of the driving forces behind the EU, France also pays the highest amount of fines for non-compliance with EU-directives. Max age for an airline pilot was only raised to the european/icao standard a few weeks ago, and until about 6 months ago France did not even allow pilots over 60 from foreign carriers to fly in their airspace...

[backofthedrag]

Don't know about European Court of justice re SAS , but I doubt it . Will ask my Swedish colleagues though .

[jed_thrust]

Cathay Pacific: about 2500 pilots, the vast majority are still on a mandatory 55.

For anyone who joined the group this year, their contract states 65. That is also the same for any direct entry freighter dudes.

With the company having successfully reduced pay and conditions over the last 10-15 years, the more senior pilots are approaching 55 with not enough to retire on (forget what you may have heard about our packages - fiscal and physical!) so they want to go to 65.

The younger guys (who are perhaps more focused on more earthly delights) think they are going to be smarter with their money than the old farts were, and would rather their command upgrades were not delayed by extending everyone to 65.

Fight looming....

[ExSp33db1rd]

New Zealand. Followed Aus. example and no mandatory removal of licence by the CAA due to age, however I have no idea what NZ companies, e.g. Air New Zealand, might impose, which of course is a slightly different issue being contractual by Company, not mandatory by State legislation.

However, the medical requirements get harder !

At age 74 I still maintain a CPL for voluntary work with the Coastguard Air Patrol, but before retirement I'd not been employed by a NZ company, and not previously held a NZ licence, so whereas I might have been allowed to continue flying with a NZ company, no one would start me at my 'advanced' age when I obtained my NZ licence at age 63.

Hope this helps.

[Tube Rider]

Emirates
Apx 2200 pilots
Mandatory Retirement 65

Isn't "normal age of retirement" in this industry the standard set by ICAO. And anything else a variation?

[Longhitter]

Tube rider:

Erm, no. ICAO decides on maximum age to hold a particular licence. The normal retirement age can thus be not older than that, but retirement ages are decided on according to local labour laws and collective labour agreements.

[Jean-Lill]

EU law of Oct 2006 states that discimination against age is not allowed and everyone should have the right to work to 65 in all EU countries regardless of their occupation.

How does this not apply to Holland if their pilots have to retire at 56 unless that is what they want to do. I cannot believe all of them want to retire that young.

Reading these threads it appears some airlines outside the EU allow their pilots to work longer now.

I know a couple of years ago some airlines, one in particular made their pilots retire at 55 and that has been the case for decades. I wonder how the pilots who work for those ailines feel now they have the opportunity to work 10 years longer. My guess is they prefer that option.

My personal feeling is 55 is far too young to make anyone have comlulsory retirement regardless of what job they do. Presumably those mandatory retirement dates were set in the 1960's or 70's. We have come a long way since then but it appears it took the 2006 EU law to force those airlines to change their retirement age. Am I correct? If people want to retire early then that is a different matter altogether.

[windytoo]

Monarch Airlines-----400 pilots.
Voluntary retirement up to a maximum age of 65.

[mcdhu]

easyJet - circa 1800 pilots. Mandatory 65 as of 23 Nov 06 when the rules changed.

[Raymond767]

Thank you for your responses above.


Regarding ICAO standards, I would like to provide some clarification. Here is the way that we, after much deliberation, read ICAO’s standards and recommendations.

Reference to a number of the ICAO documents is located on our web site:


http://www.flypast60.com/law-NGO.htm (http://www.flypast60.com/law-NGO.htm)


ICAO is an international body that was formed through the United Nations to ensure the safety of international airline operations. ICAO sets standards regarding international pilot licensing, especially regarding safety and English proficiency, and it sets standards regarding the age limit of pilots-in-command operating through international airspace, but ICAO does not set standards regarding the maximum age requirements of licensing or employment. ICAO has no jurisdiction or interest in employment laws.




ICAO member states make laws (generally, regulations) in their own countries that adopt the conventions of the international body, making the ICAO standards law within the jurisdiction of the member states. Nations are free to implement laws that are more restrictive than the ICAO standards for their own pilot licensing and operations only—they are not allowed to make laws that affect the operations of foreign carriers within their own airspace that are more restrictive than the ICAO standards.


Member states can enact laws that are less restrictive than the ICAO standards, and these laws can affect both their own pilots and pilots of foreign carriers operating within their airspace.


