Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Moon
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion. One point that hasn’t been raised (that I’ve seen) yet is how this fits in with proposed single pilot future ops. This may be a decade or more away or may never happen but even a small increase in risk with age of a medical incident would pose significant problems for airlines, insurance and passenger safety imho. 75 year old flying commercial ops alone may not be desirable on any level.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Britain
Age: 73
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been with PPrune from the beginning - the join date on the left is incorrect, due to a glitch in passwording. I am immensely saddened that the quality of dialogue here has deteriorated so much in recent years. Instead of reasoned arguments and polite disagreement, we seem to have flat statements, followed by flat contradictions, followed by personal abuse. No one has all the right answers so why not try to understand the other side of the argument? I know Wayne and I'm a couple of years older than him and I wouldn't return to an airliner flight deck for all the gold in the Indies. Granted, I have a comfortable retirement but it didn't happen by accident and I had my share of unemployed periods. I do believe that the 'safe to fly at 64 years and 364 days but not tomorrow' needs to be addressed, rather than being kicked into the long grass as 'too difficult' by the regulators. We have the world's most regulated industry so, surely, some flexibility is possible.
I have to say I agree with BristolScout. I’d like to take power out of the hands of the politicians and back into the professionals that know more about the issues, medical professionals and the pilots doing the job.
i can see an argument for both sides, however, ultimately, we like to have individual choice in the West. Personally, I could be swayed either way, if for instance, the mandatory retirement age coincided with state pension age, as well as fellow professionals such as a doctors, judges and politicians being forced to retire at an arbitrary age, rather than being allowed to sail on gracefully into the sunset at public expense, without an annual physical and mental capacity check.
Alternatively, if someone passes the medical and competency check, then why not let them continue to work? If the social justice argument is put forward about allowing younger people to benefit from jobs, then I wholeheartedly agree, and we start to retire everybody at a suitable age. Personally, I think an argument could be made for a retirement age of 60, funded by increased taxes on business and social contributions. At the end of the day, we are not here to work after all. However, that’s a whole new thread ......
i can see an argument for both sides, however, ultimately, we like to have individual choice in the West. Personally, I could be swayed either way, if for instance, the mandatory retirement age coincided with state pension age, as well as fellow professionals such as a doctors, judges and politicians being forced to retire at an arbitrary age, rather than being allowed to sail on gracefully into the sunset at public expense, without an annual physical and mental capacity check.
Alternatively, if someone passes the medical and competency check, then why not let them continue to work? If the social justice argument is put forward about allowing younger people to benefit from jobs, then I wholeheartedly agree, and we start to retire everybody at a suitable age. Personally, I think an argument could be made for a retirement age of 60, funded by increased taxes on business and social contributions. At the end of the day, we are not here to work after all. However, that’s a whole new thread ......
Avoid imitations
If I'm forced to retire at 65 by State decree, why should my State Pension be witheld until the age of 66?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nobody is preventing you taking up other employment
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avoid imitations
Ian W: I would think that the bureaucrat response to that would be that you are forced to retire from that one job nobody is preventing you taking up other employment 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really that difficult? Not a bit of flexible mind and initiative? Do you need written SOP to work out a solution?
How is a 65 year old pilot going to find a flying job if he/she is not allowed to fly past 65? Or are they suggesting getting a job gardening or stacking shelves? I’m all for it if the job will pay the same as my previous salary until I can claim my pension.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arguments against this seem to be:-
1. I don't want to continue working so why should you - answer - it should be personal choice not dictating it.
2. You are blocking commands - well if I had the choice to continue working I would have gone 50% a year ago instead of staying full time to top up my retirement funds so ATM I am blocking commands more than if I could continue working, I suspect many others would do the same then work on maybe another couple of years so 6 years at 50% instead of 4 full time, with others doing this it would create openings rather than block them.
3. If we can work past 65 employers will force us to keep going when we do not want to - ???? I do not understand how they will do this, if you can afford to retire at 45 then you hand your notice in and do so, nothing is FORCING you to keep working.
4. You are being greedy working on - surprise surprise, some people actually enjoy the job and do not want to pack it in, plus it keeps your brain active, personally I enjoy it but like many of my age would just like to do it a little less (see point 2!). Even if they are doing it for the money it should still be THEIR choice, after all, the money is what most people go to work for!
there seem to be very few people arguing against this on sensible grounds just people that do not want to do it themselves and so think others should not, we should ALL have the choice, if you don't want to work on that is fine but don't block those that do want to, and many younger pilots who are objecting now may well be glad of this when they are approaching retirement themselves and state retirement age has gone up more or is paying less!
