Air France Pilot Strike - where's the news?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
retirement age
To Topbunk,
Very intersting point,
Are you a BA pilot?
I am a pilot working for AF. Does it mean that a pilot could choose to work until they are 65 in england? If so, do some choose to do so? in what percentage? If no one does why is that since one of the problem at the moment within AF is how many pilots would choose to carry on working beyond 60 !!!
Very intersting point,
Are you a BA pilot?
I am a pilot working for AF. Does it mean that a pilot could choose to work until they are 65 in england? If so, do some choose to do so? in what percentage? If no one does why is that since one of the problem at the moment within AF is how many pilots would choose to carry on working beyond 60 !!!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a pilot working for AF. Does it mean that a pilot could choose to work until they are 65 in england? If so, do some choose to do so? in what percentage?
Now if I was 50, 40, 30 0r 20 years old with obviously no retirement for another 10 to 40 years, how could I know what I will really want in this so many years still to come ? Life and the world being what it is, nobody can say for sure that it is what they will want to do when the time will come...
So I say more power to the possibility of chosing... When the time to do so is here.
Last edited by PPRuNeUser0215; 14th Nov 2008 at 11:40. Reason: attempt to improve spelling
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Lincs,UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Amex.
I am with BA. I am 51. Before the change in law and BA's policy I would be leaving in just over 4 years. I do not feel ready to retire at 55. Now I can stay to 65. Do I want to? I have no idea at this point in time, but it is nice to have the option. There are no pilots in BA at this time over 60, as the law was only changed a few years ago. Some retired at 55 as originally planned, some stayed just a couple of more years and retired.
Some people enjoy flying and with their respective positions and are very happy to carry on. Others find the changes and the job in whole unenjoyable. They say they cannot wait to retire. Everyone is different and has different wants in life.
If you are 33 and want to be gone by 50 I think you might be in the wrong profession. Also lifes plans change regardless of what you think you might do, marriages break down, loved ones become ill, pass away, medicals lost.
So why the disagreement. Why not accept some want to stay, others want to leave and the most important thing is having the choice to do either.
I am with BA. I am 51. Before the change in law and BA's policy I would be leaving in just over 4 years. I do not feel ready to retire at 55. Now I can stay to 65. Do I want to? I have no idea at this point in time, but it is nice to have the option. There are no pilots in BA at this time over 60, as the law was only changed a few years ago. Some retired at 55 as originally planned, some stayed just a couple of more years and retired.
Some people enjoy flying and with their respective positions and are very happy to carry on. Others find the changes and the job in whole unenjoyable. They say they cannot wait to retire. Everyone is different and has different wants in life.
If you are 33 and want to be gone by 50 I think you might be in the wrong profession. Also lifes plans change regardless of what you think you might do, marriages break down, loved ones become ill, pass away, medicals lost.
So why the disagreement. Why not accept some want to stay, others want to leave and the most important thing is having the choice to do either.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen I do not work for BA (anymore. Different life, different times) but taken from My BA Pension | Simple English guide
I note the following.
To be confirmed of course but my point was that in any case, if BA pilots can retire at 65 then that would not have been the case for long (ie not decades) hence the little theory I have elaborated in my previous post... Hoping that I made myself clearer.
I note the following.
Intended Retirement Date (IRD) The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 gives all ground employees and cabin crew an intended retirement date (IRD) of 65.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your answers. I am not tryimg to tell people what to do or not to do!!! starting this conversation makes me wonder why it is such a problem within AF and it seems to be going very smoothly at BA. One of the issues for us is that choices made by people when they are 60 will have a huge impact on other pilots careers. It has to be the same for your airline, no?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Lincs,UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luc,
I have been in aviation 34 years and it is a constant rollercoaster ride. Good times, bad times and some are lucky others not. Yes these changes have impacted careers of others. However in BA there was a period where they did not employ a single pilot for 10 years. I believe less than 5% have over 30 years with the company before the 10 year gap.
So you might find you have to wait 5 years longer to a Command, but then you will be able to fly a further 10 years in your career. Will the current climate in the aviation world be more damaging in the long run or will it be short lived for aviation careers than the rule changes in retirement ages.
Wouldn't it be lovely to have a crystal ball? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I am a DEP with 20 years in BA. I have been lucky, some of my colleagues luckier. Not trying to get at anyone here, just trying to assess the situation logically.
The law changes allows one to retire now at 65. I wonder how many pilots will actually fly to this age. Again only time will tell.
I have been in aviation 34 years and it is a constant rollercoaster ride. Good times, bad times and some are lucky others not. Yes these changes have impacted careers of others. However in BA there was a period where they did not employ a single pilot for 10 years. I believe less than 5% have over 30 years with the company before the 10 year gap.
