PDA

View Full Version : Retirement Age for Pilots


ASK-13
26th Jan 2018, 21:27
Has any progress been made to extend the age limit for professional pilots engaged in Public Transport/ Airline Flying in Europe or North America.

mustangsally
26th Jan 2018, 21:54
Can only address the FAA. Through an act in Congress, both the Senate and House of Representative, attached a change to a bill making it age 65 for FAR121, 135 operations. The FAA did not have the courage to change the regulation.

BluSdUp
26th Jan 2018, 22:51
There is talks about putting it back to 60.

4468
27th Jan 2018, 01:03
Has any progress been made to extend the age limit for professional pilots engaged in Public Transport/ Airline Flying in Europe or North America.
There has indeed. It was increased to 65 for multi pilot ops.

galaxy flyer
27th Jan 2018, 02:06
Can only address the FAA. Through an act in Congress, both the Senate and House of Representative, attached a change to a bill making it age 65 for FAR121, 135 operations. The FAA did not have the courage to change the regulation.

How could the FAA change it-it was the law of the land. They only choice they had was to comply.

Sucram
27th Jan 2018, 09:29
68 in Japan now I believe

RAT 5
27th Jan 2018, 10:41
I hear the 04.30 takeoffs, & the 05.30 & 06.30's. The thought of having to get out of bed at 04.00 - now aged 65 - for either Day 1 or Day 5 earlies, or anything in-between, is a horrific nightmare. The idea of a 22.00 departure for a 10hr night flight, 2 pilots, with 6-8 hour time change; 2 days off in an airport hotel, then return still knackered is also not high on the list of '10 best things to do before you die'.

parabellum
27th Jan 2018, 11:18
BluSdUp - is having a joke at your expense. There is a cloak of mystery and intrigue about why the age of retirement went from 65 to 60 in the first place, around the early 1980s. The story I heard was that a particular CEO of a major in the USA was very unhappy about the grief his older pilots were giving him and he discussed this with his big buddy in the FAA at that time, the upshot was that, overnight, without consultation with the pilot bodies concerned, the age was moved from 65 to 60 and a a whole lot of older pilots were out of a job. The UK, for reasons never explained to the pilot body, followed suit within months.

RAT 5
27th Jan 2018, 14:26
The UK, for reasons never explained to the pilot body, followed suit within months.

Are you sure? I only remember the French being out of step with Europe's 65 with a 60 limit, extending even to foreign airlines overflying. That was never going to be enforced unless you landed on French soil. I also had an idea it was a pilot union initiative, not the XAA. I think EASA rules have changed that. There were company pension funds and employment contracts that restricted the retirement age to <65, but I don't think any XAA outside France did so. To be corrected.
It's an interesting conspiracy theory about the FAA. I thought Aalpa had considerable power & influence over such issues. After all, it would have had great financial impact on crews nearing pension age & costs.

BluSdUp
27th Jan 2018, 18:21
Right You are, I had to drop that one for giggles.

Interesting on the history on the age limit, would be interesting to know exactly how and when it changed.

By the way , some important people ARE considering lowering the local retirement age to 60, namely my wife and family!
Under the Fish More Work Less program.
Indeed!

Anyway
We have a Catch22 here: Demanding to work past 65 as an Airline pilot shows that You are mentally unfit to work as such and Your medical will be cancelled promptly. The only way to regain medical is to agree that the only sensible thing to do is to ask to retire.
At this time the medical will be handed back with a gold Breitling and Great circle track to the nearest Flying club will be plotted into Your Tesla.
Happy Days

flash8
27th Jan 2018, 19:13
I'm sorry but why not raise the age to 70?

The 70 year old of today are as fit as the 50 year old of yesteryear, huge advances have been made in Society... no longer is 60 seen as 'old'.

Not all old fogeys nod off in the cruise ;)

The age limit I suspect is purely economics with just a tad of Medical realism thrown in.

I know the Youngsters will be pissed off by this...

filejw
27th Jan 2018, 19:37
The FAA's age 60 rule was introduced circa 1959/60 at the introduction of jet aircraft at American Airlines. The CEO of American a Mr CR Smith pressured the Administrator of the FAA to introduce a mandatory the retirement age of 60 to rid himself of a large group of senior pilots so he didn't have to pay them.

BluSdUp
27th Jan 2018, 20:02
So start at 20, fly 850hrs per year for 50 years, then according to this new ground breaking research: as you walk out at 70, You are feeling like a 51 year old.
Well I am 53 and some times feel like 73 after 5 days and 45 hrs block, but it is going to get better.
How about that!

I tell u what cut the dose in half and ask Scott to beam you up!

flash8
27th Jan 2018, 21:52
Sorry, that is entirely down to you.

I'm not saying you have to keep on chugging along, you can always retire, but those that wish to should have the choice!

I still maintain raise to 70 unless there is a probable safety issue.

PS. And it's not Scott.. it's Scotty.

parabellum
27th Jan 2018, 22:04
RAT5 - For pilots flying public transport aircraft, above a certain weight, (can't remember the weight but it included the B737-200), as a captain, the age to stop was reduced in the UK from 65 to 60. All back to normal now, I think?

Skornogr4phy
27th Jan 2018, 22:35
Why increase the age to 70? Will you not have earned enough money by age 65? Maybe those 5 extra years will finally let you get that Ferrari you've been wanting since you were 12 (though you'd look ridiculous in it at age 70).

BluSdUp
27th Jan 2018, 22:51
There is safety reasons why we should not fly after 65: People start dying without warning! And JonnyJonnyFO with 350hrs TT just line-released has to take over on that stormy night!

Then there is the moral part of stealing a job from the young
.
Finely , it pulls down the lifetime earnings for us that started with regulation and a plan to retire at 60.

So .because of guys like YOU,:
we are now soon EXPECTED to work to 70 for the same money.
Pathetic Flash!

I am done now.

Mach E Avelli
28th Jan 2018, 01:18
For anyone so, so desperate, with so little else of interest, that they need to fly beyond 65, boy (or girl) do I have a deal for you!

Go to www.seek.com.au and look for the Fokker 100 DEC gigs with Air Niugini (PX, aka Poxie). They will accept up to age 75 - no, not a misprint age seventy five.
Of course you do need to spend time in Port Moresby, and will be rostered only on domestic routes. The best part of that is there is virtually no night flying in PNG so those who worry about back of clock effects in the elderly need not. Now whether a 70+ year old liver could handle the drinking culture there is entirely another matter, but you will need to partake of strong drink to fit in with your fellow derelicts.

Skyhigh86
28th Jan 2018, 01:49
I can't understand why people can't just walk away.
Much better to walk away at a good time than wait for a brown trousers moment to convince oneself to leave...

Wizofoz
28th Jan 2018, 06:44
There is no limit in Australia- if you can hold a medical, you can fly.

Flew with a 74 year old T/C the other day- and a damn fine pilot he is too!

