Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement [Archive]

Magplug

9th Jul 2018, 09:39

From the London Times: Here (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0af71d86-82ed-11e8-b7ab-42d55e61ad8f)

An airline captain who has been flying for more than 40 years has begun a legal challenge to rules that force commercial pilots to fold their wings for good once they reach 65. Wayne Bayley, who was the first to fly the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner from the UK to Barbados, was forced to retire from TUI Airways last January after clocking up nearly 26,000 flying hours.Captain Bayley’s lawyers are seeking a judicial review of Civil Aviation Authority rules stipulating that UK-registered pilots must retire at 65. Australia and Canada have no upper limit. The legal team will claim in the High Court that the enforced retirement age is arbitrary and constitutes age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. They say that advances in medical tests and sixtysomethings’ health mean that the rules are outdated. Under CAA rules pilots over 59 must be accompanied in the cockpit by another younger than 60. Simon Elcock, a partner at the law firm DMH Stallard, said that Captain Bayley accepted that there was a “legitimate public interest in safety in evaluating and mitigating the risks of pilot incapacitation in commercial flying” but believed that they were “mitigated by the requirement of having another pilot on the flight deck under 60 and medical examinations”.He added: “Having a blanket ban on commercial pilots flying from their 65th birthday seems arbitrary as it does not take into account the health and fitness of the individual pilot or developments in medical science.” Captain Bayley joined British Island Airways in 1976 and flew 50-seater turboprop flights before moving to Air Europe, where he flew his first jet airliner and piloted transatlantic flights and routes to Asia. He joined TUI in 2000. He aims to fly on into his seventies. “There are pilots flying at that age in Australia,” he said. “Modern flying is not a hair-raising profession.” He did admit that he had been struck by lightning three times in one flight, however.His legal team said that he had passed all his medical and competency examinations — including one just before his last birthday — at an above average level.The CAA declined to comment while legal proceedings were continuing.

Ancient Observer

9th Jul 2018, 12:33

This issue is largely, (but not entirely) based on Statistics. Again, largely, based on Heart attack type issues. Generally, the risk of a health issue such as a heart attack, increase with age.
The airlines have always preferred the certainty given by a set age. If this goes forward as a case, the law will probably change, and the airlines will have to start assessing individuals more closely.
All commercial pilots should then expect even more scrutiny about their health for license renewal.
Some 60 year olds will lose their license. Some 69 year olds will keep theirs.
Such is life. Lots more work for the medics at the Belgrano.

Icarus2001

9th Jul 2018, 13:56

The airlines have always preferred the certainty given by a set age. If this goes forward as a case, the law will probably change, and the airlines will have to start assessing individuals more closely.]

Read it again, here in Australia "the airlines" will let us fly as long as we hold the medical. I know of jet and turboprop pilots in their seventies.

Why would the airlines need to assess anything? The CAA issue the medical not the airline.

If it is all about statistics then where is the evidence? The deadly fifties is rife with heart attacks but those who live through to mid sixties seem to fare better.

The guys I speak with just find the sim checks and unsociable hours wear them down.

This will force CAA medical to defend an arbitrary age cut off, if they can show the numbers, fine but I sense they cannot, otherwise Australia, Canada etc would follow the same logic.

BizJetJock

9th Jul 2018, 14:27

The CAA will make no effort to defend the actual age. They will simply point out that at present it is an EASA regulation, so outside their control. Even if we leave EASA next year and they reviewed it, any change would be (like the Australian rule mentioned above) only valid in the UK since the age limit is an ICAO standard. I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights, so not much opportunity for jobs even if that happened.
So basically he's just wasting everyone's time. It probably says most about his lawyers that they haven't told him that and are happy to take his money.

Elephant and Castle

9th Jul 2018, 16:44

Go home guys and play some golf. We do not need to increase the retirement age, give me a break! what is wrong with people? do you really not have a life?

swh

9th Jul 2018, 17:03

Read it again, here in Australia "the airlines" will let us fly as long as we hold the medical. I know of jet and turboprop pilots in their seventies.

I thought Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a few others had no limit on domestic flying, international it remains at 65.

65 comes from ICAO not the CAA, so is the ability for a state to have pilots flying beyond 65 within their own state.

tescoapp

9th Jul 2018, 17:17

I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights

Loganair and possibly Eastern with restricted routes.

In both cases it would flying turboprops in pretty horrendous wx.

70 years old flying into Sum in the middle of winter 3-5 times a week. Sod that for a wind down end of career job.

6f1

9th Jul 2018, 17:25

Some pilots love flying,and don't want to retire!

tescoapp

9th Jul 2018, 17:31

I think I would go for meat bombing, glider tugging or instructing than fly into Sum on a normal day.

er340790

9th Jul 2018, 18:32

I regularly fly with an ex RAF / EAA / multi-airline ATPL / Biz Jet and seaplane instructor who is 87 and who flies (aha) through his medical every year.

Without doubt, he has forgotten more about aviation than many professional pilots will ever know.

65 is the new 50.

Journey Man

9th Jul 2018, 18:55

Surely fitness to fly and competency should be the two yardsticks by which flightcrew are measured?

I've flown with two gentleman who's capacity to operate deteriorated rapidly in the last few years leading up to 65. As long as the operator has robust enough proficiency check procedures in place, then this should not be an issue to retain some valuable experience. Raising the upper age limit is more suitable in scheduled commercial air transport than non-scheduled, because the simulator duopoly seem to have abrogated themselves of the responsibility of maintaining a sufficient standard across the industry in non-scheduled.

Old King Coal

9th Jul 2018, 18:57

Wayne's absolutely right, wherein the present enforced retirement age limit has been arbitrarily selected if only to coincide with the standard pension age of 65... which (from 2019) will increase to 66... and thereafter is set to increase still further. The CAA's position also relies heavily on 'statistical medicine' (and not individual medicine), which is something of a blunt scalpel when it comes to deciding peoples health.

Radgirl

9th Jul 2018, 19:09

As mentioned this is about the CAA, not the airlines and not the doctors (it wont effect the medical tests one iota).

Some years ago a helicopter pilot took the CAA to an industrial tribunal over being barred from single pilot operations at 60 (more an issue with rotary). The CAA accepted that the risk of incapacitation at 65 was then far far less than the risk of incapacitation at say 50 just a couple of decades before. Therefore raising the age to 65 or 70 etc would actually result in a still lower risk than we had had just a few years before. However, they won because they argued they could not afford to examine the evidence and were not obliged to change rules just because medicine moved on or pilots lived longer.

This is a really unacceptable situation, where an individual's career is cut short simply because of something that applied 30 years ago and where the regulator agrees there is an acceptably low risk and just cant be a@@@@@@@ to do their job ie set rules against facts. It is not the only example where the regulator runs against good medical advice.

I fully accept some want to retire before 65 or even earlier, but nothing will prevent this. It is about the freedom to choose. For others it is their livelihood and not uncommonly they need the extra years to provide financial security in retirement. For the newer generation paying their way through training and with years of low salaries this may be more important than we think.

richardthethird

9th Jul 2018, 19:45

Wayne needs to get a life. Who wants to fly with a boring old fart who has no interest in a life outside of work!

beachbumflyer

9th Jul 2018, 20:29

Some pilots love flying,and don't want to retire!

They love their salary even more!

Offchocks

9th Jul 2018, 20:57

I thought Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a few others had no limit on domestic flying, international it remains at 65.

Correct and I personally retired voluntarily at 63. I don’t have a problem with those that wish to continue working at 65 plus if they can pass their medicals etc., however I doubt there would be many that would.

ShotOne

9th Jul 2018, 20:58

Herod

9th Jul 2018, 21:17

70 years old flying into Sum in the middle of winter 3-5 times a week. Sod that for a wind down end of career job.

I was doing that at 30, and yes; sod that.

OvertHawk

9th Jul 2018, 21:46

Rad girl would you explain that? The probability of a serious health event such as heart attack or stroke is very much higher at 65 than 50, and the curve gets steeper still into the 70's This is not a matter of opinion; you seem to be disputing this basic fact of life.

Read her post properly.

She argued that the risk now at age 65 was less than the risk at age 50 had been a couple of decades ago but yet that was considered acceptable then. The point being that things have moved on in terms of lifestyle, fitness and medical oversight since the age limits were established yet the rules have not taken account of the changes.

I've flown with people on the cusp of forced retirement who are still razor sharp and light years ahead of some of the doddery old buffers who still have another five years to go and massively fitter than the obese 45 year old heart attack waiting for a place to happen that can hardly get into the aircraft and certainly could not get out in a hurry.

I've known a 50 year old drop dead two days after a class 1 medical. I've known a 60 year old diagnosed with advanced Alzheimers the month after he retired.

It should be about proper medical supervision that allows the people who are fit and wish to remain flying to do so and identifies those who are not fit and puts them on the ground.

The limit is arbitrary and therefore unfair and therefore discriminatory. But I don't believe for a second it's going to change any time soon.

Love PanAm

9th Jul 2018, 22:01

Applied for a single engine job in Papua: sorry sorry too old with 60. Can not do!
When I see the young pilots who can't even pass their medical in their 20's! they already struggle for a class 1 medical.
Then the airline pilots from the national airline, who are almost collapsing on the threadmill.
They will never make it to retirement.

The law is the law but the law is not right.
Hahhahahhahahah

G0ULI

9th Jul 2018, 22:38

Is there not a contradiction in the requirement to have a younger pilot in the cockpit if a mature pilot is in command of the aircraft? Ageism works both ways.

At the age of 65, perhaps it is time to leave commercial transport flights and perhaps return to training and passing on those hard earned survival skills to a younger generation. A quick survey through the last couple of decades worth of AAIB reports indicates that older pilots are involved in considerably more incidents than younger ones. That may well be due to many taking up flying as a hobby in retirement, but there is a clear correlation between age and accident rates. Much the same pattern can be observed in vehicular accidents around the world too.

A blanket cut off age seems to be the easiest way of trying to keep flying as safe as possible for passengers. It may not be fair to individuals and particularly those endowed with better than normal health, but it is a system that has worked well for decades.

I learned more flying a few hours instruction with a mature retired commercial pilot than I did flying tens of hours with a 22 year old hours builder. They could both fly the aircraft and instruct, but the mature instructor knew how to demonstrate finesse on the controls and when and where to push the aircraft to its limits. It isn't always about avoiding mistakes that can get you killed, it's dealing with the consequences and maintaining control of the aircraft to ensure a safe outcome. That is what maturity and experience brings to instructing.

CargoOne

9th Jul 2018, 23:03

Just make one rule: if you wish to continue after 65 you have to re-join seniority list and pay grade from the bottom. And then we see how many takers are there...

bzh

10th Jul 2018, 01:26

Retirement used to be a benefit, a privilege......where is this world going ? do those people realize there time is limited in this world, and they will not take the money out with them....
15 years to go but ready to retired...

currawong

10th Jul 2018, 05:03

The problem with risk based stats is that the stats are based on the general population, not the aircrew community.

Some of the general population are obese. Others ingest things they shouldn't. The list goes on.

Most of the aircrew community are in pretty good shape for their age.

AviatorDave

10th Jul 2018, 08:00

Is the man so tight on money that he needs to work beyond age 65, or is it just one of those guys who cannot let go?
There's plenty of other stuff to do in life.

richardthethird

10th Jul 2018, 08:25

I can't think of many 65 year old pilots who don't drink more than they should, don't have a pot belly, don't eat too much curry, etc...

Leaving it to, say, management to decide who gets the chop after 65 and who doesn't (based on performance) is going to be a horrible task. "Come on everybody, we're having a retirement party this week for the most recent pilot culled for no longer being able to fulfil his duties"! Therefore, leave the arbitrary retirement age as it is, is the best option for everyone. Even those who don't realise it, Wayne.

I'm only guessing, but those that need to work beyond 65 (or even 55, realistically) are probably those who played away on a night stop, knocked up some poor cabin crew lassie with questionable taste, and are now paying for an expensive divorce. The younger generation should not be paying for your foolishness!

ShotOne

10th Jul 2018, 08:25

Overthawk, even if that's true (?), if that's the explanation (perhaps radgirl might wish to clarify him/herself) then it's an entirely erroneous comparison. Why on Earth would we compare today's figures with those of twenty or more years ago? Sorry for letting medical reality intrude but the statistics are undeniable. Rates of Heart attack and stroke events for the age band 65-75 are much higher; almost double in fact, than for the decade up to age 65. Nor does the "If I pass my medical" line entirely hold up since only around a third of such events can be predicted.

Papa_Golf

10th Jul 2018, 09:05

While I might understand CP Wayne will to remain at the helm for few years more, as a 31 years old pilot I fear the possible outcome of his actions right now. I have no interest in working up to 65, flying 900+ hours per year thus retiring with approximately 35.000 hours. You want me to fly up to that age? Ok, but at a rate of MAXIMUM 500 hours a year.

How about an individual flying hours cap of, let's say, 20.000. Once you hit the mark you have to retire, enjoy living like a regular person, watch your offspring growing and so on. Enough with radiations, disrupted circadian cycles, insomnia etc etc...

Seriously Captain, use your energy for something else. Do not help the authorities to screw us even more.

roundwego

10th Jul 2018, 09:48

27/09

10th Jul 2018, 09:51

ShotOne

10th Jul 2018, 09:53

How does what you say on pensions, true or not, even come into it? Would we consider even for one second extending engine overhaul intervals or increase weather minima because an airline was short of money??

IcePack

10th Jul 2018, 09:55

Before any increase in compulsory retirement age for pilots is brought in. The medical & flight checking procedures need to be addressed. During my career I saw far too many “check in the box” passes of colleagues who were past it or in reality unfit. Funny how the individuals never saw it in themselves but just ask the First Officers who they were carrying.

Hotel Tango

10th Jul 2018, 09:59

richardthethird, wow what a piece of work you are! Oh, I see you're new here. Maybe you need to learn some manners!

Gordomac

10th Jul 2018, 10:09

Interesting to note that as a so-called professional group, already, remarkable personal attacks are emerging together with the odd humorous throw away line from the envious and immature. These distractions illustrating an alarming lack of ability to remain focused which is, in fact, a very basic requirement of the profession. Returning to the thread, of course Captain Bayley has a case. The cut-off is arbitrary and has no place. It was a ICAO move back in the early nineties ( I think). Local Regulatory Authorities were left to comply or stick with outdated policy. Most complied. I worked for a ME outfit who made a right mess of even understanding the new guideline. To be fair, they suffered a local labour law requirement for ALL expats to cease working at age 60. The company would have, as a first step, to change the local labour law in order to get the local CAA to comply with new ICAO ruling.

Me & other 59 year-olds watched with bated breath. We all reckoned that another 5 years, after age 60 would cream off a very nice experience. All neighbouring airlines went to 65 but my company just didn't get it and for a while, we went into one year contracts while the company continued to make it even more messy. In the end, they just sited local labour law & gave everyone the bullet.

Like Captain Bayley, I took up my case, got expensive lawyers involved but went head to head with some very dirty fighters & got booted out in, admittedly, one of the cleverest stitch ups of all time.

Of course there should be NO age-limit.Even more daft, MOLs and the like together with having to be crewed only with someone of a factored, lower age. The thought of the Captain being the last to board via a high loader gives a commercially impactful reason to think things through in a commercial world but I leave the follow-on one liners to those more inclined.

41c here chaps. Pass the JD & coke and I'm heading for my private pool for my bi-annual Base Check in the faithful Lidle's inflatable. You know, the one that looks like a BA B747. Maybe that's why Nigel keeps turning base, low over my villa in order to get a good look at us, forced out of our careers at very early ages. Good luck Wayne.

Papa_Golf

10th Jul 2018, 11:16

It seems from reading the posts on this thread most of the people opposed to older pilots being able to carry on flying are the younger ones. I wonder why? I also wonder what their point of view will be in 25 to 30 years time when they're in this age group.

Don’t know if you were referring to me but I want to make clear that I do not oppose older pilots keeping on flying tout court. In fact those are the ones I learn a lot from on a daily basis.

I love flying and I consider myself blessed to be able to get a good salary out of it. But I am not my job. In 25-30 I look forward to enjoy retirement.

65 sounds like a reasonable cut off age to me. There needs to be a defined rule: it cannot be left to Mr.AME to decide wether you can continue past 65.

roundwego

10th Jul 2018, 11:23

Some aircrafts parts are scrapped when they are “timex”, others are “on condition”. As long as there are GOOD inspection routines (OPC, medicals etc) there is no reason why pilots shouldn’t be “on condition”.

richardthethird

10th Jul 2018, 11:39

But can you guarantee that the TRE is going to have the balls to say “actually, mate - you’re past it”. If not, the system is flawed. Just like now, we have weak captains that continue in the LHS because “they’re alright” or, I presume, that’s easier than the alternative. If the retirement age goes, then I would favour a relocation to the RHS for those over 65.

