EU raises mandatory retirement age!
Thread Starter
EU raises mandatory retirement age!
Have not been around for a while so if this subject is over and done with then I apologise.
The EU ammended law regarding discrimination last summer, to also include age. This was ratified in Denmark in Dec. 2004.
To cut a long story short, it means that you cannot "force" people to retire earlier than 65, by labour agreement. My companys agreement which untill last week stipulated retirement at age 60, was made obsolete by this instantly.
The solution in our company was to raise the retirement age to 65, move FC's to the right seat at 60, no LOL and no pension payments by the company after age 60. You can retire anytime after 60, but they cannot make you go before 65.
Now I am wondering. How is this debate coming along at other EU based companys ?
Rgds. OY
The EU ammended law regarding discrimination last summer, to also include age. This was ratified in Denmark in Dec. 2004.
To cut a long story short, it means that you cannot "force" people to retire earlier than 65, by labour agreement. My companys agreement which untill last week stipulated retirement at age 60, was made obsolete by this instantly.
The solution in our company was to raise the retirement age to 65, move FC's to the right seat at 60, no LOL and no pension payments by the company after age 60. You can retire anytime after 60, but they cannot make you go before 65.
Now I am wondering. How is this debate coming along at other EU based companys ?
Rgds. OY
Thread Starter
To judge by the views/replies ratio it seems that some are in for a surprise ........
Rgds.
Rgds.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vilha Abrao
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commission goes to the European Court of Justice to enforce EU anti-discrimination law
The European Commission has announced that it is taking legal action against six Member States that have failed to transpose two anti-discrimination Directives. The Directives, which prohibit discrimination on racial or ethnic origin, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation, were due to be incorporated into national law last year. The Commission will refer Austria, Germany, Finland, Greece, and Luxembourg to the European Court of Justice.
Today is the first anniversary of the deadline for transposing the Racial Equality Directive into national law, while the deadline for the 'Employment Framework Directive passed in December 2003.[1] These Directives, adopted in 2000 by the Council, required legislative changes in all 25 EU Member States. In many cases, they have provided the impetus for very positive developments, which have often gone beyond the Directives' minimum requirements, both deepening and widening the scope of protection.
Date 19 Jul 2004
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressRele...guiLanguage=en
The European Commission has announced that it is taking legal action against six Member States that have failed to transpose two anti-discrimination Directives. The Directives, which prohibit discrimination on racial or ethnic origin, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation, were due to be incorporated into national law last year. The Commission will refer Austria, Germany, Finland, Greece, and Luxembourg to the European Court of Justice.
Today is the first anniversary of the deadline for transposing the Racial Equality Directive into national law, while the deadline for the 'Employment Framework Directive passed in December 2003.[1] These Directives, adopted in 2000 by the Council, required legislative changes in all 25 EU Member States. In many cases, they have provided the impetus for very positive developments, which have often gone beyond the Directives' minimum requirements, both deepening and widening the scope of protection.
Date 19 Jul 2004
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressRele...guiLanguage=en
Controversial, moi?
This is very old news.
It has been debated at length on the BA BALPA forum.
October 2006 is the deadline for the anti-ageist legislation to be introduced in the UK.
The issue is a hot potato and the government is prevaricatiing.
Interestingly, OY, when you say
this is in itself ageist and probably contrary to the legislation.
You cannot say 'at this age you have to leave your current position' as it is discrimination based on age! The new legislation allows for CRAs when it can be shown that there is a good reason for needing one! In the case of pilots I think BALPA are pursuing the line that after age 65 there is a measurable loss of performance and increased incidence of loss of medical and, therefore, 65 is a justifiable age at which retirement is compulsory.
Are we all looking forward to 80 year old cabin crew?
It has been debated at length on the BA BALPA forum.
October 2006 is the deadline for the anti-ageist legislation to be introduced in the UK.
The issue is a hot potato and the government is prevaricatiing.
Interestingly, OY, when you say
The solution in our company was to raise the retirement age to 65, move FC's to the right seat at 60, no LOL and no pension payments by the company after age 60. You can retire anytime after 60, but they cannot make you go before 65.
You cannot say 'at this age you have to leave your current position' as it is discrimination based on age! The new legislation allows for CRAs when it can be shown that there is a good reason for needing one! In the case of pilots I think BALPA are pursuing the line that after age 65 there is a measurable loss of performance and increased incidence of loss of medical and, therefore, 65 is a justifiable age at which retirement is compulsory.
Are we all looking forward to 80 year old cabin crew?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to watch how captains with 30 years of seniority in the company react to flying with "their" F/O´s from the right seat.
It is indeed not good news for many of us, least of all the industry and the companies. You might call this a case of agediscrimination in itself!
It is indeed not good news for many of us, least of all the industry and the companies. You might call this a case of agediscrimination in itself!
Thread Starter
Well this was/is a very hot potato here too, as the company were expecting 6 FC's to retire this year. If they choose not to, then the company will probably make at least 6 FO's redundant!
Two independant law firms were hired by our union to review the law text, before the new deal was made, so I for one expect it to hold up in court.
I think the argument is that the main thing is job vs. no job, and the position (FC or FO) and conditions ie. LOL, pension etc, is secondary.
That does not mean that other companys willl not reach other agreements or that some terms will be changed further down the road. That's the reason for my curiosity.
I thought that normal retirement in BA for example was/is 55 ? If those who turn 55, decide to postpone their retirement, I would expect a heated debate to erupt.
When you say BALPA' are "pursuing the line........65 yrs. justifiable" do you mean that BALPA actually expects to get a say??
In other words does the industry expect some kind of slow introduction or further postponement ?
I think these are very serious issues, and was confused to not beeing able to find any debate on the subject on the forum.
