Compulsory retirement age of 65 for 'hire & reward'

[pedds]

There seem to be no threads on the subject of CRA of 65 with respect to flying for 'hire or reward'.

Having done a little research about six months ago I got feedback from the Secrerary of State for Transport himself, the CAA...and my MP, Vince Cable. Cable was very supportive of my querying the right of the CAA (or EASA for that matter) to restrict the CRA to 65 for pilots. The Secretary of State & the CAA were not so supportive.

If anyone is interested I can publish the correspondence here. It will only be a matter of time before someone challenges this upper age limit in the European court as ageist...and knowledgeable legal opinion would seem to be of the view that the 65 year restriction is indefensible in law.

This may be why there is a lot of talk in BA, I am told, about increasing the CRA to 67 at least. Apparently in Qantas there is no age limit but after 65 you are restricted to short haul work. There are no age restrictions, it seems, in Australasia as long as the Class 1 medical is retained. The USA only has an age limit of 65 for 'scheduled' flying under Part 121 of the FAA rules.

Any comments?

[Deeply Concerned]

In Europe it is now the case that there is no compulsory retirement age in any other occupation. As pilots we are in the unique situation of having legislation in place that forces retirement at 65. In the UK this is especially iniquitous as I cannot claim my state pension till 67 so something is clearly wrong here. In the UK at least if the age limit isn't removed, then retiring pilots at least need to be able to claim their measly state pension from 65. Seems to me there needs to be a change in one or the other at the very least. It would be especially awkward for the government to allow one group of workers to claim their pension early so maybe the other has to give.

[bex88]

Brilliant....just what the industry needs. Sure remove the retirement age but here is your new contract. Oh and it's the same terms as the new guys you failed to protect. Enjoy

[parabellum]

No need for a new contract, just an amendment of the end date in the old one. (And I think 65 is enough, especially long haul).

[Private jet]

Who on earth wants to be flying for a living after 65??? They must have multiple divorces/parasitic children/a dragon at home or any combination of the above....:uhoh:

[hunterboy]

Hi Private Jet Would you change your mind if work consisted of a 5 day CPT and a 5 day HKG a month for example?
I don't see many over 60's flying full time if they can help it, however part time working is an attractive option for many.

[pedds]

Thank you for your replies, gentlemen.

I did my last flight on the 21st, Manston to Brussels...and as I passed through Ramsgate station ASLEF were there recruiting drivers. I said it was my last flight and they were amazed...you are apparently expected to work past 65 if you pass the medical which is 6 monthly. Bus drivers have no restriction (bar a medical) and there is no co-pilot there to take over in the event.

Several replies centre on reasons to want to fly past 65. Of course this is not for everyone; some of my colleagues retired at 50 in BA, but not many. I, for one, would not want to fly full time these days but would be very happy to do part time. I think there is a percentage of us who would like to wind a long career down gently as Hunterboy suggests. My point in starting the thread was to establish if anyone else had any knowledge of the legality of enforcing a 65 cut-off, and if so how to go about challenging it.

[flyinthesky]

So here we go again. They moved the age from 60 to 65 a few years back and those that were at the top of the tree managed to milk a bit more out of the industry. Now they're back for more.

You've had the best years of aviation and benefitted from the best terms and conditions. Why not retire gracefully and actually let a flow of guys come up through the ranks.

Having flown with plenty of more mature skippers when I was RHS, there is a fine line between years of experience outweighing the shortcomings of age. Our skies get busier and the reaction times do not improve as we get older.

When I started flying, it was a case of retire at 60 and everyone knew it and planned for it. Deep nights are not for those pushing 70, nor really for anyone!!

[pedds]

Thanks for your comment FLYINTHESKY. I quite understand your point.

Two points: we are talking about a relatively small proportion of the flying fraternity who would still be interested in flying a few years more. I am only guessing but I would estimate maybe 20% maximum? And of those only a few would want to work full time, maybe because they did not benefit from the 'golden days' to which you refer by starting late and need the money.

Secondly, as you correctly point out, we all slow down as we get older but there are very wide variations. Assuming you can hold that Class 1 medical there is the small obstacle of the LPC. If this is conducted to specified standards then if you are not up to it you will fail...and that will be that. That is what these hurdles are there for, after all.

[Tee Emm]

When I started flying, it was a case of retire at 60 and everyone knew it and planned for it.