Personally, I can’t wait for retirement. So yes, I am at total odds as to why anyone would wish to continue into their late 60s.

Chipzilla

10th Jul 2018, 11:43

The legal team will claim in the High Court that the enforced retirement age is arbitrary and constitutes age discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

Mandatory retirement at 65 was abolished a few years ago BUT, this does not apply where an age limit has been set by the State e.g. fire service, judiciary, army, police, air traffic control, etc

ShotOne

10th Jul 2018, 12:15

...or in cases like aviation where there is a demonstrable evidence-based objective reason for the limit.

Airbanda

10th Jul 2018, 13:25

...or in cases like aviation where there is a demonstrable evidence-based objective reason for the limit.

Is there an objective justification for the age limit? Something that made sense as a precautionary measure years ago may no longer make sense if we've now better understanding of cardiology etc and have how to diagnose changes.

Two fatal accidents I can think of where pilot's cardiac incapacitation was contributory or causal; Captain Key on Trident Papa India and the pilot of the Navajo that crashed shortly after departing Leeds in December 1974. Both well under 60.

The latter was single pilot operated.

Denti

10th Jul 2018, 13:32

...or in cases like aviation where there is a demonstrable evidence-based objective reason for the limit.

But that begs the question, is there any current up to date evidence that supports that? In aviation the resoundig answer was „No“ and then engines didn’t have to be replaced after 3000 hours and could continue on the wing for more than 10 times longer, if their condition was still good enough.

Sadly that court case will not affect the EU age limit, but that one is under review and will most likely increase at some point, which is actually a goos thing in my view.

Igundwane

10th Jul 2018, 13:50

An emotive subject indeed, pensions ultimately are not going to be worth what they were sold as, just a fact of life, and for those who have been either prudent or lucky enough with finances, then they'll have the choice of retiring early if they wish.

Others, like many have said would prefer to carry on working for longer, if they are fit and able, then there is no reason to. Taking any active fit person and grounding them (aviation or other) can have worse results, I know of an a/c engineer now in his 80's and still working a full week on engines, his knowledge is phenomenal as is his work, if he stopped, I wouldn't see him lasting long doing nothing at home.

So, why not take that vast pool of knowledge and hard won practical experience and keep using it ? Let the younger generation come up and take the left seat, but use the old timers in the right to pass on the wisdom that one day may come in very useful. Do it on a one year rolling contract, subject to all medicals etc, lower pay possibly, but good perks and benefits, and offer them the option that when it comes time to hang up the hat, if they want to carry on in a ground roll, ie training, then let them...

Paperwork, Procedures and Theory don't always beat age, wisdom and experience ...

ShyTorque

10th Jul 2018, 14:07

I'm only guessing, but those that need to work beyond 65 (or even 55, realistically) are probably those who played away on a night stop, knocked up some poor cabin crew lassie with questionable taste, and are now paying for an expensive divorce. The younger generation should not be paying for your foolishness!

It's a bad guess!

I'm still with my original wife, and we've been together forty five years now. Like it or not, life is a long term competition, despite what the lefties made later generations think at school on non-competitive sports days where every child must be a winner!

Once my pension pot is big enough (if ever), becomes available and I can afford to live on my savings without going to work, I will. I can't wait to make up for countless nights lost to detachments, overnight stops, long days, extremely short nights, missed meals, etc etc. Not to mention countless family occasions I've not been around for. As soon as I can, I'll happily sod off to tinker around in my garden and muck about mending old motorbikes.

Blame successive governments for moving the retirement goalposts by knocking the state pension back, one year for me but a ridiculous six years for my wife at a time of life when there is little to be done except carry on working or rob a bank. Unfortunately, the banks seem to be better at robbing us than vice versa.

Radgirl

10th Jul 2018, 14:17

Just to clarify as several have asked:

The CAA isnt there to keep pilots healthy or to treat them. It exists to minimise the risk of harm to the public, primarily from incapacitation. Thus whether a particular pathology will cost you your medical depends on the risk of incapacitation. The biggest risk in pilots with no known or identified issues is cardiovascular - a heart attack or a stroke. The CAA set down its own level of acceptability, accepting the risk is never zero as others have pointed out.

The risk of a 70 year old healthy pilot having a heart attack or stroke today is the same as the risk for a 50 year old colleague in the 1970s (dont quote me on exact ages and dates!!!). So if it was acceptable for the 50 year old to fly in 1970, it is acceptable for the 70 year old to fly today on a purely actuarial and scientific basis. Otherwise you are moving the goal posts.

I am always amazed, when this comes up, how many posters defend or support the status quo. I know Pprune isnt representative, but I can think of no other profession where turkeys vote for Christmas like this. Average life expectancy at 60 is possibly over 30 years and if you have flown all your working life and dont want to vegetate it is not that easy to see how such individuals will easily assimilate into society.

swh

10th Jul 2018, 14:45

The reasoning behind this, medical checks miss a lot of unhealthy people, so do operational checks.

https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2011/AVMED2011/Day01-06-ICAO-Evans.pdf

ShotOne

10th Jul 2018, 16:56

Rad girl.rather than explain your logic you've simply repeated yourself. In considering risk, we measure by present day comparitors not against some arbitrary point as you've done, in the 1970's. A 777 with one engine out is probably safer than a Vickers Vimy with two. By your bonkers logic it would be ok to dispatch single engine.

The fundamental point that you're point-blank refusing to address is that medical risk factors get much higher with age, especially above age 65; it's not an arbitrary point. If you lake the trouble to look at the report posted above by swh it explains this graphically.

Radgirl

10th Jul 2018, 20:41

Sorry Shotone, but this isnt about increasing risk, it is about whether the risk exceeds the arbitrary level previously set by the CAA. I agree it is arbitrary but the regulator had to set a statistical probability, just the same as they do eg for approving elevated helipad departures. We are not talking about taking off with one engine out as these pilots are fit - they have passed their medical. the analogy is the risk of an engine failing in flight..... just as ETOPS is determined by the probability of an engine failing, and I believe the ranges have increased with engine reliability, so the same applies to pilots

Interesting powerpoint SWH...to an extent. It shows actually that flying to 70 is OK, that the whole system of medicals is dubious and that decisions are taken by a show of hands in a committee room not by an analysis of the science.:ugh:

Skornogr4phy

10th Jul 2018, 22:03

Average life expectancy at 60 is possibly over 30 years and if you have flown all your working life and dont want to vegetate it is not that easy to see how such individuals will easily assimilate into society.

If after retiring, your only thought is that you'll vegetate, I can see why you don't want to retire. Upon my retirement I would like to spend my free time doing all those hobbies that I wish I had the free time for now!

megan

11th Jul 2018, 05:28

I am at total odds as to why anyone would wish to continue into their late 60s To those who recommend retire and get a life I ask to do what? Folks are motivated by a lot of things, if it is to continue flying so what? It may just be that they still get a hell of a kick out of it. One PPRuner has just ticked 86 years and still working as a 737 sim instructor, and why shouldn't he? Live your own life and stop telling others how they should live theirs. ;)

hunterboy

11th Jul 2018, 05:40

parabellum

11th Jul 2018, 07:47

Shot one Think you may be using overall population figures rather than aviation/pilots specific? Some time ago I read a study that showed that within the aviation world the age bracket of 44 to 58 was the high risk area.

Porto Pete

11th Jul 2018, 08:26

Thanks for the link SWH.

I was a proponent of letting people fly on if they were able to pass a medical. Rightly or wrongly retirement is very detrimental for a lot of pilots mental health and happiness. I've witnessed a few in the shrinks office. But some of the graphs in the slides are quite compelling.

ShotOne

11th Jul 2018, 08:37

How could one base a statistical case either way on pilot statistics when retirement age is 65? There is a huge body of evidence for over 65's. Nothing I've posted relies on my personal opinion.

"The report shows it's actually OK to fly to 70..". No it doesn't Radgirl, the report is very balanced but that's a total misrepresentation. In any case Mr Bailey isn't asking to raise to 70, but abolish the limit entirely. Presumably he feels the lower age limit is also discriminatory? Everyone's entitled to their opinion but in the end the one that matters will be that of the travelling public and whether they are prepared to accept a large increase in the number of pilots dying at the controls.

back to Boeing

11th Jul 2018, 08:46

Whilst there may be an argument for individuals to continue past a mandatory retirement age I do not for one second believe the medical and training assessment is capable of identifying those individuals.

Until the class one medicals are significantly better (and more tailored to the individual) and the individual training assessments are better than they are today there has to be an arbitrary cut off age.

We have all heard of pilots who've keeled over the day after a class one and we all know pilots that can put it on for the 2 days of a sim but would fall to pieces at 3am at 30 west whilst they've been half asleep.

Icarus2001

11th Jul 2018, 09:22

... entitled to their opinion but in the end the one that matters will be that of the travelling public and whether they are prepared to accept a large increase in the number of pilots dying at the controls.]

Can you prove that pilots dying at the controls will be the outcome?

The travelling public in Australia, Canada and I dare say other enlightened jurisdictions seem to have no issue with a lack of compulsory retirement at 65. I know of jet and turbo prop captains in their seventies.
I also cannot remember an incapacitation in Australia that was not food/gastro related.

The age limit is arbitrary, by definition and so should be challenged.

ManaAdaSystem

11th Jul 2018, 09:35

Last time we had this discussion, 411A was one of the strongest advocates for no age limit for pilots. He used himself as an example. Passed all medicals with flying colors. Flew his L-1011 like nobody else.
He died suddenly between flights. Luckily not while he was doing a cirling approach inside 2SM in ****ty weather.

I’m not one of the young ones. I’ve seen the goal post moved from 55 (early retirement) to 60, to 65.
In my world this has been done by small groups of pilots who want one thing. More money. Work while also getting your pension money. Or take your pension money from your old outfit and work for less for whatever company that wants you.
Norwegian, Air Atlanta, etc.
Money. Greed. And far worse than P2F. These guys lower the top pay in the industry.

aterpster

11th Jul 2018, 12:56

To those who recommend retire and get a life I ask to do what? Folks are motivated by a lot of things, if it is to continue flying so what? It may just be that they still get a hell of a kick out of it. One PPRuner has just ticked 86 years and still working as a 737 sim instructor, and why shouldn't he? Live your own life and stop telling others how they should live theirs. ;)
Sim instructor, no problem. As PIC of the real thing with me as a paying passenger, real problem for me. I'm 81 and wouldn't want to be a air carrier pilot at this point in my life.

Papa_Golf

11th Jul 2018, 13:02

To all those stating that they wouldn’t want to be flying 800+ hours a year at age 65+, why wouldn’t you work part time?
I foresee some kind of compromise coming at some point. Whether it will reach U.K shores after Brexit is another matter.That's sort of my plan: being able to go part time in my 40's, hopefully doing sim instruction too (IF I'll be good enough) and meanwhile spoiling my grandchildren.Again, flying over 65 (even 55) is a big no for me.

Denti

11th Jul 2018, 16:55

That's sort of my plan: being able to go part time in my 40's, hopefully doing sim instruction too (IF I'll be good enough) and meanwhile spoiling my grandchildren.Again, flying over 65 (even 55) is a big no for me.

Good luck with that. And you might be in a job that allows that, however many are not. After several bankruptcies, mergers and lay offs they are happy if they can work a bit longer until they can retire at a time of their own choosing and in the fashion they like. For some that will be the failed sim check or medical, for others upon reaching the state pension age. But it should be possible, like in Canada or Oz, to continue beyond an arbitrary set age.

The pilots i know that keeled suddenly over and either died or ended up as a vegetable in a bed in a somewhere, where all in their late 30ies or early 40ies, or retired for a few years with apparently not enough to do. Usually while base jumping or stuff like that in the case of the old geezers.

A and C

11th Jul 2018, 17:16

Heading up to retirement myself and I just can’t wait to get away from the airline environment of pilot de-skilling and over reliance on automation in the name of illusionary safety.

I have no intention of giving up flying and intend to do a bit of ferry flying and some basic instruction but all without the 3 AM starts !

dook

11th Jul 2018, 18:07

Trossie

12th Jul 2018, 06:48

Just make one rule: if you wish to continue after 65 you have to re-join seniority list and pay grade from the bottom. And then we see how many takers are there...
Could you explain to many pilots who might read this what a 'seniority list' or a 'pay grade' is? Some of the old-fashioned airlines had something like that, didn't they? (Some still might have.) Many modern pilots wouldn't know what those two concepts are. So what place would they have in this discussion?

Could someone give some information about how 'unsafe' the travelling public in Australia, New Zealand and Canada feel due to the fact that they might have 'old' pilots flying them?

parabellum

12th Jul 2018, 07:00

BGQ

15th Jul 2018, 00:14

The reasoning behind this, medical checks miss a lot of unhealthy people, so do operational checks.

https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2011/AVMED2011/Day01-06-ICAO-Evans.pdf
Dr Evan's has updated that missive and is now advocating no age limit with performance based checks

BGQ

15th Jul 2018, 00:20

I agree pilots who want to increase the maximum age for a pilot to be allowed to fly generally are doing it for money. When two airlines have gone bust underneath you, periods of unemployment to overcome, eventually getting a start again, RHS, only to be back on the streets within a few years, two pension funds badly depleted, most of your savings gone just to pay the mortgage and reaching ones late forties with all retirement hopes and dreams shattered then yes, I do agree that money is a major motivator to raise the arbitrarily imposed retirement age.

Of course they are doing it for the money but there are often additional reasons as well. Would you deny that younger pilots who want to deny them staying on are also doing it for the money? Based on the FACT that older pilots staying on in Canada Australia New Zealand Japan have had no increased "incident rate" would indicate there is no medical justification for the restriction means the restriction is purely discrimination on the basis of age.

Juan Tugoh

15th Jul 2018, 08:04

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2018, 08:17

A PPRuNe'r tried this in court a few years ago. He wasn't successful.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/271515-uk-pilot-takes-caa-court-age-discrimination.html

BGQ

15th Jul 2018, 10:28

This has already been ruled on by the UK Supreme Court https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lawyer-loses-retirement-age-appeal-7678309.html

Case Law already ruled on with a precedent set, I suspect this guy will not win and just cost himself a lot of money.
Not necessarily, I imagine he and his legal team are aware of all the legal precedents and will be going to court with a different argument and or a new set of facts .

BGQ

15th Jul 2018, 10:37

Juan Tugoh

15th Jul 2018, 10:54

As an older pilot who has seen the age limit go up to 65 during my career and observing the attitude of the younger pilots on this forum .... It is inevitable the age limit will go up again, if not totally removed, during your career... plan for it. You should also not assume more sh#t will not happen to you. Companies collapse, economies fail, families have problems. Deal with it and move on or become bitter and screw up your life.

Sure stuff changes. The more you seek legal challenges to established practice on discrimination grounds the more ALL customs and practice can be challenged. Seniority is de facto discriminatory - you simply cannot have 30 years seniority and be under 48 or so. So having the benefits of 30 years seniority is discriminatory for all under the age of 48 or so, no youngster can achieve those benefits, you can try to call it a reward for service, but, as it is a lifestyle thing rather than a salary thing. Losing seniority based bidding etc would change the equation for all the wrinklies trying to stay with their noses in the trough. So change the retirement age, all can change, making it worse for everyone. I hope this greedy chancer loses his selfish and self centred attempt to screw over the future of us all for his 30 pieces of silver.

flyboyike

15th Jul 2018, 12:08

They love their salary even more!

Indeed. There is a reason why you never hear of, say, a Twin Otter pilot suing to keep working. It's always some gummer in a widebody...

flyboyike

15th Jul 2018, 12:10

I agree pilots who want to increase the maximum age for a pilot to be allowed to fly generally are doing it for money.

A few of them even have the intergrity to admit it, much to their credit.

ShyTorque

15th Jul 2018, 12:59

Youngsters should consider themselves financially well off in other ways. My first house was purchased when the mortgage interest rate jumped from 9.5% to 15% in just a few weeks. For many like me there was no spare money to invest for the future and we lived below the breadline for years afterwards. What was invested has since lost ground very severely and I'm still playing catchup.

Uplinker

15th Jul 2018, 13:00

Go home guys and play some golf. We do not need to increase the retirement age, give me a break! what is wrong with people? do you really not have a life?

