Forced to retire at 55
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sussex
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forced to retire at 55
Could someone please confirm that all BA flight crew will be made to retire at the age of 55, even though new EU legislation which is effective from Oct 2006 states that no company will be allowed to discriminate and should therefore raise the retirement age to 65. Rumour has it that BA are trying to do a deal which would make them exempt from enforcing the law, but are having difficulty in convincing the government.Apparently, the way the tide is flowing with age discrimination & people working later in life it may well be a pill that BA will have to swallow. They haven`t told existing staff whether they will implement the law,this is unbelievable, especially for those who are due to retire shortly after the 2006 legislation is introduced.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont remember being forced at gunpoint to sign my 55 contract. To my knowledge none of the companies that retire at 60 have announced their plans yet becasue the legislation is by no means guaranteed.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They haven`t told existing staff whether they will implement the law.....
Nobody knows the shape of the new legislation yet-
Nobody knows what, if any, exemptions will be allowed-
Nobody knows whether it can be introduced by Oct 2006-
We all await with bated breath in as much ignorance as you. Trouble is the Euro MPs probably know no better as well!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: sussex
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although people may not have been forced at gunpoint, if you re-read my post, I`m posing the question of BA`s avoidance of the law.To quote the Financial Times Dec 15 2004 "many companies have retirement ages below 65 and will, therefore, have to raise them." This was taken from an article that was defining the new retirement legislation, that WILL be here for all to abide by.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I've reread it, and I repeat, how can anybody 'confirm' when we don't know exactly what the EU legislation is, we don't know what, if any, private deals any company may be trying to reach. The EU Working Hours Directive, funnily enough, specifically excluded Health and Transport workers. But you have to see you are asking a question for which nobody knows the answer!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right there under the stair
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken from British Council website
In October 2000, the Government supported the European Directive on Equal Treatment and committed to implementing age legislation by 2006. A 6-year implementation period was agreed to allow time for the preparation of clear, workable and beneficial age legislation, formulated in close consultation with individuals, employers and expert groups. The government is also engaged in tackling age discrimination by actively promoting the non-statutory Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment.
Link to it here
Also some information here www.manpower.co.uk
In October 2000, the Government supported the European Directive on Equal Treatment and committed to implementing age legislation by 2006. A 6-year implementation period was agreed to allow time for the preparation of clear, workable and beneficial age legislation, formulated in close consultation with individuals, employers and expert groups. The government is also engaged in tackling age discrimination by actively promoting the non-statutory Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment.
Link to it here
Also some information here www.manpower.co.uk
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knavesmire
The oversimplified questions you are asking seem to suggest you are not following the extensive discussions on this subject, over on the BALPA web site, and also in correspondence from them.
Perhaps you aren't a member?
For example, you suggest the legislation seeks to increase CRAs from 55 (in BA) to 65. This of course is not true. Should the legislation (not yet finalised) be implemented, a retirement age of 65 would be every bit as illegal, as one of 55!
If you want to, have to, must; you may work 'til you drop/ fail a medical.
I suspect you may have a reason for wanting the law to be implemented promptly. This being the case, I suggest you refer to BALPA.
The oversimplified questions you are asking seem to suggest you are not following the extensive discussions on this subject, over on the BALPA web site, and also in correspondence from them.
Perhaps you aren't a member?
For example, you suggest the legislation seeks to increase CRAs from 55 (in BA) to 65. This of course is not true. Should the legislation (not yet finalised) be implemented, a retirement age of 65 would be every bit as illegal, as one of 55!
If you want to, have to, must; you may work 'til you drop/ fail a medical.
I suspect you may have a reason for wanting the law to be implemented promptly. This being the case, I suggest you refer to BALPA.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Glueball you could say not everyone at BA wants to be forced to retire at 55!
....to that you would have to ask the French! It does seem to me somewhat 'ageist' in the sense it contravenes the EEC's proposed rules on that sort of thing, but as the 'hard core' of Europe, they only pay lip service to EEC rules anyway! When pilots are forced out of a job because they are not allowed to fly over France for age reasons, I would expect they have a highly valid case for sueing the French Government for compensation!
And how about the ban flying over France aged 60 or more - will that change too?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New law due 2006....
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age.htm
EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING
On 14 December 2004, Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, announced how legislation outlawing age discrimination in the workplace would approach employers' mandatory retirement ages.
Following extensive consultation last year, the Government has concluded that legislation should:
set a default retirement age of 65, but also create a right for employees to request working beyond a compulsory retirement age, which employers will have a duty to consider;
ensure close monitoring of the retirement age provisions so that evidence is available for a formal review of age discrimination five years from implementation;
allow employers to objectively justify earlier retirement ages if they can show it is appropriate and necessary.