Two examples: First, Canada removed the maximum age restriction on pilot licensing decades ago, after passage of its own federal human rights statutes that generally prohibit, with two very narrow exemptions, discrimination on the basis of age. In addition, it permitted its own pilots as well as pilots of other jurisdictions to operate within its airspace regardless of age, so long as the pilots were properly licensed within their own country.


Second, after ICAO moved the maximum age for pilots-in-command from age 60 to age 65 on November 23, 2006, the United States could no longer restrict foreign carriers from operating into and out of U.S. airspace with pilots-in-command over age 60, even though the FAA regulations in effect until December, 2007 precluded U.S. pilots from being licensed above age 60.


When member states deviate from ICAO’s standard with a regulation that is more restrictive for their own airlines' operations, they are required to file what ICAO calls a “difference.”


Operations within member states' airspace that are less restrictive are handled through the individual airline’s “operating specification,” or “Ops Spec.” That is a document that is negotiated between the specific airline and the host member state. For example, if airlines currently wish to operate with pilots in excess of age 65 pilots-in-command within Canadian airspace, a procedure that Canada readily allows, the airlines could gain legal authority for that doing so (i.e. for deviating from the ICAO standard) through negotiation with the Canadian government of their airline's Ops Spec.


ICAO has "Standards" and it has "Recommendations." Recommendations are non-binding, and have no legal impact on international operations. The current "recommendation," for example, that First Officers not operate above age 65, is non-binding, and has no legal impact.


ICAOs standards regarding maximum age of pilot operations are indeed very narrow. They do not apply at all in relation to any form of employment law. There is no ICAO standard for mandatory retirement.


This is a very common misunderstanding. ICAO does not deal with employment, period. Its restrictions on pilot age are limited to two areas only: maximum age of pilot-in-command operations within the airspace of countries that choose to adhere rigidly to the ICAO standard, and (after November 23, 2006) crew complement (the “over-under” rule)—at least one pilot of the crew must be under age 60 for operations of airlines, again, within the airspace of countries that opt to adhere rigidly to the ICAO standard.


There are three upshots to this. First, the age restrictions, other than for the over-under rule, affect pilot-in-command (not “Captain”) operations only. There are no restrictions on First Officers, Augmentation Pilots, Flight Engineers or Relief Pilots, including “Captains” who are not acting as “pilots-in-command” fulfilling crew duties in those positions.


Second, the over-under rule, according to the ICAO FAQ pages, is based on the entire crew comlement, including crews where there are three or four operating pilots. Specifically, it requires the existence in the crew of at least one pilot under age 60.


According to the ICAO FAQs, it is “recommended” (i.e. not required) that that "under age 60" crew member be one of the two pilots operating the aircraft for take-off and landing. In other words, in the extreme, so long as you have on board an “augmentation pilot” who is under age 60, the other three pilots could be over age 60 and the ICAO requirements would be legally met.


This point has huge potential implications on the decision of airlines and their pilot associations to impose mandatory retirement, because it means that there is an immense flexibility available for the scheduling of augmented crew operations—Captains not only do not need to have their employment terminated (they can work legally as augmentation crew members). Further, the crew complement to satisfy the over-under rule does not necessarily present a scheduling nightmare to airline operators, requiring huge gymnatics to get flights through the airspace of countries that adhere rigidly to the ICAO maximum age limits for pilots-in-command.


Third, countries can adopt standards that are less restrictive than the ICAO standards. This factor was largely in evidence in the early 2000’s, prior to the ICAO change to age 65 in November, 2006. Many countries, especially many European countries, did not adhere rigidly to the ICAO age restriction for pilots-in-command (France and Italy being two exceptions noted above in this thread), so pilots-in-command could freely operate into, out of, and through the airspace of a large number of countries, notwithstanding that their pilots-in-command were over the ICAO maximum age.


Again, technically, the airlines require an amendment to their Ops Specs to accomplish this, and it is not clear how many carriers actually fulfilled that requirement, but it is common knowledge that many, many carriers operated across international borders with pilots-in-command above the ICAO age maximum of 60 for pilot-in-command prior to the raising of the age to 65 in November, 2006.

[nuclear weapon]

Normal is 65, But some airline will only let you fly rhs btwn 60-65. I think.

[oceancrosser]

Normal is 65, But some airline will only let you fly rhs btwn 60-65. I think

Now, how and why would that make sense?

[Tee Emm]

In Australia there is no pilot age limit-in fact there are a few pilots approaching their Seventies flying jet transports and having no problem with medicals and simulator checks. Their experience has been invaluable.