When I started flying in the RAAF at age 19 I expected to stay in the RAAF as a General duties pilot for as long as they would have me.

In those days it was compulsory for a GD Flight Lieutenant to be retired (out on your neck) at age 45 and out you went to fend for yourself. It was presumed that after age 45 you became dimwitted and your reactions too slow to fly a Dakota or Tiger Moth unless you received further promotion in rank up to Group Captain when you out on your neck at 55.

[ShyTorque]

You've had the best years of aviation and benefitted from the best terms and conditions. Why not retire gracefully and actually let a flow of guys come up through the ranks.

That's rather an inward looking over-generalisation. There is far more to the industry than airline folks who have a gold plated pension. The ones who don't - what do you suggest they live on until they can claim their well earned state pension, which is now to be withheld for two years?

[parabellum]

So here we go again. They moved the age from 60 to 65 a few years back and
those that were at the top of the tree managed to milk a bit more out of the
industry. Now they're back for more.


So you must be one of the younger guys flyinthesky?

When I first got my licence the retirement age for pilots was 65, (UK), and I planned for it, this was arbitrarily reduced to 60, without evidence or consultation, by the minister at the time, I eventually lost five years pay as a B744 skipper. When the age for retirement recently went back to 65 all that happened was a grievous wrong was righted. Please try and see the big picture.

[Mushroom_2]

I'm interested to know when the UK retirement age for pilots was reduced from 65 to 60. I can't remember that (the fact that it was 65 previously I mean).

[hunterboy]

Flyin the sky
Who is They? I seem to remember that the EU changed the law WRT retirement age.
I also remember that the UK government waited until the very last minute to change UK law to comply with the ruling. Did you write to your Euro MP to give your views on this, or are you just criticising the particular group of pilots that are the first to benefit from this ruling?

[BALLSOUT]

There was never a complete ban on transport flying at over 60 in the UK. The reg's changed from a retirement age of 65 to a gross wt restriction for captains of 20 tons. you could still command an aircraft of 20 tons or less, or be an F/O on anything up to 65. The restriction was removed a few years ago.
I agree that we should be able to fly in command up to any age, as long as we can pass a medical, especially two crew. Single crew already has an age 60 limit. This was imposed after a crash out of Leeds when a Navajio crashed killing half of the management from ICI.
You can still continue to fly at any age for both corporate and aerial work.

[ReallyAnnoyed]

There needs to be a fixed retirement age and not just based on having a medical. It is not exactly difficult to find a doctor who will let you pass. Some geriatrics would keep on flying until they keel over otherwise, which is hardly good for safety. And no, I am not talking out of personal interests as I already have command. Whether that limit should be 65 or something higher is up for scientific debate, but better to retire too early than too late, just because you need to pay your 4 ex-wives.

[fireflybob]

Age? An 80 year old has just climbed Everest!

80-year-old Yuichiro Miura claims new Everest record (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22644717)

[pedds]

In reply to 'Really Annoyed', you suggest that it is possible to get around the Class 1 medical but finding an amenable medic. Do you really think it is possible to get around the six monthly ECGs and other tests? You may well be right about having a declared retirement age, but the Aussies (with their famous love of rules & regulations) don't.

The real test of whether you are still up to it or not should be with the LPC and other annual or six monthly checks. And maybe to ensure that there is no lowering of standards on the day there should be an a CAA Ops. Inspector present.

I wonder what BALPA's take on the age issue is?

[ReallyAnnoyed]

Yes Pedds, I really do think it is possible to get around those tests. I have seen doctors where the eye test consisted of me being able to see him and the hearing test whether we could have a normal conversation.

The vast majority will know when to quit, but there will be those out there who refuse to give up command until they are forced to it. Safety can and must not be comprimised for personal vanity.

[millerscourt]

hunterboy

I don't want some over 65 year old just flying once or twice a month thanks very much. As parabellum says 65 is quite enough especially for long haul.

[hunterboy]

Millerscourt
The point I was trying to make is it doesn't matter what you or I think....what matters is what a few dozen politicos in Brussels/Strasbourg & the Hague think.
The rest of us are just trying to make the best of it. ;)

[pedds]

Hello 'Really Annoyed'. Well, the medical is one thing...but its not my experience in some 60 medicals by, I guess, a good 15 different medics...but there could always be a requirement that the CAA themselves have to conduct the medical at Gatwick; that would close any loopholes.