Click here for the full text of the statement to Parliament.
Click here for the press statement.
Next steps
In 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry will be consulting on draft age legislation covering this and the remaining areas, as highlighted in last year's Age Matters consultation (see below).
The legislation is scheduled to come into force on 1 October 2006.
<snip>
The article continues and links to more documents including...
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/errs18.pdf
Which mentions that...
and this one that has a brief response from BALPA....
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/ag...s_con_resp.pdf
[
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age.htm
EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING
On 14 December 2004, Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, announced how legislation outlawing age discrimination in the workplace would approach employers' mandatory retirement ages.
Following extensive consultation last year, the Government has concluded that legislation should:
set a default retirement age of 65, but also create a right for employees to request working beyond a compulsory retirement age, which employers will have a duty to consider;
ensure close monitoring of the retirement age provisions so that evidence is available for a formal review of age discrimination five years from implementation;
allow employers to objectively justify earlier retirement ages if they can show it is appropriate and necessary.
Click here for the full text of the statement to Parliament.
Click here for the press statement.
Next steps
In 2005, the Department of Trade and Industry will be consulting on draft age legislation covering this and the remaining areas, as highlighted in last year's Age Matters consultation (see below).
The legislation is scheduled to come into force on 1 October 2006.
<snip>
The article continues and links to more documents including...
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/errs18.pdf
Which mentions that...
... legislation prevents people over 65 holding commercial pilots’ licences and all commercial pilots are subject to medicals every six months. International legislation prohibits international commercial flying by pilots over the age of 60.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/ag...s_con_resp.pdf
[
BALPA (a professional association for UK airline pilots), noted its opposition to a default retirement age and felt that
a higher ‘normal retirement age’ would merely encounter the same problems and inconsistencies as a lower one.
a higher ‘normal retirement age’ would merely encounter the same problems and inconsistencies as a lower one.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 55 issue is a red herring. Take care to separate 'retirement' from being 'required to leave a company'.
The BA contract requires to leave the company at 55; they are then free to either not work any more (if they can afford it) or look for another job (if they need to).
There are many comapnies that have 'benefitted' from the experience brought by ex BA golden oldies on their own personal top up scheme.
It seems to me to be disingenuous to want to stay on at BA (with however many years seniority and increments) and deny the flow that the seniority system is built upon.
Move along Claude, and let someone else have a crack at the senior jobs !!
The real issue is lack of consistency in european airspace that makes it difficult for a pilot to remain a jet Captain after age 60, making over 60's unable to continue to earn at the appropriate rate for someone at the top of their respective position. Unlike lawyers and doctors, pilots are effectively legislated out of their jobs at 60. I'm all for people being able to work beyond 60 (if they want/need to) but licensing legislation needs to change to allow pilots a fair crack of the whip.
Thank You.
The BA contract requires to leave the company at 55; they are then free to either not work any more (if they can afford it) or look for another job (if they need to).
There are many comapnies that have 'benefitted' from the experience brought by ex BA golden oldies on their own personal top up scheme.
It seems to me to be disingenuous to want to stay on at BA (with however many years seniority and increments) and deny the flow that the seniority system is built upon.
Move along Claude, and let someone else have a crack at the senior jobs !!
The real issue is lack of consistency in european airspace that makes it difficult for a pilot to remain a jet Captain after age 60, making over 60's unable to continue to earn at the appropriate rate for someone at the top of their respective position. Unlike lawyers and doctors, pilots are effectively legislated out of their jobs at 60. I'm all for people being able to work beyond 60 (if they want/need to) but licensing legislation needs to change to allow pilots a fair crack of the whip.
Thank You.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: luton,beds,uk
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i remember reading an interview with Rod Eddington about this subject
his response was
"The employees unions fought for and won the right to retire at 55. It was their decision and their choice "
Reading between the lines it sounded like he was saying they wanted this, got it, and its staying.
his response was
"The employees unions fought for and won the right to retire at 55. It was their decision and their choice "
Reading between the lines it sounded like he was saying they wanted this, got it, and its staying.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 55 issue is a red herring. Take care to separate 'retirement' from being 'required to leave a company'.
The BA contract requires to leave the company at 55; they are then free to either not work any more (if they can afford it) or look for another job (if they need to).
There are many comapnies that have 'benefitted' from the experience brought by ex BA golden oldies on their own personal top up scheme.
It seems to me to be disingenuous to want to stay on at BA (with however many years seniority and increments) and deny the flow that the seniority system is built upon.
Move along Claude, and let someone else have a crack at the senior jobs !!
The BA contract requires to leave the company at 55; they are then free to either not work any more (if they can afford it) or look for another job (if they need to).