1. I don't want to continue working so why should you - answer - it should be personal choice not dictating it.
2. You are blocking commands - well if I had the choice to continue working I would have gone 50% a year ago instead of staying full time to top up my retirement funds so ATM I am blocking commands more than if I could continue working, I suspect many others would do the same then work on maybe another couple of years so 6 years at 50% instead of 4 full time, with others doing this it would create openings rather than block them.
3. If we can work past 65 employers will force us to keep going when we do not want to - ???? I do not understand how they will do this, if you can afford to retire at 45 then you hand your notice in and do so, nothing is FORCING you to keep working.
4. You are being greedy working on - surprise surprise, some people actually enjoy the job and do not want to pack it in, plus it keeps your brain active, personally I enjoy it but like many of my age would just like to do it a little less (see point 2!). Even if they are doing it for the money it should still be THEIR choice, after all, the money is what most people go to work for!
there seem to be very few people arguing against this on sensible grounds just people that do not want to do it themselves and so think others should not, we should ALL have the choice, if you don't want to work on that is fine but don't block those that do want to, and many younger pilots who are objecting now may well be glad of this when they are approaching retirement themselves and state retirement age has gone up more or is paying less!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bristolscout & Hunterboy, excellent posts and thanks for trying to bring us back on thread. Notice how quickly others, missing the point completely , attempt to throw us of course again ! Captain Bailey probably has no wish to continue after age 65. He certainly has no need. His case is, quite simply, to remove the arbitrary age barrier. It might benefit others rather than himself. Offer him a 737 or DC3 freighter until, again, some arbitrary cut-off age would be of no interest to him but he might well object to the arbitrary cut-off.
I can well immagine how, after shutting down his dreamliner following his swansong, Wayne might have asked why it had to be the last. If Crew Control called him up very next day and asked him to come in & do another Barbados, what on earth would stop him other than the fact that he was now, 65 & one hour ! Nonsense.
In the good ole days, BA pilots had to retire at 55. Why ? Lots went on with other carriers until the further, arbitrary age cut off of 60. But they had to leave BA at 55. Daft. The really lucky lot on BA 747 went at age 55 and joined SQ, at LHR Base until they reached 60. Simple swap of uniforms and aircraft livery. Many must have enjoyed a wry smile as they carried on doing the same job, same base , with something else painted on the side. And before I am leaped upon by those missing the point, yes, I can see a desirable project to retire people in order to make way for the up and coming otherwise the waiting line might become intolerable . I was in BA. Time to Command was running at 15-20 years. But, the aim was a BA Command & with people having to go at 55, a circulation existed. At age 22, I would be 42 at first Command and have to go 13 years later. Seemed ok. And, here comes the point again fellasAt age...........55..................I could swop uniforms, liveries and carry on with someone else until the daft cut off of 60. (Now, 65). The BA retirement age was not arbitrary but a personnel control feature. Wayne is simply asking why is it a REGULATORY requirement to quit at age 65 ?
I can well immagine how, after shutting down his dreamliner following his swansong, Wayne might have asked why it had to be the last. If Crew Control called him up very next day and asked him to come in & do another Barbados, what on earth would stop him other than the fact that he was now, 65 & one hour ! Nonsense.
In the good ole days, BA pilots had to retire at 55. Why ? Lots went on with other carriers until the further, arbitrary age cut off of 60. But they had to leave BA at 55. Daft. The really lucky lot on BA 747 went at age 55 and joined SQ, at LHR Base until they reached 60. Simple swap of uniforms and aircraft livery. Many must have enjoyed a wry smile as they carried on doing the same job, same base , with something else painted on the side. And before I am leaped upon by those missing the point, yes, I can see a desirable project to retire people in order to make way for the up and coming otherwise the waiting line might become intolerable . I was in BA. Time to Command was running at 15-20 years. But, the aim was a BA Command & with people having to go at 55, a circulation existed. At age 22, I would be 42 at first Command and have to go 13 years later. Seemed ok. And, here comes the point again fellasAt age...........55..................I could swop uniforms, liveries and carry on with someone else until the daft cut off of 60. (Now, 65). The BA retirement age was not arbitrary but a personnel control feature. Wayne is simply asking why is it a REGULATORY requirement to quit at age 65 ?
Avoid imitations
Originally Posted by arketip 
Oh man, oh man
Is it really that difficult? Not a bit of flexible mind and initiative? Do you need written SOP to work out a solution?
Oh man, oh manIs it really that difficult? Not a bit of flexible mind and initiative? Do you need written SOP to work out a solution?