Back in the late Eighties when the airline pilot union in Australia enforced compulsory unionism (no ticket - no fly) it virtually ruled both the airline industry and it's regulator (Department of Civil Aviation). The union enforced an age limit of 60 even though it was illegal to discriminate on age. Fortunately that has all changed for the better and if you are fit and proficient and appropriately licenced it is up to each pilot when to pull the plug on himself.

[Airbubba]

Back in the late Eighties when the airline pilot union in Australia enforced compulsory unionism (no ticket - no fly) it virtually ruled both the airline industry and it's regulator (Department of Civil Aviation).

Would that union be the infamous AFAP?

[Raymond767]

Could someone please inform me of the practice at Lufthansa? Has the Association put into place an increase in the mandatory age to age 65?

[offa]

Airline / Cargolux Airlines Int
Approx. No. of Pilots / 400
Current Mandatory Retirement Age: 65

[WestWind1950]

my ex just retired in September as captain with Lufthansa when he turned 60. He would have liked to continue flying but no go.

The pilots who took the matter to court lost. I will try to find some information for you.

So mandatory at Lufthansa is still 60.

here's the link to the "cockpit" union for airline pilots and flight engineers... it's in German but you can send them a message in English.

Willkommen bei der Vereinigung Cockpit (http://www.vcockpit.de/start.php)

[MPH]

Same in The Netherlands: VNV (Dutch Pilots Union) negotiated with the local airlines a 56yrs retirement age. Contrary to the age discrimintation etc, it's a labour contract agreed upon by all parties! This issue was also taken to court but, to no avail. Looks like a labour contract prevails over regulations, rules and the law?

[Raymond767]

Westwind:

When you say, "the pilots" took them to court and lost, do you mean the individual pilots, or the pilots' Association? What is the position of the pilots' Association--is it for or against changing to the ICAO mandated maximum age for Pilots-In-Command of age 65?

Despite the losses at the courts in the cases cited so far (Germany, Netherlands) I am still uncertain why apparently no-one has taken the cases to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. Were the individuals not aware that they could do so, given that the forced terminations apparently breach the provisions of the EU Employment Law Directive?

[Dockjock]

Follow up query regarding pay schemes at affected airlines. Is your airline on-
a) Formula Pay system (ie. pay dependent on size of aircraft).
b) Years-of-service system (ie. Captain and F/O annual increases irrespective of fleet type)

When the retirement age is raised at airlines on an a) system, obviously those at the top get to stick around at top rates for another 5 years. On a b) system, increasing the retirement age is not so punitive to the rest.

Air Canada is presently on a formula pay system, though there is somewhat of a grassroots movement supporting a change to years of service if the retirement age goes to 65 to spread the wealth a little more equitably, so to speak.

[bluedevil]

In Australia in 1996, new anti-discrimination legislation wiped age limit for all pilots. However, Captain John Christie a Long Haul 744 Captain sued Qantas for mandating his retirement at 60. At that stage, ICAO limit for Captains was still 60. Eventually he lost in the High Court due QF successfully arguing that they could not roster him a full line as the 744 went mostly to airspace that precluded Captains being over 60.

However, attached to that case was a Short Haul Captain who was successful as the QF 737 was almost exclusively operating in Australian and NZ airspace. NZ had similar anti-discrimination legislation. This remained the case until ICAO increased the limit to 65 in November 2006. Now QF pilots can operate to 65 in any rank, at which time they could theoretically take a rank reduction to F/O, or bid to go back to the 737 or 767 as Captains and operate in Australian and NZ airspace "on condition". There is sufficient flying on both these types to be rostered for normal lines.

Australian aviation legislation requires that if the Captain is over 60, the F/O must be less than 60.

The Christie case is worth a read, as it overrode discrimination law due the interpretation of what constitutes "normal work", and the economic hardship to Qantas in not being able to extract a full roster's worth of work from a pilot. Interestingly, subsequent industrial agreement now allows for reduced hours flying past age 55, to 75% of a normal workload. Worked well for me!

[WestWind1950]

Raymond,

the "Vereinigung Cockpit" is the biggest union for all cockpit/flight deck personel. They do represent pilots in court action occassionally.

I have tried to find an English version of the court decision but to no avail. The German version states that 3 LH pilots wanted to fly longer then 60 years of age, especially since at smaller, sister airlines pilots are allowed to fly to 65 years. They were unsuccessful in their attempts.

