Seeking Data re Mandatory Retirement Ages
Tube rider:
Erm, no. ICAO decides on maximum age to hold a particular licence. The normal retirement age can thus be not older than that, but retirement ages are decided on according to local labour laws and collective labour agreements.
Erm, no. ICAO decides on maximum age to hold a particular licence. The normal retirement age can thus be not older than that, but retirement ages are decided on according to local labour laws and collective labour agreements.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU law of Oct 2006 states that discimination against age is not allowed and everyone should have the right to work to 65 in all EU countries regardless of their occupation.
How does this not apply to Holland if their pilots have to retire at 56 unless that is what they want to do. I cannot believe all of them want to retire that young.
Reading these threads it appears some airlines outside the EU allow their pilots to work longer now.
I know a couple of years ago some airlines, one in particular made their pilots retire at 55 and that has been the case for decades. I wonder how the pilots who work for those ailines feel now they have the opportunity to work 10 years longer. My guess is they prefer that option.
My personal feeling is 55 is far too young to make anyone have comlulsory retirement regardless of what job they do. Presumably those mandatory retirement dates were set in the 1960's or 70's. We have come a long way since then but it appears it took the 2006 EU law to force those airlines to change their retirement age. Am I correct? If people want to retire early then that is a different matter altogether.
How does this not apply to Holland if their pilots have to retire at 56 unless that is what they want to do. I cannot believe all of them want to retire that young.
Reading these threads it appears some airlines outside the EU allow their pilots to work longer now.
I know a couple of years ago some airlines, one in particular made their pilots retire at 55 and that has been the case for decades. I wonder how the pilots who work for those ailines feel now they have the opportunity to work 10 years longer. My guess is they prefer that option.
My personal feeling is 55 is far too young to make anyone have comlulsory retirement regardless of what job they do. Presumably those mandatory retirement dates were set in the 1960's or 70's. We have come a long way since then but it appears it took the 2006 EU law to force those airlines to change their retirement age. Am I correct? If people want to retire early then that is a different matter altogether.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re ICAO
Thank you for your responses above.
Regarding ICAO standards, I would like to provide some clarification. Here is the way that we, after much deliberation, read ICAO’s standards and recommendations.
Reference to a number of the ICAO documents is located on our web site:
http://www.flypast60.com/law-NGO.htm
ICAO is an international body that was formed through the United Nations to ensure the safety of international airline operations. ICAO sets standards regarding international pilot licensing, especially regarding safety and English proficiency, and it sets standards regarding the age limit of pilots-in-command operating through international airspace, but ICAO does not set standards regarding the maximum age requirements of licensing or employment. ICAO has no jurisdiction or interest in employment laws.
ICAO member states make laws (generally, regulations) in their own countries that adopt the conventions of the international body, making the ICAO standards law within the jurisdiction of the member states. Nations are free to implement laws that are more restrictive than the ICAO standards for their own pilot licensing and operations only—they are not allowed to make laws that affect the operations of foreign carriers within their own airspace that are more restrictive than the ICAO standards.
Member states can enact laws that are less restrictive than the ICAO standards, and these laws can affect both their own pilots and pilots of foreign carriers operating within their airspace.
Two examples: First, Canada removed the maximum age restriction on pilot licensing decades ago, after passage of its own federal human rights statutes that generally prohibit, with two very narrow exemptions, discrimination on the basis of age. In addition, it permitted its own pilots as well as pilots of other jurisdictions to operate within its airspace regardless of age, so long as the pilots were properly licensed within their own country.
Second, after ICAO moved the maximum age for pilots-in-command from age 60 to age 65 on November 23, 2006, the United States could no longer restrict foreign carriers from operating into and out of U.S. airspace with pilots-in-command over age 60, even though the FAA regulations in effect until December, 2007 precluded U.S. pilots from being licensed above age 60.
When member states deviate from ICAO’s standard with a regulation that is more restrictive for their own airlines' operations, they are required to file what ICAO calls a “difference.”
