The new law on "ageism" - where does it leave pilots and crew who want to carry on!?

[PPRuNe Pop]

When the new law on ageism comes into force. Employers will not be allowed to make you retire if you want to stay! That, as I understand it from the enquiries I have made, is how the law is to be framed.

Interesting then that the CAA *may* have to review the question of 60 in regard to the current retirement age. And the airlines who insist on 55.

Makes for a debate in the search for the real answers.

[Alloy]

There always seems to be a transport get out clause!

[VFE]

Indeed there is a clause for airline pilots as reported by the BBC's Six o' Clock News this evening.

"Obviously we will not see 68 year old airline pilots being kept on with failing eyesight"

I guess what the reporter was trying to say was pilots are exempt from this new bill, perhaps?

I don't know if the airlines with compulsory retirement ages under the national limit will finally be forced to abandon their unreasonable limits and bring them into line with other airlines who have the national limit.

I think it's time that particular practice was made illegal don't you? If a pilot can pass the Class One or even company medical then they should not be forced to retire from that airline at age 55 IMHO.

VFE.

[wing_nut1]

The only problem i can see with that is, that if ther 'older' crew members shall we say want to stay on for as long as possible, that means that new pilots that have just passed their CPL will have to wait even longer than the year queue at the moment for a job?

[soddim]

One has to ask if it is wise to fly too long into the higher age bracket. I felt when I quit fast jet fighter flying at 53 that it was time - not that I felt unsafe just flying but I needed bi or vari focals to read the closer displays and, consequently, my lookout suffered. I could still use my experience to avoid many potential hazards and I could still pass the annual medical but I wondered if I was still as sharp if things went pear-shaped. I could probably have continued a few years but would it have been safe to do so?

It is all very well to tell companies that they are not allowed to ask people to retire on age grounds but what about the safety of their customers? That must come first.

[Devils Advocate]

.... brilliant !

All one has to do is to keep on passing the class 1 medical, as well as ones six-monthly LPC/OPC's - so just what is the problem that ?

And yes I know that some will say that it stiffles career progression for the new / younger guys, but, imho, that's tosh as it'll all even out in the end as the pilot pool is still the same size - all that will happen is that some might have to take a couple of years longer in the RHS ( which in some instances might be no bad thing ! ).

Of course for those who don't want to carry on with the trade then good for them, they can burger off - but some of us wouldn't give it up untill we're forced to, i.e. it's a great job, why give it up in the prime ones life ?!

[currawong]

Great news - as I anticipate needing this career untill I am at least 80 to be able to afford to retire!

[HotDog]

It's about time!

The European Union (EU) Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), the FAA of Europe has mandated the EU's fifteen nations to adopt age 65 as their maximum airline pilot age.

Australia and New Zealand, after reviewing FAA rule-justifying studies, have gone to no age limit. Canada and Japan both use age 63. .

[dusk2dawn]

JAA is not the FAA of EU. EASA will in time become so but licensing will not come under their umbrella for the first 4-6 years.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The short answer is that we will probably be exempt, as we are from almost every aspect of (UK) employment legislation that protects workers from excessive hours, compulsory breaks, dismissal etc.

[witchdoctor]

Just because the law protects you from enforced retirement, I doubt it will prevent you from being moved into 'other duties' with the same employer. I expect a rash of over-60's with a bucket and sponge cleaning bugs off the windshield.

[fiftyfour]

International aviation is covered by an ICAO treaty to which nearly all countries in the world are signed up to. The treaty stipulates 65 as the maximum age for visiting/overflying commercial pilots holding licences issued in other states. Of course individual countries can set their own limits for their own national licence above age 65 , but they cannot under the treaty allow their own nationals to fly over other countries above age 65. France, as one would expect, has it's own interpretation of what this treaty means in practice and only allows visiting copilots (not captains) to age 65 - but this could be challenged, if an ICAO country was willing to pursue the matter.
It seems to me that when this law comes into force, a UK pilot will, in practice, only be able to fly to age 65. At that point his employer will be able to dissmiss him because he is unable to fly to or over any other country and therefore unable to do the job for which he was contracted.
Incidently, the French have to abide by the same EU directive on age discrimination, and it must be established into French Law by Dec 2006. French pilots will then presumably be able to resist premature retirement on purely age grounds through the French Courts. The French DGCA view of the ICAO treaty will presumably be challenged from within France.

[dusk2dawn]

...and the name of that EU directive was ???

[Faire d'income]

I would think they would still be better keeping that sort of thing as discrete as possible. 'Affairs' of this type can lead to bad press and damage our image as clean living Knights of the sky! :p :ok:

[STAGE COACH DRIVER]

What is wrong with you people I for one would like to retire as soon as I can afford to.The main motive I fear is greed. Two or Three holiday homes not enough or is it all the ex wives well thats your own falt should have kept it in your pants.Have you noticed how car insurance go's up after your 65 I wonder why?The salarys paid to Captains are very large compared to other jobs so if you can't manage your life so you can afford to retire then perhaps that could be classed as incompetence and should incompetant people fly aeroplanes you answer that one.

[Harbour Rat]

Nobody is stopping you retiring early SCD. I am trying to look past the arrogance in your post and failing dismally. I can only presume you fell out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Clearly you have had an easy existence throughout your career allowing you the luxury of early retirement. Let's think of some of the guys and gals out there that had to pay their own way through, probably been made redundant a few times and have family problems beyond their control, requiring them to work on for some time.