Your point on vanity at the end...I have missed that one completely. Maybe I am being a little slow here, but vain is defined as:
conceited, proud, narcissistic, vainglorious, arrogant, self-important, bigheaded (informal)

Now how in the world can wanting to work a few years longer fall under any of those descriptive words? I'd be quite happy to work on either side of the flight deck, part time, stand-by basis, what ever.
There are two fully qualified pilots...how can that possibly compromise safety?

[beamer]

Well, as someone who is a lot closer to 65 than I ever thought I would be, let me make an observation or two.

I've been flying for almost forty years with no accidents or major incidents as yet. Ten years ago I was sharper than I am now and my eyesight was a lot better - damn the small print on the Jepps ! I still enjoy the job but the longhaul returns and early starts are getting harder year by year. I get tired of the management constantly 're-inventing the wheel' and people telling me how clever they are and how big their pensions pots have become - must be in inverse proportions to their xxxxx. The prospect of another type rating and a 'few more years' does not fill me with a great deal of joy but my IFA says I need just a bit longer before taking the apron at B&Q.

It always seems to me that the people who spout on about flying up to and beyond 65 are the ones who earn the most in the first place. Sure, its their legal right but what about the next generation and the poor sods who are condemned to another ten years in the right hand seat. Oh sorry, I forgot, we are the 'me me me' baby boomers and the hell with anyone else.

If you are one of the 'immortals' who just get better, not to mention richer, year on year, well, good luck to you. Personally I look at the grey hairs falling from the barbers chair and know there is more to life than flying till you drop. Hell, guys, go and buy yourself a tiddler and turn yourself upside down for half an hour, lord knows you can afford it !

[hunterboy]

Beamer Just who are these millionaire playboy pilots that you seem to think are bed-blocking?
Virtually all of the older BA pilots that I know are on a 2nd or 3rd marriage , living outside of stockbroker belt with children in state schools, or are DEP's that have joined at 38-40 when they left the RAF. I doubt many of them will be in the LHS of a long haul fleet by the age of 60.

[beamer]

Hunter

Since when was this thread solely about BA pilots ?

Maybe I just always been 'low average' but in my view the older you get the harder it becomes and quite frankly the less competent many of us may well become. In my own experience, the majority who bleat about wanting the 'right' to go on and on are those who are best placed financially to leave early.
I cannot speak for BA pilots with multiple wives and second families.

[hunterboy]

A very good point Beamer... I can only imagine the state of pilots' finances that work for virtually all other airlines. Where is this nirvana airline that allows its pilots to retire on a decent pension at age 55 or 60?
More importantly, do they have any vacancies? :)

Out of interest, I gather that generally there is a drop in ability at 57 and at 62 years of age according to anecdotal evidence. However, the pilots that pass continue to pass, and the pilots that just used to scrape a pass fail.
Maybe other professions could do with similar competence checks?

[RAT 5]

There once was an occasion, moons ago, when diverting crew of Air Anglia could not rent a Hertz (the company's rental partner) to return to home base because the whole crew was <25 years old. Now we're expecting Derby & Joan airlines. Cabin crew will have the same financial needs as pilots. Imagine the time when the whole a/c crew could be >60, except perhaps the F/O. They'd be 59 just to feel at home somewhat. Pax reaction might be interesting.

[fireflybob]

I see quite a bit of stereotyping here.

I have flown with some pilots who were in their fifties who were overweight and somewhat, shall we say, "behind" the aircraft and who lacked motivation to keep abreast of revisions and changes.

On the other hand I have flown with pilots approaching 65 who run regular marathons, were word perfect on revised SOPs and who I would be quite happy to have my family sitting in the cabin going into Naples in the middle of a thunderstorm with an average first officer.

The answer is it all depends on the individual. As has been previously stated there are such items as medicals and checks which every pilot has to pass to remain on the line.

Also if you are over 60 years it is, I believe, a requirement that the other pilot is less than 60 years old.

Given the demographics of the post war baby boomers we are going to see a lot of very experienced pilots leaving the profession over the next few years.

I would suggest that offering continued employment to older competent pilots over 65 so they can pass on their skills and wisdom to those that are not so blessed would be an enhancement to the safety of flight operations rather than to it's detriment.