This and comments about keeping one’s nose in the trough point to some surprising jealousy in our profession. Who are we to judge how much somebody ‘needs’ to earn?

Would we say the same about, say, musicians? “Please Mr McCartney and Mr Clapton, stop insisting on playing your instrument that you spent 40 years perfecting. Leave the music to the young ones and go and grow tomatoes”? (Music is not normally life threatening of course, apart from some other bands I could mention .........)

Owing to the seniority system that exists in most airlines, the young ones are held away from the LHS until the old ones retire. So the young ones want the old ones out as soon as possible so that they - the young ones - can earn more money. (Who is being mercenary or selfish there?). But the older person was there first - why shouldn’t s/he continue? “They are not fit enough” comes the reply. Many of them are indeed unfit - they eat a bad diet, are obese or morbidly obese and never do any exercise. But what about the ones that do keep themselves fit - why shouldn’t they carry on if they want to? Medical and SIM tests might have to adapt to check health and mental faculties more thoroughly, but that is not beyond the wit of man.

Governments tell the general public that they cannot retire at 65 any more - they will have to work for longer. Yet, in the airline profession, where we are scruitinised very carefully once or twice a year both for our performance AND our medical condition, there remains this culture of ‘retire early’.

You can’t have it both ways.

olster

15th Jul 2018, 13:14

Unfortunately due to the nature of this industry and associated ego issues, the jealousy is actually unsurprising and some of the comments here are unworthy of apparent professionals. Personally, I think that the antipodeans etc are absolutely correct in that medical fitness and competence should be the sole arbiters of continued pilot careers. In an era when anything that ends in - ist causes outrage in the permanently offended but ageist appears not to be in the lexicon.

arketip

15th Jul 2018, 14:04

flyboyike

15th Jul 2018, 14:38

How did the "old" one got in that position? Maybe because the one before them retired at the mandatory age?
Why did not the old one fight to raise or eliminate the retirement age when they were sitting on the right seat?

Good question.

slip and turn

15th Jul 2018, 15:18

Owing to the seniority system that exists in most airlines, the young ones are held away from the LHS until the old ones retire. So the young ones want the old ones out as soon as possible so that they - the young ones - can earn more money. (Who is being mercenary or selfish there?). But the older person was there first - why shouldn’t s/he continue?How did the "old" one got in that position? Maybe because the one before them retired at the mandatory age?
Why did not the old one fight to raise or eliminate the retirement age when they were sitting on the right seat?Good question.
Erm Pardon? ... Read it all again. The old one surely had other struggles and priorities getting into and keeping the RHS, let alone progressing through ups and downs of the industry, and unless from down under, might have certainly been part of a less enlightened society! It surely also begs the real question about why exactly - when we as a society are far more aware of what can be done against deliberate unlawful discrimination - that the current young ones aren't arguing to uphold the law, or to support the old one in upholding it. Frankly, none of it is pretty to behold from pros who are otherwise supposed to follow law and rules to the letter :=

Maybe you know better than both the elders and the lawmakers? You shouldn't be afraid of questioning the judgement of the former sat in a LHS, but the latter? That's not something I would think would normally be seen as a good quality in a professional pilot at any rate!

As others have indicated, the Australians got past this nonsense years ago. Why are so many of the rest intent on remaining so Neanderthal about it?

Tandemrotor

15th Jul 2018, 16:36

It surely also begs the real question about why exactly - when we as a society are far more aware of what can be done against deliberate unlawful discrimination - that the current young ones aren't arguing to uphold the law, or to support the old one in upholding it.
A point of information if I may?

Specifying a retirement age for pilots, of 65 years. Is of course “discrimination”, and unarguably “deliberate”. However what it most definitely (currently) is NOT, is “unlawful”!

Indeed, quite the opposite is true. There are various protected characteristics. Only one of which is age. However, unlike all other protected characteristics, discrimination on the basis of age, most definitely CAN be legal. This is because certain Objective Justifications can be used to back up such things as compulsory retirement ages for certain professions. By all means research this if you are interested.

However, back to the above quote. It is actually the “current young ones” who ARE arguing to uphold the law. It is actually “the old one” seeking to change it. Having of course benefitted from the previous compulsory retirement of all his/her elders!

Which makes this quote rather interesting?
Maybe you know better than both the elders and the lawmakers. You shouldn't be afraid of questioning the judgement of the former sat in a LHS, but the latter? That's not something I would think would normally be seen as a good quality in a professional pilot at any rate!
I couldn’t agree more!

Trossie

15th Jul 2018, 16:48

slip and turn

15th Jul 2018, 17:00

A point of information if I may?

Specifying a retirement age for pilots, of 65 years. Is of course “discrimination”, and unarguably “deliberate”. However what it most definitely (currently) is NOT, is “unlawful”!

Indeed, quite the opposite is true. There are various protected characteristics. Only one of which is age. However, unlike all other protected characteristics, discrimination on the basis of age, most definitely CAN be legal. This is because certain Objective Justifications can be used to back up such things as compulsory retirement ages for certain professions. By all means research this if you are interested.

However, back to the above quote. It is actually the “current young ones” who ARE arguing to uphold the law. It is actually “the old one” seeking to change it. Having of course benefitted from the previous compulsory retirement of all his/her elders!

Which makes this quote rather interesting?

I couldn’t agree more!

In your "research" you've picked up totally the wrong end of all the sticks, I'm afraid! The unlawful age discrimination thing was done to death in the ATC forum years ago (at least as far as UK law was concerned). It is no different in the pilot age case. It has yet to be fully demonstrated (via test cases) that the current discrimination is lawful. In the ATC case the opposite was shown i.e. that discrimination against older ATC candidates was unlawful, and most tellingly, there was no appeal.

Herod

15th Jul 2018, 18:30

Trossie,

A seniority system is a list of pilots, usually based on the date they joined the company. An argument for it is that it is difficult to pick a pilot for promotion to a bigger aircraft, command etc. any other way, since all pilots theoretically posses the same skills. It can also govern such things as bids for routes, days off etc. My old company used to have a separate list for Captains and First Officers. A F.O. on promotion would join the bottom of the Captain's list. It had the advantage that crewing for the less popular types (generally turboprops) was easier, since it was worth a few years on that type in order to be on the list. Once it was abandoned, many F.O.s stayed in the RHS until senior enough to move directly to the LHS of a jet. Conversely, in the event of redundancies, it was also of course an ideal "last in, first out" list.

Generally, airlines like the system (or at least did when I was active) since it helps retain pilots. The move to the bottom of another company's list isn't so attractive.

I'm sure things have changed in the years since i left the business, with the growth of the LoCos, P2F etc, but the basic principle is here. Current pilots, please update this.

B744IRE

15th Jul 2018, 18:54

Many of us will not have a decent pension (Monarch etc) and after divorces and school fees will need to keep working.Others, like myself, just enjoy the flying and see no reason why we shouldn’t keep going if we are capable and fit.The CAA insist on a stress ECG at age 65 and every 4 years after that...my BP is 120/70 and my rate is 65%...so physically I am OK and in my prime at 66 flying for an SPO operation and loving it. My uncle worked as a dentist until 80+ in Australia. In my latter years as a B747 Management Training Captain I often stepped in to ferry aircraft or act as a Cruise Pilot so I see no reason why over 65 year old pilots cannot perform similar functions without any risk to the travelling public. I tried retirement for 6 weeks...it sucks!

beamer

15th Jul 2018, 20:01

Bailed out at 62 and don't miss flying one iota despite 21k hours mil/civ. Couple of flights in light aircraft and a few glider launches have not re-ignited any urges to do more. I had a good innings with more than a few ups and downs but in the words of the late Ayrton Senna, the time came to 'stop, walk away and let it be'.

I know Wayne, albeit not well, but I wonder why he did not start this crusade a long time ago. Not so sure he would be so keen if he was flying into Turkey and Greece in the early hours but then he has been a longhaul baron for a very long time. One wonders how an extension to, say seventy, will go down with the younger generations of pilots. The current limit of 65 has been around for quite some time giving most ample opportunity to sort out their lives accordingly. That being said, I do understand the implications of airlines going bust allied to multi-marriages and second/third famillies. Equally a previous post said retirement sucks and I can quite understand that point of view; its not easy, even if you prepared for it by going part-time.

flyboyike

15th Jul 2018, 20:29

This is part of why I don't particularly want to live much past 65, let alone work. Seems like odds are I'll either be an obstacle, a burden, or a meal ticket. None of the above sounds very enticing...

ShotOne

15th Jul 2018, 20:56

"...in my prime at 66" Congratulations on being in better shape than many your age, 744 but sorryto say that doesn't mean you're in your prime. The brutal fact is you are many times more likely to suffer medical incapacitation now than when you were actually in your prime. And no, your 80+ dentist uncle didn't have hundreds of passengers sat behind him. Beamer. Wayne isn't asking for an extension to 70 but total abolition. No mention of any mitigation or additional medical checks.

parabellum

15th Jul 2018, 21:34

We have been here before ShotOne. The “brutal fact” as you put it, from the information I have read, is that, for pilots the Critical period is from the age of 44 to 58. With a BP of 120 over 70 744 would appear to be in excellent health.

BGQ

15th Jul 2018, 22:12

Juan Tugoh

In aviation I haven't seen a seniority system based on age. They are mostly based on length of employment. There are plenty of pilots younger than me in my airline.
Good luck with that argument !

BGQ

15th Jul 2018, 22:18

A few of them even have the intergrity to admit it, much to their credit.
Parabellum and Flyboylike

Yes absolutely and that is the same reason you guys want older pilots to leave .... for the jobs that bring the money. Are you prepared to admit that?

svhar

15th Jul 2018, 22:25

There are lots of limits, you can buy alcohol at a certain age, get married at a certain age, drive a car at a certain age, fly an aeroplane at a certain age until a certain age. Why challenge all this? You know better than the legislator?

flyboyike

15th Jul 2018, 22:45

Parabellum and Flyboylike

Yes absolutely and that is the same reason you guys want older pilots to leave .... for the jobs that bring the money. Are you prepared to admit that?

I HAVE admitted that, more than once, too. I fully admit that I'm selfish, I just don't understand why Capt Metzuselah's selfishness is somehow purer and better than mine, considering that said Capt Metzuselah couldn't wait until the gummers of HIS time got out of the way.

aterpster

16th Jul 2018, 00:15

I have asked before: could somebody explain what a 'seniority system' is? There are many, many pilots who are not on any such system.

But please someone, explain what a seniority system is?
I can only speak to the U.S., where the Railway Labor Act governs U.S. airline pilots if they have a labor union. If so, the seniority system is established by law.

BGQ

16th Jul 2018, 01:15

I HAVE admitted that, more than once, too. I fully admit that I'm selfish, I just don't understand why Capt Metzuselah's selfishness is somehow purer and better than mine, considering that said Capt Metzuselah couldn't wait until the gummers of HIS time got out of the way.

Isn't the point that nobody's selfishness is superior or worse than any others so why the heck are most younger pilots banging on about the older pilots being selfish?

Should the debate just be about whether or not the current age limit is justified and or discriminatory without all the emotive crap largely but not exclusively coming from younger pilots?

hans brinker

16th Jul 2018, 01:30

I have asked before: could somebody explain what a 'seniority system' is? There are many, many pilots who are not on any such system.

If I do some simple sums, it appears to me that if the odd captain doesn't retire at 65 and delays the odd first-officer/co-pilot from a promotion, that new captain, when he gets his promotion, will have the new advantage of being able to continue working longer himself and thus enjoying a very similar number of years as captain as he would have enjoyed under the old enforced retirement age. So where is the problem? In other words, being able to retire later is not only a benefit to old pilots but to ALL pilots!! (As they will all become old themselves one day.)

Also, there are endless predictions of growth in the airline industry, so surely that will create promotion opportunities for all those 'hard done by' junior pilots who are complaining about this causing them to lose promotion opportunities. It appears that with all those youngsters having the opportunities of growing airlines and increased life/job expectancy themselves that they do complain a bit much.

But please someone, explain what a seniority system is?

When I got hired I there were about 700 active pilots in the company, so I am 700 on the seniority list. We have 7 bases, so after training my whole class bid on which base we wanted to go (as everyone in the class has the same Date Of Hire (DOH), seniority in class was based on age. It took me a few months of new hire classes coming in behind me before I could transfer to the base I wanted. At the beginning of every month the company publishes schedules for the next month. All pilots bid on these schedules and they are awarded on seniority, so the most senior pilot in every base and seat gets his first choice, second one gets at worst second choice, and so all the way down until the most junior guy gets the leftover schedule (probably reserve, working every weekend). There is a system in place for trading/dropping/adding trips to your schedule, most companies this will be seniority based. Every October the company publishes a list of available vacation weeks, and these are bid on and awarded by seniority. As the company grows and people above you retire you get closer to upgrade, because upgrading is not based on merit, and there are no DECs. For me that happened after 3 years when I was pilot 650 (50 pilots above me had left) and the total group had grown to 1000 pilots. More than half the group was still above me, but there is always people who bypass upgrade, because the moment you take it you go from being one of the most senior FOs to being the most junior captain, with the loss of seniority for bidding schedules and vacation. Luckily the company has kept growing and I am now halfway up in my base as a captain, even though I am 600 out of 2000, because I work in a junior base. Everything in my life depends on achieving seniority within the company.
Having explained all that, this is what happened when they raised the retirement age from 60 to 65 in the USA. For 5 years nobody retired and because of the economy nobody got hired, so for 5 years the new hire was at the bottom of the list, and the most senior captain, instead of retiring, stayed at the top for 5 more years. Yes, the new guy will eventually get to the top of the list as well, provided he wasn't an older guy when he got hired, but he will never sit at the top for 5 years, for him the extra 5 years were spent at the bottom of the list, at the lowest pay grade, working reserve and never getting vacation on xmas or in the summer when his kids are off. The simple sum for him works out to career earning that are over a million USD less than the senior guy, plus a lot less QOL, not something you should gloss over....
I was hired when they finally started hiring after 5 years of being stuck in a going nowhere job because of the retirement age change, at age 45, (and will never get in the top 10%), so I hardly qualify as a complaining youngster.

ShotOne

16th Jul 2018, 07:33

“We have been here before...” No, no, and no parabellum. “ Of course total statistics for pilots over 65 having heart attacks are low because there are so few in that age bracket . By your nonsense logic employing only 100 year-old pilots would improve safety since no pilots in that bracket have ever had a heart attack.

Trossie

16th Jul 2018, 07:38

Thank you to everyone who has explained 'seniority systems/lists'.

In the UK in any job to be chosen for redundancy purely on 'last in first out' would be illegal. So these 'lists' would be of no use there.

From my understanding, many new airlines in the UK do not use such systems/lists.

From my understanding of what has been described about those systems/lists, it appears that the younger folk with kids will never get summer holiday leave as the older folk would have snapped it all up.

In that system, if Smith and Jones are both based at base ABC, Smith really doesn't want to be there and applies to move to base DEF, while Jones is quite content there. People don't leave DEF so it takes a long time for vacancies to come up, but after a long time Smith sees his opportunities of moving coming only one or two vacancies away. Then Jones suddenly decides that he would like to move to DEF and applies, because he is 'senior' on that system/list he 'trumps' Smith and gets the move. Things then stagnate and it takes another year before Smith can get his move. Is that fair?

Also, if Smith who is a highly experienced pilot joins the week after Jones who is straight out of flying school, Jones would be 'senior' to Smith. Smith 'ticks all the boxes' in every one of his checks and meets all the criteria for promotion very early in his career there. Jones is rather weak, only just making the grades but gradually improves and takes a long time to meet the criteria for promotion. Because the economy has been stagnant (or something like that) it takes a long time for promotion opportunities to come up. Smith has met all the criteria and has just been waiting for the vacancy to arise, Jones finally manages to 'get his act together' and meets the criteria as a vacancy arises. Jones is 'senior' to Smith therefore gets the promotion. As things are stagnant it takes another year for a vacancy for Smith to get promotion. Is that fair?

The only case where I have seen that any such 'seniority' system has had 'merits' is where it accidentally put the one who should have had the position (if it had been based on merit) in charge, and that was when Lt Chard took command as he was 'senior' to Lt Bromhead.

I understand that in the old sailing ship days in the Royal Navy, everything revolved around the 'Navy List' (even to which ship would have priority as her captain was higher up the List than the captain of another ship.)

However, this topic is not about such old fashioned practices. It is about a retirement age. It is illegal to discriminate in the UK based on 'old' age. Why should there be an age where someone is forced to retire?