Incidentally not all pilots discard wives at the drop of a hat, having gone through the financial exercise in their heads and thought better of it.

[Pirate]

Stage Coach Driver,

If only life was that simple. Yes, there are pilots aplenty who have had the good fortune to be in continuous employment with the opportunities to retire comfortably at a relatively early age. If I was among them, I would look forward to hanging up my flying boots and enjoying life. However, I have had the misfortune to work for several airlines that ceased trading and have thus had several lean years of no flying and a fragmented pension situation. As I write I have no flying job, despite being a 12000 hour captain - my crime appears to be that I'm over 50.

I am by no means alone in this predicament - there are many like me who will need to work longer than we would wish to fund a reasonable retirement. I sincerely hope you are able to avoid this situation, but a little understanding for the less fortunate would not go amiss.

For the record, just the one wife, no holiday home, no Porche.


Confundemus

[STAGE COACH DRIVER]

HR
No i'm not retired yet still a long way to go but if you hadn't guessed from my name i'm a flight engineer . We have had the no retirement age for a long time. I think you will find that the oldest F/E still on the CAA books is 73 do you still think that is a good idea.Would you like to be in the middle of the pond in the middle of the night with the f/e fast asleep when the S##t hits the fan.The only reason the government have bought in the new law is due to shortage of funds for pensions.

[niknak]

Regardless of legislation, how about recognising one's limitations?

One thing that separates the vast majority of avaition professionals from their equivilant in other trades is the ability to know when enough is enough.

I am not suggesting that Captain Bloggs should retire from their command of a B747 at 60 and never fly again, they obviously have a wealth of experience which could be passed on by other work in the industry, just as many ex - operational atco's go on to become instructors or work in the development of safety and systems.

I only hope that whatever l legislation is passed, we are still allowed to give something back without having to fight our way through layers of red tape and nonsense.

[Cathar]

fiftyfour

The ICAO requirements are contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Annex 1 sets an age limit of 60 for pilots-in-command and recommends an age limit of 60 for co-pilots. It is the JAA which have agreed to an age limit of 65 in JAR-FCL. There is no legal obligation (only a moral one) on JAA member states to implement JARs. For legal (and political) reasons the French have decide not to implement the JAR-FCL age limit and insisted on compliance with the ICAO standard in their airspace. The will however accept deviations from the recommended practices and allow co-pilots up to the age of 65.

The French action is entirely in accordance with the Convention.

[fireflybob]

Agree totally with Pirate as I am in a similar position. This legislation would be excellent news if applied to aviation and we should lobby our representative bodies to ensure that it is.

Older pilots also have a wealth of experience and wisdom which they can pass on and are often good mentors to the less experienced.

As an aside, my father was still examining instructors on light aircraft when he was 80 plus!

[fiftyfour]

Cathar,
If you are sure that you are right, then I stand corrected that the ICAO limit is 60 for Captains. I was writing from memory and do not have the ICAO document to hand.

[Pirate]

Firefly Bob,

Was your dad Hector Taylor by any chance? He did my instructor rating test in 1979. It was quite a revelation to be sharing a cockpit with a man who learnt to fly on the Avro 504.

[Basil]

There is no reason whatsoever why anyone should feel the need to explain why they continue in work as long as they wish.
Those who feel that they can tell others how to run their lives should be treated with the contempt which such people deserve.

So there! :}

[Tan]

HotDog

There is no retirement age for pilots in Canada. However the airlines or more accurately the unions insist upon the imfamous age 60 rule.

The pension plans are in flex at the present moment so I expect that we are going to see a change in the future. Some folks are old at age 60 some arn'nt.

[soddim]

Tan - you are absolutely right. Some people can perform safely for much longer into old age than others. I am also sure that most responsible airline captains recognise their limitations as they get to the point at which they should retire and do so. It is, however, a little worrying that some on this forum see the need to fly as long as possible regardless.

The problem is surely for the airline companies - if the government rules that they have to let these people continue to fly regardless, who is responsible when things fall apart because one of their old employees screwed up. Well, obviously the government, but who foots the bill?

There will have to be exceptions where the safety of the customer is involved.

[jafa]

There doesn't seem to be much of a relationship between numerical age and performance.... I can remember one of the ancestors, cattleman all his life, cutting out scrubbers in his eighties, tooling through the trees and over the rocks at a hundred miles an hour, horse full stretch, stockwhip cracking, sweat flying, dust and sparks, all action.... Some people, on the other hand, seem to start tripping over things when they hit fifity. Some don't get that far.

My impression, just looking at these older guys, is that if they are fit enough to want to go to work, then they very probably are fit enough to do it.

Seems the Australians and the New Zealanders, yet again, have got it right.

[witchdoctor]

Might be worth bearing in mind that if employers decide to pull you off the flight deck at 60 or 65 and allow you to stay on in another role, any final salary pension could be considerably reduced. After all, do you really think any beancounter worth his salt will pay the same salary for a ground bound old fogey to that of his marginally younger flying counterpart?

I can see the airlines falling over backwards to assist any way they can with this one - just imagine the savings!

[soddim]

Every final salary pension scheme I know of has provisions that adequately cover change of job and salary within the company. It is also normal for such schemes to allow early pensions for those who have to retire early due to company policy.