CQ
28th Jan 2018, 08:12
It's a conscious policy of governments and airline management to aid the premature killing off of pilots with fatiguing life threatening FTL's so that they have little to no pensions liability in the long term.

Avenger
28th Jan 2018, 08:39
Flying for some is like a drug they can't give up and even after retiring they travel the same routes, stay in the same hotels, can't seem to shake of the "Good morning Captain jock strap" at the hotel reception.. plan to give up at 60 and start a hobby or part time job plan 5 years before, enjoy your life and get out of the rut! If I could afford it I would give up today after 23 years of stomach gas,haemorrhoids, sleepless nights.. would I want a 70 year old surgeon? perhaps as a consultant but not holding the control of the knife!

Heathrow Harry
28th Jan 2018, 09:09
Liek anything else - if you still like it/love it and they are willing to pay yoiu why not keep going?

My idea of hell is a retirement to an olde worlde cottage with a high maintenance garden in the sticks with no entertainment, no doctors and only similarly aged folk all around me..................

homonculus
28th Jan 2018, 09:31
I am fascinated by this thread and the number of posts against a rise in the enforced retirement age. Over on the rotary side there has been almost unanimous support for a rise albeit that many helicopters are single pilot and so caught by the restriction to multipilot from 60 to 65

This culminated in an employment tribunal brought by a pilot called Ian Evans who took on the CAA and their army of lawyers single handedly. In a week long hearing it was clearly shown and accepted by the court that the risk of incapacitation let alone death at 70 was less in about 2010 than the risk of death at 55 had been 20 years earlier. The CAA admitted there was no scientific reason to not raise the age limit but relied on legislation that allowed them to maintain the status quo simply on the grounds that changing the rule cost money they did not have

I can think of very few professions where many members argue to be banned. Bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. The excuse that it takes jobs off younger pilots is lame given the world shortage. Many pilots want to retire or change profession, but it should be their choice. On the other hand there is data in professions such as medicine that experience is the most important determinator of outcome, which for flying equates to safety.

EIFFS
28th Jan 2018, 11:06
Well here in the UK the state pension age has risen to between 67 - 69 depending on your date of birth, few if any pilots jobs now come with final salary pensions, many pilots have had more than a handful of jobs so have little pensions with different providers and the state pension is now flat more or less anyway, so despite pouring huge amounts into HRC through our taxes you’ll get the same money as the lay about down the road.

Personally I have no great wish to go on and on, but I feel that so long as you pass your medical and 6 monthly sim check why make it mandatory?

The taking jobs off the young is a red herring, at worst it might delay but once you catch up with the retirement cycle it makes no odds, airline growth or lack of is a bigger threat to the young ones and many 19 year old pilots would benefit from having done something else, they would certainly moan less if they had worked in the real world.

Denti
28th Jan 2018, 15:06
My thoughts exactly. Over here in germany the retirement is currently rising from 65 to 67. As we do have to retire at 65 due to license regs (well, we could continue to work as TRI/TREs) drawing the state pension at 65 will actually result in losing 7,2% of it. So we are actually punished by the regulator for following its rules.

RAT 5
28th Jan 2018, 16:14
Was the 65 XAA limit ever tested under EU age discrimination regs? There are some airlines whose contracts are automatically terminated at 60 or even less. It is not age discrimination, even under the 65 ATPL reg', because the employment contract you signed had an age limit in it. Having said that, some mates in the nationals, who were force retired between 55 & 60, had pensions higher than my full time salary at 62.
What always confused me was why, at say 57 with pockets brimming, they sought out the Asian airlines to continue having an aluminium tube strapped to your bum for 14 hours and 10 hours time change. My wife always said it was because of 3 x alimony. Perhaps she's correct. Sad.
But I wonder if there is a claim that forced retirement from a low or non pension employment, even dubious self-employment, before government old age pension age is penalising for no good reason. Ground based guys can continue until government pension age, it's just pilots. Or what about HGV drivers, train drivers, ship's captains etc. What rules do comparable professions operate under, including surgeons? But as I've said, most other professions of equal responsibility, education, income etc. will have the personnel enrolled in decent company pensions. I flew with 9 airlines in 4 different countries for 32 years and achieved a company pension in only one of them for 7 years. There will be others, and to create a gap in their retirement annual income of a couple of years seems harsh.
If governments change rules to save money which they and friends have frittered away, without considering all the victims, is not responsible. I guess it was because the national pilots' unions were centred egotistically at the unaffected national airlines and did not oppose the matter.
However, I'm not advocating raising the piloting age limit to match the pension age, rather advocating that certain professions that have a mandatory retirement age are not penalised without any options. Do civil servants still get their pension at 60? Well then, if so, discretionary deviations are possible.

4468
28th Jan 2018, 18:55
On the other hand there is data in professions such as medicine that experience is the most important determinator of outcome, which for flying equates to safety.
I’ve heard similar nuggets to this many, many times before.

I can’t speak for medicine, but for flying, what a load of bolony.

Anyone with more than 15 minutes in this industry will tell you. The number of hours in your logbook is absolutely no determinant whatever of competence! Yet on the flip side, certainly I’m not aware of any pilot claiming to be better in their early 60s than they were in their early 50s! Sadly, and inevitably, we go downhill as we age. Any reduction in our mental capacity is seriously frowned upon. Just look at the minuscule blood alcohol limit proscribed for pilots!

I would suggest, the most important determinant of safety in flying is a combination of basic abilities (which inevitably reduce as we age!) combined with quality training.

In any case, there are perfectly acceptable justifications in law for stipulating a retirement age for pilots. Only one of which is preservation of the dignity of older pilots.

Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law.

olster
29th Jan 2018, 07:24
Er, let me be the one then...I feel that experience albeit dependant on the type of experience does make you better ergo I am ‘better’ than in my early 50s. I am indifferent personally to continuing beyond 65 but feel that if people are willing and fit, why not? My personal incredulity extends to a post that ends ‘congratulations to the caa’ , in 40 years airline flying, I’ve never heard that expression...

Trossie
29th Jan 2018, 11:40
Would you say that that expression disqualifies the poster on grounds of something like diminished faculties? I too find that expression rather astounding!

4468
29th Jan 2018, 15:52
Sorry. I should probably have been a little more specific? I should really have said:

“Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law”, and preserving the dignity of those who, seemingly have lost the common sense to do it for themselves.

Does that read better?

homonculus
29th Jan 2018, 18:36
Sadly not

I know too many pilots with crummy pensions who would carry on safely were it not for rules that have no scientific basis and which the CAA accept are wrong. We would all like to retire at 40 but at least many other professions can keep their nose to the grindstone to achieve a comfortable retirement.

All we are asking is the same freedom of choice most other people have and rules that have a scientific basis

4468
29th Jan 2018, 19:49
Ah I see.

So I think you’re saying that some pilots feel compelled to continue flying beyond 65, purely for financial reasons? It’s not that they actually want to? As you say, we’d all like to retire at 40.