Let us use another couple of examples:

The enforced retirement age is scrapped and on average pilots elect to continue to work for another 3 years before retiring. When this first happens, that will put back promotion opportunities for younger pilots by about 3 years (assuming that the airline is not growing). But then those younger pilots have every opportunity to recoup that 'loss' by working 3 years longer themselves, or even longer if they wish. So overall they have not lost out in any way. Then of course, once the new way of doing things is settled in, everyone will be in much the same position as now, just 'moved on a bit'.

Now let us assume that the enforced retirement age has not been scrapped and some mentally deranged idiot manages to hijack an aeroplane and crash it into a big building (or some extreme situation like that). This puts the airline industry back 4 years and promotion opportunities for the younger pilots take 4 years longer. That younger pilot, once he has his promotion, has no opportunity to recoup his losses as there is an enforced retirement age that he is going to bang his head against.

Anyone who is fit, healthy and competent (and you guys all get checked very regularly, don't you?) should be able to continue doing the job that he is capable, competent and qualified to do. And none of those greedy 'whippersnappers' should be trying to push him out of the way because they greedily want his job.

This quote sums this all up:

...
As others have indicated, the Australians got past this nonsense years ago. Why are so many of the rest intent on remaining so Neanderthal about it?

Now let me finish by repeating a question that I asked earlier:
What evidence is there that passengers in Australia might feel less safe because their pilot might be 'old'?

flyboyike

16th Jul 2018, 08:29

Isn't the point that nobody's selfishness is superior or worse than any others so why the heck are most younger pilots banging on about the older pilots being selfish?

That SHOULD be the point, but doesn't seem to be. For one thing, it's not the younger pilots running to judges "banging on" about discrimination. Older pilots who are not in cream puff positions aren't crying about it either. It's only those with really sweet gigs who won't go without kicking and screaming...

2unlimited

16th Jul 2018, 08:38

Trossie
"The enforced retirement age is scrapped and on average pilots elect to continue to work for another 3 years before retiring. When this first happens, that will put back promotion opportunities for younger pilots by about 3 years (assuming that the airline is not growing). But then those younger pilots have every opportunity to recoup that 'loss' by working 3 years longer themselves, or even longer if they wish. So overall they have not lost out in any way. Then of course, once the new way of doing things is settled in, everyone will be in much the same position as now, just 'moved on a bit'."

This part is not entirely correct. There is fairly fresh example of this from SAS few years back, when the retirement age went from 60 to 65. There was nearly a civil war inside the company, as people had already been waiting 15 years or more for their upgrade.
Furthermore it stopped new recruitment for several years, as the company did suddenly not need to employ new pilots. Loads of guys on special sponsored cadet schemes and self sponsored schemes got canned, no longer required.
There was such big issues within the company that union had to get involved, how inside "bullying" against senior crew who decided to not retire for another 5 years, keeping their top salaries and pension pay, while FO's had to wait another 5 years at least for their promotion. Including the domino effect of no new recruitment for many years.

BGQ

16th Jul 2018, 09:12

That SHOULD be the point, but doesn't seem to be. For one thing, it's not the younger pilots running to judges "banging on" about discrimination. Older pilots who are not in cream puff positions aren't crying about it either. It's only those with really sweet gigs who won't go without kicking and screaming...

jeez flyboylike. You get the point and immediately revert to emotive BS that contributes nothing to the debate you agreed "should be the point".....

ManaAdaSystem

16th Jul 2018, 09:34

jeez flyboylike. You get the point and immediately revert to emotive BS that contributes nothing to the debate you agreed "should be the point".....

Every single pilot I have met who was pushing for a higher age limit (65 in that case), fell into category Flyboyike described.

BGQ

16th Jul 2018, 09:36

[QUOTE=Tandemrotor;10197342]
A point of information if I may?

Specifying a retirement age for pilots, of 65 years. Is of course “discrimination”, and unarguably “deliberate”. However what it most definitely (currently) is NOT, is “unlawful”!

Indeed, quite the opposite is true. There are various protected characteristics. Only one of which is age. However, unlike all other protected characteristics, discrimination on the basis of age, most definitely CAN be legal. This is because certain Objective Justifications can be used to back up such things as compulsory retirement ages for certain professions. By all means research this if you are interested.

However, back to the above quote. It is actually the “current young ones” who ARE arguing to uphold the law. It is actually “the old one” seeking to change it. Having of course benefitted from the previous compulsory retirement of all his/her elders!

Not necessarily. ..it would appear the legal challenge in this case is about what you describe as "objective justifications". If one is being objective,in this case, evidence from Chile New Zealand Australia Canada Japan and a few other countries show that there is no increase in incidents or accidents by "Professional Airline Pilots" over 65 in those countries. Studies done in the US measuring general aviation pilots up to the age of 79 which tested landing or not decisions in low vis in simulators confirms what we all "know" to be true .... that performance deteriorates with increasing age. The results were not uniform of course. There were very old pilots still making good decisions and younger pilots making bad decisions. All that shows that age is very poor indicator of performance. That probably means there is no objective justification in thus case meaning that it is discriminatory to enforce retirement using age as the primary determinant.

flyboyike

16th Jul 2018, 09:36

jeez flyboylike. You get the point and immediately revert to emotive BS that contributes nothing to the debate you agreed "should be the point".....

Them's the facts, as we say in Eastern Nebraska. Take it however you like. Emotive, promotive, dismotive...doesn't matter to me.

vulcanite

16th Jul 2018, 12:23

On my EU Flight Crew Licence, issued by the CAA in 2014:
Page 3, Note IX (Validity) "This licence shall remain in force for the holder's lifetime unless revoked suspended or varied.
The privileges of the licence shall be exercised only if the holder has a medical certificate for the required privilege."

Now I have no axe to grind as I am happily retired, enjoyed it while I did it, and most certainly do not miss dragging myself out of bed at half past stupid o'clock.

However - the reading of note IX more than implies that once you've got the licence then you've got it for good. The limiter is that you must have the medical to use it. So where does it say you cannot pass a medical at 65+??

KenV

16th Jul 2018, 12:32

The CAA will make no effort to defend the actual age. They will simply point out that at present it is an EASA regulation, so outside their control. Even if we leave EASA next year and they reviewed it, any change would be (like the Australian rule mentioned above) only valid in the UK since the age limit is an ICAO standard. I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights....Maybe none in the UK or Europe, but there's a few in the US. Of course that does not help this guy.

Trossie

16th Jul 2018, 16:51

... I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights, ...

One might struggle to find an airline that 'only operates domestic flights' but as many, many thousands of passengers will be able to tell you, there are many airlines that operate a lot of domestic flights. I think that some airlines fly so few flights out of Britain that it could almost be considered that they 'only operate domestic flights'. Being 'only valid in the UK' should not be any problem in this case.

(I am surprised at how many post on here without a basic knowledge of some of the things that they say, like the above quoted comments about domestic flights!! A lot of passengers would be able to give you that basic information.)

Tandemrotor

16th Jul 2018, 23:28

BGQ
Not necessarily. ..it would appear the legal challenge in this case is about what you describe as "objective justifications". If one is being objective,in this case, evidence from Chile New Zealand Australia Canada Japan and a few other countries show that there is no increase in incidents or accidents by "Professional Airline Pilots" over 65 in those countries. Studies done in the US measuring general aviation pilots up to the age of 79 which tested landing or not decisions in low vis in simulators confirms what we all "know" to be true .... that performance deteriorates with increasing age.
Just to save you actually researching this yourself, Objective Justifications for a compulsory retirement age, are not exclusively restricted to justification of physical health, or mental deterioration as we age.

Purely as an example, two of many such justifications (currently) accepted in law are, inter-generational fairness, and preservation of dignity. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m merely explaining that is the law as it stands today.

On a slightly different topic. It is crystal clear that seniority systems are most definitely ‘de-facto’ indirect discrimination on the basis of age. I don’t see any OJs that would allow that form of discrimination. Seniority systems survive in some places, only because (bizarrely?) nobody in such a system has yet tested the law.

Of course I accept testing the law is all the current litigant is trying to do.

Trossie

17th Jul 2018, 06:05

...

Purely as an example, two of many such justifications (currently) accepted in law are, inter-generational fairness, and preservation of dignity. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m merely explaining that is the law as it stands today.

...

Interesting concepts:
'inter-generational fairness' - you young guys are going to have to work longer yourselves one day (just a fact that working lives are being extended) so start getting used to it now and be fair to those being discriminated against by age right now by abolishing a compulsory retirement age now;
'preservation of dignity' - when the general population is being told that they are expected to work longer it is bloody undignified to be told that you must stop work early because you are perceived to have become a more unreliable old codger at an earlier age than the rest of the population.

...

On a slightly different topic. It is crystal clear that seniority systems are most definitely ‘de-facto’ indirect discrimination on the basis of age. I don’t see any OJs that would allow that form of discrimination. Seniority systems survive in some places, only because (bizarrely?) nobody in such a system has yet tested the law.

...

One aspect of a 'seniority system' - last-in-first-out - is already illegal in British law. I don't think that any modern airlines use seniority systems.

aterpster

17th Jul 2018, 13:09

One aspect of a 'seniority system' - last-in-first-out - is already illegal in British law. I don't think that any modern airlines use seniority systems.
I presume you mean in the U.K.

Sailvi767

17th Jul 2018, 13:59

A seniority system is used by virtually every airline in the US. Much of what’s posted about vacations ect.. regarding a seniority system is wrong. At most US airlines you can choose between pay and quality of life. You can use your seniority to bid a higher paying aircraft or stay on a smaller aircraft if you want to insure summer vacations and weekends off.
The important thing about a seniority system is it removes all pressure on pilots to make decisions management may favor but contrary to flight safety. The most important job as pilot has in today’s industry is deciding when to say no and shut a operation down or divert. Seniority systems give you the ability to do that without any fear of repercussions.

wiggy

17th Jul 2018, 15:29

One aspect of a 'seniority system' - last-in-first-out - is already illegal in British law. I don't think that any modern airlines use seniority systems.

Just for the avoidance of confusion there is at least one large U.K. airline that still uses a senority system when it comes to monthly roster bidding, and aspirational equipment changes. Other issues such as leave, reserve etc are handled either by a purely points driven system or by a mixture of points and senority. Whether that airline can be regarded as “modern” or not is probably a matter of opinion.

At that airline the possible conflict between “last in, first out” vs. Seniority in the event of redundancies has, fortunately, not yet been tested.

slip and turn

17th Jul 2018, 16:11

I presume you mean in the U.K.I presume that because UK law complies with EC Directives, then Trossie might mean as in all 28 enlightened countries of EU - i.e. in Europe alone, there is a documented legal consensus on discrimination law ruling the lives of some 512 million on this planet, which makes the 325 million less recently enlightened among the other well known group of some united and some not so united States, look a bit stale and pale by comparison!

Granted that due to one or two notable and supposed actual protected (?) or unofficially protected/"hands off our nice little earner" status jobs still pervading in some parts of EU, there are still one or two examples plaguing some industry sectors both ways on the basis of age (you have to join the club in a narrow age band window, and then you have to agree to retire from it early). Yes, even EU exhibits the odd conspicuous example of where some still get away with failing to practice even the spirit of what its lawmakers long ago started to preach.

In this thread we are discussing "the old one" who is making waves to avoid compulsory retirement as a pilot, and in another aviation example, we have at least one ATC organisation who not only retire 'em early, but still think they can unashamedly discriminate on the ages of new applicants for training until they get forced not to.

Eurocontrol (https://www.eurocontrol.int/faq/air-traffic-controller-jobs) still has an unbelievably low age 25 age bar, and they baldly state right there on their website: "We do not make exceptions to the age limit – for two reasons. Firstly, younger trainees have a better chance of success. Secondly, controllers usually retire at 55. You need to build up a reasonable pension, so the longer you work, the better for your future pension." which I'd love to have seen tested long ago as it is so much Neanderthal stereotyped bollox unless they have immediately available documentary research evidence showing they can without fail objectively justify using age as a proxy for sifting the best candidates. I wonder who that "You" is who needs "to build up a reasonable pension"? Ah that might be the IJAIA's ("I'm Jack and I'm Alright") already sitting comfortably within the organisation, controlling the gates to future riches, and seniority in that branch of aviation. Funny thing is, I'm close to what many might suggest is the third age - will they make an exception to assist me in bolstering my eventual pension prospects? Why not? Will they to buggery ...bloody small-minded bigots.

Unless someone can show me a legally bulletproof reason why not, I'd say if anyone aged over 25 reading this has the energy and wherewithall, and if they fancied applying to be a trainee air traffic controller, Eurocontrol is surely there for the taking (i.e. straight to court for a test case to get the age bar removed). No ifs, no buts, just a piece of paper from Eurocontrol saying we appreciate you visited our website and tried to apply but you were turned down by our published FAQ #1. Such a denied application should be enough to kick off a very straightforward case. I reckon a new 2018 result bringing that particular outfit into line would certainly help Captain Bayley invalidate the nonsense the bigots spout about the mandatory retirement case for pilots. It's taken far too long for case law to get developed on this gnarly subject in the aviation sector, mostly due to still pervasive deeply entrenched cultural bias in perhaps the majority of parts, and intransigence, but there's no real excuse, is there?

Juan Tugoh

17th Jul 2018, 17:09

slip and turn

17th Jul 2018, 21:38

People here are forgetting that there are two issues here. Retirement through loss of licence, ie no licence no job, and retirement from mandatory retirement age from a company. Case law has already been made within the UK to make a precedent about a company forcing an age related retirement age. So it maybe you can keep your licence beyond 65 but it is a different case as to whether a company can retire you from the company at an age. Law suggests the second is okay, in fact it’s been up to the Supreme Court already. It maybe that you can maintain a licence longer but that doesn’t mean you stay at the top of the seniority ladder with your nose in the trough.

If you are alluding to the Seldon case (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2010-0201-judgment.pdf) I think you are being way over simplistic in your conclusions. There's a world of difference between regularly measuring pilot competence and health, and having no devices so clearly industry standardised worldwide as those used to identify deteriorating professional pilots, that could be used to objectively trim out dead wood in other industries.

Seldon was a partner in a modest legal firm not a commercial pilot. He may or may not have been dead wood. He wasn't tested. For reasons of dignity (perhaps), no tests exist that might have identified deterioration in his performance or continuing suitability to remain as a partner at his firm (and probably the same is true at most other legal firms). Else, as I think was alternatively put by the Respondent, he was scheduled to be culled (my words) for reasons of acceptable intergenerational fairness (perhaps), at an age that Seldon himself had perhaps been involved in agreeing as one of the partners who decided some years previously before age discrimination and now equality law had been fully developed.

In the particular case, it was supposedly judged that either of the above aims would be a legitimate aim in the particular case but only if it could be shown that one of those legitimate aims was actually being pursued rather than something less defined that was not objectively justified as a legitimate aim. I think it was sent back to the lower court for that to be decided - I am not sure about that but I don't think it matters in contrast to the pilot case where objectivity pervades constantly.. There is a world of difference between objectivity in different industries and it couldn't be much more stark than between professional lawyering and professional flying. I took it that the judges in the Seldon case warned as much in summary: "All businesses will now have to give careful consideration to what, if any, mandatory retirement rules can be justified".

I submit that the more astute amongst us will put primary emphasis on the two words "if any" and deduce from that that many if not most mandatory retirement ages are unlawful, rather than just a few, and even if it is just a few, mandatory retirement ages for commercial pilots will be amongst the most likely to be unlawful because of what we know is different about the controlled measureable environment around the role compared to any other job. DIgnity cannot be used in the pilot case as it is always a red herring when facts of regular industry standard tests speak for themselves. Intergenerational fairness is a joke and I think only got a hearing because the judges were over familiar with such feelings through their own experience and somehow falsely translated it to also being a state sponsored social policy. By the time most of us reach retirement, we've almost lost count of all the firms we worked for. Intergenerational fairness means all things to all men or women so I fail to understand why judges think they are on to something rational in trying to judge it as a useful concept let alone a legitimate aim, especially when trying to test it against accepted state sponsored social policy. It's as daft as insisting Brexit always means Brexit and by the way yes its what the people voted for (I reckon:p).

BluSdUp

17th Jul 2018, 22:40

"I am such a good driver that the speed- limit does not apply to me. "
Its my God given right!
If you want to fly after 65 join a flyingclub.
Seriously!
When I started I expected to be able to retire at 60, now some traitors want to hand this gift to management!
Get a life!!

Trossie

18th Jul 2018, 08:25

"I am such a good driver that the speed- limit does not apply to me. "
Its my God given right!
...
What a stupid comparison!