There are many comapnies that have 'benefitted' from the experience brought by ex BA golden oldies on their own personal top up scheme.
It seems to me to be disingenuous to want to stay on at BA (with however many years seniority and increments) and deny the flow that the seniority system is built upon.
Move along Claude, and let someone else have a crack at the senior jobs !!
Please get over it
I had typed a much longer version but it crashed when I tried to post it.
Talk about ageist and discriminatory. just because a contract forces the employee "to leave the company at 55" doesn't make it right or get the company around the fact that the contract is discriminatory. If the young guns can't take the jobs away from the oldies by ability then they don't deserve them. which other industry has such draconian rules.
Perhaps we should apply this to other professions? but it's amazing how many people (for example) preferr to see an older doctor than the young whizz kid who knows all the latest tricks. I for one preferr to fly with an older (and by association, more experienced) pilot, any day. Other countries and companies have older allowable ages but don't seem to have increased problems attributable to age so what is the basis for this discrimination? Especially as other companies are benifiting so much from this wasted experience.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should'nt have accepted the job if you did'nt want to retire at 55.
If you accepted the terms offered with the position then don't moan when you have to stick by that decision.
It could be worse. You could work for one of the less decadent employers who make you long for retirement ASAP!
If you accepted the terms offered with the position then don't moan when you have to stick by that decision.
It could be worse. You could work for one of the less decadent employers who make you long for retirement ASAP!
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, there is much hyperbole on this subject. This does not help those in search of information.
An EU directive is an instruction to member states to implement the aims of the directive (in this case, the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of age) by means of domestic legislation. This directive requires the domestic legislation to be in effect by late 2006.
The UK legislation required to satisfy this directive has yet to be published, hence anyone purporting to state what will or will not happen in 2006 is speaking through an orifice not normally associated with that function.
What is known, is that the directive will have no effect on the French over 60 ban (national retirement ages are permitted by the directive).
The government has also intimated that certain occupations will be exempt from the legislation. The example given was ATCOs. No-one knows if pilots will be exempt, and if so, to to what extent.
The UK government has indicated that it may introduce a default retirement age of 65. If this comes to pass, employees over this age will not be eligible to claim discrimination if made to retire. The government has also suggested that employers will be able to continue to enforce a retirement age of less that 65 if this can be justified (by the employer). This means that BA will be able to continue to enforce a retirement age of 55 if they can justify it.
Whether or not employees will be able to mount a legal challenge against their employer’s retirement age remains to be seen as, again, the legislation has yet to be published.
The legal world is full of suggestions that the government’s proposals, if implemented as intimated, will not comply with the directive. One thing that is certain is that employees will not be able to use the directive as a basis to challenge their employers – EU law forbids this. The only remedy would be an action against the UK government for failure to comply with the directive. The last time that this was tried (successfully, in the Spanish Trawlers dispute), it took eight years to resolve.
Looks like a good time to be a lawyer…
An EU directive is an instruction to member states to implement the aims of the directive (in this case, the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of age) by means of domestic legislation. This directive requires the domestic legislation to be in effect by late 2006.
The UK legislation required to satisfy this directive has yet to be published, hence anyone purporting to state what will or will not happen in 2006 is speaking through an orifice not normally associated with that function.
What is known, is that the directive will have no effect on the French over 60 ban (national retirement ages are permitted by the directive).
The government has also intimated that certain occupations will be exempt from the legislation. The example given was ATCOs. No-one knows if pilots will be exempt, and if so, to to what extent.
The UK government has indicated that it may introduce a default retirement age of 65. If this comes to pass, employees over this age will not be eligible to claim discrimination if made to retire. The government has also suggested that employers will be able to continue to enforce a retirement age of less that 65 if this can be justified (by the employer). This means that BA will be able to continue to enforce a retirement age of 55 if they can justify it.
Whether or not employees will be able to mount a legal challenge against their employer’s retirement age remains to be seen as, again, the legislation has yet to be published.
The legal world is full of suggestions that the government’s proposals, if implemented as intimated, will not comply with the directive. One thing that is certain is that employees will not be able to use the directive as a basis to challenge their employers – EU law forbids this. The only remedy would be an action against the UK government for failure to comply with the directive. The last time that this was tried (successfully, in the Spanish Trawlers dispute), it took eight years to resolve.
Looks like a good time to be a lawyer…
Glad to see the argument still rolls on. I was forced to retire from BA at age 55 and apart from 6 months with a cargo outfit have been unable to find a flying job. So all of you who think that being out of work is easy then please think again! While I can sympathise with younger guys who want a command in quick time I suggest they look at getting the seniority system changed to a merit system and let us oldies enjoy a decent standard of living and improve their pensions for a happy retirement.