If you accept that many of us would be unsuitably equipped to continue flying into our 70s. Isn’t there a danger that circumstances, rather than suitability, become an inappropriate driver for pilots continuing into old age.

That alone seems to be a perfectly justifiable reason for preserving older pilots dignity. One of a number of Objective Justifications for compulsory retirement allowed in law

Edited to add: What do you mean ‘crummy pensions’? Do you mean in 45 years in the workplace, these people haven’t managed to save a penny?

Trossie
29th Jan 2018, 21:11
WOW! So the CAA's task is to 'preserve our dignity'?

First time I've ever heard that!

Heathrow Harry
29th Jan 2018, 21:15
Face it - 65 was set as the standard retirement age in the Uk in 1912 when people were expected to die when they were 68

People live longer. they're fitter AND they start work almost a decade later

So should everyone work to 75? Of course not

but a cut-off set 100 years ago is also stupid.......

Capt Scribble
29th Jan 2018, 22:48
The Law actually says that age can not be used as a factor to discriminate.

4468
29th Jan 2018, 22:59
Capt Scribble

Know your law.

The law accepts Objective Justifications which, in certain circumstances, allow a compulsory retirement age. Age being the only one of the nine ‘protected characteristics’ to which OJs apply.

Ageing has a deleterious effect on humans. Not only is a compulsory retirement age recognised as acceptable in law, in specified circumstances. It is also common sense.

Though I accept, some of our elderly will not like it.

If you really MUST continue earning beyond 65, move to a state that allows elderly pilots, or find a job that is less critical to the safety of the flying public.

Heathrow Harry

1912 was an interesting year. Only 9 years after the Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, I imagine the majority of ‘pilots’ were airship (derigible) pilots? Certainly it was the year of the creation of the RFC, and the first US Marine Corps pilot commenced training. Some were struggling to fly across the English Channel in a time of around 60 minutes. The World Altitude record was around 13,000’!

I imagine it also preceded ATC since Mr Marconi had only invented a very heavy, and primitive radio set in 1895.

My, how the demands on our steely eyed aviators have changed!

DuctOvht
30th Jan 2018, 08:04
To be honest, I think anyone who wishes to do this job beyond the age of 65 is nuts. My opinion.

Personally, I’ve got absolutely no desire to be up all night crossing multiple time zones in my late 60s or early 70s unless I’m going on holiday. Every single pilot flying today has always known that they have to retire at 65, and that’s what I signed up for. I fail to see why promotion opportunities should be effectively closed off (for an undefined period of time) because others choose to try and move the goalposts at the end of their career, to suit their own circumstances.

The law doesn’t really come into it, as you cannot hold a Class 1 medical for commercial flying purposes beyond the age of 65. If you’ve failed to sort a pension during what is a reasonably well paid career then that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay for it. “Age discrimination” doesn’t cut it as an argument either, as changing the medical rules & effectively removing the CRA discriminates just as much against younger people by preventing their career advancement by ‘bed blocking’ (for want of a better expression)

If this is the way we’re heading, and people must absolutely keep flying beyond 65 then feel free, but do so as an FO in the right hand seat, on FOs money.

Trossie
30th Jan 2018, 11:56
4468, you sound as if you have become an old fart far too young! There is no 'Objective Justifications' saying that you must get old too quickly.

roving
30th Jan 2018, 12:14
My idea of hell is a retirement to an olde worlde cottage with a high maintenance garden in the sticks with no entertainment, no doctors and only similarly aged folk all around me..................

My son and daughter, both in their thirties, would probably agree with you.

From birth they lived and grew up in an 'olde worlde' cottage complete with a professionally manicured country garden.

Now both highly successful in their respective careers, they live with their spouses and young children in Central London. Wild horses would not drag them back to the country idyll.

RAT 5
30th Jan 2018, 12:21
My son and daughter, both in their thirties, live with their spouses and young children in Central London; Wild horses would not drag them back to the country idyll.

Yet.

Bergerie1
30th Jan 2018, 12:57
Well, I am happy old fart who had to retire at 55 - far too young. So I found another job. I'm now fully retired and feel all the better for it. Like many others here, the idea of all those nights out of bed, early morning calls and multiple time zone changes at age 65, let alone 75, would fill me with horror.

I was lucky and have good pension, but feel it is much better to enjoy a quiet life after 60........or perhaps 65 at a pinch.

Trossie
30th Jan 2018, 19:49
Funny old thing, our two of similar ages have settled into very good engineering careers living in the country idyll (one in a thatched cottage). Wild horses would not drag them to a city!

Each to their own!

Private jet
30th Jan 2018, 20:45
I suppose the ideal comprimise would be to allow people to continue ad infinitum based on medical & operational competence, but at 65+ they go back to the bottom of the seniority list or have to reapply for their position. Surely therefore if they are up to the job and love their career so much then there will be no objection. I wouldn't like to think that they want to carry on purely based on the fact they have got to the top of the mountain but want to cling on to the nice view from the top for themselves?

DuctOvht
30th Jan 2018, 21:08
That is a compromise, but it doesn’t go far enough for me.

As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.

Stopping at 65 can’t happen if the goalposts move mid-game and people who signed up to go at 65 force a change in the rules that mean they can carry on until they drop. By doing so they’re effectively forcing the rest of us to work longer than we would wish as the earnings we’re banking on, and the pensions we’re planning on, won’t exist at 65. The bottom line is that I shouldn’t have to work into my 70s because someone else has decided they’d like to.

The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.

Trossie
30th Jan 2018, 21:33
at the bottom of the seniority listWhat's a "seniority list"?

DuctOvht
30th Jan 2018, 21:36
What all airlines will have when the market reaches saturation point & relentless expansion is no longer an option.

Just for you Trossie;

The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list (if your airline has one). That is the only fair way for this to work.

ElZilcho
30th Jan 2018, 21:37
That is a compromise, but it doesn’t go far enough for me.

As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.

Stopping at 65 can’t happen if the goalposts move mid-game and people who signed up to go at 65 force a change in the rules that mean they can carry on until they drop. By doing so they’re effectively forcing the rest of us to work longer than we wish, because we won’t be getting the pensions we’ve planned for at 65.

The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.

My thoughts exactly.

I see two distinct demographics, at a Legacy carrier anyway. Those who joined in the 70's/80's at a relatively young age, enjoyed a quick Command due to expansion combined with a longer than expected career as the Retirement age slowly stepped up to 65.

Then you have those on the other side of the curve, joined in the late 90's/2000's and have had rather stagnated careers. Firstly, many were hired into the Legacy carriers at an older age than the generation before them, missed most of the expansion so had to wait longer for promotion, yet had those promotions delayed even more as the retirement age crept up. Almost a generation of career FO's.

We all knew from the beginning that we'd eventually be forced to retire in this job. For those approaching 65, be thankful you've had an extra 5-10 years.