Operations within member states' airspace that are less restrictive are handled through the individual airline’s “operating specification,” or “Ops Spec.” That is a document that is negotiated between the specific airline and the host member state. For example, if airlines currently wish to operate with pilots in excess of age 65 pilots-in-command within Canadian airspace, a procedure that Canada readily allows, the airlines could gain legal authority for that doing so (i.e. for deviating from the ICAO standard) through negotiation with the Canadian government of their airline's Ops Spec.
ICAO has "Standards" and it has "Recommendations." Recommendations are non-binding, and have no legal impact on international operations. The current "recommendation," for example, that First Officers not operate above age 65, is non-binding, and has no legal impact.
ICAOs standards regarding maximum age of pilot operations are indeed very narrow. They do not apply at all in relation to any form of employment law. There is no ICAO standard for mandatory retirement.
This is a very common misunderstanding. ICAO does not deal with employment, period. Its restrictions on pilot age are limited to two areas only: maximum age of pilot-in-command operations within the airspace of countries that choose to adhere rigidly to the ICAO standard, and (after November 23, 2006) crew complement (the “over-under” rule)—at least one pilot of the crew must be under age 60 for operations of airlines, again, within the airspace of countries that opt to adhere rigidly to the ICAO standard.
There are three upshots to this. First, the age restrictions, other than for the over-under rule, affect pilot-in-command (not “Captain”) operations only. There are no restrictions on First Officers, Augmentation Pilots, Flight Engineers or Relief Pilots, including “Captains” who are not acting as “pilots-in-command” fulfilling crew duties in those positions.
Second, the over-under rule, according to the ICAO FAQ pages, is based on the entire crew comlement, including crews where there are three or four operating pilots. Specifically, it requires the existence in the crew of at least one pilot under age 60.
According to the ICAO FAQs, it is “recommended” (i.e. not required) that that "under age 60" crew member be one of the two pilots operating the aircraft for take-off and landing. In other words, in the extreme, so long as you have on board an “augmentation pilot” who is under age 60, the other three pilots could be over age 60 and the ICAO requirements would be legally met.
This point has huge potential implications on the decision of airlines and their pilot associations to impose mandatory retirement, because it means that there is an immense flexibility available for the scheduling of augmented crew operations—Captains not only do not need to have their employment terminated (they can work legally as augmentation crew members). Further, the crew complement to satisfy the over-under rule does not necessarily present a scheduling nightmare to airline operators, requiring huge gymnatics to get flights through the airspace of countries that adhere rigidly to the ICAO maximum age limits for pilots-in-command.
Third, countries can adopt standards that are less restrictive than the ICAO standards. This factor was largely in evidence in the early 2000’s, prior to the ICAO change to age 65 in November, 2006. Many countries, especially many European countries, did not adhere rigidly to the ICAO age restriction for pilots-in-command (France and Italy being two exceptions noted above in this thread), so pilots-in-command could freely operate into, out of, and through the airspace of a large number of countries, notwithstanding that their pilots-in-command were over the ICAO maximum age.
Again, technically, the airlines require an amendment to their Ops Specs to accomplish this, and it is not clear how many carriers actually fulfilled that requirement, but it is common knowledge that many, many carriers operated across international borders with pilots-in-command above the ICAO age maximum of 60 for pilot-in-command prior to the raising of the age to 65 in November, 2006.
Regarding ICAO standards, I would like to provide some clarification. Here is the way that we, after much deliberation, read ICAO’s standards and recommendations.
Reference to a number of the ICAO documents is located on our web site:
http://www.flypast60.com/law-NGO.htm
ICAO is an international body that was formed through the United Nations to ensure the safety of international airline operations. ICAO sets standards regarding international pilot licensing, especially regarding safety and English proficiency, and it sets standards regarding the age limit of pilots-in-command operating through international airspace, but ICAO does not set standards regarding the maximum age requirements of licensing or employment. ICAO has no jurisdiction or interest in employment laws.