One German article is as follows, perhaps you can find someone to translate the relavant info (sorry, I'm on my office computer right now or I would try to do it myself):


FRANKFURT/MAIN -
Die Piloten der Deutschen Lufthansa müssen ihren vorgezogenen Ruhestand mit 60 Jahren akzeptieren. Das hat das Landesarbeitsgericht in Frankfurt am Main gestern entschieden. Die Berufung von drei Piloten gegen ein gleichlautendes Urteil des Arbeitsgerichts Frankfurt wurde damit zurückgewiesen.
Die Richter sahen keinen Verstoß gegen das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz. Die Revision beim Bundesarbeitsgericht wurde jedoch zugelassen (Aktenzeichen: 17 Sa 809/07).
Die klagenden Piloten hatten sich vor Gericht auf das seit August 2006 geltende sogenannte Antidiskriminierungsgesetz berufen und damit ihren Wunsch, bis zum 65. Lebensjahr zu fliegen, begründet. Von einem grundsätzlichen Sicherheitsrisiko und einer Gefahr, während eines Fluges akut zu erkranken, könne infolge der regelmäßigen ärztlichen Untersuchungen keine Rede sein, so ihre Argumente. Darüber hinaus flögen auch Piloten einer Lufthansa-Tochter bis zum 65. Lebensjahr, etwa auf kürzeren Inlandsflügen. Deshalb sei die im Tarifvertrag vereinbarte Altersgrenze nichtig.
Die Richter bejahten in ihrer Entscheidung zwar die Anwendbarkeit des neuen Gesetzes, weil die Kläger erst nach dem Inkrafttreten das 60. Lebensjahr vollendet hätten. Gleichwohl sahen sie keine Altersdiskriminierung, weil die Deutsche Lufthansa mit der früheren Verrentung ihrer Piloten ein "legitimes Ziel" verfolge. So seien gesundheitliche Beeinträchtigungen bei den alternden Piloten zumindest nicht völlig auszuschließen.
Während allgemein das Renteneintrittsalter auf 67 Jahre angehoben werden soll, betrug das tatsächliche Renteneintrittsalter 2004 im Schnitt in Deutschland bei Männern 63,1 Jahre und bei Frauen 63,0 Jahre. In den neuen Bundesländern gehen Männer und Frauen statistisch gesehen eher in Rente als in den alten Ländern.

erschienen am 16. Oktober 2007

[Raymond767]

The Lufthansa pilots have their early retirement with 60 years to accept. It has the country's Labor Court in Frankfurt decided yesterday. The appointment of three pilots against a similar ruling by the Frankfurt Labor Court was rejected.
The judges saw no violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The revision to the Federal Labor was, however, admitted (reference: 17 Sat 809/07).
The plaintiff pilots were in court on the force since August 2006 so-called anti-discrimination law and thus invoke their desire until the 65th Age to fly founded. From a fundamental security risk and a danger, during a flight to acutely ill could be a result of periodic medical examinations no question, so their arguments. In addition flögen pilots also a Lufthansa subsidiary until the 65th Year of life, such as on shorter domestic flights. It was agreed in the collective age void.
The judges said in their decision although the applicability of the new law, because the plaintiff only after the entry into force 60 Age would have. Nevertheless, they saw no age discrimination because Deutsche Lufthansa with the earlier retirement of its pilots a "legitimate target" in pursuit. Thus, health impairments in the aging pilots at least not completely ruled out.
While the general retirement age to 67 years to be, the actual retirement age in 2004 cut in Germany in men and 63.1 years for women 63.0 years. In the new federal states are men and women is statistically more in retirement than in the old countries.

appeared on 16 October 2007

[Lord Lucan]

I am aware of a pilot flying for an Italian operator who will be forced to retire when he reaches age 60 next month.

So not all JAA (or whatever its being called this month) states have adopted the 65 age.

[earlyNFF]

@ Raymond:

Lufthansa:

the individuals are in court with LH. No support from the pilot´s union, they are strictly against raising the age limit beyond 60 at LH.

Management pilots expressed their opinion to employ beyond 60, however they can´t do anything.

Court cases are individual, so every fellow who has to leave at 60 has to file a separate case at the time he leaves. He can not join the first three. In the meantime many cases open and put on "ice", awaiting the outcome of the next court instances of the first group.

Next court session at or after april 09

[411A]

Under discussion in several African countries....max age 68 for Commanders.
Guidelines being drawn up now, and if it proves successful, age 70 to be implemented eventually.

[picture]

Raymond.

This is getting old (no pun intended.)

Over 90% off the pilots at Air Canada voted not to change our contractual retirement age from 60. Just like police and firemen, this is our right to have as a group a SET retirement age at this company .

