Pilot wins agesim lawsuit

[SoundBarrier]

Hmm, what could be wrong with an experienced Pilot then? :)

Pilot awarded $15,000 over discrimination - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10585585)

[chimbu warrior]

Hmm, what could be wrong with an experienced Pilot then?

Nothing at all, but after a 5 year court battle (during which the sands of time continued to trickle through the hourglass) he appears to have only been awarded $15,000 court costs.

Something of a pyrrhic victory, I would suggest.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for pilots continuing to fly for as long as they like (provided they satisfy medical and proficiency standards). It just seems that this is not quite the victory the headline suggests.

[Torres]

I think you may be misreading the article. I read it that he was awarded $15,000 in costs in respect to the appeal to the Supreme Court, who only over ruled a decision of the Appeals Court.

Having over ruled the Appeals Court, the Supreme Court have now handed the matter back to the Employment Court to deal with the original complaint and if warranted, award reinstatement and/or monetary damages.

At least I think that is what they are trying to say! :E

[c100driver]

He is 65 this year, and once owned is own aircraft and flying school as well.

[NO LAND 3]

Would you get bypass pay if demoted like this?
I guess this could be considered a class action as the outcome would set a precedent and therefore important for all NZ long haul pilots approaching 60.
Those last few years income at the top of your game could be quite important in providing for a comfortable retirement after all.

[ShyTorque]

Glad to hear he won his case; recent history shows he would have had far less chance of success in UK.

Why do some young whipper-snappers think they have more of a right to his well-earned salary than he does?

Perhaps he needs to continue working to keep a wife, or an ex-wife in the manner she'd like to become accustomed to. Or he may have other relatives needing financial support. Or, perhaps in this financial climate, he would have insufficient personal income from failed pension investments. My in-laws found they had to continue working until very recently, till they were both 79 years old. Having always paid a fair whack into pension funds, they realised it was nowhere near enough to keep them solvent with a reasonable quality of life, especially under this present government.

Either way, if this pilot continues to pass his medical and his check-rides, why shouldn't he continue to fly and earn a living?

[lowerlobe]

Just a thought...

Was it known or did he know that when he turned 60 he would no longer be able to fly Long Haul and his flying would be restricted to other flights?

In other words was he aware that this would happen?

It does not matter what his personal situation is or what he would like to do.We all would like to do a number of things but in the end we can't stop the march of time even if we love doing a particular job....

What happens when he turns 70 or 80 ....does he claim discrimination just because he loves flying?

Or is this another case of a lack of communication.....

[Split Flap]

It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with ego.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Wow, I must've hit a nerve there!! However it seems like the majority of posters not deleted from thread agree with my (or what was my) viewpoint.
Maybe I should've called the spade a man-draulic gardening implement!:hmm:

[By George]

Mr Split trailing edge, it has nothing what so ever to do with ego. I am 60 and contracted to 62. That will be enough (and I could get the boot next year with the fleet I am on being retired.) I fly because I love it and lets face it, going to Europe or the States is more interesting than mowing the bloody lawn. Your Command will come, when things pick up there will be plenty for all. Anyway I am off to work, ............where did I put that stick?

[Split Flap]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about him.

[jungle juice]

It has nothing to do with money and everything to do with ego.
I remember hearing a captain talking about his approaching retirement.He told his wife that he was going to enjoy it but his wife told him that he was going to hate it.
He asked his wife why he was going to dislike it so much.
She told him that after he retired he was going to be one more bloke walking down the street and no one was going to address him as Captain.

He then admitted to the other pilots listening that his wife was right and he wasn't looking forward to it anymore.
I think split flap is spot on.

[NO LAND 3]

Writing off what ammounts to a precedent setting case as being merely an issue of ego is petty and small-minded.
60 is not that old these days and a demotion could have real consequences in terms of security, status, income and happiness.
If you have achieved (or believe you will) and can maintain such a financially and emotionally rich life outside of the job that these things don't matter to you, well done.
Though I suspect you are either deluded or have no penis!
Whether the airline has any other reasonable option is another matter.

[jungle juice]

I think if you can't accept the fact that you have reached 60 and the rules are that you can't fly to the US then you definitely are either deluded or have no penis!
but if you come up with a statement like that then it is no wonder.