[Willie Everlearn]

:confused:

I believe in many cases, at least to this point in time, pilot Union Contracts have prevailed in the establishment of a mandatory retirement age. :*

These unions fostered the idea of retirement at age 55/60/65 early on by writing that number into their contracts in a day and age vastly different from today. At a time when women on the flight deck would merely serve tea and leave. Not so nowadays my friend.
Pilots believed 'there came a time' when it was time to get out and that number seemed to fit rather nicely back then. Pilots bought it, companies bought it and so it went. Here we are today. Not only in conflict with ourselves but also with our past, our civil laws and our civil liberites. How things have changed? It's incredible.

Who's right?

What's right?

I'm not certain the Airlines and pilot unions generally (worldwide) have it right as far as retirement age goes, anyway? Certainly not in this day and age. After all, the reality is, we're living longer, we're in better health much longer in life and able to contribute longer. So why not stay on??? At least, let's make it more of a mutual decision but within reason.
The way this industry is going who in their right minds would wish to continue flying much beyond 60 anyway?

Some out there may have enjoyed a stable and successful flying career with an established carrier that has maintained reasonable financial health over the past 30-40 years. Others haven't been so fortunate and as a result might well wish to provide a better retirement for themselves by staying beyond age 55 or 60. Let's not forget that in the 60s and 70s the term Low Cost Carrier wasn't heard. Nor did there exist the number of IT carriers to the extent they do today. I see them popping up left, right, and centre these days and failing at a similar rate. So, why not let a bloke continue to fly for as long as he's able to maintain 'the standards' across the board??

I used to be a 24 year old CPL wishing the old fellas into retirement so I could have my crack at it. However, today at age 52....I've 'ad enuff Mate! Can't pack it in soon enuff!!!

AT some point though, surely to goodness, retirement MUST be mandatory.
:ok:

[xriter]

SCD are you for real? I fly with a "senior" flight engineer, who is by pilot terms way over the hill! Hs is also one of the sharpest weve got....lets leave the decision in the same place as it has been in the past........The medical and the CAA appointed examiners.Its hard in this day and age to get past the media, but the choice of the healthy individual must,providing all else is in good order,be allowed.
;)

[MPH]

For those on JAA/JAR. 65yrs. It's what the local authority authorizes? If you are fit..then be my guest!
The problem, is what do you do about the limitations stipulated on the individual labour agreements, between union and company? That's, I m afraid, going to be a long discusssion...I know I am still fighting it!;)

[flange lubricator]

Well, they're saying now that 60 is the new 40!! Good on the distingiushed elder gentlemen!

[dusk2dawn]

Could I please have the "name, number and rank" of that EU directive or at least a link to that new UK law on ageism ?

[Sleeve Wing]

Just to add my threepenn'th.

I had to retire at 60 and, quite honestly, I'd had enough of the present Airline business by this time - well, certainly of operating out of LHR.

My gripe is they wouldn't even let me carry on flying a light twin for a living, - or rather a paying hobby.
Trouble is I'm fortunate enough to be as fit as a fiddle and I'm just not ready, mentally, to pack it up at an instant. I really hoped for a gentle reduction in the demands on me.

I actually fly because I always wanted to,because I actually enjoy it and because I'd probably go to an early grave if I was forced to stop flying altogether !

In the meantime I teach aerobatics.

Regards, Sleeve. :ok:

[fiftyfour]

dusk2dawn,

The link you need is http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age

[Keith.Williams.]

Taken to its logical conclusion the new law could mean that a lot of 87 year old pilots will be watching 97 year old lap dancers during their stopovers!!!

Yes, I know you wouldn't really do that, but if they can pass the medical and want to continue......(the pilots I mean, we all know that lap dancers are too old at 26).

My mind is beginning to boggle.

[soggyboxers]

Whilst there are undoubtedly those who become doddering old fogeys at the age of 55, many people these days are staying fitter, healthier and mentally younger than their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s. My late uncle, at the age of 99 was not only still driving his car, but he also serviced it himself - in over 80 years of driving he never had an accident. There are many of us like that in aviation nowadays (not 99 year old pilots who service there own aircraft, he hastens to add!!). IMHO, if a pilot is able to pass the medical and the proficiency checks required for his/her licence, there is no good reason to stop him/her flying until at least 65. Aviation legislation (and ICAO) also need to keep up with the times and recognise that people in general are living longer, healthier lives.
SCD, you must also recognise that not old all airline pilots are highly paid Jumbo drivers. There are many of us flying helicopters, or flying as bush pilots in third world countries who earn very mediocre salaries who could not possible afford to retire at 50 or 55. We have one 65 year old pilot in my company who still flies a DHC6 in the bush for 6 or 7 hours a day and is very fit and sharp.
Surely, it's just the old 'horses for courses' thing. There are those who want to retire early and those who don't. There are those who are old at 50 and those who are young at 70 and the new proposals just seem to take these things into account (though it being the EU, one is never quite sure:hmm:

[STAGE COACH DRIVER]

OK I agree not all people are over the hill at 60 or 65 but who then has to police the situation.To say if you can get a medical then you should be allowed to carry on is rubish as not all AME's are the same.I used to see one some years ago that if you could find his office you had passed.I am sure most people know of someone who they think I wonder how he carry's on or why do they let him carry on.The airline way these days is not what you know but who you know. The only way to police this is as we have now set rules that say when you are 60 you stop flying large a/c.OK this will stop some who are capable of carrying on but how else can you do it.How many people have sat at home and just watched the news and seen a judge let someone off for murder or given them 2 years and said these judges are not in touch they are over the hill. Well i'm sure if you asked them they too would say I'm ok to carry on ?