ICAO member states make laws (generally, regulations) in their own countries that adopt the conventions of the international body, making the ICAO standards law within the jurisdiction of the member states. Nations are free to implement laws that are more restrictive than the ICAO standards for their own pilot licensing and operations only—they are not allowed to make laws that affect the operations of foreign carriers within their own airspace that are more restrictive than the ICAO standards.
Member states can enact laws that are less restrictive than the ICAO standards, and these laws can affect both their own pilots and pilots of foreign carriers operating within their airspace.
Two examples: First, Canada removed the maximum age restriction on pilot licensing decades ago, after passage of its own federal human rights statutes that generally prohibit, with two very narrow exemptions, discrimination on the basis of age. In addition, it permitted its own pilots as well as pilots of other jurisdictions to operate within its airspace regardless of age, so long as the pilots were properly licensed within their own country.
Second, after ICAO moved the maximum age for pilots-in-command from age 60 to age 65 on November 23, 2006, the United States could no longer restrict foreign carriers from operating into and out of U.S. airspace with pilots-in-command over age 60, even though the FAA regulations in effect until December, 2007 precluded U.S. pilots from being licensed above age 60.
When member states deviate from ICAO’s standard with a regulation that is more restrictive for their own airlines' operations, they are required to file what ICAO calls a “difference.”
Operations within member states' airspace that are less restrictive are handled through the individual airline’s “operating specification,” or “Ops Spec.” That is a document that is negotiated between the specific airline and the host member state. For example, if airlines currently wish to operate with pilots in excess of age 65 pilots-in-command within Canadian airspace, a procedure that Canada readily allows, the airlines could gain legal authority for that doing so (i.e. for deviating from the ICAO standard) through negotiation with the Canadian government of their airline's Ops Spec.
ICAO has "Standards" and it has "Recommendations." Recommendations are non-binding, and have no legal impact on international operations. The current "recommendation," for example, that First Officers not operate above age 65, is non-binding, and has no legal impact.
ICAOs standards regarding maximum age of pilot operations are indeed very narrow. They do not apply at all in relation to any form of employment law. There is no ICAO standard for mandatory retirement.
This is a very common misunderstanding. ICAO does not deal with employment, period. Its restrictions on pilot age are limited to two areas only: maximum age of pilot-in-command operations within the airspace of countries that choose to adhere rigidly to the ICAO standard, and (after November 23, 2006) crew complement (the “over-under” rule)—at least one pilot of the crew must be under age 60 for operations of airlines, again, within the airspace of countries that opt to adhere rigidly to the ICAO standard.
There are three upshots to this. First, the age restrictions, other than for the over-under rule, affect pilot-in-command (not “Captain”) operations only. There are no restrictions on First Officers, Augmentation Pilots, Flight Engineers or Relief Pilots, including “Captains” who are not acting as “pilots-in-command” fulfilling crew duties in those positions.
Second, the over-under rule, according to the ICAO FAQ pages, is based on the entire crew comlement, including crews where there are three or four operating pilots. Specifically, it requires the existence in the crew of at least one pilot under age 60.
According to the ICAO FAQs, it is “recommended” (i.e. not required) that that "under age 60" crew member be one of the two pilots operating the aircraft for take-off and landing. In other words, in the extreme, so long as you have on board an “augmentation pilot” who is under age 60, the other three pilots could be over age 60 and the ICAO requirements would be legally met.
This point has huge potential implications on the decision of airlines and their pilot associations to impose mandatory retirement, because it means that there is an immense flexibility available for the scheduling of augmented crew operations—Captains not only do not need to have their employment terminated (they can work legally as augmentation crew members). Further, the crew complement to satisfy the over-under rule does not necessarily present a scheduling nightmare to airline operators, requiring huge gymnatics to get flights through the airspace of countries that adhere rigidly to the ICAO maximum age limits for pilots-in-command.
Third, countries can adopt standards that are less restrictive than the ICAO standards. This factor was largely in evidence in the early 2000’s, prior to the ICAO change to age 65 in November, 2006. Many countries, especially many European countries, did not adhere rigidly to the ICAO age restriction for pilots-in-command (France and Italy being two exceptions noted above in this thread), so pilots-in-command could freely operate into, out of, and through the airspace of a large number of countries, notwithstanding that their pilots-in-command were over the ICAO maximum age.
