Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement

[BluSdUp]

Go Home

I started flying when 60 was the limit.
IFALPA has always promoted 60 as a limit to get the best deal from 18 to 60.That is 42 years, If you need to fly commercially longer then that join a flying school or a club.
Now disputing 65 is a treason to the 99 % that want to have the best conditions as professionals to a reasonable age. This will put an uncertainty into the negotiations that ALL airline CEOs will take advantage of.
I bet this looser was a Union member when that fit his egocentric agenda.
Pathetic!

[ManaAdaSystem]

Originally Posted by w.bayley

Good to see that among the posts which address the ""discrimination issue" rather than the "industrial or social issues" there is some support. Can the supporters visit the Crowd Justice site now please?
Change is possible if enough pilots each choose to make a small contribution.
wayne

Is crowdfunding via this website allowed?

[bafanguy]

Not everyone eligible to stay to 65 is doing that...here anyway. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the ALPA source statement but suspect the guy who posted this does re Delta. Statistically insignificant in the Big Picture but an interesting tidbit:

“Interestingly, ALPA put out a comm today saying our retirements are trending 24% above what’s required by age 65 and the average age is 62.7. “

[ShotOne]

The retirement age has been repeatedly described as “arbitrary”. It’s certainly not. When the increase to 65 was authorised it was after extensive research. Scrapping the age limit altogether was considered and expressly rejected. Risk factors for heart and stroke rise very steeply after 65 no matter how many times you repeat the word “arbitrary”

[Ancient Observer]

Shotone.
I agree what you say being relevant in the UK at least. That is what happened here. God knows what happened in Brussels. See my post. no. 2.

[INKJET]

Originally Posted by w.bayley

Hi,
There is a link below to a BBC interview which briefly sets out the arguments for removing the age limit on pilot medicals. I hope you will spare 2 minutes to listen to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn2fwbjTWTM

and an additional link for you to help the cause.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/notoagediscrimination/If after you have and a chance to look at the links you believe that we can help each other I would love to hear from you.RegardsWayne

Just listened to your BBC interview which I thought was very well handled, if I heard it correctly you stated that post 60 you have to have a medical every 2 years, surely this is two medical a year for a class 1 ?

[w.bayley]

Hi Inkjet
Quite right, I did say once every 2 years instead of twice a year. Sadly you can't go back and correct a radio interview. Hopefully when I "miss spoke" it did not corrupt the message.
Are you joining the battle?
wayne

[parabellum]

When the increase to 65 was authorised it was after extensive research. Scrapping the age limit altogether was considered and expressly rejected.

Possibly, but returning the age to 65 was simply righting an arbitrary wrong from the eighties.

[INKJET]

Originally Posted by parabellum

Possibly, but returning the age to 65 was simply righting an arbitrary wrong from the eighties.

True enough, but back then the state retirement age was 65 for men and 60 for women, it is now north of 67 and will continue this vector in the years ahead.

So a pilot retiring now is not eligible for a state pension, so must either self fund or find another job for no other reason than an arbitrary date. It is what it is but without credible scientific data it remains arbitrary and ageism, greed, selfishness, ex wives to fund & seniority are emotional sentiments but not relevant in law.

I will be surprised if the CAA win this one, the medical grounds are weak defence, a good number fail medicals well before age 65 the problem is do you set any age limit and for Wayne’s case to win I suspect the answer must be no, because any age limit is ageism.

Like wise limiting hours or type of flying is ageism, one could reasonably seek more frequent medicals for research, but I’m not sure that doing a medical every 3 or 4 months would add to safety and we are already reaching a crisis point with lack of new AME’s joining the declining pool, its notable that many AME’s seem to work well into their late 60’s and beyond.

[Reacher19]

I don’t really understand the logic re: state pension. Any pilot who is relying on the state pension to fund their retirement has either had too many divorces or got some terrible financial advice.

I think the outcome should be that the CAA will agree to undertake a study over say 3 years where they work in conjunction with authorities down under and elsewhere where retirement age is north of 65 and if they the believe there is no risk gradually raise the retirement age to something suitable based on facts and experience.

[ShotOne]

The state pension argument really is a red-herring. Retirement age was 45 until 1947, briefly no limit then 60, now 65. It has only briefly and accidentally coincided with pension age

That incapacitations are rare doesn't prove this a non-issue. On the contrary it's the result of diligently applied medical standards with tests such as ECG's mandated according to age. AND a defined evidence-based upper limit.

[ShyTorque]

I don’t really understand the logic re: state pension. Any pilot who is relying on the state pension to fund their retirement has either had too many divorces or got some terrible financial advice.

A very naive statement. You have no idea about the financial situation of others and it's very arrogant to generalise in such a way.

[parabellum]

I don’t really understand the logic re: state pension. Any pilot who is relying on the state pension to fund their retirement has either had too many divorces or got some terrible financial advice

.
Reacher19 - Consider an alternative scenario. Pilot comfortable in UK airline, aged in his forties, has a command, married to first wife and has three kids at school, mortgage about half paid, pension pot filling slowly, some savings towards family holiday, road tax, 'extras' for children at school, school trips.
Monday morning having a short sleep-in due late back from trip the previous night, wife wakes you up to tell you that your company has just gone into liquidation.