[redbar1]

Hi,
Just for info and to "level the playing field", here are the texts of ICAO Annex 1 and JAR-FCL 1 on max age:

ICAO Annex 1:
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licenses, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in scheduled international air services or non-scheduled international air transport operations for remuneration or hire if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday.
JAR-FCL 1:
1.060 (a) Age 60–64. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 60 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations except:
(1) as a member of a multi-pilot crew and provided that,
(2) such holder is the only pilot in the flight crew who has attained age 60.

(b) Age 65. The holder of a pilot licence who has attained the age of 65 years shall not act as a pilot of an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations.
This age limit in JAR-FCL applies only to commercial air transport, and not to aerial work, corporate aviation, instruction/training flights, testing, etc.

Cheers,
RedBar1

[Pilot Pete]

An interesting thread,

Another issue connected to it is that of CRM. If a captain moves to the right seat to continue for another couple of years, especially if he/she is a training captain with considerable time and experience under their belt, he could be the best asset a captain has, or conversely could be the worst nightmare! It's down to individuals I guess. Should be interesting to see when it happens. (My employer has the first one in a month or two)

PP

[Willie Everlearn]

ICAO! Bah humbug!!! :p

Another organization like the UN.

Political job placement body, full of itself. Run by self-absorbed politicos with little 'real world' experience employing lots and lots and lots of doctorate level educated punters mostly from the third world.

Not to be confused with any regulatory authority. AND, certainly not to be confused with any progressive, forward thinking authority.
(snicker, snicker)

There. That's got that off.

Honestly, we surely must retire at some point. How else do we get to enjoy it? Do the things we've been dreaming of and planning for all these years. Whatever that magic age, enjoy life after aviation cause it sure as 'ell ain't much to enjoy these days.

IMHO :{

[ORAC]

Dusk2Dawn, does this answer your questions?

Age Discrimination Law – The Slow Drag to 2006 (http://www.aarp.org/international/Articles/a2003-05-05-ia-perspectives.html)

The European Directive on Equal Treatment (Council Directive 2000/78/EC) was passed on the 27th of November 2000. The deadline for implementation by individual EU states is 2006.

Council Directive 2000/78/EC - Full Text. (http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32000L0078&model=guichett)

Analysis of the EU Directive on Equal Treatment (http://www.edf-feph.org/Papers/nondisc/EDF01-8-Empl%20Dir%20analysis.pdf)

[Stability Jane]

From another point of view.

My husband retired last year after a long career as a fast jet pilot in the Air Force, and latterly as a 747 Training Captain. He has always had many interests outside of aviation, and although he busier now, he seems to have regressed in years as he wallows in the pleasure from his various hobbies. We do have a share in an aerobatic aircraft so that he can occasionaly indulge himself in what he refers to as real flying, the reason for his initial interest in flying, as opposed to "truck driving" with hours spent with a "numb bum" in the cruise.

He has enjoyed his careers, but is now much more relaxed as he also has the time to spend with the children, and grandchildren. No more long trips, and the aftermath zombie moods!

On the other hand, our young nephew is a junior First Officer on the 747, and although he enjoys it, he also NEEDS the income from his job to cover his family expenses. Yes, my husband has been lucky careerwise, but he also saved for retirement, and so does not NEED to go to work for another income. So as he says, he thinks it unreasonable to prolong his numb bum syndrone at the expense of blocking a younger persons job prospect.

There are others who have not been as fortunate as us, and for those, I fully agree that they should be able to continue working. But for those in a similar situation as ourselves, enjoy the sailing, golfing, travelling, kitcar building, pub lunches, undisturbed romantic interludes etc etc., and LEAVE THE JOBS FOR THOSE WHO REALLY NEED THEM.

[maxy101]

Stability Jane , Problem is that a lot of people aren´t in a similar situation to yourselves.....Those of us with 20 +yrs to go are looking at the current situation re:reducing pensions, increasing taxes, reducing state entitlements and worrying about our futures. Many of us currently working are paying your husbands´ pension now. With the demographic problems Europe is facing ,our generation will not have that luxury. We may have to work until 60-65 to enjoy retirement.....

[MPH]

Stability Jane.

Was your husband 55,56, 60 or 65yrs old when he retired?

Good for him, he deserves every second!
The point of the mattter, is that some, do not have the good fortune of retiring and enjoying this well deserved benifit. The above mentioned age limitations, are a mixture of labor contracts and age limitations imposed by the various governing bodies. My point of view is that if, FAA or JAA or any other authority, stipulates the age at which one should hang up one's wings. Then that should be the limit, and not the one imposed by labor contracts or the various countries, that are presured into modifying this imposition.
If you are fit, why not have the benifit of continuing?:hmm:

[Stability Jane]

Maxy101 and MPH, you both make very valid points, and I agree with them.

As I said, we have been very lucky, not just with the pension provision, but also with the small income we derive from savings, and the few investments we have made over the years.

There are many who have not been as fortunate, and provided they meet the medical, and skill criteria, they should be allowed to continue working. And, as Maxy101 said, because of changing conditions the younger ones will probably need to continue working for longer.

