Age restriction between Australia and New Zealand

[MFB 2]

I was told recently, that there is an agreement between Australia and New Zealand that allows Airline crew to operate between the 2 without the ICAO age restriction (65 years old).
Is this correct? If so, is there a downloadable copy of the agreement?

MFB

[Keg]

Australian law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. Therefore as long as you hold a medical you can operate. That’s why we have a number of 737 crew older than 65.

The reason they’re not on 330 or other types is that those aircraft fly into ICAO compliant states and the maximum age is restricted.

[Slezy9]

Australian law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. Therefore as long as you hold a medical you can operate. That’s why we have a number of 737 crew older than 60.

The reason they’re not on 330 or other types is that those aircraft fly into ICAO compliant states and the maximum age is restricted.

Air NZ have a similar deal. 65 year olds coming back to the 320 on reaching 65. Some limits on what route they can fly, no Noumea for example.

[Keg]

Yes. Same restrictions for our over 65s too.

So given there is no age restriction for pilots in NZ and Australia you won’t find a copy of any ‘agreement’. You’ll probably just find that both countries have as an ‘exception to ICAO Rules’ that there is no age limit providing the respective pilot has a valid medical.

[Qanchor]

That’s why we have a number of 737,

A330 & B787, (& possibly A380)

crew older than 60.


The reason they’re not on 330 or other types.....

Yeah, there is

is that those aircraft fly into ICAO compliant states and the maximum age is restricted......

....to age 65 for international operations

[Keg]

Oops. Typo. Thanks. Got it right in my next post.

[apache]

Keg,
Considering the A330 does a lot of trans Tasman and also domestic services, why can they not accommodate the over 65s on the 330?
By restricting them to only 737 will surely reduce their income, so isn’t that “age discrimination” by default?
Are there not more “non ICAO compliant “ states than Australia and New Zealand?

[Keg]

Can’t fly through Indo airspace. Can’t fly through US airspace. That basically writes off anywhere north of Australia.

The A330 has only recently taken up Tasman flying and sometimes those multi day patterns also include a HKG or SIN sector.

I can’t speak for the official Qantas position but I recall something about adverse impact on reserve coverage, adverse impact on rostering for other crew, etc. It’s a fair bit of effort to ensure that the over 65s go only where they’re supposed to. Someone else may be able to provide additional info.

[*Lancer*]

Slightly simplifying the issues: contractually the 330 is considered an international aircraft and the 737 a domestic aircraft (despite both occasionally flying the opposite). Like Keg says, coverage becomes very, very complicated when you start mixing.

As an employee you have to be able to perform the role, which might be subject to another country’s rules on legality/legibility.

[chimbu warrior]

People are not understanding the issue here.

This has nothing to do with age restrictions (or a lack of) for internal domestic operations.

Australia, as an ICAO-contracting state, cannot permit a crew member over 65 (over 60 for single pilot) to participate in international commercial operations. CASA are themselves subject to oversight (USOAP audit) and must comply with ICAO SARP's.

It is therefore not a matter for discretion by Qantas or any other operator.

[MFB 2]

Thanks for the replies.
And yes Chimbu, that is the issue. Australia, New Zealand and PNG have no age restriction for domestic ops. BUT you can't fly international over 65. One of the managers in PNG said Australian and New Zealand governments had an agreement that allowed international ops between the 2 countries for pilots over 65. I was trying to find out if this is correct or BS.

[Jeps]

I think I must’ve made this up but I thought I remember being told that you could fly international ops over 65 but you can’t be in command? In other words you could be an FO or SO and if you were a captain and wanted to continue flying internationally you would have to take a demotion. But reading all these replies makes me think I have pulled that out of my backside.

[Keg]

No Jeps. That used to be the case. It changed around mid 2015.

Chimbu, maybe you’re right and given Tasman flying makes up such a small part of the 737 operation they simply restrict the over 65s from doing that flying.

[maggot]

Can’t fly through Indo airspace. Can’t fly through US airspace. That basically writes off anywhere north of Australia.

The A330 has only recently taken up Tasman flying and sometimes those multi day patterns also include a HKG or SIN sector.

I can’t speak for the official Qantas position but I recall something about adverse impact on reserve coverage, adverse impact on rostering for other crew, etc. It’s a fair bit of effort to ensure that the over 65s go only where they’re supposed to. Someone else may be able to provide additional info.

I hear of a recent 'no' regarding this on the 330 from DA to the usuals from down south.

[Qanchor]

And who or what are “the usuals from down south”?

[ElZilcho]

I think I must’ve made this up but I thought I remember being told that you could fly international ops over 65 but you can’t be in command? In other words you could be an FO or SO and if you were a captain and wanted to continue flying internationally you would have to take a demotion. But reading all these replies makes me think I have pulled that out of my backside.

Yes, this used to be the case. I forget the exact wording, but essentially, if you had a "Senior" First Officer, there was then an Age Limit applied to the Captain.


People are not understanding the issue here.

This has nothing to do with age restrictions (or a lack of) for internal domestic operations.

Australia, as an ICAO-contracting state, cannot permit a crew member over 65 (over 60 for single pilot) to participate in international commercial operations. CASA are themselves subject to oversight (USOAP audit) and must comply with ICAO SARP's.

It is therefore not a matter for discretion by Qantas or any other operator.

Yes and No.

"A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as a pilot of an Aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot, their 65th birthday"


Pretty cut and dry, however...

ICAO member countries are able to file a difference to this, or any other standard set out by ICAO. That difference can also apply to foreign pilots operating within that states jurisdiction.

Both NZ and Australia have filed a difference due to our laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age.

Currently, at Air NZ, Pilots who turn 65 are offered positions on the A320 where they fly Domestic NZ, Trans-Tasman and Pacific Island routes. Off the top of my head, the only limitation is on Noumea, but this might also extend to Tahiti if they send the A321 there.

There are also talks of allowing 65+ Wide-body Pilots to become limited to the Tasman/Island flying. Personally, I think would be an absolute clusterf:mad:k for the reasons Keg has already mentioned... but we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it.

[Mangi Fokker]

No worries MFB2 your employer is seeking applicants up to 75 years of age. You can continue to suffer well past retirement age.

[MFB 2]

Thanks ElZilcho, that is what I was told about Air New Zealand.
And yes Fokker Boy, you are also correct, but again still only domestic. And the balus I am on does very little domestic.

[Mangi Fokker]

Be patient, you'll be getting plenty of domestic.

[chimbu warrior]

One of the managers in PNG said..........

Ah, there's your problem right there; not too many managers that can be believed in PNG these days.