Again, technically, the airlines require an amendment to their Ops Specs to accomplish this, and it is not clear how many carriers actually fulfilled that requirement, but it is common knowledge that many, many carriers operated across international borders with pilots-in-command above the ICAO age maximum of 60 for pilot-in-command prior to the raising of the age to 65 in November, 2006.
Last edited by Raymond767; 11th Dec 2008 at 14:31.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Australia there is no pilot age limit-in fact there are a few pilots approaching their Seventies flying jet transports and having no problem with medicals and simulator checks. Their experience has been invaluable.
Back in the late Eighties when the airline pilot union in Australia enforced compulsory unionism (no ticket - no fly) it virtually ruled both the airline industry and it's regulator (Department of Civil Aviation). The union enforced an age limit of 60 even though it was illegal to discriminate on age. Fortunately that has all changed for the better and if you are fit and proficient and appropriately licenced it is up to each pilot when to pull the plug on himself.
Back in the late Eighties when the airline pilot union in Australia enforced compulsory unionism (no ticket - no fly) it virtually ruled both the airline industry and it's regulator (Department of Civil Aviation). The union enforced an age limit of 60 even though it was illegal to discriminate on age. Fortunately that has all changed for the better and if you are fit and proficient and appropriately licenced it is up to each pilot when to pull the plug on himself.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Back in the late Eighties when the airline pilot union in Australia enforced compulsory unionism (no ticket - no fly) it virtually ruled both the airline industry and it's regulator (Department of Civil Aviation).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU Practise
Could someone please inform me of the practice at Lufthansa? Has the Association put into place an increase in the mandatory age to age 65?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my ex just retired in September as captain with Lufthansa when he turned 60. He would have liked to continue flying but no go.
The pilots who took the matter to court lost. I will try to find some information for you.
So mandatory at Lufthansa is still 60.
here's the link to the "cockpit" union for airline pilots and flight engineers... it's in German but you can send them a message in English.
Willkommen bei der Vereinigung Cockpit
The pilots who took the matter to court lost. I will try to find some information for you.
So mandatory at Lufthansa is still 60.
here's the link to the "cockpit" union for airline pilots and flight engineers... it's in German but you can send them a message in English.
Willkommen bei der Vereinigung Cockpit
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same in The Netherlands: VNV (Dutch Pilots Union) negotiated with the local airlines a 56yrs retirement age. Contrary to the age discrimintation etc, it's a labour contract agreed upon by all parties! This issue was also taken to court but, to no avail. Looks like a labour contract prevails over regulations, rules and the law?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Lufthansa
Westwind:
When you say, "the pilots" took them to court and lost, do you mean the individual pilots, or the pilots' Association? What is the position of the pilots' Association--is it for or against changing to the ICAO mandated maximum age for Pilots-In-Command of age 65?
Despite the losses at the courts in the cases cited so far (Germany, Netherlands) I am still uncertain why apparently no-one has taken the cases to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. Were the individuals not aware that they could do so, given that the forced terminations apparently breach the provisions of the EU Employment Law Directive?
When you say, "the pilots" took them to court and lost, do you mean the individual pilots, or the pilots' Association? What is the position of the pilots' Association--is it for or against changing to the ICAO mandated maximum age for Pilots-In-Command of age 65?
Despite the losses at the courts in the cases cited so far (Germany, Netherlands) I am still uncertain why apparently no-one has taken the cases to the European Court of Justice for adjudication. Were the individuals not aware that they could do so, given that the forced terminations apparently breach the provisions of the EU Employment Law Directive?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Follow up query regarding pay schemes at affected airlines. Is your airline on-
a) Formula Pay system (ie. pay dependent on size of aircraft).
b) Years-of-service system (ie. Captain and F/O annual increases irrespective of fleet type)
When the retirement age is raised at airlines on an a) system, obviously those at the top get to stick around at top rates for another 5 years. On a b) system, increasing the retirement age is not so punitive to the rest.