Several weeks frantically searching for work, eventually offered job as the most junior FO with another company, wife also looking for work, kids school 'extras' and trips stopped for now, savings pretty much all gone, looking to downsize house to a less expensive area and reduce the mortgage, fighting liquidators for the pension fund. Two or three years of scrimping and saving, command on the horizon, then Bang! company couldn't make CAA liquidity requirement by 31 March, company in receivership. Some six months later, now in the three bedroom semi, wife has found some part time work, quality of life is poor, pension fund still in dispute, savings all gone, all hopes of a decent retirement dashed. Pilot's CV sent to upwards of twenty five companies, five actually acknowledged it but no prospects offered, pilot trying hard to sell home conservatories and green houses for lousy wages. Should this pilot ever find work flying again you can bet he will keep going until he drops as well as take all the state pension he can get. Had you been around Gatwick, Luton or Manchester in the eighties and nineties you would easily recognise this situation which was far more common than extra wives and sadly not without its share of suicides.

[Rated De]

The retirement age has been repeatedly described as “arbitrary”. It’s certainly not. When the increase to 65 was authorised it was after extensive research. Scrapping the age limit altogether was considered and expressly rejected. Risk factors for heart and stroke rise very steeply after 65 no matter how many times you repeat the word “arbitrary”

This is absolutely correct.
The FAA despite intense pressure being bought to bear by the airlines, has resisted because the science does not support the alleged discrimination.
Th pressure is not a result of science supporting a contention, rather it is commercial in origin as retirement rates increase due the impact of demographic trends. All regulators ought ensure before extending the retirement age any further that medical science supports the commercial genesis of an increasing crescendo of drum beats.

[slowjet]

Parabellum : What an excellent post and puts into perspective the slight thread creep into motivation for Wayne's case. I was in the area at the time you refer to . Absolutely dreadful experience for all subjected. I happen to know that Captain Bailey was a Air Europe casualty and will have gained some motivation from that. No "greed" in his motivation. Maybe just a logical, sensible approach to regulation which is arbitrary. If successful in his battle, many will benefit , particularly our younger colleagues who, I hope, will never have to suffer similar events to the scenario you describe.

[It's only Me]

I have watched this thread with some interest as I approach 60 in the not too distant future, the age I expected to retire at and one that I based my financial planning on. I understand I am fortunate to be able to take my Company pension at this time, whilst continuing to work, in addition to a military one that has gone into savings since I was 38. Personally, I look on any further employment that I may decide to continue with as a bonus and a time to reduce my workload in a controlled manner. Already I have seen too many friends fail to meet this point due to ill health and/or death. The thought of going over 65 has no appeal to me.

However, some other points:

At a recent Strategic Forum held at BALPA HQ, this was discussed. Most representatives indicated that there was little appetite to increase the age and some, EZY for example, said they would be surprised if many would even make it that far with the present workload we all are now faced with. It was also indicated that recent rulings on this matter would make it difficult in the extreme to succeed.

As to benefiting all. This is the point that has spurred me into posting. My Company has some of the best insured benefits in the industry and a constant target for the management; one that we have successfully rebutted so far. The problem for them is the rising cost of the premiums. A few years ago a B scale was introduced for new joiners which also did away with many of the benefits of the previous contract. As part of the pay deal that year these benefits were given to all. Introducing a younger element to the group can actually reduce the premiums. Unfortunately, I can see that any increase of the working age will have major implications to the pilot workforce. One hopes never to get I'll, but at present we are well looked after. Remember, we all get this. Increasing the age for the benefit of a few could spell disaster to all, and probably in a stage of life that money for the family is vital.

Personally, not a chance. Help pay for it, not a chance. Work tirelessly to benefit those that come after me and to uphold the benefits that I have been so fortunate to have, absolutely.

Me

[homonculus]

Sorry to comment again, but now, on top of suggestions that forced retirement on out of date science is good for the young, we have the suggestion that employers such as EZY, dont support it. Really gentlemen, what would have happened 100 years ago if employees had asked employers what they thought of mandatory holidays, sick pay, job security etc etc.

There is of course no mandatory insurance, so nothing to stop employees only paying for insurance that lasts until 65. In finance this is very common even though there is no mandatory retirement age in many cases.

Yet more counter arguments from those on the other side of the fence or those who are all right Jack....

[Denti]

Well, that would be EZY pilot union representatives. One thing to keep in mind here is that the workload and contract with EZY depends on country and base, not to mention that seniority is not a concern there and part time is available in many different forms. And yes, those coming in as cadets will be on the left side within 5 years and therefore about 40 years to earn as a captain, but those coming in from the outside might have a lot less time and would appreciate a longer term, not to mention that they are in a bit of a shortage of those coming in as well.

[ShotOne]

Whether or not EZY management support this, US low-co's do and not from altruism towards pilots: on the contrary. One quote was "to prevent unreasonable wage demands".

"Parabellum..excellent post..?" While it was certainly heartfelt, how would we feel about an airline boss trying to justify extending the life of a safety-critical component based on a similar financial hard-luck story? Frankly, any argument on those lines would rightly be dismissed out of hand.

[olster]

When I was @ easy some time ago, there was a generally held view from certain managers that over 60s were cognitively dysfunctional and even after the retirement age was put up that they were allowed to leave. On a scientific basis of course this view was complete bolleaux or at the very least to be more polite, unproven. Certain high calibre individuals were then forced to retire and merely jumped ship to Ryanair who took a more pragmatic view. The point would be that disinformation was used to suit political agendae. I say, go Wayne. The devil is in the detail as always and if the only logical argument is unproven, i.e. the risk of incapacitation in flight, then this is discrimination in the guise of ageism. Not the sexiest ism but ism it is.