[ampan]

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/david-mcalister-v-air-new-zealand-limited/at_download/fileDecision


PS - 60 is old. I know this because 50 is old, so 60 must be at least 20% older.

At age 60, most old aviators should be busy squandering their super on some half-baked horticultural venture.

[prospector]

Rubbish, I am 70, and that is not old, I was SPIFR until 63, and that only stopped because the job disappeared due to circumstances beyond my control.

"I fly because I love it and lets face it, going to Europe or the States is more interesting than mowing the bloody lawn. " is the most relevant statement yet, in my opinion.

[ampan]

If one wants to fly for love, then they should fly for love - rather than money.

Prospector: Qantas and AirNZ can stop this nonsense very easily, by returning to the old system re medicals.

[lowerlobe]

I think it's funny that a number of pilots here on PPrune have a go at cabin crew because at their age they are so called 'old boilers' however when the pilots are at retirement age it's a different matter......
Rubbish, I am 70, and that is not old
the job disappeared due to circumstances beyond my control
Is that not the point of accepting that you are no longer in your 20's or even 50's.....how long do you want to carry on....how about 80....or 90....
I fly because I love it and lets face it, going to Europe or the States is more interesting than mowing the bloody lawn. is the most relevant statement yet, in my opinion.
In my case I retired a little more than a year ago after more than 30 years flying.I didn't leave because I was sick of the job and in fact I enjoyed it immensely....

However,as much as I would like to be 21 again and starting my career and have another 30 years of fun,the reality is that I'm not 21 anymore......

It's not that I prefer to mow the lawns but it's time for me to do other things that I enjoy and finally spend time with my wife.....for the first time since we married simply because I was away from home most of the time....

One of the main problems with life is not accepting your situation and dealing with it....

If that person thinks that the only thing in life is flying and mowing the lawn they must have a very boring life....

[prospector]

"One of the main problems with life is not accepting your situation and dealing with it...."

You obviously have, but no doubt your situation to start with is different to anyone else's, so there for the answers have to be different for different people. The Framingham graph makes it very difficult to keep a 1st class medical over 65, but some people can still pass it. Good luck to them.

I wanted to carry on as long as I was enjoying flying, it is only when you knock off you realize just how incredibly lucky one was with choice of career, although that appears to have changed in the last little while.

Who else has an office window with the view that aeroplane drivers have??? What other satisfaction matches an ILS to minimums and then a greaser of a landing?

And yes there is a life besides flying, I have done some 50,000miles of Ocean Racing and cruising, very much enjoyed the single handed racing, but still give SPIFR the tick for most satisfaction.

[goodspeed]

The debate the supreme court heard was one purely based on the discrimination of one person by an employer because of their age.

This did happen. In order to follow the rules, at the time, set by the FAA no commanders over 60 years of age into US airspace.

In this case the employer did not make the rules, the FAA made the rules, they were just following them.

The employment court will decide whether or not the employer could have adjusted their operation to accommodate the employee. (Seeing as the Air NZ 74 was for that time going daily to LAX, and LHR via LAX, and twice weekly to SFO and NRT I personally dont see how anyone could expect to be accommodated their position to sit at home for months on end, occasionally going to Japan, on full pay of a 74 training captain).

The employee could have taken a similar position on a different fleet with different destinations that would have allowed him to keep his flight instructor position. (That he was supposedly so passionate about)

Split Flap you are absolutely 100% correct. The man is incredibly arrogant. Money is his only motivator and unfortunately he and his cronies wont be leaving before they get their payout. :ugh:

[teresa green]

I flew to 65, I have no regrets and would do it all again tomorrow, but the reality is you get tired, tired of early mornings, tired of being tired, and you also become aware that you are mentally not as fit as you were. Far better to retire when you are healthy and move on to other things, it is strange at first, (and hard on the missus who is not used to having you around to annoy her all the time) and takes a while to get up and realise you don't have to put on a uniform, but there is a big world out there with interesting things to see and do. By all means stay in touch with the world of Aviation, and there are very active clubs for retired airline pilots in every state, and with the current oversupply of pilots, it is better to move on and let the younger blokes have a go, my opinion anyway.

[A37575]

What other satisfaction matches an ILS to minimums and then a greaser of a landing?