Air Canada is presently on a formula pay system, though there is somewhat of a grassroots movement supporting a change to years of service if the retirement age goes to 65 to spread the wealth a little more equitably, so to speak.
a) Formula Pay system (ie. pay dependent on size of aircraft).
b) Years-of-service system (ie. Captain and F/O annual increases irrespective of fleet type)
When the retirement age is raised at airlines on an a) system, obviously those at the top get to stick around at top rates for another 5 years. On a b) system, increasing the retirement age is not so punitive to the rest.
Air Canada is presently on a formula pay system, though there is somewhat of a grassroots movement supporting a change to years of service if the retirement age goes to 65 to spread the wealth a little more equitably, so to speak.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
over 60
In Australia in 1996, new anti-discrimination legislation wiped age limit for all pilots. However, Captain John Christie a Long Haul 744 Captain sued Qantas for mandating his retirement at 60. At that stage, ICAO limit for Captains was still 60. Eventually he lost in the High Court due QF successfully arguing that they could not roster him a full line as the 744 went mostly to airspace that precluded Captains being over 60.
However, attached to that case was a Short Haul Captain who was successful as the QF 737 was almost exclusively operating in Australian and NZ airspace. NZ had similar anti-discrimination legislation. This remained the case until ICAO increased the limit to 65 in November 2006. Now QF pilots can operate to 65 in any rank, at which time they could theoretically take a rank reduction to F/O, or bid to go back to the 737 or 767 as Captains and operate in Australian and NZ airspace "on condition". There is sufficient flying on both these types to be rostered for normal lines.
Australian aviation legislation requires that if the Captain is over 60, the F/O must be less than 60.
The Christie case is worth a read, as it overrode discrimination law due the interpretation of what constitutes "normal work", and the economic hardship to Qantas in not being able to extract a full roster's worth of work from a pilot. Interestingly, subsequent industrial agreement now allows for reduced hours flying past age 55, to 75% of a normal workload. Worked well for me!
However, attached to that case was a Short Haul Captain who was successful as the QF 737 was almost exclusively operating in Australian and NZ airspace. NZ had similar anti-discrimination legislation. This remained the case until ICAO increased the limit to 65 in November 2006. Now QF pilots can operate to 65 in any rank, at which time they could theoretically take a rank reduction to F/O, or bid to go back to the 737 or 767 as Captains and operate in Australian and NZ airspace "on condition". There is sufficient flying on both these types to be rostered for normal lines.
Australian aviation legislation requires that if the Captain is over 60, the F/O must be less than 60.
The Christie case is worth a read, as it overrode discrimination law due the interpretation of what constitutes "normal work", and the economic hardship to Qantas in not being able to extract a full roster's worth of work from a pilot. Interestingly, subsequent industrial agreement now allows for reduced hours flying past age 55, to 75% of a normal workload. Worked well for me!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Who cares? ;-)
Age: 74
Posts: 676
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raymond,
the "Vereinigung Cockpit" is the biggest union for all cockpit/flight deck personel. They do represent pilots in court action occassionally.
I have tried to find an English version of the court decision but to no avail. The German version states that 3 LH pilots wanted to fly longer then 60 years of age, especially since at smaller, sister airlines pilots are allowed to fly to 65 years. They were unsuccessful in their attempts.
One German article is as follows, perhaps you can find someone to translate the relavant info (sorry, I'm on my office computer right now or I would try to do it myself):
the "Vereinigung Cockpit" is the biggest union for all cockpit/flight deck personel. They do represent pilots in court action occassionally.
I have tried to find an English version of the court decision but to no avail. The German version states that 3 LH pilots wanted to fly longer then 60 years of age, especially since at smaller, sister airlines pilots are allowed to fly to 65 years. They were unsuccessful in their attempts.