[RAT 5]

I can understand your sentiments. The problem is the authorities make blanket rules. Their interest is in the industry as a whole and not the individual. In the risk management case why take any risk. That could be their thinking. One unknown time bomb and it would blow up in their face. Sad, but true.

[crippen]

Quote Rat5

There once was an occasion, moons ago, when diverting crew of Air Anglia could not rent a Hertz (the company's rental partner) to return to home base because the whole crew was <25 years old.


I tried to rent a car not long ago,and was told that 'nobody over 65 could rent a car from all the major rental companies'. :mad:

[parabellum]

Not so in the UK Crippen, they may 'up' the rate a bit in some companies, I recently rented from Alamo, (via Europecar), and at age 71 there were no extra charges.

As far as I can remember the 20t weight restriction that stopped pilots over 60 commanding a heavier aircraft came in during the early eighties, possibly late seventies even?

[4468]

As far as passing sim checks every six months is concerned, I'm sure many of us will know people who are apparently able to 'up their game' in a simulator? Particularly when the format is one in which it is possible to Pre-study, or one has known the trainer for donkey's years.

That IMHE bears little relationship to standard of performance day in day out!

Personally (and on balance) I would much prefer to avoid being on board an aeroplane where the captain was in his late sixties. (Even if he has spent his life proving he can pull young birds to mess about with!!)

[Kirks gusset]

Even if the CRA is raised above 65 there is no guarantee the major airlines will keep the pilots on the payroll.. the " essentials" loss of licence insurance, private medical insurance etc are not always available to those over 60, let alone 70! Many Training Captains are themselves 55/60 which under the " combined 120 rule" negates training these older guys..and yes, the public perception of " safety" is not a silver surfer in the flight deck. Is there CRA for high court judges and MPs?

[Shaman]

Looks like Pedds is not the only pilot doing his last flight:

BBC News - Final trip for Orkney shortest flight pilot (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-22668150)

[parabellum]

the public perception of " safety" is not a silver surfer in the flight
deck.


and the public perception of safety in the flight deck is just what, exactly, O knowledgeable one?

[Kirks gusset]

Parabellum, my comment was a "tongue in cheek" but on a serious note, I am sure the regulatory bodies would suggest that at " advanced ages" the crew have more frequent medicals etc. Technically if the age was raised to 70 then at 69 a person could start a type rating and OCC course, maybe do ditching and slide drills, flight deck window escapes etc.. is this really a sensible proposal? 65 is more than enough for most guys..I know from our company experience the guys over 60 tend to have longer periods off sick with " degenerative issues" , eyes, bones, bladder problems, kidney stones, back problems etc.. this is natural and not career related but the airlines have a choice to tolerate this or not, of course in the " civil service" it is expected!

[hunterboy]

It does strike me that some posters are not living in the present. Look at what is actually happening wrt regulation and EU and UK age legislation. Cast an eye over the demographics within the EU, bearing in mind that it takes a minimum of 18 years to grow a tax payer.
How would you keep society stable and avoid widespread poverty in old age? Remind me what the average pension pot is again?
The governments across the West are encouraging people to work longer as it solves many of their own and societies' problems.
Unless they pass a law that specifically exempts flag carrier Captains on their first marriages with grown up children and a final salary pension, then I think we are stuck with the scenario that pilots can work for as long as they keep passing the medicals & checks until the age of 65 (for the time being).

[parabellum]

Agreed KirkGusset, 70 is way, way too long. Personally I think 65 should be a full stop for commercial airline flying, be it schedules or charters, pax or freight.

[penally]

Hunterboy, with respect, your analysis is incorrect. In an age of mass unemployment (not least amongst pilots) it is not in society's interest to increase working hours or the age of retirement, quite the contrary. The reason for doing so is driven by one issue and one issue only – maximising profit. And that issue is driven not by society, nor by governments but by industry. For the last 20 years or so the very measures which you support have been implemented and steadily increased and the result has not been less instability or poverty but the exact opposite. Despite this, you accuse others of not living in the present, testimony to how effective industry has been in clouding the real issue.

[JW411]

I started my professional flying career in 1960. The accepted retirement age for the next 20 years or so was 65 so everything was based upon that.

Suddenly, someone decided that we should all retire at 60 unless we flew aircraft of less than 20 tons. I did not want to retire at 60. I loved my flying and my job too much.