At the risk of poking the bear, Boomers and early Gen X's have had the best opportunities to set themselves up for retirement, not just Pilots, but overall. I could work until 80 and probably still not be as well off in retirement as some of the Captains I've flown with whose property portfolios alone dwarf my earnings as an FO.

Private jet
30th Jan 2018, 21:47
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.
Thats actually what I meant.

DuctOvht
30th Jan 2018, 21:50
Apologies, I’d assumed you meant back to the bottom of the LHS seniority list.

Bealzebub
30th Jan 2018, 22:29
As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.


No we didn’t “all sign up to retire at 65” many of us will have expected to retire at 55 or later 60 when we “signed up.” Even then, with the option to retire anything up to 5 years earlier on reduced pensions. For men, that was anything up to 15 years (if you took your occupational pension at the earliest normal qualifying date) before the state pension kicked in. The reality is that the world has moved on over the last few decades. Combine technological improvements to safety, improvements to medical stability in previously disqualifying conditions, and wholesale legislative changes to equality and state welfare regulation, and it is a whole new ball game whether you like it or not.

With current mandatory pilot retirement and state pension age only 1 year apart, today the margin is in fact the narrowest it has ever been (although that is currently set to widen again).

Another unfortunate reality is that in many cases the occupational pensions that pilots “signed up” to decades ago, didn’t live up to the promises and expectations that always allowed for that careful fiscal planning to bear the fruit it supposedly promised.

For those pilots that wanted to, needed to, and were medically fit to do so, it wasn’t unreasonable that they continued flying beyond their once planned retirement dates up to the new retirement dates the law allowed. The natural leveller was always going to be the ability to maintain a medical certificate as it always had been and as it is now. Far from being a wave of pilots that retired at 55, and then 60 and later 65, the medical Standard has always smoothed out the curve such that the wave is more of a ripple than a tsunami by the time it reaches the compulsory buffer.

I have seen pilots happy to retire early, or at the date their occupational pensions first allowed, or as late as the current legislation allowed. I have also seen a lot who were medically forced to retire early. Whatever the case, it should always be their choice. Inevitably, this same demographic comprises the most experienced pilots in the industry. These pilots therefore have a value and should be encouraged and rewarded to stay on.

Exuberance of youth will always want everybody ahead of them to get out of the way in their anxiety to achieve the pots of gold that they perceive they are being blocked from. I was the same, and watched as those at the top of the seniority list glacially clung on as long as they could. The closer you get to that pinnacle, the more you will have experienced the reasons why people want to continue.

Whilst it is true that those drawing a pension can maintain a standard of living on today’s levels of reduced remuneration to a greater or lesser extent, it is not true that those pilots are causal to that reduced remuneration. When the lo-co revolution started to take hold in the “nineties” the levels of command pay remained fairly consistent. It was the legislative changes to FCL requirements that brought hoards of youngsters with 250 hours (previously 700 hours) clamouring for a licence and the right seat of a jet. The laws of supply and demand coupled with a healthy dose of business acumen, opportunity and greed, brought the T&C’s at the entry level crashing down. It was only a matter of time for that to make its way further up the tree, and “hey presto” it arrived!

You can remove the age limitation for pilots (and sooner or later they will) and the medical standard will then be the sole attrition tool.

ShyTorque
30th Jan 2018, 22:30
Or go into private ops, if you're up to it.

Private jet
30th Jan 2018, 22:34
We don't want old airline pilots, thankyou.

ShyTorque
30th Jan 2018, 22:42
Not everyone was an airline pilot.

4468
30th Jan 2018, 23:06
I’m afraid the law will not allow for pilots who reach a certain age (65?) to effectively be demoted to FO, or to be repositioned at the bottom of a seniority list, should one exist. Indeed any less favourable treatment, purely on the basis of age will by definition be clearly ‘ageist’! That is against the law. Absolutely correctly, it should not be tolerated.

However...... There are a number of Objective Justifications allowable in law, to proscribe compulsory retirement of pilots upon reaching a certain age. Not only is a compulsory retirement age legal. To many of us, it appears eminently sensible.

It doesn’t escape many’s attention that those agitating for an increase in retirement age, tend to be those coming to the latter stages of their careers. Having, for decades taken full advantage of the compulsory retirement of the cohorts of pilots before them!

Where are the legions of twenty year old pilots pushing for an extension to all of our careers?

ElZilcho
31st Jan 2018, 00:21
Exuberance of youth will always want everybody ahead of them to get out of the way in their anxiety to achieve the pots of gold that they perceive they are being blocked from. I was the same, and watched as those at the top of the seniority list glacially clung on as long as they could. The closer you get to that pinnacle, the more you will have experienced the reasons why people want to continue.


Whilst I understand the overall tone of your post, I must point out that these youth clamoring for the pots of gold are often in their 50's, certainly at the Legacy carriers anyway.

As another poster mentioned, I'm yet to see any youngsters pushing for the retirement age to go up.... in fact, the only Pilots I have spoken to that support an increase are fast approaching 65 while also occupying the LHS of a Widebody.

While I do agree to some extent that the Medical should be the deciding factor, I've also seen how ugly things can get when a senior pilots abilities start to deteriorate and they get stood down. Stones get thrown, names called, Lawyers paid, in the end, an unfortunate way to finish ones career.

Bealzebub
31st Jan 2018, 02:40
Oh absolutely,

The young will never push for a rise in the retirement age. I certainly didn’t. At 20 I fully expected to be well off by the time I was 40 and that thing called retirement was something so far over the horizon that it didn’t really matter much. In any event the dinosaurs I sat next to at work were forever banging on about how good our scheme was, the very pride of the golden goose! Then life happened.

The retirement scheme was made more expensive. Employers of funded schemes availed themselves of contribution holidays content to believe that the sun would always shine. Then came the deluge. The economy tanked. The scheme was frozen to new members. Then it was frozen to existing contributions. Then it was turned into a supreme burden that had to be hived off into a quasi-state protection scheme with significantly reduced terms, in order to protect our jobs.

In much the same way your retirement planning can be wrecked by significant stock market, bond or commodity price falls, the end result is the same.You either work longer to try and salvage the position you want or need, or you resign (no pun) yourself to a poorer and weaker retirement. It is inevitable that many people will do whatever they can and take whatever opportunities are available to them in order to protect theirs and their families futures. If that means working longer, then so be it.

On the subject of life getting in the way, things such as children, divorce, redundancy, luck, and a catalogue of other things are for most people going to radically modify their retirement planning as the intervening years pass. As the young get older (and it happens much faster than they expect) their perceptions are very likely to change.

Before they know it, retirement is visible on the horizon and the potential number of paydays can be counted in double digits. The loss of those potential paydays starts to hit home.

When you look at the the pension realities on the table for people coming up through the system these days, it isn’t pretty. Dismissing the risk of Defined contribution pensions, the lifetime limit (beyond which there are punitive tax charges) of currently £1m, is only likely to generate a joint income of around £28k a year in annuity. A lot of people are going to take every opportunity to “stash the cash” while they are still able to, and that is likely to be in the last few years of employment once the mortgage is paid off. It is in this environment that the young of today are eventually going to reverse their opinion.......Watch!