However, ONLY for those in a similar situation to ourselves, I would strongly recommend storing the working clothes. Hopefully it might also create some vacancies, and further, allow the younger people to get on the pension ladder sooner.

You can't take it with you!

[Basil]

<<LEAVE THE JOBS FOR THOSE WHO REALLY NEED THEM>>

Missus, if you're that bossy at home it won't be long until he's off flying longhaul again. :D

[PPRuNe Pop]

With news that a 55 year old BA hostess has asked for her job back. It may be close to a "test case" since a goodly number of employers are entering into the spirit of the proposal - before it becomes law.

It is hoped that BA will see the writing on the wall. Thus giving experienced staff more time at work if they want it.

It is already thought that they will be hard pressed to produce a case against the EU directive when it comes into force. In fact, they just might not have a choice.

[Tandemrotor]

PPruNe Pop

Now steady on, I too read that story, and I don't see much similarity between pilots continuing beyond age 55, and cabin crew continuing!!

As a professional pilot, I hold a qualification, and a licence to operate. I am required to DEMONSTRATE my competence in my job every 6 Months, and I am also subject to a stringent medical to determine my medical fitness for flying duties every 6 months!

It can easily be argued that age should not be a barrier to my continued employment!

Presumably that is why I could (if I wished) cease employment with my current employer at age 55, and find gainful employment with another airline!

Perhaps not the case for cabin crew!!

I see very little similarity to my position, and that of someone with no qualification, no licence, no 6 monthly competency check, and no medical!

If pilots want to carry on, let's argue that case, but be very careful about linking it to cabin crew

[PPRuNe Pop]

TandemRotor

I was not attempting to offer an opinion, merely stating what was reported, the effect that might have, and how BA might react. It applies equally to other airlines too of course.

I am fully aware of the requirements of pilots and you are right, age should not be a barrier under the EU. What BA and other airlines, and the CAA, think about that is another matter - as I indicated at the beginning of the thread.

However, you seem to be distancing pilots from cabin crew, which is not the point. ALL workers. Cabin crew, ground crew, handlers, fuellers, C&E, dispatchers and anyone from all sections of the airline industry, from all walks of life even, will have the same options of employment continuance as anyone else. How that will be resolved in our industry in particular remains to be seen.

Please continue the debate. It has a long way to go yet. :ok:

[Mochel]

I think they should stop at retirement age just for the love of young ones who are trying to make their ways in this saturated business.

Regards

[Notso Fantastic]

Thank you for that common sense answer! As I don't 'love' any young ones, I propose doing my best not to be forcibly retired at just 55 when I have many years left of productive (and safe) aviation left in me! And may I ask from the benefit of what experience do you speak?

[Tarantella]

Cabin crew in Oz have no mandatory retirement age either.
But our 'competencies' as you say, are tested every 6 months. Fail your Emergency Procedures, and you don't have a job.
We are grateful that you fly competently, but when the sh:mad: t hits the fan- it's hard to evacuate a jumbo by yourself! :rolleyes:

[PilotsPal]

I thought the following extract from a paper presently in preparation for circulation at work might be of interest:

The DTI has issued a further consultation paper on its proposals for outlawing age discrimination so as to comply with the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC. Legislation implementing the Government's proposals will come into force on 1 October 2006.

The Government intends to outlaw direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of age in employment and vocational training. Retirement ages that employers set for employees will be unlawful, unless objectively justified. The Government is, however, consulting on whether the legislation should provide for employers, exceptionally, to be able to justify mandatory retirement ages if their particular circumstances made it appropriate and necessary. The Government is also consulting on whether to have a default age of 70 at or after which employers could require employees to retire without having to justify their decision. It should be noted, however, that the Government is not committed to including either of these proposals in its final legislation.

[Chimbu chuckles]

An interesting article on where 'age 60' first appeared!

Age 60 and that moron Quesada (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182090-1.html)

Having had to defend, from 'management' and a grossly dishonest young Captain, one of my pilots, a Captain, who had passed 60 in a international corporate jet operation I can assure you that it only applies (age 60) to Part 121/RPT style ops.

I'm 41 and while I probably will be able to afford to retire at 55 I reserve the right to continue for as long as I'm able to from a medical/standards point of view or for as long as it's still fun.

I can't see myself wanting to go much past 60 no matter how much fun I'm still having...if for no other reason than there are other things I'd like to do as well...long distance sailing for one...and I want to do those while I'm still fit enough...flying wise I'll just hop into my Bonanza when the mood takes.

Chuck.

[GlueBall]

No age limit to fly Part 135 air taxi, air cargo.
Also, there's no age limit for Flight Engineers at Part 121 air carriers. Some captains approaching age 60 are pursuing F/E vacancies on the few remaining 74-classics, DC8s and 72s still in operation. :{

[Smokie]

I suppose the bottom line is, if "YourCompany"can't get through the legislation, then they will get You in the Sim; saying that you are no longer competent.

Just a thought.

[oh-oh]

If you don't want to retire at 55 join an airline that lets you retire later. :D

[oh-oh]

MachD. Obviously not the same planet as you.

If you want to work until you are 60 or whatever, why try to join a company that stipulates an earlier retirment age, then if you get a job with them, moan about the retirment age that you knew about before you applied.