Luckily, we went back to 65 and I flew right up to my 65th birthday. It was the right time to go for me. I still had a Class One medical and my last LPC was just as bad as the first one!

My company then asked me to continue teaching and examining in the simulator. Believe it or not, in order to keep an SFE qualification, the CAA insist upon a Class One medical (not so for SFI) and an LPC/OPC and LOFT as per the usual proforma every six months.

I did this quite happily for another three years and it was actually an idiot in the Human Remains department asking me to sign a totally ridiculous contract that stopped me in my tracks and made me ask myself whether I really wanted to do this any more.

I didn't.

So, for me, it all ended at about the right time and I had a wonderful professional flying career.

[Enecosse]

The elephant in the room is the disconnect between retirement of pilots and the state pension, for Brits anyway.

When I retire I will have to wait a minimum of 2 years to collect my 144 quid or whatever a week. Not a big problem maybe for those who have had a stable career on the old style pensions, although look what happened to the bmi pension.

Those of you in the 20/30 year age bracket will be looking at 5 years. So I guess it's stacking shelves in Tesco. Unless one has been very mature in saving and not running up huge debts......but wait....

[root]

So, for me, it all ended at about the right time and I had a wonderful professional flying career.

Oh how I wish I will be saying the same thing when my time comes.

[Ancient Observer]

The age restrictions used to be associated with the statistical frequency of serious, sudden, medical conditions, especially heart attacks.
A couple of things have happened since they were set up.

1. We know a lot more about heart attacks.
2. The incidence of heart attacks from 60 + yrs old in the past, now takes place at 70 + yrs old.

ICAO, EASA, FAA and CAA would be unable to justify the 65 rule in Euro/other Courts given current medical incident "averages"

However, I'd have thought that the variation between individuals is so high at 65+ that the suggestion above for tougher, individually focussed medicals would meet the needs of safety.

Balls out
The 60+ restriction was not re-instated due to the ICI incident. A number of Directors of a Division of ICI were killed due to a medical condition of a single pilot flight. The ICI gentlemen had rushed around looking for a way to get home when the commercial flights wouldn't do it. The big issue from that incident was single pilot flying for commercial purposes. (Was it also a single engine flight?) So that bit of history belongs more in the "single pilot for commercial flights" thread.

[RAT 5]

Continue the grind and die young; or bail out at a sensible age, learn how to retire and enjoy life and live longer. Your choice. Too many people do not know when enough is enough, or when they have enough. Do the sums and enjoy life. There is much more to it than an aluminium tube strapped to your backside for 12 hours a day.

[Hotel Charlie]

WORD RAT 5!!
...and why anyone would want to get into this business these days .... :ugh:

[hunterboy]

penally.
I think I missed your point...wouldn't it make sense for industry to want young cheap workers in to replace the expensive old timers that are bed blocking?
I know my airline is tearing its hair out at the extra unplanned costs of pilots staying on past retirement age.
As for the rest of society, I do believe that the Western governments think that the scrapping of retirement ages and encouraging of people to stay on in work is going to bail them out of the pensions and demographics time bomb .
If one was cynical, you may ask yourself who makes up the largest demographic in Western society and who tends to turn out to vote....the elderly or the young?

[BALLSOUT]

Ancient Observer, I wasn't saying that the whole age 60 restriction came from the ICI incident. It did however figure highly in the age 60 single pilot rule for public transport. There were 8 ICI exec's killed on the flight and it was a Navajio which is a twin! I did quite a bit of flying for ICI at the time and they imediatley made it a company ruling that they must only fly 2 crew.

parabellum, Don't know what you are on about, you can fly til any age where you live already.

[penally]

hunterboy


First off, thankyou for taking my critique so well. For starters one has to agree on a common playing field; and that's not the case here. Your last sentence hit the nail on the head – for me, elections don't play a role because we don't live in a democratic system (certainly insofar as the general population is concerned). If I'm correct then that begs the question, who is running the show ? I'm sure you can guess the rest.
The increase in the retirement age is not about getting people to work longer. It's about delaying the payment of their pension until they reach that age. In the case of pilots, those who do work longer, generally do so under (new) conditions more favourable to the company. Brevity dictates that I simplify
as well as generalise but that is basically it.