4468
31st Jan 2018, 04:31
And yet...... They......... (We)........ Don’t complain!

At least not until ‘we’ have enjoyed decades to benefit greatly from the compulsory retirement of the legions of ‘previously young’ that plough this ungodly furrow ahead of us!

Only THEN, when our own way ahead is clear of hindrance! When we have surfed the wave of ‘bitter ageist prejudice’, to reach the pinnacle of our own careers, do ‘we’ first utter the slightest peep that, “it’s an outrage!”

When 20 something’s are joining the clarion call for change, only then will I believe the moral high ground is held by those believing compulsory retirement is egregious!

Each generation playing precisely the same game!

Denti
31st Jan 2018, 05:49
In my view there are two different things. The regulatory side, which does not care, nor should it, about career progression. And exactly that, career progression.

The regulatory side at the moment does have an age discrimination, especially in countries where the required retirement in airline operations means a lower pension despite having paid the max contribution for 30+ years. And it is even harder to swallow if you can easily pass both your medical and simulator checks. Human beings in general, pilots included, do live longer and healthier, at least in developed countries. An arbitrary retirement age might therefore be the wrong way to go, especially in a time where everything else goes "performance based", from training, over hiring to career progression.

The career progression side is of course not an easy thing to tackle, especially as it is extremely different for many. There are those that join a legacy carrier age 20 and enjoy a mostly uninterrupted career throughout their working life. And yes, those carriers tend do have lower growth and pretty slow career progression, which means any change in retirement age will cause a major change for the normal career of those that are not commanders yet.

And then there are those, that through no fault of their own, have to change airlines several times in their career and/or work in non-seniority based airlines. Getting that retirement fund to where one wants it to be can take considerably longer, depending on when one has to change airlines, personal likes and dislikes of those being in charge of career progression and other arbitrary factors. A possible longer career simply means more time to sort out retirement and the personal problems caused by the repeated disruptions over the working life of those affected.

Trossie
31st Jan 2018, 07:28
Just for you Trossie;

The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list (if your airline has one). That is the only fair way for this to work.

"if your airline has one" - And if it doesn't?

Trossie
31st Jan 2018, 07:30
We don't want old airline pilots, thankyou.
From what I've been reading on another nearby Thread, I'm not that sure that we want some of the young pilots, thank you!

DuctOvht
31st Jan 2018, 08:10
Bealzebub,

No we didn’t “all sign up to retire at 65” many of us will have expected to retire at 55 or later 60 when we “signed up.” Even then, with the option to retire anything up to 5 years earlier on reduced pensions.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that's the case. I'm guessing you’re talking about people employed by a certain airline that mandated they retire, from them, at the age of 55 on a very generous pension. They were still able to go on and fly elsewhere until the age of 65 which is the point at which they could no longer hold a medical for commercial ops, hence they signed up to fly until 65 should they wish. Many people did and did very well out of it indeed. All that change achieved was to bring it into line with other airlines.

What we're talking about here is completely different. I'm a long way past my early 20s sadly, and I expect to retire at or before I turn 65. It is unacceptable that a potential change to the medical requirements (allowing people to work past 65) would leave many of us no choice but to do the same, against our wishes. If legal action starts for the former, then I expect BALPA to represent the very large number of its members who would be seriously detrimentally affected by any change. Preventing the career progression of younger pilots, i.e. those not retiring imminently, is also age discrimination, however you look at it. It works both ways.

I would suggest the reason that you don't get many under 40's clamouring to work beyond 65 is that we are pretty much the first generation(s) of pilots who have consistently flown close to 900hrs a year. Many of those approaching 65 haven't, certainly not on shorthaul. No one knows what state we'll all be in when we get to 65, indeed most guys & girls I know that are at or around my age are either talking about going part-time, or have already done so.


Trossie, then they just become FOs. It's quite simple.

Reverserbucket
31st Jan 2018, 15:00
Preventing the career progression of younger pilots, i.e. those not retiring imminently, is also age discrimination, however you look at it. This is not the case elsewhere though; there doesn't seem to be much of a moral leaning in industries where there is no requirement for a medical or mandatory loss of privileges at a specified cut-off point. I understand that EASA have recently commissioned a study on this very subject and there is some interest among employers for an extension in some specific CAT operations where much of the training and examining expertise is weighted toward the upper end of the age scale.

Rick777
31st Jan 2018, 16:26
I had to retire 10 years ago at age 60 shortly after my airline had eliminated pilot retirements. I wonder how many of the 30 and 40 year olds who thought I should have to go so they could move up would have been happy to retire with only what they had saved.

ReallyAnnoyed
31st Jan 2018, 16:47
It is not hard to find a doctor who will be fairly lax in his medical examination, if you really want it. The 60+ pilots I have met, have in vast majority shown a rapid decline in skills once they passed 60. I have seen several who really should have retired, but kept going to pay for the many ex wives or desired to retain the perceived status. Pushing retirement age further than it already is, is an accident waiting to happen.

And no, I am not advocating for my own sake as I upgraded years ago.

olster
31st Jan 2018, 18:25
Oh well, very scientific... The declining cognitive skills of the over 60's is anecdotally confirmed to be correct... I don't know how I managed to land a 737 in a 33 knot crosswind on Saturday night with my declining and waning intellectual powers. Probably a sign of aforementioned brain deterioration is responding to unverified drivel...I don't really care one way or another but it is interesting to note that (as usual) in this industry vested interest always comes to the fore. The perceived wisdom is that my generation is full of selfish bar stewards unwilling to relinquish the left hand seat and obviously led the high life with a string of wives in tow. The reality is that a lot of this group have had their pensions decimated by ruthless and unscrupulous 'management' and face a bleak financial future not because of perceived profligacy. If they are fit enough and are still willing and skilled, why not? I'm not one of them before the insults start flying around.Oh and btw, my AME stated that the smokers and boozers are normally time expired in their late 50's while the remaining 'survivors' are normally medically sound to fly past 65.

Denti
31st Jan 2018, 18:40
DuctOvht

Firstly, that quote wasn't from me, but from your text it appears so, which of course is, well, simply not true.

Secondly, nobody loses their medical at 65. In fact it is quite legal to fly Airbuses into your 80ies, however only in private OPS, and airline like run flight departments of big companies actually do that with the same level of safety, SOPs and usually quite a bit more training. And why not if the pilot in question can pass his medical and OPC/LPC.

Trossie
1st Feb 2018, 10:01
... then they just become FOs. It's quite simple.What? Deny a new FO of a job?

RAT 5
1st Feb 2018, 11:45
There will be a new auction site on Prune. Old farts at 65 auctioning off their seats to wannabes. They've already spent an bundle; another 30,000 should be possible, and tax free for the OF. Ah, there is an interesting career process. F/O to O/F in 40 years. :ok:

DuctOvht
1st Feb 2018, 13:24
Denti,

My mistake, it was Bealzebub I was quoting. Sorry. I’ve edited the post.