...
When I started I expected to be able to retire at 60, now some traitors want to hand this gift to management!
Get a life!!
And why, please tell us, are you still not able to retire at 60? It's your choice, no one is forcing you to retire any later.
If there is a current retirement age of 65, you still have the right to retire at 60 if you so wish.
It appears that this pilot is simply saying that it is age discrimination to deny him the exact same right to choose an age above 65 to retire.
Why oppose him? Get a life!

excrab

18th Jul 2018, 08:44

Since I started flying for airlines I’ve always known I would have to retire at 65, and I have no problem with moving over to allow younger pilots to get their noses “into the trough”, as someone put it earlier. What I do have a problem with has nothing to do with what happens in the USA, or Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else. My objection is the UK government deciding that the state pension which I have had to pay for since I started work at sixteen will now not be available to me until I am 67, two years after I am forced to retire.
If they were to make exceptions to that rule and keep the pension age at 65 for any professions with a mandatory retirement age, then I will be quite happy.
My plan always was to go back to instructing, but we all know that doesn’t pay so well, unless you do it as an SFI. It would be interesting to see how many TRIs in their thirties, forties or fifties who moonlight on their days off for the likes of CTC or CAE would be prepared to forgo that extra income to let over sixty-fives make a living....

Icarus2001

18th Jul 2018, 08:51

We are still dancing around the issue. The CAA believe something happens on your sixty fifth birthday that renders you incapable of holding the qualification that you had a week before. They should be required to defend this belief with rational, logical and demonstrable evidence. We know that they cannot. They know they cannot. It is arbitrary.
The court will decide if it is legal or not.

Again, here in Australia we have no such rule for domestic operations. No sign of a decrease in safety or pilots dying at the controls.

Trossie

18th Jul 2018, 11:38

... I have no problem with moving over to allow younger pilots to get their noses “into the trough”, as someone put it earlier. ...
You have every right to do so. There is so much expansion in the airline industry overall that opportunities 'to allow younger pilots to get their noses “into the trough”, as someone put it earlier' are greater than they have been for decades. Surely a handful of 'old codgers' retiring a bit later is hardly going to be to the detriment of any significant number of those 'younger pilots'? But then life expectancy is improving so much that those 'younger pilots', when they get older and the 'old codgers' now have worked to remove the compulsory retirement age, will have much better opportunities in the future to keep their noses "in the trough" than the 'old codgers' will have now.

Icarus2001, very valid comments!

parabellum

18th Jul 2018, 14:59

BluSidUp - you appear to have entered this argument/discussion well after the starting post. For years and years the retirement age was the same as for everyone else, 65. Quite arbitrarily the UK minister of the day changed this limit to 60, no discussion, no evidence, just imposed. Fortunately, but many, many years later, this decision was reversed and a pilot’s retirement age returned to the original age of 65. The retirement age of 60 was never universally accepted by the pilot community, only certain self interested groups within the community and was continuously fought until it was reinstated as 65.

ShotOne

18th Jul 2018, 16:09

No. Until 1947 the age limit was 45. This was followed by a period with no upper limit ending in 1959 when FAA limit became 60, followed by ICAO in 1963. It’s only quite briefly ever been “same as everybody else”

Finally, the parting claim about being “continuously fought” gives an entirely false impression of unanimity. It can scarcely be argued that those wanting the limit raised weren’t a “self-interested group”

parabellum

18th Jul 2018, 22:01

The age limit in the Uk went from 65 to 60 sometime in the early eighties.

ManaAdaSystem

19th Jul 2018, 07:50

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/769x251/1_s2_0_s0960982212008159_gr1_8b5789a47e975860ddf841f1afa0bf0 e058d4f23.jpg
The risk of having a stroke increses with age.
https://strokefoundation.org.au/About-Stroke/Preventing-stroke/Stroke-risk-factors

The risk of having a heart attack increases with age. Understand Your Risks to Prevent a Heart Attack (http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HeartAttack/UnderstandYourRiskstoPreventaHeartAttack/Understand-Your-Risks-to-Prevent-a-Heart-Attack_UCM_002040_Article.jsp#.W1BAWIo8yhA)

The risk of getting diabetes increses with age.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/diabetes/overview/risk-factors-type-2-diabetes

Deeply Concerned

19th Jul 2018, 08:23

Completely misleading graph as it refers to cardiovascular disease, which simply isn't a heart attack.

ManaAdaSystem

19th Jul 2018, 08:49

Completely misleading graph as it refers to cardiovascular disease, which simply isn't a heart attack.

You forgot to read the links. The picture was supposed to be below the other links as a general picture of age vs disease risk.
Age is a major factor when it comes to stroke and heart attack.

slip and turn

19th Jul 2018, 09:42

You forgot to read the links. The picture was supposed to be below the other links as a general picture of age vs disease risk.Age is a major factor when it comes to stroke and heart attack.Age is not so much a factor as a measure of the time over which adverse lifestyle factors have a chance to develop! I watched a documentary just this last weekend where a 92 year old Costa Rican under a wide brimmed hat to keep off the sun walked a kilometre and back every day on a diet of mostly homegrown beans ! (he visits his mother daily who could also still just about get about the house on her feet when necessary!)

What are the main lifestyle factors which cause heart disease and stroke? I'll start with smoking, alcohol, and cream buns for ten :p

Icarus2001

19th Jul 2018, 15:25

ShotOne

19th Jul 2018, 18:04

Even if that’s the case, are you really saying that, uniquely and inexplicably, our rates of heart attack and strokes don’t increase with age like all other humans?

back to Boeing

20th Jul 2018, 00:04

Good to see some science in the topic.

However, those figures would be for the general populace no doubt, not for the pilot sub group which I would wager is healthier than the total population due to regular medicals and (mostly) taking care of themselves.

have you met your average older long haul pilot? I have. I fly with them every day. Taking care of themselves (actually ourselves) is not at the forefront of my mind when I see one!

Icarus2001

20th Jul 2018, 01:48

No I agree the rates for the pilot population would also increase with age. Again all I can say is it is not a problem here in Australia.
I was trying to think how many pilots at my company lost their medical in the last few years, I can think of three in ten years. One was for cancer which is not likely to incapacitate a pilot at the controls.
How about bus drivers with sixty passengers on board screaming down the motorway? No autopilot and no second driver to take over? Do they get forced out by age based criteria?

Radgirl

20th Jul 2018, 08:40

I am afraid neither anecdotes of Costa Ricans nor graphs demonstrating relative risk have any value. Nobody denies the ageing process decreases health and increases risk. The question is when is it unsafe, and that depends on absolute risk. Over on the medical forum pilots post daily about losing their medical for what they see as minor or irrelevant pathology not understanding their illness has increased the absolute risk of incapacitation above the magic level (The UK CAA allows an unrestricted Class 1 eg for cancer with a 0.1% annual risk, and a Class 1 OML with a 1% annual risk!!). Yet on ageism threads the same population of pilots (and possibly even the same posters!) trash science claiming pilots should be grounded on age when the absolute risk is now well below what it was 20 yeas ago and more importantly below that magic number

currawong

21st Jul 2018, 03:28

I would like to see politicians subject to the same standards as aircrew. Including alcohol/drug testing.

Arguably many lives in their hands too.

Some of that profession would appear at least partially incapacitated.

ShotOne

21st Jul 2018, 05:12

+1 to that currawong. I’m baffled why other safety-critical professional aren’t subject to testing as pilots are.

Radgirl you clearly understand the medical graphs and have observed how steeply they climb so please explain how risk factor could possibly be kept below 1%,or indeed any “magic number” in the face of removing the upper age limit. It MIGHT be possible to mitigate a finite increase as the 60-65 increase was mitigated. But to argue that removing the upper limit doesn’t increase incapacitation risks is simply absurd.

Trossie

21st Jul 2018, 06:07

...Radgirl you clearly understand the medical graphs and have observed how steeply they climb so please explain how risk factor could possibly be kept below 1%,or indeed any “magic number” in the face of removing the upper age limit. It MIGHT be possible to mitigate a finite increase as the 60-65 increase was mitigated. But to argue that removing the upper limit doesn’t increase incapacitation risks is simply absurd.What is far more absurd is to impose a 'one size fits all' age limit to 'solve' the problem that you perceive. Where Radgirl comes from it has been demonstrated not to be a problem, the same as in several other advanced countries too.

currawong, I fully agree!!

bafanguy

21st Jul 2018, 09:43

I’m baffled why other safety-critical professional aren’t subject to testing as pilots are.

Because the politicians who impose such things haven't yet seen any advantage for themselves for doing so. When they do, they will.

Or perhaps other safety-critical professionals have a better lobby...and more money to spend assuring a desired outcome than airline pilots and their lobby.

And by the way, as long as these Perfumed Princes of the Kackistocracy have the power to impose things like drug testing, you can be sure of one outcome: they'll see to it they are exempted from such things.

Deeply Concerned

26th Jul 2018, 09:34

I think if I were going to challenge this I would look towards using EU age discrimination legislation. In general throughout the EU there isn't a formal retirement age any more and you cannot discriminate on the grounds of age. As far as I know pilots are the only occupation with a retirement age in law.

Its interesting also that you can be driving a public bus at any age with only a basic medical and that's single crew.

Another anomaly is that in the U.K. I cannot claim my state pension until I'm 67, yet I'm forced out of work at 65. All theses I would have thought are interesting areas to explore.

Avenger

26th Jul 2018, 10:23

Considering the air traffic guys that control us have to retire at 56 I think we should feel grateful that they let us fly until 65. These guys get at least 2 hour or 4 hour breaks in a shift, not huddled under a blanket with the headset turned down, perhaps we should lobby for retirement at 60, the same age the medical frequency changes to 6 monthly. Of course, we would not get the same retirement benefits as ATC, the industry just wouldn't wear it!

uncle ian

6th Aug 2018, 17:15

I'm the rotary pilot who took the CAA to the employment Tribunal when I turned 60 back in 2007. As everyone knows I lost and the Tribunal ruling is posted under "Rotorheads".
As already stated the CAA acknowledged age discrimination but claimed it was permissible for "safety reasons" quoting very outdated statistics for the general population. This stuff has been well covered in this forum.

I'd just like to add that I was able to continue flying single pilot aerial work operations and only fully retired last year when I myself decided the time was right at age 70. My aerial work mostly involved aerial camera work for film and TV and, if I may say so, was very demanding of all my skills.To illustrate the folly of the CAA's position I was frequently flying over London at below 1000' (with CAA approvals in place) including over the Olympic Stadium during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Games.

Good luck to those of you who wish to exercise their right to employment in line with the general population and if I can be of any help feel free to ask (except for money, my case nearly wiped me out despite the generous help from many colleagues through PPRuNe forums).

BluSdUp

6th Aug 2018, 17:33

Good for You buddy.
You do realize You are ruining it all for the rest of us!

daelight

6th Aug 2018, 22:28

People are driving cars into their 70's, 80's and killing or maiming innocent people (and themselves) - no action taken. Pass strict medical test - you can fly. Increase the frequency of such test as pilot becomes older or have them as FO max?

ShyTorque

7th Aug 2018, 08:05

Just a thought...Speaking for the population in general (to include passengers and other workers), how often do people over 65 take their last breath on a serviceable aircraft? These days, the whole concept of air travel is so stressful (two hour waits to clear security, cattle truck seating conditions, etc) that the pilots are probably among the most relaxed ones on board.

Reacher19

7th Aug 2018, 08:52

Interesting discussion. One point that hasn’t been raised (that I’ve seen) yet is how this fits in with proposed single pilot future ops. This may be a decade or more away or may never happen but even a small increase in risk with age of a medical incident would pose significant problems for airlines, insurance and passenger safety imho. 75 year old flying commercial ops alone may not be desirable on any level.

BristolScout

7th Aug 2018, 09:02

I have been with PPrune from the beginning - the join date on the left is incorrect, due to a glitch in passwording. I am immensely saddened that the quality of dialogue here has deteriorated so much in recent years. Instead of reasoned arguments and polite disagreement, we seem to have flat statements, followed by flat contradictions, followed by personal abuse. No one has all the right answers so why not try to understand the other side of the argument? I know Wayne and I'm a couple of years older than him and I wouldn't return to an airliner flight deck for all the gold in the Indies. Granted, I have a comfortable retirement but it didn't happen by accident and I had my share of unemployed periods. I do believe that the 'safe to fly at 64 years and 364 days but not tomorrow' needs to be addressed, rather than being kicked into the long grass as 'too difficult' by the regulators. We have the world's most regulated industry so, surely, some flexibility is possible.

hunterboy

7th Aug 2018, 14:27

I have to say I agree with BristolScout. I’d like to take power out of the hands of the politicians and back into the professionals that know more about the issues, medical professionals and the pilots doing the job.
i can see an argument for both sides, however, ultimately, we like to have individual choice in the West. Personally, I could be swayed either way, if for instance, the mandatory retirement age coincided with state pension age, as well as fellow professionals such as a doctors, judges and politicians being forced to retire at an arbitrary age, rather than being allowed to sail on gracefully into the sunset at public expense, without an annual physical and mental capacity check.
Alternatively, if someone passes the medical and competency check, then why not let them continue to work? If the social justice argument is put forward about allowing younger people to benefit from jobs, then I wholeheartedly agree, and we start to retire everybody at a suitable age. Personally, I think an argument could be made for a retirement age of 60, funded by increased taxes on business and social contributions. At the end of the day, we are not here to work after all. However, that’s a whole new thread ......

ShyTorque

7th Aug 2018, 19:14

If I'm forced to retire at 65 by State decree, why should my State Pension be witheld until the age of 66?

Ian W

7th Aug 2018, 20:00

If I'm forced to retire at 65 by State decree, why should my State Pension be witheld until the age of 66?

I would think that the bureaucrat response to that would be that you are forced to retire from that one job nobody is preventing you taking up other employment :hmm:

bad bear

8th Aug 2018, 06:35

nobody is preventing you taking up other employment
so you think a guy can be fired for being 65 and then find a totally different job the very next day without several months of interviews HR hoops etc?

arketip

8th Aug 2018, 07:10

so you think a guy can be fired for being 65 and then find a totally different job the very next day without several months of interviews HR hoops etc?

Why wait the last day to look for another job.
Is not like you do not know is going to happen.

ShyTorque

8th Aug 2018, 07:25

Ian W: I would think that the bureaucrat response to that would be that you are forced to retire from that one job nobody is preventing you taking up other employment :hmm:

Why wait the last day to look for another job.
Is not like you do not know is going to happen.

If either of you know of any employer who will hold open a job for a 65 year old until the day after I'm forced out of this one by the government, I'm prepared to give it a go.

beamer

8th Aug 2018, 07:49

I wonder if Wayne would have been so active on this issue if he had finished his time with his previous employer on the 737 fleet rather than the 787 - somehow I think not !

arketip

8th Aug 2018, 07:49

If either of you know of any employer who will hold open a job for a 65 year old until the day after I'm forced out of this one by the government, I'm prepared to give it a go.

Oh man, oh man:rolleyes:

Is it really that difficult? Not a bit of flexible mind and initiative? Do you need written SOP to work out a solution?

hunterboy

8th Aug 2018, 08:25

How is a 65 year old pilot going to find a flying job if he/she is not allowed to fly past 65? Or are they suggesting getting a job gardening or stacking shelves? I’m all for it if the job will pay the same as my previous salary until I can claim my pension.

foxmoth

8th Aug 2018, 10:02

The arguments against this seem to be:-
1. I don't want to continue working so why should you - answer - it should be personal choice not dictating it.
2. You are blocking commands - well if I had the choice to continue working I would have gone 50% a year ago instead of staying full time to top up my retirement funds so ATM I am blocking commands more than if I could continue working, I suspect many others would do the same then work on maybe another couple of years so 6 years at 50% instead of 4 full time, with others doing this it would create openings rather than block them.
3. If we can work past 65 employers will force us to keep going when we do not want to - ???? I do not understand how they will do this, if you can afford to retire at 45 then you hand your notice in and do so, nothing is FORCING you to keep working.
4. You are being greedy working on - surprise surprise, some people actually enjoy the job and do not want to pack it in, plus it keeps your brain active, personally I enjoy it but like many of my age would just like to do it a little less (see point 2!). Even if they are doing it for the money it should still be THEIR choice, after all, the money is what most people go to work for!

there seem to be very few people arguing against this on sensible grounds just people that do not want to do it themselves and so think others should not, we should ALL have the choice, if you don't want to work on that is fine but don't block those that do want to, and many younger pilots who are objecting now may well be glad of this when they are approaching retirement themselves and state retirement age has gone up more or is paying less!

slowjet

8th Aug 2018, 10:11

Bristolscout & Hunterboy, excellent posts and thanks for trying to bring us back on thread. Notice how quickly others, missing the point completely , attempt to throw us of course again ! Captain Bailey probably has no wish to continue after age 65. He certainly has no need. His case is, quite simply, to remove the arbitrary age barrier. It might benefit others rather than himself. Offer him a 737 or DC3 freighter until, again, some arbitrary cut-off age would be of no interest to him but he might well object to the arbitrary cut-off.