[Ancient Observer]

Ballsout,
Yeah, that puts it more clearly.
I don't think it was 8 ICI bosses being killed. I thought it was 3. Maybe I'm thinking of a different incident?
The service ICI used was variously called the Co jet and/or the McAlpine jet. However, the service used on the flight that I am thinking about was, I thought, an irregular acquisition of a service.
as you say, ICI Shell BP et al then started insisting on 2 pilot flights only.
I seem to remember that the Insurance Cos started to be difficult around that time, aswell. However, i don't think they had any input in to CAA rules.

[parabellum]

parabellum, Don't know what you are on about, you can fly til any age where
you live already.


Not so, not long haul anyway.

I retired here, I flew on a UK licence (and ME and SE Asia licences). Not allowed to work here anyway on my visa then, Australian Licence or not and as for getting an airline job in Australia, as a Brit. on a long stay Temporary Residence visa? Dream on! The queue is very long and a lot of well qualified Australians are overseas and looking for opportunities to come home.

I wanted the extra five years arbitrarily taken away from me that cost me five years as a B744 skipper, that is all.

[Mach E Avelli]

60, or 65, or even 70, is an arbitrary number. Aviation thrives on arbitrary numbers - you see it all the time in aircraft certification criteria
and myriad number-based rules. However, most of the enlightened world has put anti-age discrimination into law. Hence pilots should NOT be singled out for special treatment (of the wrong kind) on the basis of some number.
I have flown with guys who were well past it by the time they were in their late 40's or early 50's. Some who never even had the 'right stuff' at 30 - and probably never would. But they made it to command. These are the ones who do need to be weeded out by the check and training system, because they sure won't get better as they age.

At the other end of the smarts spectrum, I have a couple of close friends one of whom is mid 70's and the other just turned 80. They still pass their first class medicals and can still fly safely, though they only dabble in it now. In fact the guy in his 70s recently did a B737 Type Rating simply because he had no jet time and wanted to see how hard it was. He found that it wasn't.
Since turning 60 I have done two jet and one complex turbo-prop type ratings and did not find any of it difficult. What did begin to hurt the old body was the tiring effect of successive maximum duty days and it was this that pushed me into giving up full-time flying - oh and they stiffed me on entitlements, but that's another story.... I am now fortunate to have a part-time position with the rarely-found freedom to actually manage my fatigue like the book says and refuse any trip I don't like. Lucky me.

So, it should be acknowledged by the industry that deterioration with age is a highly variable process. Perhaps all civil aviation authorities could learn from Australian CASA, which has its own way of dealing with us old-timers, while acknowledging the law against age discrimination. As a pilot ages, CASA keeps upping the ante on their medical requirements. Ever with their snouts in the trough, the medical specialists keep upping their costs. Setting up appointments (two months' notice needed to see aviation-approved opthamologists and cardiologists in some cities) and running all over town to jump through hoops every six months becomes a pain in the bum. Chuck in all the peripheral bullsh!t like recurrent security courses, dangerous goods certification, CRM, police checks for ID etc every two years and that natural part of aging - intolerance (aka grumpy old man/woman syndrome) - means most go gracefully around the 65 year mark anyway. A few do need to hang on past that age because they have had a few wives (some of them their own).
If the embuggerance of medicals and certification does not do it, young guns waiting for the LHS may need to pay off the right people in the rostering department to ensure that the old timers cop all the long, back-of-clock trips, with minimum rest. That must soon translate to health issues which will get to the hangers-on eventually. Then their most recent wives can look after them in their decrepitude. Quite right, too.
So, Gen X and Gen Y, stop your whining, you will be 65 soon enough.

[ofitth]

I am totally with Mach E Valli .You all will be 65 far too soon as you will realise eventually.
Thank God for Australia and New Guinea and New Zealand and Fiji where I can happily fly my 767 at age 67.
And I will until at least 72.

[BALLSOUT]

[QUOTE]those who do work longer, generally do so under (new) conditions more favourable to the company. [/QUOTE
In Europe it is against the age discrimination regulations to insist on you accepting any reduction in your terms and conditions because of your age so you shouldn't accept them. If the company is challenged in this way they would soon back down.

[slowjet]

Parabellum, even though the retirement age went up to 65, presumably, you would not have been able to secure employment in Australia, from what you say, anyway. But by going to 65, again, presumably, you regret the freedom of choice of, perhaps, being able to go another five years, somewhere else ? Frustrating & cost you, potentially, another five years of top-end earnings. Was there any possibility of seeking employment outside of Australia up to age 65 ?