That said, you’ll note in the post of mine you quoted that I said “They were still able to go on and fly elsewhere until the age of 65 which is the point at which they could no longer hold a medical for commercial ops”. I’m aware you can fly whatever you want privately, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

In light of the above I’ll make this my last comment as I feel like I’m repeating myself. In response to the ‘why not?’ questions my point once more is this;

We all knew/know that as far as commercial ops are concerned 65 is your lot, as the licencing authorities have deemed that’s as far as you can go for medical reasons. I very much plan to be done at 65, if not before. For me to do so, my DC pension pot needs my career to pan out as I expect it to. I’m not expecting a command tomorrow, but at some point in the future, yes.

Hypothetically, everything suddenly changes, and the time to command (and projected earnings) that were based on other people retiring at 65 are now based on absolutely nothing, as people can go on until they drop. Assuming a good number of people choose to go on beyond 65 for whatever reason, that leaves me with no option but to carry on working too, potentially into my 70’s. Do I want to be doing a command course in my early 60s? Hell no.

The whole concept of a change like this, and the effect it will have on people further down the ‘foodchain’ is just ridiculous. I hope it never happens.

Bunk-Rest
3rd Feb 2018, 12:58
Ah, you young lads will change as you get older.
I'm embarrassed by the views I held in the RHS on a stagnant seniority list.
My last airline was lobbying their regulator to put the age up to 67-68, but they stopped when they realised that nearly all the Capts were naturally leaving at 63-64 as I did, not many stayed to the end.
If a guy wishes to continue, is it the politics of envy driving your arguments?

Trossie
3rd Feb 2018, 19:48
I am horrified that the regulator (CAA) has the right to regulate my 'dignity'!

How undignified would it be to meet one of the locals in your village, who has always known you to be energetic and active and enjoying your job, who commented that you seem to be at home a lot these days and you had to say that you weren't allowed to work any more as the assumption was that due to your age you might be going gaga and incompetent.

Our vet has a wonderful statement about this: "Age is just a number". The same would logically apply to human animals too.

4468
3rd Feb 2018, 21:35
I am horrified that the regulator (CAA) has the right to regulate my 'dignity'!
Point of information for those unaware. It’s not the CAA that ‘has the right’.

Objective Justifications. Of which preservation of dignity forms a part, are the law of the land I’m afraid.

It saves you from the probably greater ‘indignity’ of having to explain to “one of the locals in your village, who has always known you to be energetic and active and enjoying your job” that you have just been sacked, as you were no longer up to the job!

Sorry if that comes as bad news. But as I say. It’s the law.

I’m afraid some people need saving from themselves.

Trossie
5th Feb 2018, 09:49
But if this dictatorial State is going to 'protect our dignity' then surely the age of forced retirement should be lowered to the lowest age that may have any age-related medical conditions could cause a loss of flying medical? I am sure that on those grounds a case for enforced retirement between about 45 and 50 could easily be argued. All to protect everyone from the risk of the indignity of any age-related loss of medical.

The same with mental competence. What is the lowest age that people suffer from dementia? That is what The State should dictate as the forced retirement age for pilots, all to protect them from themselves and 'preserve their dignity' of course!

Now if defining the age that low is seen as ridiculous, then why is the present age not equally ridiculous. It is a nicely 'rounded off to the nearest five' figure. Why not 70 or 75? Why not any figure in between? What about people who are unfairly penalised by a day because they were born in the 'wrong' year and didn't get their fair share of extra leap-year days through their career? I'll go back to our vet's comment: "Age is just a number". But a thumb-sucked number-to-the-nearest-five is chosen as the cliff-edge to 'protect people from themselves' and ensure that The (Nanny) State can chose your indignities for you.

parabellum
5th Feb 2018, 23:25
The reality is that a lot of this group have had their pensions decimated by ruthless and unscrupulous 'management' and face a bleak financial future not because of perceived profligacy.


Not to mention the possibility of a couple of airlines going bust underneath you, followed by a period of unemployment before starting over again as an FO, the overall effect can reduce the estimated pension pot by as much as a half.

fdr
8th Feb 2018, 08:32
Age is personal, it depends on the individual. Call that an old Theory of Relativity...

Age remains an area of discrimination, and of course is controversial where seniority systems exist where there is no expansion underway. Downunder, I am not certain that there has been any real effect on age extensions that have happened over 30 years, and finally resulting in the removal of all age limits as is the case in NZL. In AUS, the regionals are having difficulties in filling cockpit seats, which says as much about terms and conditions, but there is a shortage, and we have been effective as an industry in removing incentive for people to take up the "profession".

The EU and China, as well as the USA will take a long time to alter their position, but as has been suggested, we do not see a significant age related risk occurring in the industry where age has been raised or removed as a constraint.

For those that can retire early, well played, other players may have had a different outcome, but most would be happy to be sitting on the dock fishing if they could, except for the few that remain enthusiasts who haven't had the industries continuous race to the bottom turn their outlook to a bilious jaundiced view of the world around them, yet.

Ultra long haul at 70 sounds like hell, but smacking around regional space & time sounds appealing. Right now, I'm barrelling around at low level at high speed because there is no one else crazy enough to do the job. As much fun now as when I did it in camo 40 years ago. Age is a personal thing.

Trossie
8th Feb 2018, 10:26
Age is personal, it depends on the individual. Call that an old Theory of Relativity...

Age remains an area of discrimination...

... ... ...

Ultra long haul at 70 sounds like hell, but smacking around regional space & time sounds appealing. Right now, I'm barrelling around at low level at high speed because there is no one else crazy enough to do the job. As much fun now as when I did it in camo 40 years ago. Age is a personal thing.

You sound like a real pilot!

But watch out, because ofObjective Justifications. Of which preservation of dignity forms a part

The Nanny State (and I won't 'advertise' this time!) wants to take away your right to chose your own 'indignity' as the Nanny State considers that... some people need saving from themselves.

But then there are some countries, and you appear to live in one, that are grown up enough to let people choose their own indignities without the interference of so-called 'Objective Justifications'.

However, the reality is that "Age is personal, it depends on the individual." State imposed bans at a certain number is an aberration of nature.

bafanguy
8th Feb 2018, 11:55
...and we have been effective as an industry in removing incentive for people to take up the "profession".

A thread-worthy subject in itself.

ROKVIATOR
8th Feb 2018, 12:57
fdr

Mind if I ask what are you doing right now and your age? Sounds like an old dog still in love with aviation! ( with all my respect and same pasion as you to the aviation industry ). It is difficult to keep that enthusiasm over the years, I wish I could have it in 40 years now! :D

bafanguy
24th Feb 2018, 18:06
bpi,

Is that just tongue in cheek or do you have a source for it ?

parabellum
24th Feb 2018, 22:20
Be interesting to see just how many caveats that will come with! :)

stilton
25th Feb 2018, 01:44
There is no limit in Australia- if you can hold a medical, you can fly.