I can well immagine how, after shutting down his dreamliner following his swansong, Wayne might have asked why it had to be the last. If Crew Control called him up very next day and asked him to come in & do another Barbados, what on earth would stop him other than the fact that he was now, 65 & one hour ! Nonsense.

In the good ole days, BA pilots had to retire at 55. Why ? Lots went on with other carriers until the further, arbitrary age cut off of 60. But they had to leave BA at 55. Daft. The really lucky lot on BA 747 went at age 55 and joined SQ, at LHR Base until they reached 60. Simple swap of uniforms and aircraft livery. Many must have enjoyed a wry smile as they carried on doing the same job, same base , with something else painted on the side. And before I am leaped upon by those missing the point, yes, I can see a desirable project to retire people in order to make way for the up and coming otherwise the waiting line might become intolerable . I was in BA. Time to Command was running at 15-20 years. But, the aim was a BA Command & with people having to go at 55, a circulation existed. At age 22, I would be 42 at first Command and have to go 13 years later. Seemed ok. And, here comes the point again fellasAt age...........55..................I could swop uniforms, liveries and carry on with someone else until the daft cut off of 60. (Now, 65). The BA retirement age was not arbitrary but a personnel control feature. Wayne is simply asking why is it a REGULATORY requirement to quit at age 65 ?

ShyTorque

8th Aug 2018, 12:17

Originally Posted by arketip https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/610917-pilot-sues-forced-retirement-post10217975.html#post10217975)Oh man, oh man:rolleyes:
Is it really that difficult? Not a bit of flexible mind and initiative? Do you need written SOP to work out a solution?

Seeing as you are much brighter than I, yes please.

Wayne is simply asking why is it a REGULATORY requirement to quit at age 65 ?

Precisely. Unfortunately, the days of a gold plated company pension which could sustain an individual from the age of 55 are probably gone forever. Those complaining that older pilots are "holding them back" from a higher financial income (and that is the only reason is why they complain) should bear in mind that the state pension age will continue to rise to 70 very soon. At least they will have time to prepare for the change. My own state pension has been delayed by one year but my wife and other women of her age had 6 years of hers taken away by UK government policy at very short notice.

BAengineer

8th Aug 2018, 13:34

The arguments against this seem to be:-
1. I don't want to continue working so why should you - answer - it should be personal choice not dictating it.
2. You are blocking commands - well if I had the choice to continue working I would have gone 50% a year ago instead of staying full time to top up my retirement funds so ATM I am blocking commands more than if I could continue working, I suspect many others would do the same then work on maybe another couple of years so 6 years at 50% instead of 4 full time, with others doing this it would create openings rather than block them.
3. If we can work past 65 employers will force us to keep going when we do not want to - ???? I do not understand how they will do this, if you can afford to retire at 45 then you hand your notice in and do so, nothing is FORCING you to keep working.
4. You are being greedy working on - surprise surprise, some people actually enjoy the job and do not want to pack it in, plus it keeps your brain active, personally I enjoy it but like many of my age would just like to do it a little less (see point 2!). Even if they are doing it for the money it should still be THEIR choice, after all, the money is what most people go to work for!

Most of the BA Captains I have met seem to have about 3 ex wives and numerous kids scattered around the globe, so I'm sure how many will want to work on simply for the love of the job - more for the love of the paycheck at the end of the month. If you dont have any limit as others have pointed out you would slow up the promotion ladder significantly and the co-pilots with the get up and go will have got up and left for better prospects - which from a companies point of view isn't a good outcome.

foxmoth

8th Aug 2018, 14:01

Most of the BA Captains
Sorry, I did not realise this was all about BA! I am sure there are some that are in it for the paycheck, I was not saying there are not but there are still others that do enjoy the job, and as said many people will go part time earlier actually freeing up jobs - as far as FOs moving on because they cannot get a command, well there is supposedly a shortage of pilots ATM and an expanding market so the commands will be there but anyone that moves on just because they have to wait another year does not deserve to be there, plus of course these people will be in an even worse situation in a few years time when state retirement age goes up further and they are sitting there with their three ex wives and all the kids!

parabellum

9th Aug 2018, 00:15

Was told a very long time ago that the 55 retirement age in BA was entirely due to the pension scheme, pilots could not join the scheme until they were 25 years old and could only contribute for a maximum of 30 years, does that sound correct?

Meikleour

9th Aug 2018, 08:00

parabellum: Not so. Hamble graduates could join as young as 20 years. The Part 5 Pension gave a 1/56 credit for each year of service (ie. 28 years service gave a 50% of final salary pension which could be taken at 50 years of age) Staying employed after 50 till 55 allowed a "crystallisation" of the pension which gave a further substantial increase in the pension.

Sadly, such generosity is a thing long since gone!

Gordomac

9th Aug 2018, 08:57

BAengineer

9th Aug 2018, 12:41

Enecosse

9th Aug 2018, 20:35

Parabellum ; interesting similarity was the fact that also, a long time ago, Swissair advertised in the back of Flight Mag for DEFO on all fleets. The queue stretched from Zurich to most places on the planet earth. I was rejected at the very first stage because I was too old at (whatever I was then) to join the Pension Scheme. I raced down to Zurich, banged on the door, begged & pleaded and asked if I could join but make my own pension arrangements. Gosh, ask the Swiss to change the rules, just for me ? Again, on thread, not a regulatory age rule but just as arbitrary and rather more daft than I would have liked.

I do , occasionally , wonder , how life would have turned out after 30 odd years with Swiss, private swiss pension, lovely big swiss chalet in the mountains, but not given the chance because of a pension rule restricting employment. Silly lot but they do make good clocks & the chocs are delicious.

Race to the bottom, bag of peanuts every Friday will be good thanks. Swiss didn't turn out so good, first went to the wall, Goverment 'persuaded' a perfectly good airline, Crossair, to get involved. They then by duplicitous means had Crossair morphed into 'New' Swiss, a lot of people stuffed. Crossair had the prettiest hosties, yep I know sexist and un PC, but a fact, (random fact), non the less.

parabellum

10th Aug 2018, 07:12

Gordomac - Yes, like you, I got knocked back by Swissair because I was too old for their pension scheme. Did hear from an ex Laker FO who made the grade that it wasn't such a hot number apart from the salary, very regimented, very steep gradient on the flight deck and between fleets. Looking back I'm happy I lived without that much higher level of stress and strain, could have done with a better pension though!;)

Gordomac

10th Aug 2018, 09:10

Thanks guys. Feel a lot better. Good luck to Wayne in his endeavours.

Jimfor65

17th Aug 2018, 01:54

I have been in contact with Wayne Bayley and I plan to support his discrimination fight concerning forced retirement at age 65.. You can Google "Wayne Bayley" and read the news articles that came out last month. Wayne is looking for anyone that wants to support this fight. He has been in touch with a fund raiser called "Crowd Justice" who specializes in Legal Crowd Funding. The site will launch soon and possibly this week. As soon as Wayne sets it up and it's ready, I will post details. If you want the option to fly past 65, I suggest supporting this. If successful it could be a spring board for claims to begin in other countries as well.

w.bayley

20th Aug 2018, 13:14

The answers to the CAA defence went in on Friday. Surprisingly they have not produced any evidence on data to suggest that the incapacitation risks exceed 1% after 65. The "day in Court" promises to be fascinating!
Wayne Bayley

w.bayley

20th Aug 2018, 13:15

Hi,
There is a link below to a BBC interview which briefly sets out the arguments for removing the age limit on pilot medicals. I hope you will spare 2 minutes to listen to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2fwbjTWTM (https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dxn2fwbjTWTM&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3d45fbad5abd4d4a5fd308d6043a5ee3%7C84df9e7 fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701046080400377&sdata=mAv91X8Wn40RJt0F2wx62wHvaBNZ%2Fc3BKJnFBHkr6ek%3D&reserved=0)

and an additional link for you to help the cause.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/notoagediscrimination/ (https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbejigbg.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com%2Ftr%2Fcl%2FSm A5ApHdu_42sGzSAf6nZ5RDetdpFZ02cctF68HNYz1yPSFygwAg-ZnwwmhC0JQCb_pmTY2U_RVNoxEknIq8rvLrOf3szDdYHtsG9GryytpyF3tjB KS8qUXiV-6xsdSup8AJYK8TExES95J9QtVZuG2mgWMweZ6IjEr2hIBbX4J7sqxSNxycix yx_Y2Ilz-zFPQnJ_uB6e6zmRTboZx8QgImiQ8h4xkAAZNz6TFXTZPH&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0a71bb680c5a41de8a1108d6035db885%7C84df9e7 fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636700098388937367&sdata=HGGZ4%2F1qd9atWS99%2FwrDk3qborKOwpz7f9I1%2BLtNja8%3D&reserved=0)If after you have and a chance to look at the links you believe that we can help each other I would love to hear from you. RegardsWayne

Jimfor65

20th Aug 2018, 13:18

Wayne is attacking the 65-year barrier via age discrimination. There is no evidence to support your 65th birthday as the age for not being capable of flying past 65. The reason for the restriction is to ensure that the 1% incapacity risk is not breached. There is a convincing body of evidence to show that the 1% threshold is not reached until age 80. The CAA has a legal duty to remove all discrimination including on grounds of age. This is where Wayne’s legal action is aimed. If Wayne is successful it will be a good spring board for others to mount claims in the USA and other countries. WATCH WAYNE’s YOUTUBE VIDEO. Go to YouTube and put FLY PAST 65 in the YouTube search. We also have a dot com website at flypast65. The fund raiser called "Crowd Justice" who specialize in Legal Crowd Funding has been launched. Go to the crowdjustice website and put age discrimination in the search. You will find Wayne's funding site there. Any amount is welcomed no amount too small. Collected money goes to the firm of lawyers and is not directed to Wayne. It is all carefully monitored. We need to get the Crowd Funding site circulated among interested pilots and non-pilot individuals. Please pledge an amount for the fight and circulate this information to support this effort. [color=#000000] Giving experienced and healthy pilots the option to fly past age 65 would solve the retirement dilemma and financial stress for those older pilots that don’t have enough money saved for retirement.

winglit

25th Aug 2018, 15:17

I know so many career commercial pilots who can't afford to retire at 65 because of the string of ex wives that need to be paid off!

bafanguy

25th Aug 2018, 15:58

I know so many career commercial pilots who can't afford to retire at 65 because of the string of ex wives that need to be paid off!

I've heard comments such as this made for years about why the old guys can't move on; not sure how accurate it is to claim that older pilots have a "... string of ex wives ..." disproportionate to the population at large. I have my suspicions about why such comments are made and by whom but I'll bite my lip due to a lack of reliable data to support or debunk the allegation.

One must be careful about statistics and where he gets them. I've tried a time or two but came up empty handed. Maybe someone can provide proper data from an independent, unimpeachable source ?

This is all I've found is this pop culture mention of pilot divorce rate:

"We’ve noticed that people often search for “police divorce rate”, “teacher divorce rate”, and “pilot divorce rate”. They must think for one reason or the other that these three professions are most likely to get separated, but have we got the news for them – none of those professions is among our eleven. For the sake of reference you should know that teachers have a divorce rate of 15.49, police officers 15.01, and pilots, even less than that, with their rate being 10.96, whereas the national average for all occupations is around 16.96%. So it turns out that their rates are even lower than the national average! (Yes, you just go ahead and marry a pilot!)"

https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/11-professions-with-the-highest-divorce-rates-595076/

IcePack

25th Aug 2018, 16:21

Back in the day one of our older pilots was working for allowances only, when colleagues with wives & children had been made redundant. His answer “just keeping my hand in old boy”. Yep he was on a full British Airways Pension. Not sure of this money angle quoted in this thread as if your house is not in order by 65 then well imho it is just greed.

What The

25th Aug 2018, 20:09

Sure, keep working.
But go to the bottom of the seniority list.
Anything else is pure selfishness.

bafanguy

25th Aug 2018, 20:38

Sure, keep working.
But go to the bottom of the seniority list.
Anything else is pure selfishness.

There may be greed or selfishness at work in some cases but I suspect there are too many personal variations on a theme to make blanket statements about motive.

Theoreticians can speculate on what a particular phase of life is like and tell others how they MUST live it but I subscribe to my Gramp's statement that "Ya don't know it 'til ya live it.".

Planning for events decades in the future is a tricky business and based on assumptions that may or may not hold true (with not being more likely).

When it's no longer a theory, one's point of view may need to change.

[I retired at 56 y/o when the max was 60...and have been married to the same lady for 40 years...haven't touched an airplane in 15 years...I know some stuff about being retired cuz I AM. No theory involved]

Capt Ecureuil

25th Aug 2018, 21:02

Most of the BA Captains I have met seem to have about 3 ex wives and numerous kids scattered around the globe, so I'm sure how many will want to work on simply for the love of the job - more for the love of the paycheck at the end of the month. If you dont have any limit as others have pointed out you would slow up the promotion ladder significantly and the co-pilots with the get up and go will have got up and left for better prospects - which from a companies point of view isn't a good outcome.

Interesting conversation to have whilst waiting for the old fart to sign the tech log.

Meanwhile can you tell all the station staff at DFW that Captain Squirrel and Mrs Squirrel say "Hi" and that the old nutter still hasn't retired.

brakedwell

25th Aug 2018, 21:07

Parabellum ; interesting similarity was the fact that also, a long time ago, Swissair advertised in the back of Flight Mag for DEFO on all fleets. The queue stretched from Zurich to most places on the planet earth. I was rejected at the very first stage because I was too old at (whatever I was then) to join the Pension Scheme. I raced down to Zurich, banged on the door, begged & pleaded and asked if I could join but make my own pension arrangements. Gosh, ask the Swiss to change the rules, just for me ? Again, on thread, not a regulatory age rule but just as arbitrary and rather more daft than I would have liked.

I do , occasionally , wonder , how life would have turned out after 30 odd years with Swiss, private swiss pension, lovely big swiss chalet in the mountains, but not given the chance because of a pension rule restricting employment. Silly lot but they do make good clocks & the chocs are delicious.

I was a 39 year old DC8 captain when the Swissair opportunity arose. Had I taken up their offer it would have meant paying over £100k into the pension fund and spending five years in the RHS of a DC 9 before moving to the RHS of a DC8. I stayed where I was.

homonculus

26th Aug 2018, 07:39

For those still supporting this arbitrary limit based on the need to help younger pilots gain command, I was interested in the news this week that a senior academic was taking Oxford University to a Tribunal for termination on age which they set not for safety but 'to promote diversity' and allow junior dons better career progression.

The safety issue will be argued in court in this case, and lets hope the CAA dont again hide behind the defence 'we cant afford to review the rules'. However manpower is a matter for industries, not individual employees, to resolve be it aviation or academia, and social engineering as a reason shows what scary things employers might get up to in the future if others stand idely by.

INKJET

26th Aug 2018, 08:02

Sure, keep working.
But go to the bottom of the seniority list.
Anything else is pure selfishness.

dont understand the logic of that argument, I could have retired a few years ago if measured by need to work ie monetary assets, but didn’t, if you are a committed Aviation professional then an arbitrary 100% to zero involvement might be difficult for some, maybe a 50% might be a sensible way forward.

There is of course already an additional cost employing pilots past post 60 with additional medical cost and restrictions on flying 2 60+ pilots together, but it happens and aircraft don’t fall out of the sky apparently

bloom

26th Aug 2018, 08:04

I know so many career commercial pilots who can't afford to retire at 65 because of the string of ex wives that need to be paid off!

Buy a starter home. Live in it, love it and keep it repaired. Stick with your first wife, till Mr. Happy starts to loose interest , Then rent as needed.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hsimp=yhs-att_001&hspart=att&p=if+you+want+to+be+happy+marry+an+ugly+girl+song#id=1&vid=39cce7c13be1769764b0e303d394acdb&action=click

w.bayley

26th Aug 2018, 08:37

Good to see that among the posts which address the ""discrimination issue" rather than the "industrial or social issues" there is some support. Can the supporters visit the Crowd Justice site now please?
Change is possible if enough pilots each choose to make a small contribution.
wayne

Nemrytter

26th Aug 2018, 09:30

There is a convincing body of evidence to show that the 1% threshold is not reached until age 80.Would you mind posting such evidence? I've been searching peer-reviewed medical literature but can't find much to support this claim.