Mate of mine worked for a ME carrier that just could not handle the age issue. Local Regulatory Authorities all cleared the Age 65 Rule. His company, forced to recognise this (local labour laws didn't for expats) got into a terrible muddle. Enhanced medical standard was enforced (not by the local CAA but by the company) and quite a few failed. Only one year contracts of employment were issued. He fell fowl of the enhanced medical but took up his case with the UKCAA. He obtained his UK CAA Class one & local CAA AME passed him for the local Class one. The Company went nuts and insisted that he was required to pass the Company enhanced medical & had no interest in where he obtained his Class one medical certs ! He battled on but , eventually, all pilots aged over 60 were didmissed. I cannot say if this was for expats or locals too.

He feels as miffed as you do & often wondered if there was a case for these pilots to sue on the basis of loss of earnings. He was 63 at the time of the cull & just got on with retirement, pleasingly, very happy.

For your loss, parabellum, there is probably insufficient case to head towards the courts & I doubt you would want too anyway. All a bit of a disappointing mess for those caught in the transition. My mates in UK carriers never faced these problems. Age went up to 65 & that's it. Cool.Anyway, five years earnings as a B747 Skipper is nothing, eh ?.........Yeah, right.

[Mach E Avelli]

Past 65, if you can get work as a part-timer or sim instructor, this is a good way of staying connected, earning beer money and putting your knowledge and experience to good use. Medical opinion seems to support the idea that over 60's who remain mentally active and moderately challenged have a better chance of prolonged healthy lives.
On the other hand, flying maximum hours with minimum rest and the associated stress of meeting employer demands appears to have the opposite effect if you persist with it for too long. If you are in the unfortunate position of having to fly to the max to pay the bills at age 65, chances are you're gonna die sooner rather than later.
My ambition is not to be the richest man in the graveyard, but to die with a dollar in the bank and by being shot by the jealous husband of a 35 year old.
I reckon I will achieve the dollar remaining OK, but am not too confident that I will justify the shooting bit.

[parabellum]

Hi slowjet, thanks for that, yes nail on the head. At the time of my retirement the USA, France, India and Italy would not allow an aircraft in it's airspace if a pilot was over 60 so there were no viable alternatives.

Think I may know your friend from the ME, good friend of mine too, now in Cyprus!

Yes indeed, why get upset at losing five years as a top end earner with an airline that has been known to pay up to five months salary as annual bonus!?:{

[Trossie]

Many of the responses have tended to be around the cushey long-haul captain (on his umpteenth marriage) in a 'milk and honey' airline and why should he want to continue working and holding some 'poor' first officer back from promotion because surely he must be 'beyond it' from now. There has also been a lot of finger-pointing at the employers for not keeping pilots on after certain ages.

Well let's consider the real world out there. There are hundreds and hundreds of pilots that have had airlines go bust around them causing chaos to future retirement financial planning. There are also hundreds of pilots who have had their pension provision plummet, either due to unscrupulous airline owners or to the vagaries of the values of money-purchase pensions. There are also hundreds of pilots who have had no company pension provided by their employers. Those pilots would all like to have the option to continue working to be able to build up to what they probably had expected to be able to retire on but is now just that bit (or quite a bit!) further away.

Ability to continue should be seen in context: one of the marvels of the modern western world is that on average people are living a lot longer and are remaining fit and capable for a lot longer. In the most tightly regulated industry in this aspect, medical fitness and operating competence should not have any arbitrary age consideration but should be considered on an individual basis. A 70-year-old has been into space, so flying an airliner should not be limited by age, as long as there is the correct regulatory monitoring.

The big problem here is that UK law prohibits anyone from acting as a captain or a co-pilot on any public transport aircraft over the age of 65 (this is not a 'hire and reward' issue as there is not the same age limit for various other 'hire and reward' jobs like flying instruction and other aerial work). UK law is also raising the age that one is able to draw a state pension above 65. This means that any pilot who has suffered a financial catastrophe and has poor pension provision is not allowed to continue to work in his job over 65, but is also not allowed to have the top up of the state pension that he has paid towards for all his working life. This issue shows that any claim by any politicians in Britain that age discrimination is illegal in Britain is a blatant lie.