So you might find you have to wait 5 years longer to a Command, but then you will be able to fly a further 10 years in your career. Will the current climate in the aviation world be more damaging in the long run or will it be short lived for aviation careers than the rule changes in retirement ages.
Wouldn't it be lovely to have a crystal ball? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I am a DEP with 20 years in BA. I have been lucky, some of my colleagues luckier. Not trying to get at anyone here, just trying to assess the situation logically.
The law changes allows one to retire now at 65. I wonder how many pilots will actually fly to this age. Again only time will tell.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So it seems that given the same situation, French and English react differently then... wrongly or rightly, you seem to have a very fatalistic approach. I find it a little bit more ... frustrating... that a change in the law to allow some pilots to carry on working beyond 60 without at least looking into the consequences for those having a few more years to go... Thanks very much for your answers anyway.
happy flights
happy flights
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 876
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luc you got me head scratching here... You find the system which allows a choice not a good idea as opposed to the one who forces people one way or another ???
I would say the consequences of the "no choice" system more damaging than the other one as, when the time comes, it will really allows you to make your mind depending on "your very own" position in life. I, for one, very much favour not having to be imposed something which was decided by people other than myself, 20 or 30 years earlier.
I guess I have been away too long from France so I have not re adapted completely yet
.
I would say the consequences of the "no choice" system more damaging than the other one as, when the time comes, it will really allows you to make your mind depending on "your very own" position in life. I, for one, very much favour not having to be imposed something which was decided by people other than myself, 20 or 30 years earlier.
I guess I have been away too long from France so I have not re adapted completely yet
.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Around the block
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the British people would benefit a bit by looking at how the French friends are trying to get their opinions through to the management 
I would strongly suggest not to go on strikes that many times a year though
but to have the guts to even threaten to go on strike making sure the company does not make stupid decisions is a start....
Fight for your own ones, and your members! This goes for BALPA too.........
sorry couldnt resist- it has nothing to do with this thread.
I would strongly suggest not to go on strikes that many times a year though
but to have the guts to even threaten to go on strike making sure the company does not make stupid decisions is a start....Fight for your own ones, and your members! This goes for BALPA too.........
sorry couldnt resist- it has nothing to do with this thread.
Viking
Thread drift I know but having watched the French national sport from close quarters for quite a while now I'm really not sure it would work in the UK and/or for BALPA...You'd more likely end up with the UK Union leaders being lynched.
The French seem to remarkably stoical (or perhaps more correctly habituated) to the frequent shutdowns of large elements of their transport system. It seems to me that if the Paris Metro/Airlines/SNCF shut down then vast swathes of the workforce simply don't attempt to get to work - and maybe because of historical solidarity with the workers there's no comeback (though I think things may be starting to change in France).
As an example during the last Paris metro greve I tried contacting someone urgently in a Paris Office - to be told that "of course she isn't here, the metro's on strike..., she won't be back into work until the strikes have ended". Compare and contrast that with any strikes in the UK involving similar workgroups (e.g. London Underground) - in the UK workers simply have to get to work and we hear stories of people biking/walking miles into work or sleeping at their place of work.
I admire the French workers for their attitude to their bosses and politicians..but I don't think it can last and I also don't think you could transfer the tactics across the channel.
The French seem to remarkably stoical (or perhaps more correctly habituated) to the frequent shutdowns of large elements of their transport system. It seems to me that if the Paris Metro/Airlines/SNCF shut down then vast swathes of the workforce simply don't attempt to get to work - and maybe because of historical solidarity with the workers there's no comeback (though I think things may be starting to change in France).
As an example during the last Paris metro greve I tried contacting someone urgently in a Paris Office - to be told that "of course she isn't here, the metro's on strike..., she won't be back into work until the strikes have ended". Compare and contrast that with any strikes in the UK involving similar workgroups (e.g. London Underground) - in the UK workers simply have to get to work and we hear stories of people biking/walking miles into work or sleeping at their place of work.
I admire the French workers for their attitude to their bosses and politicians..but I don't think it can last and I also don't think you could transfer the tactics across the channel.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luc,
Why are you so against pilots having the choice to retire at an age that suits them, even if that is 65? This applies to people in other occupations as well.
Surely choice is better than having retirement forced upon you at an age decided by someone else. I do not now know how I will feel when I am 60, perhaps you already know how you are going to feel when you reach that age.
I am almost 51 and am delighted there is now a choice, before I would have had complusory retirement at 55. I do not think in 4 years time I will be ready for the scrap heap and doubt if I will feel that way when I am 60. I will have to wait and see how I feel then. I am now very happy that I will be able to continue till 65 if I want to. On the other hand perhaps my circumstances or feelings will change and I might want to retire at 60- I have a choice and nothing can be better than that.
Why are you so against pilots having the choice to retire at an age that suits them, even if that is 65? This applies to people in other occupations as well.