Gordomac

26th Aug 2018, 10:20

Cripes, last time I looked, the forum ( or thread, or branch, or web............whatever...........) had been locked out. Powerful bods have re-opened because it really is interesting. BAFANGUY, great posts( or letters, or notes or memos.........whatever.......), I do concur. When the arbitrary retirement age was sixty but looked like it might go to 65 I quite liked the idea of creaming off the top salary for another 5 years. I was all prepared & ready to go, financially, at 60 but top end cream off what have put an additional, about, million UK in the bank. Great bonus to play with in my intended retirement home in Glendale, California. But, that's another story. Moreover, I agree with Baf, other reason was that I still, honestly, liked the job.

I go along with Company rules establishing an age limit in order to drive the promotion cycle . In my case, there was also a local ex-pat Labour Law to get around. I did suggest that those interested should have a quick whip-round , bung in a bown envelope & place under someone's table (worked before & still does) but getting pilots to dip into their pockets has, in my long experience, been not worthy of effort.

Brings me to comment on Wayne's plea for funding. Of course, back on thread, it is the Regulatory, completely arbitrary age cut-off which is being challenged. Many posting here get that and agree with it. However , geting us to stick our hands in our pockets would be the battle to watch with equal interest. Observation o f the Red Cross Charity & others involved in Tsunami (so-called) relief has taught me to move away from funding sites. Sorry.

BluSdUp

26th Aug 2018, 10:43

I started flying when 60 was the limit.
IFALPA has always promoted 60 as a limit to get the best deal from 18 to 60.That is 42 years, If you need to fly commercially longer then that join a flying school or a club.
Now disputing 65 is a treason to the 99 % that want to have the best conditions as professionals to a reasonable age. This will put an uncertainty into the negotiations that ALL airline CEOs will take advantage of.
I bet this looser was a Union member when that fit his egocentric agenda.
Pathetic!

ManaAdaSystem

26th Aug 2018, 12:15

bafanguy

26th Aug 2018, 12:22

Not everyone eligible to stay to 65 is doing that...here anyway. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the ALPA source statement but suspect the guy who posted this does re Delta. Statistically insignificant in the Big Picture but an interesting tidbit:

“Interestingly, ALPA put out a comm today saying our retirements are trending 24% above what’s required by age 65 and the average age is 62.7. “

ShotOne

26th Aug 2018, 14:42

Ancient Observer

26th Aug 2018, 14:53

Shotone.
I agree what you say being relevant in the UK at least. That is what happened here. God knows what happened in Brussels. See my post. no. 2.

INKJET

26th Aug 2018, 22:30

w.bayley

26th Aug 2018, 22:50

Hi Inkjet
Quite right, I did say once every 2 years instead of twice a year. Sadly you can't go back and correct a radio interview. Hopefully when I "miss spoke" it did not corrupt the message.
Are you joining the battle?
wayne

parabellum

27th Aug 2018, 07:01

When the increase to 65 was authorised it was after extensive research. Scrapping the age limit altogether was considered and expressly rejected.

Possibly, but returning the age to 65 was simply righting an arbitrary wrong from the eighties.

INKJET

27th Aug 2018, 08:32

Possibly, but returning the age to 65 was simply righting an arbitrary wrong from the eighties.

True enough, but back then the state retirement age was 65 for men and 60 for women, it is now north of 67 and will continue this vector in the years ahead.

So a pilot retiring now is not eligible for a state pension, so must either self fund or find another job for no other reason than an arbitrary date. It is what it is but without credible scientific data it remains arbitrary and ageism, greed, selfishness, ex wives to fund & seniority are emotional sentiments but not relevant in law.

I will be surprised if the CAA win this one, the medical grounds are weak defence, a good number fail medicals well before age 65 the problem is do you set any age limit and for Wayne’s case to win I suspect the answer must be no, because any age limit is ageism.

Like wise limiting hours or type of flying is ageism, one could reasonably seek more frequent medicals for research, but I’m not sure that doing a medical every 3 or 4 months would add to safety and we are already reaching a crisis point with lack of new AME’s joining the declining pool, its notable that many AME’s seem to work well into their late 60’s and beyond.

Reacher19

27th Aug 2018, 09:22

I don’t really understand the logic re: state pension. Any pilot who is relying on the state pension to fund their retirement has either had too many divorces or got some terrible financial advice.

I think the outcome should be that the CAA will agree to undertake a study over say 3 years where they work in conjunction with authorities down under and elsewhere where retirement age is north of 65 and if they the believe there is no risk gradually raise the retirement age to something suitable based on facts and experience.

ShotOne

27th Aug 2018, 13:55

The state pension argument really is a red-herring. Retirement age was 45 until 1947, briefly no limit then 60, now 65. It has only briefly and accidentally coincided with pension age

That incapacitations are rare doesn't prove this a non-issue. On the contrary it's the result of diligently applied medical standards with tests such as ECG's mandated according to age. AND a defined evidence-based upper limit.

ShyTorque

27th Aug 2018, 22:03

I don’t really understand the logic re: state pension. Any pilot who is relying on the state pension to fund their retirement has either had too many divorces or got some terrible financial advice.

A very naive statement. You have no idea about the financial situation of others and it's very arrogant to generalise in such a way.

parabellum

28th Aug 2018, 05:49

I don’t really understand the logic re: state pension. Any pilot who is relying on the state pension to fund their retirement has either had too many divorces or got some terrible financial advice.
Reacher19 - Consider an alternative scenario. Pilot comfortable in UK airline, aged in his forties, has a command, married to first wife and has three kids at school, mortgage about half paid, pension pot filling slowly, some savings towards family holiday, road tax, 'extras' for children at school, school trips.
Monday morning having a short sleep-in due late back from trip the previous night, wife wakes you up to tell you that your company has just gone into liquidation.

Several weeks frantically searching for work, eventually offered job as the most junior FO with another company, wife also looking for work, kids school 'extras' and trips stopped for now, savings pretty much all gone, looking to downsize house to a less expensive area and reduce the mortgage, fighting liquidators for the pension fund. Two or three years of scrimping and saving, command on the horizon, then Bang! company couldn't make CAA liquidity requirement by 31 March, company in receivership. Some six months later, now in the three bedroom semi, wife has found some part time work, quality of life is poor, pension fund still in dispute, savings all gone, all hopes of a decent retirement dashed. Pilot's CV sent to upwards of twenty five companies, five actually acknowledged it but no prospects offered, pilot trying hard to sell home conservatories and green houses for lousy wages. Should this pilot ever find work flying again you can bet he will keep going until he drops as well as take all the state pension he can get. Had you been around Gatwick, Luton or Manchester in the eighties and nineties you would easily recognise this situation which was far more common than extra wives and sadly not without its share of suicides.

Rated De

28th Aug 2018, 07:40

The retirement age has been repeatedly described as “arbitrary”. It’s certainly not. When the increase to 65 was authorised it was after extensive research. Scrapping the age limit altogether was considered and expressly rejected. Risk factors for heart and stroke rise very steeply after 65 no matter how many times you repeat the word “arbitrary”

This is absolutely correct.
The FAA despite intense pressure being bought to bear by the airlines, has resisted because the science does not support the alleged discrimination.
Th pressure is not a result of science supporting a contention, rather it is commercial in origin as retirement rates increase due the impact of demographic trends. All regulators ought ensure before extending the retirement age any further that medical science supports the commercial genesis of an increasing crescendo of drum beats.

slowjet

28th Aug 2018, 09:49

Parabellum : What an excellent post and puts into perspective the slight thread creep into motivation for Wayne's case. I was in the area at the time you refer to . Absolutely dreadful experience for all subjected. I happen to know that Captain Bailey was a Air Europe casualty and will have gained some motivation from that. No "greed" in his motivation. Maybe just a logical, sensible approach to regulation which is arbitrary. If successful in his battle, many will benefit , particularly our younger colleagues who, I hope, will never have to suffer similar events to the scenario you describe.

It's only Me

28th Aug 2018, 14:49

I have watched this thread with some interest as I approach 60 in the not too distant future, the age I expected to retire at and one that I based my financial planning on. I understand I am fortunate to be able to take my Company pension at this time, whilst continuing to work, in addition to a military one that has gone into savings since I was 38. Personally, I look on any further employment that I may decide to continue with as a bonus and a time to reduce my workload in a controlled manner. Already I have seen too many friends fail to meet this point due to ill health and/or death. The thought of going over 65 has no appeal to me.

However, some other points:

At a recent Strategic Forum held at BALPA HQ, this was discussed. Most representatives indicated that there was little appetite to increase the age and some, EZY for example, said they would be surprised if many would even make it that far with the present workload we all are now faced with. It was also indicated that recent rulings on this matter would make it difficult in the extreme to succeed.

As to benefiting all. This is the point that has spurred me into posting. My Company has some of the best insured benefits in the industry and a constant target for the management; one that we have successfully rebutted so far. The problem for them is the rising cost of the premiums. A few years ago a B scale was introduced for new joiners which also did away with many of the benefits of the previous contract. As part of the pay deal that year these benefits were given to all. Introducing a younger element to the group can actually reduce the premiums. Unfortunately, I can see that any increase of the working age will have major implications to the pilot workforce. One hopes never to get I'll, but at present we are well looked after. Remember, we all get this. Increasing the age for the benefit of a few could spell disaster to all, and probably in a stage of life that money for the family is vital.

Personally, not a chance. Help pay for it, not a chance. Work tirelessly to benefit those that come after me and to uphold the benefits that I have been so fortunate to have, absolutely.

Me

homonculus

28th Aug 2018, 15:22

Sorry to comment again, but now, on top of suggestions that forced retirement on out of date science is good for the young, we have the suggestion that employers such as EZY, dont support it. Really gentlemen, what would have happened 100 years ago if employees had asked employers what they thought of mandatory holidays, sick pay, job security etc etc.

There is of course no mandatory insurance, so nothing to stop employees only paying for insurance that lasts until 65. In finance this is very common even though there is no mandatory retirement age in many cases.

Yet more counter arguments from those on the other side of the fence or those who are all right Jack....

Denti

28th Aug 2018, 16:35

Well, that would be EZY pilot union representatives. One thing to keep in mind here is that the workload and contract with EZY depends on country and base, not to mention that seniority is not a concern there and part time is available in many different forms. And yes, those coming in as cadets will be on the left side within 5 years and therefore about 40 years to earn as a captain, but those coming in from the outside might have a lot less time and would appreciate a longer term, not to mention that they are in a bit of a shortage of those coming in as well.

ShotOne

29th Aug 2018, 08:14

Whether or not EZY management support this, US low-co's do and not from altruism towards pilots: on the contrary. One quote was "to prevent unreasonable wage demands".

"Parabellum..excellent post..?" While it was certainly heartfelt, how would we feel about an airline boss trying to justify extending the life of a safety-critical component based on a similar financial hard-luck story? Frankly, any argument on those lines would rightly be dismissed out of hand.

olster

29th Aug 2018, 08:48

When I was @ easy some time ago, there was a generally held view from certain managers that over 60s were cognitively dysfunctional and even after the retirement age was put up that they were allowed to leave. On a scientific basis of course this view was complete bolleaux or at the very least to be more polite, unproven. Certain high calibre individuals were then forced to retire and merely jumped ship to Ryanair who took a more pragmatic view. The point would be that disinformation was used to suit political agendae. I say, go Wayne. The devil is in the detail as always and if the only logical argument is unproven, i.e. the risk of incapacitation in flight, then this is discrimination in the guise of ageism. Not the sexiest ism but ism it is.

Denti

29th Aug 2018, 09:42

Landflap

29th Aug 2018, 10:17

SHOT-ONE way off again.Safety critical component is the pilot. Safety critical component is, also, many mechanical units. Extending the life of a hydraulic pump because of heartfelt issues in the pump department has nothing to do with this discussion. Extending the employment life of a pilot because of heartfelt issues has nothing to do with this discussion and has been, by many posters,clarified. Indeed, by openly discussing "heartfelt" issues, light is thrown only upon the reasons why some pilots might welcome an extention to the retirement age but would never be the reason for doing so. You are missing the point that the current, REGULATORY retirement age is 65 and it definitely Is ARBITRARY. You claim that risk of medical issues etc increase rapidly after age 65. Really ? Show us the evidence as related to PROFESSIONAL PILOTS who are very carefully monitored, TWICE a year, medically and extensively monitored in terms of competence throughout the year. To bring you back to the point, THAT is Captain Bayley's case. Having shut-down his engines on his swan-song, why, on earth is he barred from doing the same trip, the very next day, just because he is 65 ? Oh, it is, because, as you claim, not arbitrary but based on deep study showing that his chances of medical issues affecting his licence capability increase after age 65. Nope, see no evidence in the case of highly monitored professional pilots. Now, do calm yourself and focus.

BluSdUp

29th Aug 2018, 20:32

May I ask if You were a Union member before You retired?
I will take no response as a yes.

Regards
Cpt B

homonculus

30th Aug 2018, 08:48

ManaAdaSystem

30th Aug 2018, 09:14

Age matters. The likelihood of having a stroke nearly doubles every 10 years after age 55.

Because the buildup of fatty deposits continues throughout life, the risk of coronary artery disease and heart attack increases with age for both sexes. Eighty percent of heart attack deaths occur after age 65.

I love the "We are pilots and are not subjected to aging like everybody else" argument, but really guys.

And again, is crowd funding allowed using PPRuNe? I don't support this cause at all.

beardy

30th Aug 2018, 09:28

There have been several posts indicating there is no medical indication ie evidence to support this arbitrary regulation. And at least one pilot wishes to continue to fly beyond the cut off. That answers your question about evidence. And it is unfair.
Nice try, right answer to the wrong question.
Do you really, honestly take postings on this site as evidence or lack of evidence of empirical statistical observations upon which to base safety? If you do I would seriously doubt your judgement since absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Fairness? It's a lot more complicated than that.

w.bayley

30th Aug 2018, 15:22

"W Bayley
May I ask if You were a Union member before You retired?
I will take no response as a yes."

Hi Capt B
I was and still a union member. Not sure how that impacts the debate?

There is a growing body of evidence to show that the 1% pilot incapacition rate (scientifically set by the regulator) is not breached until 80 years of age.
Group Capt Timperly RAF presented data at the Royal Aeronautical Society in Dec 2017 showing data which supports this evidence.
Even the 2004 data used by ICAO to justify moving the limit from 60 to 65 showed that the 1% threshold was not breached until over 65.
On evidence avialable today the 65 year limit is flawed. Australia Canada, New Zealand, Japan and 6 other countries produced data to support their decision to permit operations beyond 65.
How much more evidence is needed to demonstrate that 65 cut off is not supported by any data?
Wayne

homonculus

30th Aug 2018, 17:28

absence of proof is not proof of absence

Fair point Beardy, but we do have a lot of data on death and pathology. This was presented at an employment tribunal and examined by many barristers. The CAA admitted the risk of incapacitation had fallen so as to make the current limits nonsensical on medical grounds - ie the risk was well below the level of risk they have set as a cut off. I dont think the risk is debated between the parties, although it my be on this thread. It is a question of whether the regulator is required to change the rules when the facts change, and whether the rule should be changed

Nemrytter

30th Aug 2018, 19:36

and examined by many barristers.Legal 'proof' is not the same as medical/scientific proof.

beardy

30th Aug 2018, 21:04

Fair point Beardy, but we do have a lot of data on death and pathology. This was presented at an employment tribunal and examined by many barristers. The CAA admitted the risk of incapacitation had fallen so as to make the current limits nonsensical on medical grounds - ie the risk was well below the level of risk they have set as a cut off. I dont think the risk is debated between the parties, although it my be on this thread. It is a question of whether the regulator is required to change the rules when the facts change, and whether the rule should be changed
I'm not aware of any employment tribunal where the arguments you outline were presented. Will you be so kind as to present a link or reference.

w.bayley

30th Aug 2018, 21:39

Hi beard,
This challange is the first of its kind and nothing to do with a tribunal which deals with employment issues.
This is the first challange of the regulator. The scientific evidence is avialable and published. You have a reference in my previous post. Google Grp Pct Timperely. No lawyer has argued this in Court. The data from 2004 is published by ICAO in their evidence for a change from 60 to 65.
The 1% incapacitation threshold is published. The age at which pilots can be expected to cross that threshold is 80 according to the avialable data.
Apart from that there are 10 countries where over 65 year old pilots are operating. What more evidence is needed?