If you are talking about hand flying on raw data. Yes, lots of satisfaction. If you are talking about monitoring the automatics all the way from top of descent to touchdown - well, let's face it - there is no flying skill in that and therefore you can't claim satisfaction...:D

[skol]

I doubt his cronies will get any payout, probably the company concerned will tell them to run their own case.

[prospector]

" If you are talking about hand flying on raw data."

I was, DH114 and Aero Commander 680FL, BE80, PA31 all had very raw data. To even have a serviceable Auto Pilot was a luxury.

[slamer.]

Landmark age discrimination decision (http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/all-days-work/2009/7/28/landmark-age-discrimination-decision/?c_id=3)

0 comments (http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/all-days-work/2009/7/28/landmark-age-discrimination-decision/?c_id=None#comments)
3:45PM Tuesday July 28, 2009



http://media.nzherald.co.nz/blogs/blogs/entries/2009/07/28/photo/jumbo445.jpg
In perhaps the most significant decision in a discrimination claim in New Zealand's employment law history, the Supreme Court has upheld (http://www.pprune.org/ http://primemedia.apn.co.nz/webcontent/document/pdf/McAlister.pdf) an appeal by Mr David McAlister, a pilot and flight instructor employed by Air New Zealand, and found that Air New Zealand's policy failed to afford him the same conditions of work as other employees, on account of his age.
However, that does not amount to a finding of discrimination, as there is a defence where being of a particular age is a genuine occupational qualification. Whether this defence applies in this case is still to be determined.
The case arose because Air New Zealand demoted Mr McAlister to first officer when he turned 60, as he could no longer fly as pilot-in-command of a Boeing 747-400 in US airspace. The US, and certain other countries (not including New Zealand) had adopted a standard of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) prohibiting a pilot from holding the position of pilot-in-command if he or she had turned 60.
Consequently, Air New Zealand had adopted a policy that no pilot who had attained the age of 60 could hold a pilot-in-command position on 747s or 767s while those aircraft predominantly operated through countries that had adopted the ICAO standard.
The Human Rights Act and the Employment Relations Act both prohibit discrimination on the ground of age in relation to employment, by specifying certain types of conduct that will be discriminatory if done on the ground of age (or another prohibited ground). These include dismissal, detrimental treatment, and refusal to provide the same terms of employment or conditions of work as the employer does for other employees.
There is a defence where being of a particular age is a genuine occupational qualification (although this defence is not available in all of the above scenarios, a situation which caused a great deal of debate in this case, and resulted in dissent even among the Supreme Court judges).
Mr McAlister's age discrimination claim succeeded in the Employment Court but was rejected in the Court of Appeal. There was a lot of discussion in all three courts about who was the correct "comparator" - in other words, who do you compare Mr McAlister to, in order to decide whether Air New Zealand discriminated?
The Supreme Court agreed with the Employment Court's narrower view that it should be pilots of similar seniority or experience aged less than 60, rather than the Court of Appeal's view that it should be pilots debarred from acting as pilot-in-command in the US for any reason.
This resulted in the finding that age was the reason for pilots such as Mr McAlister being unable to fly as pilot-in-command (rather than simple non-compliance with regulatory requirements, which could be age or could be failing to maintain a visa). The Court of Appeal's decision essentially said that Air New Zealand's need to comply with foreign law was the reason for Mr McAlister's treatment, rather than age.
That, however, was not the end of the story, given the defence where being of a particular age is a genuine occupational qualification for that position. However, this exception does not apply if the employer can adjust its activities so that someone else can carry out the duties in question (provided this is not an unreasonable disruption). In that context, the decision states that only 30 per cent of an instructor's time is spent on "line pilot duties".
The Supreme Court said that Air New Zealand has to show that it could not reasonably adjust Mr McAlister's duties to enable him to concentrate on other duties while other pilots carried out the pilot-in-command functions on the affected flights. It therefore sent the case back to the Employment Court for this question to be determined on the evidence.
Some will question whether Air New Zealand should have to defend itself against a claim like this when the reason for its policy is the need to comply with the law of a foreign country. However, the "genuine occupational qualification" defence is still available, and the alternative view is that it should have to show that there is no option other than to apply the age-related limitation to Mr McAlister.