Surely choice is better than having retirement forced upon you at an age decided by someone else. I do not now know how I will feel when I am 60, perhaps you already know how you are going to feel when you reach that age.
I am almost 51 and am delighted there is now a choice, before I would have had complusory retirement at 55. I do not think in 4 years time I will be ready for the scrap heap and doubt if I will feel that way when I am 60. I will have to wait and see how I feel then. I am now very happy that I will be able to continue till 65 if I want to. On the other hand perhaps my circumstances or feelings will change and I might want to retire at 60- I have a choice and nothing can be better than that.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere between Europe and Africa
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not trying to answer in behalf of Luc, but I think is fear isn't having a choice of working until 65 but rather have the obligation to work until 65.
I can tell you that is what is going to happen in France, because the same happened in Portugal. Once the Social Security saw that this bunch of rich pilots could subsidize 5 more years the system, they made it compulsory.
You could say the pension funds could fill the gap, but what is the deficit at the BA one?
Check Six Krueger...
I can tell you that is what is going to happen in France, because the same happened in Portugal. Once the Social Security saw that this bunch of rich pilots could subsidize 5 more years the system, they made it compulsory.
You could say the pension funds could fill the gap, but what is the deficit at the BA one?
Check Six Krueger...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm 100% with AMEX on this one! I'm from accross the Channel too, but work in Britain. I don't accept the idea of having to retire at 60 (i.e, in 21 years' time) if I want to carry on flying until I'm 65, because of something decided by others years before! (Then again, I've always hated being forced to do anything )
The bottom line, though, is a financial issue (yes, another one!): there soon won't be enough cash left in the CRPN if French-employed pilots carry on retiring at 60. Full stop. Hence the option to retire at 65. I wonder what those who strike to force something onto others would propose as a solution to this cash-flow problem? -No, increasing contributions is not an acceptable solution.
The SNPL badly needs coaching in basic economics and to step into the 21st century. In this day and age, going on strike and making millions of other people's lives difficult for 4 days is unacceptable. If anything, it shows a total lack of respect for one's customers. Also, in today's market conditions, AF pilots should feel lucky just to have a flying job!
Just one reason why I'm in no rush yet to settle back in France! And yes, I was messed about by the strike yesterday. Original flight from TLS to CDG canx, put on an ORY flight instead, having to organise my own transfer to CDG by AF coach (good job they weren't on strike!) and taking a later connecting flight to GB. Total 9 hours - but only 2.5hrs flight time! Not what you want right after your OPC/LPC!
Rant over...
Cheers
)The bottom line, though, is a financial issue (yes, another one!): there soon won't be enough cash left in the CRPN if French-employed pilots carry on retiring at 60. Full stop. Hence the option to retire at 65. I wonder what those who strike to force something onto others would propose as a solution to this cash-flow problem? -No, increasing contributions is not an acceptable solution.
The SNPL badly needs coaching in basic economics and to step into the 21st century. In this day and age, going on strike and making millions of other people's lives difficult for 4 days is unacceptable. If anything, it shows a total lack of respect for one's customers. Also, in today's market conditions, AF pilots should feel lucky just to have a flying job!
Just one reason why I'm in no rush yet to settle back in France! And yes, I was messed about by the strike yesterday. Original flight from TLS to CDG canx, put on an ORY flight instead, having to organise my own transfer to CDG by AF coach (good job they weren't on strike!) and taking a later connecting flight to GB. Total 9 hours - but only 2.5hrs flight time! Not what you want right after your OPC/LPC!
Rant over...
Cheers
Last edited by FougaMagister; 15th Nov 2008 at 11:23.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: england
Age: 58
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
right... where do I start?
Obviously having the choice is great!!! Who in their right mind would dispute that...
BUT have we ( we as AF pilots right now) got the choice and if yes which one????
The proposal by the government ties the age limit with how our pension is funded so basically you do what you want but if you stop at 60 there won't be enough money to pay your pension. Choice seems narrower then...
Another problem is the consequences on careers for pilots if a lot choose ( no choice anyway as I wrote earlier) to carry on working. And that is why I was trying to compare with BA. Because it seems to me that it is a problem that BA pilots would have too. from what I read, and I am not saying it is worse or better, and it is just from one BA pilot, English people are more fatalistic about it.
We here a lot of things in France about retirement age and policy for BA, KLM, Lufthansa and I wanted to see for myself.
Last thing, I find it very interesting to compare our approaches and to answer genuine questions from people in this thread but it is ... remarkable... that the only one lecturing me, AF pilots and France all together about pensions, finance, economics etc... is French.
Dear Fouga, the CRPN problem was sorted regardless of the retirement age( it is not the place to discuss this very complicated matter). The strike is partly due to the fact that the government is now ignoring the reform that had been put in place and saying that the only solution is to work longer.
Obviously having the choice is great!!! Who in their right mind would dispute that...