If you simply must fly , no one will stop you . You can go fly freight, charter or in Timbuktu.

[Lord Lucan]

Picture
If you simply must fly , no one will stop you

The whole point is, that someone WILL stop you. That is what enforced retirement is all about!

I agree that if individuals or companies have an agreement to retire pilots at 55 or 60, then that is what should happen. However what is happening is that people are being forced to retire against their will, and in some cases against the will of the employer too.

Contracts are one thing, the law is something else.

And quite frankly, Picture, I find your put-down about freight, charter and Timbuktu a tad offensive for someone who has just subscribed to PPrune in order to make this first post.

[da_tyme]

Fascinating!Three whole pages of erudite text, correctly spelled, and relevant to the argument. Not a put down in sight 'till two back, which would appear to have come from someone outside the discussion age group. And they force us to retire.
Re. SIA retirement. It remains sixty. New contract on different terms may be offered to (currently) age sixty-two for expats. I'm not sure about the locals. Due to the downturn this option is not currently being offered.

[Raymond767]

As a follow-up to my earlier requests, would anyone be able to provide some data regarding the actual number of pilots who are staying employed at various airlines after age 60, since the restrictions at those airlines were lifted?

I would be particularly interested in any data from the major U.S. airlines, given that the mandatory age 60 restriction expired for all pilots on the same day.

Fear-mongers among many junior pilots often refer to a "five-year" hold-back in career progress due to the additional five potential years at the top, but my suspicion is that the majority of pilots still leave their employment as soon as they are able to get retirement without any pension penalties for leaving early, and that the actual participation rate among the over-60 group is quite small. Hard numbers, namely, the percentage that stayed on of those eligible to stay on, would be most helpful.

With thanks in advance!

[KitKat747]

I am pleased to read some pilots might be able to continue flying beyond 65 if they want to. No-one is forcing them to do against their will but it is nice to see in some parts of the world that might be a possibility.

I do not think they should be restricted to flying freight-why?

Up until a couple of years ago an airline forced all pilots to retire at 55 whether they wanted to or not. In those past couple of years some of their pilots have reached their 55th birthdays and a lot have decided to continue flying, that should indicate very clearly what the majority of pilots want to do-not retire at the earliest opportunity mainly because they still enjoy working in their chosen profession.

[Flexable]

For those not aware the Canadian Parliament outlawed discrimination on the basis of age in all matters related to employment, with a few very, very narrow exemptions, in 1977...

Now some pilots after benefiting from the normal retirement age (60) at Air Canada want to stay on top of the pay pyramid...but hey for the last 30 years they were enjoying the carer progression the age 60 retirement was providing them.:ugh:

[Raymond767]

That makes two posts now by two different AC pilots, that contribute ad hominem drivel, completely off the subject of the thread (data, in case it wasn't noticed), detracting, rather than adding to the essence of the discussion here.

Embarrassing.

[Jean-Lill]

Raymond,

to answer your intial question concerning retirement ages.

65 is the answer but airlines in some countries permit pilots to fly past 65 without any problems which you will have already read.

The current retirment age for pilots has not changed for almost half century and was well over due to be reviewed.

[Raymond767]

Many thanks. With the age law now implemented in France, has Air France changed its mandatory retirement age yet?

Still looking for facts re mandatory retirement at Lufthansa, as well.

[KitKat747]

I have not heard that the 4 day Air France pilots strike changed anything, perhaps some AF pilots could comment on that.

As far as I am aware they currently retire at 60 but a group of the senior pilots want to carry on until 65 on voluntary basis. That is what the strike was about-the option which they feared would become compulsory.

[Maresias]

I too am making my 1st post to commend u on the first sensible post in these 3 pages despite what Lord Lucan says. Let the over 60's go somewhere else where they wont be a safety hazard. Unfortunately, their ego's and greed wont let them go. Now the rest of us are held back in our careers for their lack of retirement planning.

I flew with a 63 and a 64 yr. old (GV corporate) -and it wasnt pretty. They had great experience and knowledge but motor skills deminished. There's a reason why u dont see World Chess Champions winning in their golden years.

[Dragon 83]

Maresias-----I would be careful with such unfounded general comments about age 60+pilots. Psycho/Motor skills don't magically disappear on ones 60th B-Day. You have observed two seasoned pilots as have I in my 40 yrs of Military/Airline aviation career, but I have also flown with those many years younger that fit that same scenario.