One German article is as follows, perhaps you can find someone to translate the relavant info (sorry, I'm on my office computer right now or I would try to do it myself):
FRANKFURT/MAIN -
Die Piloten der Deutschen Lufthansa müssen ihren vorgezogenen Ruhestand mit 60 Jahren akzeptieren. Das hat das Landesarbeitsgericht in Frankfurt am Main gestern entschieden. Die Berufung von drei Piloten gegen ein gleichlautendes Urteil des Arbeitsgerichts Frankfurt wurde damit zurückgewiesen.
Die Richter sahen keinen Verstoß gegen das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz. Die Revision beim Bundesarbeitsgericht wurde jedoch zugelassen (Aktenzeichen: 17 Sa 809/07).
Die klagenden Piloten hatten sich vor Gericht auf das seit August 2006 geltende sogenannte Antidiskriminierungsgesetz berufen und damit ihren Wunsch, bis zum 65. Lebensjahr zu fliegen, begründet. Von einem grundsätzlichen Sicherheitsrisiko und einer Gefahr, während eines Fluges akut zu erkranken, könne infolge der regelmäßigen ärztlichen Untersuchungen keine Rede sein, so ihre Argumente. Darüber hinaus flögen auch Piloten einer Lufthansa-Tochter bis zum 65. Lebensjahr, etwa auf kürzeren Inlandsflügen. Deshalb sei die im Tarifvertrag vereinbarte Altersgrenze nichtig.
Die Richter bejahten in ihrer Entscheidung zwar die Anwendbarkeit des neuen Gesetzes, weil die Kläger erst nach dem Inkrafttreten das 60. Lebensjahr vollendet hätten. Gleichwohl sahen sie keine Altersdiskriminierung, weil die Deutsche Lufthansa mit der früheren Verrentung ihrer Piloten ein "legitimes Ziel" verfolge. So seien gesundheitliche Beeinträchtigungen bei den alternden Piloten zumindest nicht völlig auszuschließen.
Während allgemein das Renteneintrittsalter auf 67 Jahre angehoben werden soll, betrug das tatsächliche Renteneintrittsalter 2004 im Schnitt in Deutschland bei Männern 63,1 Jahre und bei Frauen 63,0 Jahre. In den neuen Bundesländern gehen Männer und Frauen statistisch gesehen eher in Rente als in den alten Ländern.
erschienen am 16. Oktober 2007
Die Piloten der Deutschen Lufthansa müssen ihren vorgezogenen Ruhestand mit 60 Jahren akzeptieren. Das hat das Landesarbeitsgericht in Frankfurt am Main gestern entschieden. Die Berufung von drei Piloten gegen ein gleichlautendes Urteil des Arbeitsgerichts Frankfurt wurde damit zurückgewiesen.
Die Richter sahen keinen Verstoß gegen das Antidiskriminierungsgesetz. Die Revision beim Bundesarbeitsgericht wurde jedoch zugelassen (Aktenzeichen: 17 Sa 809/07).
Die klagenden Piloten hatten sich vor Gericht auf das seit August 2006 geltende sogenannte Antidiskriminierungsgesetz berufen und damit ihren Wunsch, bis zum 65. Lebensjahr zu fliegen, begründet. Von einem grundsätzlichen Sicherheitsrisiko und einer Gefahr, während eines Fluges akut zu erkranken, könne infolge der regelmäßigen ärztlichen Untersuchungen keine Rede sein, so ihre Argumente. Darüber hinaus flögen auch Piloten einer Lufthansa-Tochter bis zum 65. Lebensjahr, etwa auf kürzeren Inlandsflügen. Deshalb sei die im Tarifvertrag vereinbarte Altersgrenze nichtig.
Die Richter bejahten in ihrer Entscheidung zwar die Anwendbarkeit des neuen Gesetzes, weil die Kläger erst nach dem Inkrafttreten das 60. Lebensjahr vollendet hätten. Gleichwohl sahen sie keine Altersdiskriminierung, weil die Deutsche Lufthansa mit der früheren Verrentung ihrer Piloten ein "legitimes Ziel" verfolge. So seien gesundheitliche Beeinträchtigungen bei den alternden Piloten zumindest nicht völlig auszuschließen.