ShotOne

31st Aug 2018, 05:06

Full of half-truths, Wayne: The ICAO data you are quoting does NOT support removing the age limit. Dr Evans discussed and considered this but expressly rejected removing it. Of those countries Japan has NOT scrapped its limit, just allowed a two year extension and only domestic Australia/NZ pilots can fly on. The total of over-65's flying is still a tiny statistical sample. "Safe" to fly to 80. Seriously? That's more than average life-span in many countries. The next big challenge we face will be a well-funded lobby towards single-pilot ops. If it's nodded through on similarly scanty "evidence" our profession has lost that battle already!

beardy

31st Aug 2018, 06:44

There is an 'urban legend,' and I have no idea of its veracity, that the earlier a pilot retires, the longer they live. Could this be a factor in the health of older (past retirement age) pilots? Of course mortality is one thing to look at, what other factors are relevant? Cognitive decline has been mentioned, the natural bias that increases with age to not admit fault, gradual (between medicals) as well as sudden in capitation, they all spring to mind without any deep analysis.
On a personal level I found that after 20 years in the RAF, commercial flying was well paid but unrewarding most of the time, the level of thrill was rarely there. As soon as it became financially viable I left. I still fly, but how and when I want and frequently upside down!
From a philosophical point of view I can understand what is essentially an Anarchic argument against a blanket rule, but I can also see that from a Utilitarian point there is little, if any, progress toward a greater benefit for the greatest number of people.

back to Boeing

31st Aug 2018, 07:12

Study here Ephrem: (http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/COE/gutub/English_Misc/Retire1.htm)

My opposition to this is not whether or not a pilot keels over mid flight. It’s the slow incipient loss of mental acuity that isn’t caught by a medical as we age. There is no adequate test for that and until there is the retirement age should not be scrapped

Nemrytter

31st Aug 2018, 07:52

The scientific evidence is avialable and published. You have a reference in my previous post. Google Grp Pct Timperely. That's a name, it's not scientific evidence. Your previous post contains no evidence whatsoever. I had a google and can't find anything scientific related to this chap. May I suggest that you provide some links to scientific (i.e: peer-reviewed) evidence to support your claims? It'd go a long way to establishing what's going on here.

Mach E Avelli

31st Aug 2018, 08:02

The 2002 Ephrem study is interesting in its prediction of death within two years if you defer retirement to 65. That may have been applicable early last century but today is clearly nonsense.
More likely, overwrought executives and pilots croak simply because they stress too much, accept too much work (either from greed or ambition), eat too much, drink too much and maybe were smokers for too many years.
There is enough theory floating around now to recommend that we keep working at least part time for as long as we are able. Provided we keep reasonably fit and follow a sensible diet, working at something we enjoy apparently staves off dementia and death.
But I don't see long haul flying as either healthy or enjoyable, so absolutely see where ICAO is coming from. Domestic-only flying could be different, subject to fitness, rosters and workload. As for cognitive decline - isn't that why we do regular simulator checks?
I have seen pilots in their early 50s well on the way to senility while others in their 70s still sharp. When under the pump in the simulator what the good old ones lack in reflexes they make up for in rat cunning.
Interestingly the senile ones were overweight; the sharp ones slim - so perhaps there is a correlation there too? Though I also know a couple of slim ones who had unexpected heart attacks at an early age, but maybe there was family history. Surely risk can be mitigated by a diligent medical examination every six months.
Having said all of the above, from an industrial/fairness angle long haul pilots should NOT be able to return to domestic short haul and displace or disadvantage those who chose the domestic path.

Count of Monte Bisto

31st Aug 2018, 08:17

I am 59 and retirement approaches. I have loved my working life but will be glad to slow down as working low cost is pretty tiring (it is probably is tiring for nearly everyone these days). As I read the comments of a younger generation on here, the message is very clear - 'Move over you old git and let us all advance on up the ladder'. My lifelong observation of the pilot community is that they are some of the most selfish and self-centered group of employees in the labour market today. The very same people who opposed rights for women pilots having children (a vital necessity to produce the next generation) and who stuffed their Dan Air colleagues now want rights to work as long as they want. Needless to say, the people who will be disadvantaged by that (FOs waiting to get commands in a seniority system) are up in arms. In a growing population of older people it is inevitable that people work longer. This is compounded by changes in family practices in our society - divorce was very rare a generation ago, but is sadly the norm today. Many pilots have had to pay for 3 houses, often entirely because of their own follies in their personal lives. Nonetheless, I see no credible argument to kick a pilot out on the basis of age along, subject to medical tests and simulator assessments etc. I think that morally this chap will win the argument, but in reality it will effect very few people. I wish him success to cater for those few brave souls who need to carry on a bit longer.

slowjet

31st Aug 2018, 09:48

COUNT, liked the bit about the old gits. Had to laugh during a Line Check when Examiner turned on very young FO and said ;"Right, Boss in the LHS has just developed chronic flatulence,uncontrolled vomiting, grabbing at his own chest (for a change) and has now passed out. What do you do ?" Expecting the text-book Pilot incapacity drill, FO replied ; " I would call up the CA and tell her to get that fat bastard out of MY seat !

Docfly

31st Aug 2018, 10:51

I don’t know if you seen this presentation from 2011 by Dr Tony Evans Wayne. If not then it contains some useful evidence.

https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2011/AVMED2011/Day01-06-ICAO-Evans.pdf

L'aviateur

31st Aug 2018, 11:11

Just out of curiosity, have there been any studies into the gradual deterioration of cognitive ability over the age of 60 for pilots? I appreciate it will affect people differently, but it's something that cannot be ignored.

Rabski

31st Aug 2018, 19:36

ShyTorque

31st Aug 2018, 20:26

Who in the name of all that's holy wants to keep doing it past 60? I wan't to tend to my garden, fix the kitchen and not have to have continual arguments about cost cutting and the ever-increasing crap.

Probably far fewer than those who need to. I would have retired at 40 but unfortunately financial reality got in the way.

ShotOne

31st Aug 2018, 21:26

Docfly, yes Dr Evans' report contains useful evidence: it provided a balanced medical assessment on which the 60-65 increase was based. And it expressly and pointedly advised AGAINST removal of an upper limit. Not that that has stopped Wayne from implying it supported his case. Ditto for the more recent report by Group Captain Timpereley. His report advised a comprehensive series of extra medical checks to be applied at age 60, yet this didn't stop Wayne plucking a figure implying the Gp Cpt says it's safe to fly to 80. (Reality check: average male life-expectancy in U.K. Is 79.2 yrs)

w.bayley

31st Aug 2018, 22:07

Shot One
You have not carefully read what I wrote. I stated that the ICAO data used to raise the age limit from 60 to 65 identified that the 1% incapacity threshold occurred beyond 65.
It had to say that other wise the age limit could not have been increased to 65. Think about for a second before you reply......
that was based on data from 2004. That is in Dr Evans evidence. That data is 14 years old. Group Capt Timperley's presentation to the Royal Aeronitical Society pointed to the 1% threshold being breached at 80. There is a growing body of evidence to support his work. It is not peer reviewed. But then there is no data to support the current limit of 65. Just a load of data confirming the limit of 1% occurs AFTER 65.
My challange is quite straight forward. It is that the current limit of 65 is not supported by any effort to "review with rigour and an open mind" areas of Discrimination in Age, Gender, sexual orientation etc. etc. If the regulator has not done that they have failed in their Statutory Obligation.
The statment about 10 countries permitting over 65 pilots to operate isn't central to the challange it just helps to expose the absurdity of the rule.
I have not made any claims which do not stand up to your scrutiny (or anyone elses).
Wayne

w.bayley

31st Aug 2018, 22:10

Doc Fly
thanks for the steer to Dr Evans. I am familiar with it. It is quite central to the legal challange.

parabellum

1st Sep 2018, 00:55

(Reality check: average male life-expectancy in U.K. Is 79.2 yrs)

Which, with respect to commercial pilots, is not reality at all. Reality will be the average life expectancy of commercial PILOTS. Indeed, any figures quoting UK averages for any condition, including heart attacks, are irrelevant if they are not exclusive to commercial pilots.

Mach E Avelli

1st Sep 2018, 02:00

Quite. The average would be dragged down by all those in the general population who are obese, smokers, stress merchants, drunks, druggies etc, and those with unfortunate genes - many with a combination of these problems.
Pilots SHOULD do better than this average. But not all will, and it is those who don't beat the average that supports the other side's argument. Unfortunately for those wishing to hang in there past 65, I believe that the counter argument will prevail in much the same way as we have ever more prescriptive SOPs and regulations to cater for the the lowest common denominator.

w.bayley

1st Sep 2018, 08:59

Hi Mach E Avelli
If the counter argument always prevail we would still have Navigators and Flight Engineers in the Flight Deck and only 4 engine planes would cross oceans.

beardy

1st Sep 2018, 10:15

So, after having deemed this 1% to be an acceptable risk level it has been found that, in practice, we have been operating at a lower risk level, which has, on the whole been safe. You now want to increase the risk level in order to make money post 65th birthday. The arbitrary figure of 1% is not as safe as the current, lower, risk level and financial gain is not a suitable argument to increase the risk. There is no bar to flying beyond 65 however, there is no cause to increase the risk to paying passengers who place their trust in the regulators and operators.

Rabski

1st Sep 2018, 11:28

Probably far fewer than those who need to. I would have retired at 40 but unfortunately financial reality got in the way.

Oh, like most here I understand financial reality. The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons. But I want MY life. I downsized, bought a share in a PA28R for fun, and walked away. Stress is a major cause of all sorts of medical issues and the older you get, the greater the likelihood. It's hard to adjust sometimes to not roving the world and all the fun and games. But I quite like my tomatoes and my cumcumbers have done really well this year...

ShyTorque

1st Sep 2018, 12:48

The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons.

My wife of forty one years says you're talking from your back end.....

bafanguy

1st Sep 2018, 13:09

The divorce rate and child support arrangements are almost a given frankly. It's part of the way of life in the pilot's world for various reasons.

An oft-repeated allegation without independent pilot-specifc data to support it. Or at least none I've been able to find.

It'd be interesting to see the statement addressed to substantiate or disprove it.

Nemrytter

1st Sep 2018, 19:24

It'd be interesting to see the statement addressed to substantiate or disprove it.This thread seems remarkably short of hard evidence ;)

Mach E Avelli

1st Sep 2018, 23:10

The removal of Navigators and Flight Engineers and creation of ETOPS rules resulted from exponential advances in aircraft design, equipment and engine reliability.
An improvement in lifespan from 70 to 80 over roughly a century is hardly exponential.
Don’t shoot the messenger. I am all for raising the retirement age and indeed, living in Australia am a beneficiary of this. Merely playing devil’s advocate and suggesting the chances of it ever being lifted beyond national borders won’t happen.
Even if it does happen in the U.K. it will be of limited value if you won’t be allowed in European airspace. How would an airline realistically use pilots encumbered with such a restriction? I guess flying a Bongo around the Shetlands could be fun...

Nightstop

2nd Sep 2018, 14:19

London to/from GLA, EDI, ABZ, INV, NCL, BFS & JER would be fine by me.

w.bayley

2nd Sep 2018, 15:50

Beard
It is entertaining reading your views. They do bring a smile to my aging face 😀.
let's try this one more time.
The REGULATOR decides what the acceptable level of risk is. It a a black and white value.
Some pilots over 65 meet this level of safety. BUT because of AGE DISCRIMINATION these pilots are prevented from operating and earning a living.
The High Court is being asked to rule as to whether or not the CAA has discharged their Statutary obligation in respect of this discrimination.
It has nothing to do with your arbitrary level of current levels of safety and whether or not they are eroded.
Do you get it now.?
Wayne

Reacher19

2nd Sep 2018, 18:04

@w.bayley What stage are you currently at? Do you have any idea when a judgement is likely to be made? Kr R19

w.bayley

2nd Sep 2018, 18:58

Reacher19
The High Court is "a law unto itself" All I can go on is the best guess of the legal team.
They expect the HC to consider the arguments submitted by both sides and during Sept set a date for trial. Then we go to Court and argue. At some stage they give their judgement. One side looses and one side prevails.
There is an option for the CAA to ask to go to arbitration. So working out a "time line" is impossible.
what we have achieved is the CAA cannot "fob us off" They would have had to consider this at Board level. Therefore lower level managers can no longer "kick this can down the road" We have forced the regulator to give this serious consideration.

The fact is that there is no rational justification for defending a rule not supported by evidence. I can only offer an educated guess as to how they will respond?
wayne

beardy

2nd Sep 2018, 19:24

Beard
It is entertaining reading your views. They do bring a smile to my aging face ��.
let's try this one more time.
The REGULATOR decides what the acceptable level of risk is. It a a black and white value.
Some pilots over 65 meet this level of safety. BUT because of AGE DISCRIMINATION these pilots are prevented from operating and earning a living.
The High Court is being asked to rule as to whether or not the CAA has discharged their Statutary obligation in respect of this discrimination.
It has nothing to do with your arbitrary level of current levels of safety and whether or not they are eroded.
Do you get it now.?
Wayne

Yes I do, I got it from the start and I find your sarcasm unbecoming of you.

How is the authority to assess which of those avaricious old men fit his 1% model, a figure which is based on a statistical analysis of a large population and is not applicable to individuals or is that of no concern to the case?

I have no financial interest in the outcome of your court action. I elected to retire at 60 even though I could have carried on.

ShyTorque

2nd Sep 2018, 19:48

I elected to retire at 60 even though I could have carried on.

Good for you. Obviously, you would not have done so if your financial situation did not allow it.

Deeply Concerned

2nd Sep 2018, 21:46

I'm behind Wayne on this one. Just so I understand, could someone please explain what exactly is meant by the 1% risk. 1% of what please?

Nemrytter

3rd Sep 2018, 07:16

Good luck getting any facts, keep seeing mentions of "scientific evidence" yet it never materialises...

Landflap

3rd Sep 2018, 09:58

Nemrytter : Agreed. Again, Wayne's case is a simple challenge to the Regulatory Authority on the absurdity of the current, quite arbitrary age cut-off for PROFESSIONAL PILOTS. Many have tried to clarify the point with the simple illustration, I might have used, almost, the exact same words too ; why, having done the job, signed the Tech log, gone home, was Wayne prevented from doing the exact same thing after midnight the very next day, just because, Happy Birthday, he was 65 ? Because some statistic, somewhere, showed he was, as of the very next day , more likely to croak , at the controls. Show us the evidence !

If the Regulatory Authority has the facts, has the 1% data, has the statistical evidence, for PROFESSIONAL PILOTS, let's see it.

IN the old days. I was selected to become a TRE/IRE. I expressed, half-heartedly, a concern about what to do if it was ME who was asked a tricky question. I was told to blind with science, numbers & stats. Usually works !

According to the Daily Fail & it's persistant reporting on some statistical survey which changes boundaries every day, some Bod in London is getting knifed every six hours.................
yeah, and he is getting really cheesed off with it.

Nemrytter

3rd Sep 2018, 10:12

I was told to blind with science, numbers & stats. Usually works !I've found that that only works with people who don't understand science, numbers or stats. Anyone else can see through the smoke and mirrors pretty quickly, tbh.

w.bayley

3rd Sep 2018, 15:31

Beard
where was my sarcasm? I do mean it reading your views does make me smile.

Deeply Concerned
The REGULATOR defines acceptable risk as 1%. This is used to determine if a pilot has a limitation on his/ her licence there must be a less than 1% risk of incapacitation. There are further caviet which define critical phases of flight which amount to the take off and landing phases.
Where thère are 2 pilots the chances of both becoming incapacitated at the same time become astronomically low. The last data that ICAO accepted as valid was used in 2006 to raise the limit from 60 to 65. Dr Tony Evans supplied that data and it was based on 2004 data. It predicted that the 1% threshold was breached at age 70.
Group Capt Timperley gave a presentation at the Royal Aeronautical Society in Dec last year and his date predicted the 1% risk threshold not being breached until 80.
Like you the statistics are beyond me but I do understand that with enhanced medicals as applied by the Australians and other regulators pilots are allowed to earn a living beyond 65 in ten countries.
I also know that the CAA has not produced any evidence to support the 65 year limit. I am simply asking the Court to rule on whether or not they have meet their Statutary obligations under the Discrimination legislation.

which is why when I read Beards post I have to smile.
Wayne