Seeing as you are much brighter than I, yes please.
Wayne is simply asking why is it a REGULATORY requirement to quit at age 65 ?
Precisely. Unfortunately, the days of a gold plated company pension which could sustain an individual from the age of 55 are probably gone forever. Those complaining that older pilots are "holding them back" from a higher financial income (and that is the only reason is why they complain) should bear in mind that the state pension age will continue to rise to 70 very soon. At least they will have time to prepare for the change. My own state pension has been delayed by one year but my wife and other women of her age had 6 years of hers taken away by UK government policy at very short notice.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arguments against this seem to be:-
1. I don't want to continue working so why should you - answer - it should be personal choice not dictating it.
2. You are blocking commands - well if I had the choice to continue working I would have gone 50% a year ago instead of staying full time to top up my retirement funds so ATM I am blocking commands more than if I could continue working, I suspect many others would do the same then work on maybe another couple of years so 6 years at 50% instead of 4 full time, with others doing this it would create openings rather than block them.
3. If we can work past 65 employers will force us to keep going when we do not want to - ???? I do not understand how they will do this, if you can afford to retire at 45 then you hand your notice in and do so, nothing is FORCING you to keep working.
4. You are being greedy working on - surprise surprise, some people actually enjoy the job and do not want to pack it in, plus it keeps your brain active, personally I enjoy it but like many of my age would just like to do it a little less (see point 2!). Even if they are doing it for the money it should still be THEIR choice, after all, the money is what most people go to work for!
1. I don't want to continue working so why should you - answer - it should be personal choice not dictating it.
2. You are blocking commands - well if I had the choice to continue working I would have gone 50% a year ago instead of staying full time to top up my retirement funds so ATM I am blocking commands more than if I could continue working, I suspect many others would do the same then work on maybe another couple of years so 6 years at 50% instead of 4 full time, with others doing this it would create openings rather than block them.
3. If we can work past 65 employers will force us to keep going when we do not want to - ???? I do not understand how they will do this, if you can afford to retire at 45 then you hand your notice in and do so, nothing is FORCING you to keep working.
4. You are being greedy working on - surprise surprise, some people actually enjoy the job and do not want to pack it in, plus it keeps your brain active, personally I enjoy it but like many of my age would just like to do it a little less (see point 2!). Even if they are doing it for the money it should still be THEIR choice, after all, the money is what most people go to work for!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the BA Captains
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was told a very long time ago that the 55 retirement age in BA was entirely due to the pension scheme, pilots could not join the scheme until they were 25 years old and could only contribute for a maximum of 30 years, does that sound correct?
parabellum: Not so. Hamble graduates could join as young as 20 years. The Part 5 Pension gave a 1/56 credit for each year of service (ie. 28 years service gave a 50% of final salary pension which could be taken at 50 years of age) Staying employed after 50 till 55 allowed a "crystallisation" of the pension which gave a further substantial increase in the pension.
Sadly, such generosity is a thing long since gone!
Sadly, such generosity is a thing long since gone!
Parabellum ; interesting similarity was the fact that also, a long time ago, Swissair advertised in the back of Flight Mag for DEFO on all fleets. The queue stretched from Zurich to most places on the planet earth. I was rejected at the very first stage because I was too old at (whatever I was then) to join the Pension Scheme. I raced down to Zurich, banged on the door, begged & pleaded and asked if I could join but make my own pension arrangements. Gosh, ask the Swiss to change the rules, just for me ? Again, on thread, not a regulatory age rule but just as arbitrary and rather more daft than I would have liked.
I do , occasionally , wonder , how life would have turned out after 30 odd years with Swiss, private swiss pension, lovely big swiss chalet in the mountains, but not given the chance because of a pension rule restricting employment. Silly lot but they do make good clocks & the chocs are delicious.
I do , occasionally , wonder , how life would have turned out after 30 odd years with Swiss, private swiss pension, lovely big swiss chalet in the mountains, but not given the chance because of a pension rule restricting employment. Silly lot but they do make good clocks & the chocs are delicious.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
parabellum: Not so. Hamble graduates could join as young as 20 years. The Part 5 Pension gave a 1/56 credit for each year of service (ie. 28 years service gave a 50% of final salary pension which could be taken at 50 years of age) Staying employed after 50 till 55 allowed a "crystallisation" of the pension which gave a further substantial increase in the pension.
Sadly, such generosity is a thing long since gone!
Sadly, such generosity is a thing long since gone!
wow! 'crystallisation' - I haven't heard that spoken about for a few years. I think we have all seen the good days in this industry and they will not be back again.