Während allgemein das Renteneintrittsalter auf 67 Jahre angehoben werden soll, betrug das tatsächliche Renteneintrittsalter 2004 im Schnitt in Deutschland bei Männern 63,1 Jahre und bei Frauen 63,0 Jahre. In den neuen Bundesländern gehen Männer und Frauen statistisch gesehen eher in Rente als in den alten Ländern.
erschienen am 16. Oktober 2007
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google Translate -- A Little Crude, But General Idea Carried
The Lufthansa pilots have their early retirement with 60 years to accept. It has the country's Labor Court in Frankfurt decided yesterday. The appointment of three pilots against a similar ruling by the Frankfurt Labor Court was rejected.
The judges saw no violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The revision to the Federal Labor was, however, admitted (reference: 17 Sat 809/07).
The plaintiff pilots were in court on the force since August 2006 so-called anti-discrimination law and thus invoke their desire until the 65th Age to fly founded. From a fundamental security risk and a danger, during a flight to acutely ill could be a result of periodic medical examinations no question, so their arguments. In addition flögen pilots also a Lufthansa subsidiary until the 65th Year of life, such as on shorter domestic flights. It was agreed in the collective age void.
The judges said in their decision although the applicability of the new law, because the plaintiff only after the entry into force 60 Age would have. Nevertheless, they saw no age discrimination because Deutsche Lufthansa with the earlier retirement of its pilots a "legitimate target" in pursuit. Thus, health impairments in the aging pilots at least not completely ruled out.
While the general retirement age to 67 years to be, the actual retirement age in 2004 cut in Germany in men and 63.1 years for women 63.0 years. In the new federal states are men and women is statistically more in retirement than in the old countries.
appeared on 16 October 2007
The judges saw no violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The revision to the Federal Labor was, however, admitted (reference: 17 Sat 809/07).
The plaintiff pilots were in court on the force since August 2006 so-called anti-discrimination law and thus invoke their desire until the 65th Age to fly founded. From a fundamental security risk and a danger, during a flight to acutely ill could be a result of periodic medical examinations no question, so their arguments. In addition flögen pilots also a Lufthansa subsidiary until the 65th Year of life, such as on shorter domestic flights. It was agreed in the collective age void.
The judges said in their decision although the applicability of the new law, because the plaintiff only after the entry into force 60 Age would have. Nevertheless, they saw no age discrimination because Deutsche Lufthansa with the earlier retirement of its pilots a "legitimate target" in pursuit. Thus, health impairments in the aging pilots at least not completely ruled out.
While the general retirement age to 67 years to be, the actual retirement age in 2004 cut in Germany in men and 63.1 years for women 63.0 years. In the new federal states are men and women is statistically more in retirement than in the old countries.
appeared on 16 October 2007
I am aware of a pilot flying for an Italian operator who will be forced to retire when he reaches age 60 next month.
So not all JAA (or whatever its being called this month) states have adopted the 65 age.
So not all JAA (or whatever its being called this month) states have adopted the 65 age.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Raymond:
Lufthansa:
the individuals are in court with LH. No support from the pilot´s union, they are strictly against raising the age limit beyond 60 at LH.
Management pilots expressed their opinion to employ beyond 60, however they can´t do anything.
Court cases are individual, so every fellow who has to leave at 60 has to file a separate case at the time he leaves. He can not join the first three. In the meantime many cases open and put on "ice", awaiting the outcome of the next court instances of the first group.
Next court session at or after april 09
Lufthansa:
the individuals are in court with LH. No support from the pilot´s union, they are strictly against raising the age limit beyond 60 at LH.
Management pilots expressed their opinion to employ beyond 60, however they can´t do anything.
Court cases are individual, so every fellow who has to leave at 60 has to file a separate case at the time he leaves. He can not join the first three. In the meantime many cases open and put on "ice", awaiting the outcome of the next court instances of the first group.
Next court session at or after april 09
Last edited by earlyNFF; 16th Dec 2008 at 22:51.