Flew with a 74 year old T/C the other day- and a damn fine pilot he is too!

As long as you can still pass a medical I think
it’s ok

That only applies within Oz though I believe

bafanguy
25th Feb 2018, 09:27
Be interesting to see just how many caveats that will come with! :)

It'll also be interesting to see how many people stay beyond 65 if/when this increase comes about.

While I haven't seen any data, empirically, not everyone who can stay to 65 does.

If increasing the max age doesn't produce many more pilots remaining in the system, it's much ado about nothing...and solves almost nothing. Only time will tell.

It's going to ruffle some junior feathers though. :eek:

P.S. Found this spot of data by a DL pilot who went through one month of data to see what the attrition looks like (my kinda geek !). Without LOTS more, it really doesn't tell the whole story but it's something:


From the January seniority list to the February seniority list we lost a total of 40 pilots.

22 went to age 65
4 were over age 64 but less than 65
3 were new hires (less than a year)
11 were between age 51 and 62 (4 were SIC outs)

Basically 26 out of 37 went to age 65 last month.

bafanguy
25th Feb 2018, 09:29
I’m not at liberty to divulge it’s source, but I assure you it’s very real.
It’s awaiting final approval.


bpi,

Why does it have to be a secret at this point ? I'd expect the Federalies to be shouting it from the rooftops to show everyone how they've saved the airlines from doom. :rolleyes:

Heathrow Harry
25th Feb 2018, 09:48
It's the UK - everything is secret until announced by a Govt. Minister

just look at "Yes Minister/prime Minister" - the civil service prefer a quiet life to talking to the press.......... and God Forbid, any peon.

camel
27th Feb 2018, 01:56
Germany already moved to 67? So why not UK/rest of Europe?

Denti
27th Feb 2018, 17:44
Germany already moved to 67? So why not UK/rest of Europe?

For the general retirement age yes, for pilots? A big fat NO. Didn’t happen. Which means of course pilots will be screwed out of their full state pension.

RAT 5
27th Feb 2018, 18:24
Surely if EASA remains 65 no member state can adopt regs more lenient, only more stringent. Is EASA still 65 for commercial ATPL ops?

bafanguy
27th Feb 2018, 20:35
pbi,

Well, can you say if your source is in government or industry ?

Is there a projected announce date ?

I've Googled around and checked with my government source; neither had any knowledge of this announcement.

I'm surprised something like this could be kept secret.

Dan_Brown
27th Feb 2018, 20:57
As the late 411a said, there is nothing more grotesque then seeing someone flying at 70 or more
At least 68years 11months won't allow that. One American Airline, who shall remain nameless, had 2 hosties over 70.

RAT 5
28th Feb 2018, 07:13
There are others so traumatised that they would sit in full uniform, under the stairs, eating a cardboard meal on their knees watching the electricity meter, gas meter, water meter and checking the fuse box every so often. :rolleyes:

Others discovered there's a whole new world out there and lived a longer & happier retirement.

ShyTorque
28th Feb 2018, 12:28
There are others so traumatised that they would sit in full uniform, under the stairs, eating a cardboard meal on their knees watching the electricity meter, gas meter, water meter and checking the fuse box every so often. :rolleyes:

Others discovered there's a whole new world out there and lived a longer & happier retirement.

I'd willingly retire tomorrow but unfortunately I've still got quite a few years left till I can afford to live off my meagre pension - and the state pension has got a year further away for me than previously advertised and six years further away for my wife.

Why didn't I and quite a lot of others save enough to retire "early"?
The 9.5% mortgage rate which increased to 15% just after I'd signed the contract to buy our first home didn't help. That sudden increase (mid 1980s for those still in nappies back then) actually put us below the breadline, as a junior military officer. I reckon there's more than a few youngsters eager to complain about older generation folk "taking their jobs" who will see things very differently once the mortgage rates start to increase, which they undoubtedly will. Regrettable all round, but life is a big competition, despite what some state schools chose to teach.

Trossie
28th Feb 2018, 14:59
There are others so traumatised that they would sit in full uniform, under the stairs, eating a cardboard meal on their knees watching the electricity meter, gas meter, water meter and checking the fuse box every so often. :rolleyes:

Others discovered there's a whole new world out there and lived a longer & happier retirement.

And I suppose that one solution would be to go part-time and ease your way into retirement. And then you might get back to enjoying the job again and want to do it for a bit longer? So a combination of easing yourself into retirement and easing yourself out to retirement. That could mean that you go on in the job a bit longer and enjoy everything so much that you have no traumatic breaks and live an even longer and happier retirement?

D@mn! I forgot that the regulators won't allow that. You have to get heaved out of the door at some or other number of some sort... age, or some other 'just a number' thing like that. What was it? 'Some people need to be saved from themselves' or some old 'nanny state' thing like that.

Trossie
28th Feb 2018, 15:12
The 9.5% mortgage rate ...I remember those! 'Twas 9.3% for us. "The lowest you'll ever see" they said, "Borrow as much as you can at that rate" they said. Good thing we didn't. When it went up to that 15% they were all crying 'negative equity' while we just had almost all of our 'spare' take away. But then we were saving all we needed in those days for our pensions, those gold-plated 'final salary' pensions that would leave you living in luxury in retirement at 60. Yes, those same 'final salary' pensions that are now crashing down around everyone or being shut early so that the remnants of pensions won't have you living in any of that luxury. And then you've got to stop working a year before you can get your State Pension. And those who were in nappies while you were helping to establish the jobs that they enjoy now (by being in work and helping those airlines to survive to now) want to push you out a year before the State will give you a pension. Ungrateful brats! Watch, they'll be pushing very vociferously for a much, much later retirement age when their turn comes!! Well, I hope that the br@ts that follow them object just as strenuously to them wanting to stay on!!

Denim and leather
21st Mar 2018, 10:58
ERA seeks increase to pilot retirement age | Labor content from ATWOnline (http://m.atwonline.com/labor/era-seeks-increase-pilot-retirement-age)

inxs52
29th Jun 2018, 01:51
There is talks about putting it back to 60.

Pushing it back to 60 ? OMG...why is FAA so obsessed with age limits. Here in Oz, you can fly as long as you want, if you pass their medicals (and they are stringent). Ageism is alive and well in the US, it seems
If USA adopted the same policy, there goes away half the shortage problem.

Sorry Dog
1st Jul 2018, 15:11
Pushing it back to 60 ? OMG...why is FAA so obsessed with age limits. Here in Oz, you can fly as long as you want, if you pass their medicals (and they are stringent). Ageism is alive and well in the US, it seems
If USA adopted the same policy, there goes away half the shortage problem.