I guess you must be the sort of person that applys to join a men only club then complain that there are no women. ;)

[BlueEagle]

In this discussion the age of 55 is not an issue. Some airlines, (a few), retire their pilots at 55 but this is usually after they have enjoyed a full career and then get, say, a 75% of final salary pension and a lump sum of, say, GBP100K. Under those conditions it would be hard to imagine the circumstances under which a pilot would choose to work beyond the age of 55, (but they do! just ask SIA!).

The age issue concerns pilots who are obliged to retire at the age of 60 when they feel perfectly able to continue for a few years and their medical state and professional performance indicates that they could. Often such pilots have not had the good fortune to remain in one company or on a steadily increasing salary scale for their flying career but more often have been made redundant a few times or put out of work due to a company going broke. Such pilots are numerous and when they started out on their flying career the retirement age was 65!.

Had I ever had the opportunity, at an early age, to join one of the few companies that has a retirement age of 55 then I would have known that I was on a 'banker' and continuing beyond 60 would not have occured to me!

[PPRuNe Pop]

Another thought to toss around.

When the CAA introduced the 60 year 'retirement' rule for Captains, who could continue as a CPL in the RHS if they so wished - not many did. It was said at the time that high heart incidence was the reason. As I understand it, this 'reason' has reduced somewhat in the last decade. So when the CAA hears the knock on the front door - will they answer?

Or was it just a way of 'persuading' pilots to retire? Thus giving others achance?

As I say, just a thought. :E

[CaptainJurassic]

While I empathise with those of less advanced years, I for one, through the fault of various airline managements, the economy and the high cost of beer, can simply not afford to "retire" at age 60. I would much rather continue flying, as it is the only qualification I posess, and something I love doing, than end up as a door greeter at Walmart (or ASDA) for the rest of my working life. The whole argument about getting out of the way for the next generation, if valid, should be applied to doctors, lawyers, corporate CEOs, etc. When that happens, I shall shut up. Until then I shall continue to rage against the dying of the flight!!:*

[Airguitar]

:yuk:

Ok, I've said it elsewhere on pprune, and now i'll say it again...

All of us get one shot at life, and when we reach retirement age, whatever that may work out to be,,, we should have taken time during our working years to prepare for that day.
I am a second generation flyer, my dad just recently retired after a long and colourful career as a B747 FE. He often tells me how he misses the job, the jet, the night stops, the money...
But what he also says is that he's glad he planned some projects to tackle when the cockpit door closed behind him for the last time.

Where am I going with this?? I was out of work for 8 months this year, while airlines were happy to employ guys well into their 60's, who draw both a pension and a salary while younger guys (like me)sat at home with no income, and as a result no ability to build a retirement at all.

The airlines take advantage of it too.. they only hire guys who are type-rated AND current these days,, and guess who fits the description??... all the guys who are a heartbeat from retiring anyway. This is going to take its toll on the profession(s), and then consequently on the industry.

If you want to keep on after 60 or 65,,, take that fat retirement, go buy yourself an airplane and keep yourself amused... Just please leave younger guys an opportunity to keep their jobs and so one day retire in the same fine style as is common nowadays.

[runway]

...as a low hours pilot myself, i think that i would rather be sitting in the right hand seat with an older, experienced pilot than another kid like myself. old pilots and bold pilots!!!

[Notso Fantastic]

Captain Jurassic, <<Until then I shall continue to rage against the dying of the flight!!>> you are positively poetic! Made me chuckle that did (not a lot does these days!).

[Earl]

We had a few guys come here from Delta that took the early retirement option.
We were told that this package was 1.2 million dollars.
Why they would want to continue is beyond any reason that I can comprehend.
One Capt. did not even draw his pay for one year, told them to hold it for him.
We had alot of good times flying with these guys.
But had I been in their shoes I would have been trying to make up for all the years of qaulity time lost with family.
Most of these guys were well off an did not need to do this.
Still I can recognise the need to continue in a job an lifestyle that you relate too.
To each his own, both sides of the fence are right.

[CaptainJurassic]

:D
I can assure one and all that if I had a retirement package worth 1.2 million (or even half that), I would be spending the rest of my life polishing a super cub by a grass strip. It is economic necessity alone that forces the requirement to continue employment past the age of 60. The problem is that many of us, especially those of us in the contract pilot community, have not been too fortunate in the pension race. Many of my compatriots, as well as my humble self, have seen whatever gains we made wiped out by unscrupulous agents, the vagaries of the stock market, the high cost of private medical insurance, loss of licence insurance and other amenities NOT provided by our employers. I chose this career because of my love of flying, and ended up as a contract pilot because I was deemed too old (32) to be hired by a US carrier when I left the USAF. (Remember those days, when they wouldn't even grant you an interview if you were over 30?) I have thoroughly enjoyed the kind of flying I have done, and have had the opportunity to live in some intriguing (and unstable) places. While I don't relish the thought of living out of a suitcase for the foreseeable future, I have no other economic choice if I am to see my kids through college. If one of you young sprats out there would like to sign your multi million dollar pension rights over to me, I shall vacate the flight deck of my 747 via the escape hatch faster than the ink dries on the check. Until then, I shall continue to search for post 60 flying jobs so that my family can continue to enjoy a roof over their heads and three meals a day.:ok:

[psyclic]

Why I want to fly age 60+:

Fit/healthy commercial helo pilot UK. Age 53. £38000/yr. No other qualifications, Single income household.