And final to those first officers who have been grumbling about captains not retiring and thereby not 'releasing' command positions for them: just sod off, stop being so self-centred and greedy, and wait your turn!!

[Easy Glider]

Trossie.....Bang on! It never ceases to amaze me how many FO's seem to consider it their God given right for an upgrade and that older skippers should just stand down/step aside to allow them to climb the greasy pole.

I wonder what their stance will be when they reach 60 plus and a new breed of greedy FO's are telling them to :mad: off and allow them to move up!

[pedds]

This was written in 2004:

Upon review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.

So is anyone interested in getting a group together to address this inequality in the regulations?

I am meeting my MP, Vincent Cable, to see what the procedure is for a challenge in Europe.

[BARKINGMAD]

I wish you the best of luck, pedds, when you see Mr Cable.

Before this coalition setup grabbed the helm, I used to think he talked a lot of common sense, unusual in that trade!

But since he went into government, blotted his copybook with truthful but embarassing statements, he seems to be imbibing the Parliamentary equivalent of bromide in his tea, and can no longer get it up politically.................................! Don't hold your breath for the outcome?

And anyway, with nearly 80% of our legislation already signed, stamped and sealed as it leaves the EU offices to be "gold-plated" and made even more silly by UK Civil Service, what can our reps in "Halitosis Hall" do for us anyway?

[Fareastdriver]

I was lucky in my sixties. I was flying offshore in China with a Chinese endorsement to my CAA licence. It was considered then that I would stop at 60 and so I did. I flew some contract work as a F/O on return to the UK for about eighteen months and then I thought that was it.
When I was sixty four and a half I went to my old Chinese operation on a social visit. There I found out that the Chines CAAC would endorse licences in accordance with the native licence; ie, they would endorse my CAA licence to the age of 65, the operation was also desperately short of a pilot. A week later I was medicalised, base checked and back on line.

When I was sixty-five I thought that that was it again. An Australian pilot suggested that I get an Australian licence. We checked with CAAC and they confirmed that if the native licence did not have an age limit then they would honour that. Initially I thought it would be too difficult but after a month I decided to make the effort. I went out to Perth and it took me a month to get an ATPL(H) with an (ME) IR.

Getting it is another story by itself but get it I did.

I returned to China and my Australian license was endorsed as expected so I was back flying in China. Having an Oz licence enabled a bit of variety flying in the Solomon Islands with RAMSI which was just like being back in the Air Force.

Six months after that the rules changed. CAAC decreed that endorsements would only be valid for six months and after that foreign pilots were required to acquire a Chinese licence. I was now sixty six and they were approached about my situation with regard to age. The reply was that if I passed the medicals and the exams there was no reason why I should not be awarded a licence as there was no age limit in China.

So off I went. The medicals were long, complicated, and I saw bits of me on screens that I did not know existed. The exams were almost identical to the Australia system so that was reasonably straightforward except for the English proficiency test which was undecipherable. There was also a lot of guessing as to which of the three wrong answers was the right one. However, everything was overcome so there I was with a Chinese licence.

I must mention that even though it was a full national licence. I could not fly internationally owing to ICAO limits. The same reason why old Qantas pilots flog the Sydney to Melbourne run. Any foreign pilot flying for a Chinese airline will stop at 65 for the same reason.

One amusing aside was one of our aged first officers had reached the company retirement age and had been pensioned off; much to the relief of both foreign and Chinese captains. This was because he was 'A Son of The Long March' so he was unfireable. He came back with the argument that if the Chinese company could hire a foreigner of advancing years so why did he have to stop. They had no answer to that so they were lumbered with him for a few more years.

One had to be switched on at that job. The whole reason for being employed was that you had to teach the Chinese to fly offshore oil support to Western, North Sea, standards which meant that you had to be a damned sight better pilot than they were. A lot of the pilots you were training were brand new, brought up by the Chinese military to fly by numbers with no initiative and a blind obedience of orders. You had to learn a different mindset inasmuch that as he was steering you both to certain disaster you had to persuade him to correct it in such a way that he would think that it was his idea and therebye keeping his face.

My contract came to an end because I had done my job properly a few months short of my sixty eighth. I had a medical problem that was overcome but the 07/08 financial crisis brought everything to a stop even though I still had a Class One medical.