Some older guys have also lost so called established pensions, experienced life changes etc which are not planned. If their skill set and health allow them to continue they can hardly be classed as a safety risk.

[tocamak]

but motor skills deminished. There's a reason why u dont see World Chess Champions winning in their golden years.

There may well be a reason but it's not diminished motor skills as actually it's not that difficult to move a chess piece.

Now the rest of us are held back in our careers for their lack of retirement planning.


I would suggest that the downturn in the industry has probably more effect on your career than the increase in normal retirement ages by five years or so.You should look on the bright side, you will be able to demonstrate your skill for even longer (maybe not the crm bit though!)

[Huck]

As a follow-up to my earlier requests, would anyone be able to provide some data regarding the actual number of pilots who are staying employed at various airlines after age 60, since the restrictions at those airlines were lifted?

I would be particularly interested in any data from the major U.S. airlines, given that the mandatory age 60 restriction expired for all pilots on the same day.

Fear-mongers among many junior pilots often refer to a "five-year" hold-back in career progress due to the additional five potential years at the top, but my suspicion is that the majority of pilots still leave their employment as soon as they are able to get retirement without any pension penalties for leaving early, and that the actual participation rate among the over-60 group is quite small. Hard numbers, namely, the percentage that stayed on of those eligible to stay on, would be most helpful.

I am a pilot for a large U.S. freight carrier.

We have an excellent pension, equal to half of a pilot's pay average for his/her highest five years. For the majority that is over $120,000 a year. We also have a healthy "B" fund.

But our retirements came to a standstill after the rule changed. Under age 60, they were around 200 a year - now they are around 20.

I had a 757 captain training date prior to the age change. It was subsequently cancelled and I assure you that my career progression has been stalled by at least five years.

The truly amazing thing is this: the age 65 rule was one of the biggest changes to FAA regulation in history, and it was done without one iota of scientific research. For such a hidebound organization it was a truly remarkable gamble.

Think of the worst pilot you ever flew with. Now think of him/her at age 64. It's not the median that matters, it's the fringes. And the flying public gets to participate, unwillingly, in this grand experiment.....

[Jean-Lill]

There is no grand experiment here, what differance does 5 years make?

The answer is the younger pilots might have to wait 5 years longer to get a command or transfer on to a larger aircraft type-nothing more.

The 60 year old age barrier has been in place for 4 decades+. 60 used to be a much older age in the 1960's than it is today. We have to move on and cannot live in past for ever.

For those of you who do not like the overdue change, your day will come and you will no doubt be glad then that you will have the opportunity to fly for 5 years more.

The retirement age should have been changed years ago. Look how wonderful the 57 year old pilot who ditched in the Hudson was. What further proof does one need that years of experience is an advantage and not a disadvantage?

65 is not so old nowadays, you will all be there one day.

[Raymond767]

I hope that the thread doesn't get too far off track...

In our hearings before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, competency was not in issue, it was a given. The reason being that professional pilot competency is not generally the domain of those deciding the mandatory retirement age, if any.

In Canada, there is no regulated mandatory retirement age. There hasn't been since the passage of the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, decades ago. Because licensing is determined by the regulator through the use of frequent and recurrent tests of both medical and professional competency, there isn't a need for a "blanket" age prohibition based on assumed (lack of) competency.

So the issue here is not whether age affects competency--competency is assumed. The issue the I posed at the outset is, how are companies changing their mandatory retirement policies re age, where those policies exist, as a result of the industry changes, and in particular, as a result of the ICAO changes re Pilot-In-Command, that were made effective in November, 2006?

Perhaps a separate thread on the competency issue would be a good place to debate that issue.

[earlyNFF]

@ raymond:

>>Still looking for facts re mandatory retirement at Lufthansa, as well.<<

Look at my posting dec 17.

No change, no news.

Court dates not yet published.

[rapier24]

65 yrs for all pilots employed commercially in India.however with PPL you cam fly well beyond that age as,say ,a consultant with a corporate set up.

[Alpine Flyer]

Tyrolean Airways, Austria
app. 600 pilots

no company retirement requirements, but Austria will not renew commercial/ATP licenses past 65 (as all JAR countries).

Pilots usually retire when eligible for state pension with that age slowly increasing to 65.

Currently almost no pilots working past 60 because there aren't any in that age group but I'd expect many to stay past 60 as leaving earlier would mean big cuts to state pension payments.

It will be interesting if the new age 65 "barrier" will be eventually challenged as age discrimination. It is as arbitrary as the age 60 rule was.