Luckier than some, I also have mil pension (£9500/yr)

Company pension estimate at 60 = £1500/yr. (Yes, ONE thousand, five hundred !)

Savings: nil. (3 Children just finished college.)

Mortgage= interest only. So will sell on retirement. (or pay off £160,000 in 7 years!)

[packsonflite]

I heard somewhere that at least one UK charter airline has a dispensation from the DGAC in France to allow pilots in command to operate over France when above age 60.

If this is the case does anyone have any info?

Also where would one write to apply for a personal dispensation from the French age 60 rule?


:8

[Stearperson]

Stage Coach Driver,

I am for age 60 retirements right now. I do however have issues with your comments about multiple vacation houses and ex wives.

I have been flying for about 20 years and so far I have not aquired any vacation homes or ex wives. I have however collected a fairly sizeable collection of pilot wings from airlines that went out of business or have laid me off.

After 16 years of trying I finally landed a dream job at a major US airline,TWA. then along came AA and it took one year for them to screw all the TWA folks out of that job. Now I am looking at starting over at the bottom of a seniority list somewhere else with bottom of the list pay. This is with 18 years to go until age 60 retirement.

So don't go thinking all airline pilots have gold lined pockets from years of top tier pay. In reality most pilot make meager to fair pay for most of their careers and then if they are lucky will make the widebody captain pay for just a few years before they are forced to retire.

Sincerely, Stearperson

[wellthis]

Well this: Clearly this rule is unpleasant and unfair, hence the term 'forced'! Perhaps yet another old rule from the old days enforced due to tradition and habit, not logic or science-certainly not today's as humans live with more longevity than ever before!

However, one must acknowledge the social and political aspects of the issue. Senior pilots, often in command capacity, hold a very important job responsible for many lives/voters, whereas doctors for instance are only responsible for one at a time, hence no recurrent test is required due to lack of political importance. Doctors losing their patients on the operating table don't make the 6 o'clock news since they can be investigated and stopped if need be, but an airplane crash will certainly be on the news across the globe. This may explain, not necessarily justify, some of the inequities in recurrency requirements among various professions mentioned above.

To which argument one might say, true, but as long as one passes the medicals, recurrents, emrgency procedures, etc., why not let one continue. God knows there's enough obstacles, why not let the poor pilots be for once!

One can only hope, that this, among other out of date rules, will soon be abolished and the 'one size fit all' approach be replaced with a more sensible one which treats individuals as individuals.

[PPRuNe Pop]

zebedee

We think the topic is on the right forum. The subject is news and affects each and every Professional pilot. If not now, certainly in the very near future.

PPRuNe has a policy of not plastering the board with repeat topics so we reckon this forum is the best place for it.

The poll consistently shows that over 54% of our fraternity would like to continue flying after 55-60. We will have to wait and see if the EU will make it happen. It will then be interesting to see if the FAA and countries OUTSIDE the EU will then follow.

[ooizcalling]

When, and If, the EU fix this issue to the will of the majority of the participants, then the next step will be to force individual unions like the Dutch VNV to recind the rule that requires their pilots to leave at age 56 !

Even the pilots in their regional division with restrictions on their careers and salaries half of what the heavies are getting are forced out at that age.

Cant have any precedents that might have implications on their retirement plans , can we now !

[boofta]

Most of the youngins I fly with would like the retirement age
raised just before they retire, strange that!
But they definitely don't want it changed until then.
Problem is flying is not a job, it's a way of life.
Few dedicated pilots have much of a life outside flying, in fact
most expat types end up disconnected from their home counties
completely.
So at retirement the dilemma arrives, time to go home!
But, home is where my flying job has been for x years.
Sadly, job = home = life as they know it.

It does'nt matter what age you retire at. Just make some
sensible plans for your future.

Then the transition to leaving flying becomes less painful.

Age gracefully, fly carefully, and walk away from it all when
the time comes.
Personally, I intend to give my last sector to the FO, after all
he might be flying me home as a civilian.
Oh my God, better get that application in for 411A' s outfit.

[bigredcan]

I thought the whole idea of airline flying was to sit and drink coffee thats why the old guys get all the airline jobs because they have drank the coffee for longer thus being able to better predict possible spill scenarios and avoid burns and stains on the white shirts. If there is an emergency situation these days the computer might not let u fly the plane anyway eg Airbus as the Gimli Glider so you might as well have some oldies up front who have enjoyed life and are ready to move on instead of some young cadet who spent all of mummy and daddies money to get into the airlines before 50 scaring everyone on the way to a now enevitable computer controlled unsuccesful landing. :}

[Xeque]

I'm not an airline pilot but I am 60. I am a PPL and I still fly. I do not think that my judgement and ability has been in any way impaired by my age.

When I learned to fly my Instructor was in his late 60's and continued to instruct and fly for several years after that. The man oozed practicality and experience.

It is not true to say that a person is incapable of doing a job properly just because they have reached a certain age. Provided you have the real-time experience you are probably all the better for being an older person.

However, as aircraft design and development progresses, automation takes on greater involvement in the operation of commercial aircraft. In the past a pilot was more involved with the minute by minute operation of his aircraft. There was a great deal more "hands on" experience around.

Today, many aircraft fly on auto-pilot from "gear up" to decision height and sometimes touchdown. Computers dictate what one can or cannot do and in some cases (God help us all) over-ride pilot input.