It seems quite counter intuitive that the FAA would lower age limits at this time. If they did so right now, they would put a big target on their backs for exacerbating the "shortage" problem, especially with respect to the regionals. Once the mainstream media gets a hold of it, it would be trumpeted that they are the cause of it and climbing ticket prices... nevermind that fuel is the largest single component of a ticket price.

bafanguy
2nd Jul 2018, 18:32
Originally Posted by BluSdUp https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/604703-retirement-age-pilots-post10032736.html#post10032736)There is talks about putting it back to 60.


BSU,

Who's talking about that ?

bafanguy
2nd Jul 2018, 18:36
It seems quite counter intuitive that the FAA would lower age limits at this time.

It sure does !!

JPJP
3rd Jul 2018, 21:23
ERA seeks increase to pilot retirement age Labor content from ATWOnline (http://m.atwonline.com/labor/era-seeks-increase-pilot-retirement-age)

I started laughing when I read the beginning of that article:

“using case study work that is being performed by member carrier ASL Airlines Hungary. ASL Airlines Hungary is working with the Hungarian CAA and Hungarian aeromedical specialist Pharma Flight”

The Euro Regional airline lobbyists dug up an airline in Hungary, and then paid a specialist called Pharma; to tell them what they want to hear. Aided by the august members of the Hungarian CAA. Sounds totally legit :p It also sounds like the ERA goes to the same conferences as the U.S. RAA.

ShotOne
3rd Jul 2018, 23:14
And why would they go to such weasel lengths...other than to increase the supply of pilots to ensure there’s a plentiful supply of flying lemmings prepared to fly for a pittance.

the inescapable fact remains, beyond the 60’s the odds of heart attack, stroke and other serious issues increase very steeply.

Wizofoz
3rd Jul 2018, 23:55
And why would they go to such weasel lengths...other than to increase the supply of pilots to ensure there’s a plentiful supply of flying lemmings prepared to fly for a pittance.

the inescapable fact remains, beyond the 60’s the odds of heart attack, stroke and other serious issues increase very steeply.

But to an unacceptable extent, particularly in multi-crew operations?

JPJP
4th Jul 2018, 04:27
And why would they go to such weasel lengths...other than to increase the supply of pilots to ensure there’s a plentiful supply of flying lemmings prepared to fly for a pittance.

the inescapable fact remains, beyond the 60’s the odds of heart attack, stroke and other serious issues increase very steeply.




Egzactly. Shot Out.

Wizofoz - But to an unacceptable extent, particularly in multi-crew operations?

I see where you’re going, but no. Not for me, nor for the pilots beginning their careers. Management got themselves into this mess, now they’re going to have to pay their way out of it. And I don’t mean pay a politician in Hungary. They (ERA, RAA, A4A etc.) want it for all the wrong reasons. The law of unintended consequences is a real witch. Chinese style medical for all ? How about a nice taste of government required Angioplasty for everyone, just to make sure your heart’s in good shape ?

Then we have these sorts of issues. Ageism, incompetence or just slowing down; How do they decide ?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81195647/elderly-pilots-claim-air-new-zealand-shafted-them-over-airbus-training

parabellum
4th Jul 2018, 08:48
According to medics the critical ages bracket for heart attacks is in the region of 44 years to 58 years.

Rated De
7th Jul 2018, 07:46
Egzactly. Shot Out.



I see where you’re going, but no. Not for me, nor for the pilots beginning their careers. Management got themselves into this mess, now they’re going to have to pay their way out of it. And I don’t mean pay a politician in Hungary. They (ERA, RAA, A4A etc.) want it for all the wrong reasons. The law of unintended consequences is a real witch. Chinese style medical for all ? How about a nice taste of government required Angioplasty for everyone, just to make sure your heart’s in good shape ?

Then we have these sorts of issues. Ageism, incompetence or just slowing down; How do they decide ?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/81195647/elderly-pilots-claim-air-new-zealand-shafted-them-over-airbus-training




The genesis of the problem is demographic.

As successive governments ignored an aging population and impact on expenditures and declining revenue, so did airline management ignore it. They drove terms and conditions to the point that insufficient new pilots are willing to take the necessary investment for what is now on offer. Self defeating in the long term, but driven by short term bonus culture it was always someone else's problem.

The reason for retirement of airline pilots at a particular age approximating 60 was due cognitive decline.
Whilst not evident in all pilots at the same time, 'on average' statistically it was correlated with an age profile.
This progressive decline was accelerated with circadian rhythm disturbance, digestive imbalance and many of the things pilots (and indeed Cabin crew) live with.
Whilst it is important to note that not all pilots deteriorate universally, many of the studies refuting the decline are done with older pilots EXERCISING private pilot licences and not those involved in Long Haul night operations.

Now airline management who have previously simply targeted limits to drive 'efficiency' aren't happy. Safe with their weekends off, nights in the own beds and Christmas with their families, they want more.


The regulators are being pressured to lift the retirement age again. Airlines want more from crew, not less.
Qantas CEO Joyce already virtue signaled the Australian regulator CASA to lift the limit for operating crew beyond the current 20 hours.
Interestingly and rather unsurprisingly, the studies undertaken for the long range flying being undertaken by the Qantas 787 did not include pilots and cabin crew.

Oriana
7th Jul 2018, 12:41
the inescapable fact remains, beyond the 60’s the odds of heart attack, stroke and other serious issues increase very steeply.

In Australia you can fly beyond 65 years (domestic) as long as you meet the (more) stringent medical requirements.

We don't seem to have many 'older' guys dieing or being incapacitated in flight.

If you want older pilots to GTF out of flying so you can take their place, well, that's quite selfish. Those guys earnt their stripes, and their experience.

ShyTorque
7th Jul 2018, 16:08
If the UK government lowered the State pension age, instead of steadily increasing it as they have been doing, it would put a few more pilots "in the bracket" and they might take the option to hang up the headset that one last time.

Fareastdriver
8th Jul 2018, 08:20
Chinese style medical for all ?

I obtained my first Class One CAAC medical at the age of 66. I renewed it again that year and again three times after that. When my contract finally expired when I was 68 I still had a Class One medical certificate.

captplaystation
12th Sep 2018, 12:16
That being the case, why do the Chinese have such restrictive hiring criteria age-wise. . . . . . . . and also, what happened to the post from button push ignored claiming that something was about to be imminently rubber-stamped, that all went a bit quiet , along with his post .

NoelEvans
14th Sep 2018, 11:24
In Australia you can fly beyond 65 years (domestic) as long as you meet the (more) stringent medical requirements.

We don't seem to have many 'older' guys dieing or being incapacitated in flight.

If you want older pilots to GTF out of flying so you can take their place, well, that's quite selfish. Those guys earnt their stripes, and their experience.

All the in-flight incapacitations that I have heard about for quite some time have involved pilots much younger than 60!

Regarding those selfish younger pilots who just want the 'older pilots' out of the way, with the increasing pilot shortage that argument is very much part of the past and one would expect younger pilots to have the 'situational awareness' to be able to see that! (However, I suppose that that sort of selfishness does somewhat blinker their thinking. Maybe that might explain why many of them are still 'SFOs'!)