Rgds. OY
Before Start! Without jumping to conclusions I think that everyone is hoping that nobody will put up with this and choose retirement instead.
Two independant law firms were hired by our union to review the law text, before the new deal was made, so I for one expect it to hold up in court.
I think the argument is that the main thing is job vs. no job, and the position (FC or FO) and conditions ie. LOL, pension etc, is secondary.
That does not mean that other companys willl not reach other agreements or that some terms will be changed further down the road. That's the reason for my curiosity.
I thought that normal retirement in BA for example was/is 55 ? If those who turn 55, decide to postpone their retirement, I would expect a heated debate to erupt.
When you say BALPA' are "pursuing the line........65 yrs. justifiable" do you mean that BALPA actually expects to get a say??
In other words does the industry expect some kind of slow introduction or further postponement ?
I think these are very serious issues, and was confused to not beeing able to find any debate on the subject on the forum.
Rgds. OY
Before Start! Without jumping to conclusions I think that everyone is hoping that nobody will put up with this and choose retirement instead.
Controversial, moi?
Two independant(sic) law firms were hired by our union to review the law text, before the new deal was made, so I for one expect it to hold up in court.
I thought that normal retirement in BA for example was/is 55 ? If those who turn 55, decide to postpone their retirement, I would expect a heated debate to erupt.
do you mean that BALPA actually expects to get a say??
This whole issue is primarily driven (apart from the never diminishing desire by politicians to legislate for every single aspect of our lives) by the fact that the western world cannot afford fewer and fewer working (taxpaying) people. It is a fact of life that early retirement will become the exception in future years, a CRA of 55 in BA is unsustainable in my view of the impending legislation.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the (UK) Government decides, it'll be up to the Courts to say what's legal since whichever way any particular Company opts for, one side or t'other will take it to Law.
Until then it's good fun watching the sparks fly.
28L (don't want to go at 55).
Until then it's good fun watching the sparks fly.
28L (don't want to go at 55).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but too late for some of us. I'll be out of BA a few short months before the magic date and I will need another job. Retirement? compulsory redundancy, I call it.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southend , UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This could make for some interesting court cases.
Lets say a Captain reaches 60, and demands his contract is extended to 65 in accordance with EU Legislation.
His airline agrees, but then points out that they can't allow him to operate because all their flights require operation in or over France.
Would it be the case that the airline can then terminate his contract as he is "unlicensed" to operate on their flights?
It needs a couple of legal probes of the French ( and Italian) legislation to determine exactly what legal standing they now have.
Lets say a Captain reaches 60, and demands his contract is extended to 65 in accordance with EU Legislation.
His airline agrees, but then points out that they can't allow him to operate because all their flights require operation in or over France.
Would it be the case that the airline can then terminate his contract as he is "unlicensed" to operate on their flights?
It needs a couple of legal probes of the French ( and Italian) legislation to determine exactly what legal standing they now have.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest that it depends what it says in your contract. Most contracts, I believe, are for pilots - not specifically Cpt or FO. If this is the case then surely a company can simply say your still a pilot and here's the salary based on the position you hold - that position being based on the company agreed qualification for that position (including age).
Controversial, moi?
that position being based on the company agreed qualification for that position (including age).
Uncle Pete
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the same token under EU law do airlines have to employ partially sighted, those with a hearing difficulty and those who use a wheelchair?
I think I've got the terminology correct to comply with the Disability Act 1997.
MP
I think I've got the terminology correct to comply with the Disability Act 1997.
MP
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: France
Age: 73
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His airline agrees, but then points out that they can't allow him to operate because all their flights require operation in or over France.
So it will soon be the law for all French pilotsas well... we will have to fly to 65.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is a hot potato and the government is prevaricatiing.
Civil Servants Vote Yes to Pensions Strike
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: HERE
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes- the French, inter alia, question may be crucial in this - as has already been pointed out. Who is going to tell the French that their ruling is giving other States the excuse they need for contravening EU legislation in terms of age discrimination? We can't even do 'Aerial Work' over 60 if it is construed to be 'public transport' - our own CAA insist on that - so what is going on? I wonder how the French view that? Needs sorting but nobody seems prepared to take it on - 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd heard that the "not over 60 rule in France" was going in the 'poubelle' this year. If their union vote for 65 this will surely be the case, as will any EU legislation over age discrimination.
Regarding partially sighted pilots; I know of one who flew in UK, with only one functioning eye, from about 56 until he was 60 and retired. LPC's were passed and all was OK.
Regarding compulsory retirment due to the 'French Rule'; I know of one UK operator who is so short of crew that it rostered over 60 crews to be outside French airspace. It could therefore be argued that if 1 airline can do it. so can others.
Also regarding the 'French Rule', I hear that some airlines have adopted the admirable practise of 2 fingers to the French about over-flights.
However, the whole attitude of a cohesive EU has been rather blown apart by the recent demand of the ultra pro-EU French to a relaxation of the EU stability pact. They made the rules, insisted on all new members abiding by them, then decide to bust them, themselves. The French have many great qualities, but team playing is not one of them.
Regarding partially sighted pilots; I know of one who flew in UK, with only one functioning eye, from about 56 until he was 60 and retired. LPC's were passed and all was OK.
Regarding compulsory retirment due to the 'French Rule'; I know of one UK operator who is so short of crew that it rostered over 60 crews to be outside French airspace. It could therefore be argued that if 1 airline can do it. so can others.
Also regarding the 'French Rule', I hear that some airlines have adopted the admirable practise of 2 fingers to the French about over-flights.
However, the whole attitude of a cohesive EU has been rather blown apart by the recent demand of the ultra pro-EU French to a relaxation of the EU stability pact. They made the rules, insisted on all new members abiding by them, then decide to bust them, themselves. The French have many great qualities, but team playing is not one of them.