RA65 due to Age Discrimination? Ich don't think so!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: N.A.
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RA65 due to Age Discrimination? Ich don't think so!
The GMA update makes multiple references to increasing retirement age to 65 due to local age discrimination laws (due to "on-shoring"):
This is not true. A very recent case in Canada, (one of the base areas) on August 17, 2007, has just set the precedence to age discrimination for airline pilots in Canada (A few retired Air Canada pilots complained that AC had discriminated due to their age. The court ruled against them):
Just like the CX normal retirement age is 55.
The gist is that the retirement age is what our COS says they are. Local age discrimination laws will not force CX to change our retirement age to anything else.
I expect most western countries (where CX has bases) would follow a similar conclusion.
CX management is using this as a smoke screen. The real issue is expansion plans. They figure this is the best way to crew their aircraft without attracting new pilots or keeping current pilots because that would require a decent pay raise (i.e. not 3% or on some bases, 0%).
RA65 will have a massive impact on the careers on junior officers.
The link to the Air Canada court case is below:
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/vi...=_e&isruling=0
As each base goes on-shore, the crewing company will have to comply with the relevant local labour laws. Every country where we have crews based, except Hong Kong, has some form of age discrimination legislation which prevents employers from retiring employees at 55 or reducing employees’ terms and conditions on the basis of age. Once we go on-shore, we will have to comply with these laws. This legislation will also require us to increase retirement age from 55 to 65. Therefore, age 65 will be incorporated into each base area’s version of CoS.
The Tribunal finds that age 60 is the normal age of retirement, within s. 15(1)(c) of the CHRA for persons working in positions similar to the positions of the complainants.
The gist is that the retirement age is what our COS says they are. Local age discrimination laws will not force CX to change our retirement age to anything else.
I expect most western countries (where CX has bases) would follow a similar conclusion.
CX management is using this as a smoke screen. The real issue is expansion plans. They figure this is the best way to crew their aircraft without attracting new pilots or keeping current pilots because that would require a decent pay raise (i.e. not 3% or on some bases, 0%).
RA65 will have a massive impact on the careers on junior officers.
The link to the Air Canada court case is below:
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/vi...=_e&isruling=0
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re age discrimination and retirement
Dogleg,
I can't speak for Canada but in the UK the new age discrimination legislation (I believe it started in October last year) apparently prevents any company from setting a compulsory retirement date. In other words, you now have to let the employee decide when he or she retires.
If Cathay has a base in the UK then it will have to comply with the same legislation. It can no longer force its UK pilot workforce to go at 55 or even 60 (I'm assuming that's what it used to do).
UK based airlines are able to require retirement at 65 only because the CAA will not grant a medical for commercial flying past that age. Of course, if they could be persuaded to change, we'd all be flying till we're 80!
All the best
Overflare
I can't speak for Canada but in the UK the new age discrimination legislation (I believe it started in October last year) apparently prevents any company from setting a compulsory retirement date. In other words, you now have to let the employee decide when he or she retires.
If Cathay has a base in the UK then it will have to comply with the same legislation. It can no longer force its UK pilot workforce to go at 55 or even 60 (I'm assuming that's what it used to do).
UK based airlines are able to require retirement at 65 only because the CAA will not grant a medical for commercial flying past that age. Of course, if they could be persuaded to change, we'd all be flying till we're 80!
All the best
Overflare
I think the point is being missed that when you sign a contract, you sign it voluntarily. If you signed a contract that says you retire at 55, you are basically saying you want to retire at 55. No age discrimination laws will force you to work until you are 65. All it does is make your employer offer it to you. You don’t have to accept it but if you go on a base or are employed after 1/1/08 you won’t have a choice. The way I see it it’s age discrimination but in reverse.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan is correct.
The original retirement age, circa 1970 etc. was 65 and it applied to everyone. By some arbitrarily produced dictate from the then Department of Transport the age was reduced to 60.
It is good to see that that the original age limit is now being applied.
Youngsters may feel that they are being asked to work an extra five years but the truth is that those of us who were robbed of five years are now getting them back.
The original retirement age, circa 1970 etc. was 65 and it applied to everyone. By some arbitrarily produced dictate from the then Department of Transport the age was reduced to 60.
It is good to see that that the original age limit is now being applied.
Youngsters may feel that they are being asked to work an extra five years but the truth is that those of us who were robbed of five years are now getting them back.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Canadian case and one in Europe (Germany I think), the courts both took the position that since the retirement age was not imposed by the company, but negotiated by the unions involved it was not age discrimination. The Canadian court said that the union could negotiate any retirement age that it wanted. The decision is being appealed to a higher court.
parabellum
I think you may have taken what I said incorrectly. My point was that by imposing RA65 to those joining after 1/1/08 and those going or on a base the company is discriminating against those that want to retire at 55.
By the way retirement age for pilots around the world has generally been related to ones ability to maintain a valid medical. Those that were contested in courts were generally because the retirement age was lower than the maximum age one could hold a medical. With the passage of time studies have shown that age 60-65 is about the maximum one can reasonably expect to be able to pass the class one medical and be safe in command.
I think you may have taken what I said incorrectly. My point was that by imposing RA65 to those joining after 1/1/08 and those going or on a base the company is discriminating against those that want to retire at 55.
By the way retirement age for pilots around the world has generally been related to ones ability to maintain a valid medical. Those that were contested in courts were generally because the retirement age was lower than the maximum age one could hold a medical. With the passage of time studies have shown that age 60-65 is about the maximum one can reasonably expect to be able to pass the class one medical and be safe in command.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: heads down trying to figure out Chinese RVSM
Posts: 200
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Mr G.
Unless I missed it somewhere, after reading my current CoS, there is nothing that states that should a new CoS be offered, I must sign the new one, should I elect to remain based in HKG or if I am currently on a base.
To be 'highly advised' to sign, by PW or NR is against Vol. 1, 4-2-4. And since NR has his signature on the front page (well close enough), it is a 'legally bound agreement' according to my solicitor 'advisors'.
Unless I missed it somewhere, after reading my current CoS, there is nothing that states that should a new CoS be offered, I must sign the new one, should I elect to remain based in HKG or if I am currently on a base.
To be 'highly advised' to sign, by PW or NR is against Vol. 1, 4-2-4. And since NR has his signature on the front page (well close enough), it is a 'legally bound agreement' according to my solicitor 'advisors'.