BUT have we ( we as AF pilots right now) got the choice and if yes which one????
The proposal by the government ties the age limit with how our pension is funded so basically you do what you want but if you stop at 60 there won't be enough money to pay your pension. Choice seems narrower then...
Another problem is the consequences on careers for pilots if a lot choose ( no choice anyway as I wrote earlier) to carry on working. And that is why I was trying to compare with BA. Because it seems to me that it is a problem that BA pilots would have too. from what I read, and I am not saying it is worse or better, and it is just from one BA pilot, English people are more fatalistic about it.
We here a lot of things in France about retirement age and policy for BA, KLM, Lufthansa and I wanted to see for myself.
Last thing, I find it very interesting to compare our approaches and to answer genuine questions from people in this thread but it is ... remarkable... that the only one lecturing me, AF pilots and France all together about pensions, finance, economics etc... is French.
Dear Fouga, the CRPN problem was sorted regardless of the retirement age( it is not the place to discuss this very complicated matter). The strike is partly due to the fact that the government is now ignoring the reform that had been put in place and saying that the only solution is to work longer.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to the issue....
The legislation I understand was passed by the French Government. AF are legally bound to apply it?
So if confirmed, striking will not change things in that respect, but it will reduce income, profit and hurt many people in the future.
I stand to be corrected but I don't want AF to become the next Alitalia because of a petty feud about something that has already been passed by French legislators.
G
The legislation I understand was passed by the French Government. AF are legally bound to apply it?
So if confirmed, striking will not change things in that respect, but it will reduce income, profit and hurt many people in the future.
I stand to be corrected but I don't want AF to become the next Alitalia because of a petty feud about something that has already been passed by French legislators.
G
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
luc - sorry, but this is the place to discuss the CRPN because it's the crux of the problem! More people retiring, fewer people contributing = less money in the pot = everybody has to contribute for longer. Basic economics, lesson 1.01.
I do understand that those who thought they could retire at 60 with a full pension don't like the idea of having to work until 65 to get it. Now, wait a minute! Working until 65 is optional, nobody's forcing you to do it. You can still retire at 60 - but if everybody does, then the CRPN will definitely be broke! Lots of other industries have had to put up the retirement age already; most people didn't want to, but (reluctantly) accepted that it had to be done. You don't need a PhD in economics to know that any reform that leaves aside the retirement age is bound to be temporary at best.
I wonder what the strike hopes to achieve anyway; Parliament has voted, the law is passed. Full stop. If one doesn't agree with it, the solution in a democracy is to vote for another political party next time, not to make millions of peoples' lives unbearable for a few days. The SNPL representatives that got interviewed were short on details; no doubt they would have had trouble explaining to the public why they still want to retire at 60 when 65 is the mandatory retirement age in most other private-sector professions! The Government went back on its word? Big deal. Better get used to it. Governments everywhere do that all the time.
In the current economic environment it doesn't show much responsibility to waste AF and the European economy as a whole millions of Euros. There hadn't been an AF pilots' strike for a long time, but one is enough to do lasting damage to the company's image. As for being French, I don't see why that means I have to agree with you. I am entitled to voice my opinion on this forum, or indeed anywhere I please.
Cheers
P.S.: wiggy - the rtn ticket to the sim and back was booked (as usual) by my company weeks ago. Also, LGW is a good 3hrs drive from my place, LHR is 2hrs!
I do understand that those who thought they could retire at 60 with a full pension don't like the idea of having to work until 65 to get it. Now, wait a minute! Working until 65 is optional, nobody's forcing you to do it. You can still retire at 60 - but if everybody does, then the CRPN will definitely be broke! Lots of other industries have had to put up the retirement age already; most people didn't want to, but (reluctantly) accepted that it had to be done. You don't need a PhD in economics to know that any reform that leaves aside the retirement age is bound to be temporary at best.
I wonder what the strike hopes to achieve anyway; Parliament has voted, the law is passed. Full stop. If one doesn't agree with it, the solution in a democracy is to vote for another political party next time, not to make millions of peoples' lives unbearable for a few days. The SNPL representatives that got interviewed were short on details; no doubt they would have had trouble explaining to the public why they still want to retire at 60 when 65 is the mandatory retirement age in most other private-sector professions! The Government went back on its word? Big deal. Better get used to it. Governments everywhere do that all the time.
In the current economic environment it doesn't show much responsibility to waste AF and the European economy as a whole millions of Euros. There hadn't been an AF pilots' strike for a long time, but one is enough to do lasting damage to the company's image. As for being French, I don't see why that means I have to agree with you. I am entitled to voice my opinion on this forum, or indeed anywhere I please.
Cheers
P.S.: wiggy - the rtn ticket to the sim and back was booked (as usual) by my company weeks ago. Also, LGW is a good 3hrs drive from my place, LHR is 2hrs!