In the event of sudden and catastrophic systems failure, a pilot in his 60's now would probably be able to deal with the emergency. In years to come, when todays younger pilots reach their 60's they may not be able to deal with emergencies with the same gut feeling and real experience because they have spent their lives letting computers do all the work.

So what am I trying to say? I believe that age is not the point here. What matters is "EXPERIENCE" and if you don't have that then join the ever-increasing ranks of inexperienced PHD's that infest our business and industrial world.

When I was in the Royal Navy, real sailors spoke of University Graduate Officers as "being able to give you the cube root of a jam jar but unable to get the top off".

That maxim is more true today than ever.

[Raas767]

This age 60 thing just does not seam to want to go away. With close to 7000 pilots on furlough in the States, airlines with no growth prospects, and the only way to advance up the list is through attrition now is not the time to change the rule. Most pilots that are advocating changing the rule are very senior and have benefitted their whole career from the mandatory retirement rule. Now they want to hang on to that cushy 777 or 747 job just a little longer. Although there is medical evidance to support an increase in the retirement age, one of the great aspects of this job is that you can leave with ful retirement at a reasonable age and go out out and enjoy life before you start falling a part.
From a purely selfish standpoint I have 21 years to go at my airline and the only way for me to advance is through retirement so get out of my seat you old fart! If you still want to fly, rent a Cessna.

[BlueEagle]

The point that you are missing here Raas767 is that those 'Old Farts", as you choose to call them, started their careers when the retirement age was 65! and well before it was arbitrarily reduced to 60. From your post I get the impression you are talking about pilots who are fortunate to have only one or two employers throughout their career? What about the majority of pilots world wide that have not been so lucky and had to move among several employers just to stay working, often crashing to the bottom of yet another pay scale and having to use accrued pension monies to live on during periods of unemployment?

You young guys in the majors are a really lucky minority, enjoy it while you can!:D

[MPH]

RAAS 767
Why don't you go and fly a Cessna..with that attitude, I doubt you'll make left seat! And, if you do, I would like to read your opinion in 21 years time, after maybe having worked for 2 or 3 different company's?
:mad:

[Raas767]

Perhaps I should elaborate a little. My original argument still stands but I do have empathy for those pilots whose careers have been interupted by bankruptcy and liquidation. I flew with a guy that was with Eastern for twenty years before he went out on strike. He started over at my airline and was a captain for only a few years before having to retire. He had to continue working as a sim pilot to keep his kids in college. Had I been in his shoes I would have had the same attitude. A large majority, however, of the pilots pushing for new legislation are pilots that have had solid and financially stable careers. They want to keep flying because they don't have anything better to do. It seams very selfish to want a change a rule that has been to your benefit right up till the end.
I don't think there are any professional pilots, at least in the States, that started their careers before the mandatory age 60 rule. I think that changed in 1958 or 59.
As for my age determining my attitude. Trust me, If I could I would go right now. September 11 changed this industry for ever.

[underboost]

A ton of pilots were employed by the so-called "commuter" airlines when they were operated under Part 135. Part 135 has no age limit for pilots. But, after the Roselawn Illinois crash of an ATR-42, virtually all scheduled Part 135 operations were forced to comply with Part 121, including the age 60 rule. Many pilots were forced to retire because of age. I remember a press conference wherein the DOT secretary stood in front of the wreckage and declared that he was going to require a higher level of safety by making all commuter aircraft operate under the "big airline" rules. The strange part is that the ATR-42 that crashed was being operated under Part 121 at the time of the crash. Ain't politics wonderful?

[airstripping]

All I can say ladies and gentlemen is to fight your case in the European Court as it will be keeping future lawyers such as me with lots of flying money.

[GlueBall]

In the USA one cannot begin to collect Social Security (Government Pension) benefits until age 62, so it would be reasonable to extend any mandatory retirement age in any industry to that.

[Norfolk in breaks]

We can talk ad infinitum about the ethical case for changing retirement age. The reality is that happens will be a result of the interaction of government legislation with what is economically convenient for the airlines. In the case of BA, I have had it from the horse's (kangaroo's?) mouth that, although the status quo will not change until the law does (to avoid employees suing the airline), they will not put up a fight when told to change the 55 limit. What this will then move to is another matter, but my guess is that whatever the answer is, it is likely to be the same for all UK airlines. BA have a huge pension problem and anything which defers liability is bound to be welcomed.

[Micawber]

I hope eventually some sense will prevail.................. such a dreamer..........I am wondering where the reference for the company who has the French restriction raised comes from...My current employer would be very interested in exploring that avenue..........Any one who has information on this please post SOON...........

[RUDAS]

if you're still alive,breathing and competent,you should be allowed to fly.Its just like any other job really,i mean you could just as well make doctors retire at 55 or whatever on the same grounds that those who want pilots to retire use to justify it. after all,if you are for example a doctor, you are required to execise the same standard of care and you need your physical faculties,yet the age limits for them are apparently migh higher.so there should be no set age limit.

[bluesafrica]

As this age 60 rule only applies for the heavy iron on commercial one should remember that there is lot of life left on private sector for the pilot who wish to keep flying. If he wish only to hang on his well paid seat in majors then tough s:mad: t. Let others have a change as well!
At least I dont see myself getting any better with age....
Blues:E