Curtain. Get over it mate. The company raised the retirement age to 65 years ago. Several people refused to be discriminated against due to age (taking a pay cut at 55). They fought the company and won. The company is the culprit (yet again), not the pilots. They have every right to go to that age on their old terms. They were forced into an impossible situation by the company, that has now been addressed. Now they can choose to retire at 65 like everyone else. Stop beating a dead horse. You should be happy that the pilots actually won a point of principle against the company.

Hot Crazy Matrix
 

Here it is. Compulsory viewing for all ages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKWmFWRVLlU&feature

I think the major point here is that it's not a matter of what one considers 'fair' or not but that the company is breaking the law in NZ (as well as potentially several other venues) and shouldn't be doing this in countries it wishes to do commerce with--and by doing so faces not only civil litigation but also action by the governments themselves. Just like if they were breaking the flying rules, other discrimination rules, alcohol rules, customs laws, or industrial safety rules within that nation. A HKG based head in the sand approach or convenient 'interpretation' doesn't bear any relevance in that these cases will be adjudicated in and by their respective country. If CX doesn't like that fact they'll have to stop flying there or going through their airspace.

Disturbing is rather than accept that fact and deal with the situation--by coming up with a mutually beneficial solution which complies with host nation laws (and is actually in everyone's best interest as well; we NEED these experienced and capable pilots to continue with the company if they wish to do so)--they are want to pi$$ away all kinds of money in legal resources and fines. Moneys that could be used elsewhere to do good things. OUR money.

The argument re signing a contract that stipulates retiring at a particular age is nonsense....just as you can't sign a contract to exceed AFTLS as the law always overrides the contract, certainly in the civilised countries as NZ etc. If curtain Rods way of offering contracts was legal then CX would offer cabin crew contracts to 40 and keep feeding in young cheaper crew......fact is they can't do it even if the young ones voluntarily signed to leave at 40........your off target on this one Rod.

The fact that some folks could not get their head around it and move on is why the union could not get a consensus and achieve a better RA deal that would have at least had more increments in the pay scales and the ability for all to choose to retire after 55 at some point and no illegal discriminatory pay cut when attaining 55.

You can't stop the inevitable and we as a group lost this one badly. I would hope that this subject could be revisited for a more equitable result rather than the company getting a complete freebie where the pay cut given at 55 basically pays for the bypass pay. I hear Canada has had some payback of the paycut......is this correct ?.

PW sold out every FO and SO during the CoS08 negotiations (if you can call them "negotiations") whilst "forgetting" to get the 25 year housing deal in writing (maybe he got too excited about more work) - all he was interested in was working beyond 55 and he didn't give a rats arse about anyone below him in seniority awaiting a base, type change or an upgrade. Can't blame CX since they saw another opportunity and used it to their advantage.

Good stuff what these two Kiwi guys did but this will come at a price and the detriment of the other NZ based pilots; either through on-shoring (more tax) or yet another base closure.

Same what just recently happened at Lufthansa - a couple of "old farts" wanted to work beyond 55. They won in court and now LH wants to push every pilot's RA to 60 so their own retirement scheme doesn't get overloaded. This is what all these recent strikes were about.

Fact is that the next generation of pilots will always be worse off than the one 200 numbers above them in seniority - especially in CX with so many ever decreasing pay scales and benefits.

Curtain Rod,

It is NOT legal in many developed nations to contractually force someone to work at lesser pay or conditions as a precondition in order to continue to work past a certain age so long as legally and medically qualified to do so. The law is quite clear. You can't sign it away any more than if it was discovered you have black ancestors you have to agree to work at a lower pay scale. And in this case, as well as in other nations, applies to any individual stationed within that nation, regardless of where there employer is based. In some cases simply doing business with assets that touch the soil of the nation brings the law into play. Doesn't matter where the contract is signed.

65 was offered to everyone..as was the original compulsory retirement at 55. The company needed guys to stay when they woke up to a crewing shortage but just couldnt help themselves ..as always.. And slapped a pay reduction on the prerequisite list. The law has no problem with 55 but it does with blackmail. They refused cabin crew promotion to ism over contract hours too. Im supposing the argument could propose no commands either unless you agree to 65... How would THAT go down?

Employmet conditions are man made.
 

flyboy007 Not sure why your Jesus/God reference is invoked in a debate about pilots retirement age. Employment conditions are set by Government or negotiation, not by a so called God. They change.
Or do we just do away with any form of aircraft or airline safety as if a 'plane crashes, it is Gods Will.
As to others bleating that by continuing to work beyond 55 these pilots are denying younger and more junior pilots an opportunity for career advancement, Tough, happens in all walks of life. As Pilots are regularly monitored for health and competence, that should be the only criteria whether a pilot can be compulsoraly retired. Nothing to do with 'squandering their pay so cannot afford to retire. The only solace is that the "I deserve the position so go now" brigade is they will be arguing for continuing to work past 55 when they get to that age. :ugh:

Govt. to raise pilots' retirement age
Japan Feb. 22, 2015 - Updated 04:41 UTC+8

AQUIS Boigu
 

Which PW are you referring to?

The 2007 negotiations ended up with a very bad deal being presented to the GC - the GC overwhelmingly knocked it back.

The company then imposed the parts of the deal it wanted - such as COS08 etc.

NC,

Sorry...I rephrase...

I am talking about the voluntary option to sign across to CoS08 during in the 2009 emergency SLS "negotiations". You said yourself that the deal was **** in 2007 and suddenly in 2009 it was good enough for most captains and a few FOs to take it. On that day everyone's goalpost got moved substantially; particularly FOs and SOs.

The PW I am referring to is the former AOA President and now negotiator.

Quote from NC's post:

How about a bit of perspective. Look at all the cabin crew who were supposed to leave in their 40s who are now legally allowed in their 50s?

They are being screwed by CX too. It's not "legally allowed", it's contractual. There's no law in HKG that says a cabin crew can't work to 65. But CX forces HKG crew to retire at 55 although based cabin crew in the UK, USA, Canada have NO retirement age. No wonder the HKG crew are pi$$ed off. And to make matters worse their PF is based on basic salary excluding rank allowance, which for ISM is a big loss.

We aren't the only employee group that is exploited on age discrimination grounds.

Well, from that POV even Tony Tyler was exploited. Forced retirement age of 60, despite HK not having a legal retirement age for CEO, but wanted to work longer, so left for IATA.

Oh come on Freehills - did you ever believe anything TT said?