Pilot Sues For Forced Retirement
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wanaka
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Tandemrotor;10197342]
A point of information if I may?
Specifying a retirement age for pilots, of 65 years. Is of course “discrimination”, and unarguably “deliberate”. However what it most definitely (currently) is NOT, is “unlawful”!
Indeed, quite the opposite is true. There are various protected characteristics. Only one of which is age. However, unlike all other protected characteristics, discrimination on the basis of age, most definitely CAN be legal. This is because certain Objective Justifications can be used to back up such things as compulsory retirement ages for certain professions. By all means research this if you are interested.
However, back to the above quote. It is actually the “current young ones” who ARE arguing to uphold the law. It is actually “the old one” seeking to change it. Having of course benefitted from the previous compulsory retirement of all his/her elders!
Not necessarily. ..it would appear the legal challenge in this case is about what you describe as "objective justifications". If one is being objective,in this case, evidence from Chile New Zealand Australia Canada Japan and a few other countries show that there is no increase in incidents or accidents by "Professional Airline Pilots" over 65 in those countries. Studies done in the US measuring general aviation pilots up to the age of 79 which tested landing or not decisions in low vis in simulators confirms what we all "know" to be true .... that performance deteriorates with increasing age. The results were not uniform of course. There were very old pilots still making good decisions and younger pilots making bad decisions. All that shows that age is very poor indicator of performance. That probably means there is no objective justification in thus case meaning that it is discriminatory to enforce retirement using age as the primary determinant.
A point of information if I may?
Specifying a retirement age for pilots, of 65 years. Is of course “discrimination”, and unarguably “deliberate”. However what it most definitely (currently) is NOT, is “unlawful”!
Indeed, quite the opposite is true. There are various protected characteristics. Only one of which is age. However, unlike all other protected characteristics, discrimination on the basis of age, most definitely CAN be legal. This is because certain Objective Justifications can be used to back up such things as compulsory retirement ages for certain professions. By all means research this if you are interested.
However, back to the above quote. It is actually the “current young ones” who ARE arguing to uphold the law. It is actually “the old one” seeking to change it. Having of course benefitted from the previous compulsory retirement of all his/her elders!
Not necessarily. ..it would appear the legal challenge in this case is about what you describe as "objective justifications". If one is being objective,in this case, evidence from Chile New Zealand Australia Canada Japan and a few other countries show that there is no increase in incidents or accidents by "Professional Airline Pilots" over 65 in those countries. Studies done in the US measuring general aviation pilots up to the age of 79 which tested landing or not decisions in low vis in simulators confirms what we all "know" to be true .... that performance deteriorates with increasing age. The results were not uniform of course. There were very old pilots still making good decisions and younger pilots making bad decisions. All that shows that age is very poor indicator of performance. That probably means there is no objective justification in thus case meaning that it is discriminatory to enforce retirement using age as the primary determinant.
Last edited by BGQ; 16th Jul 2018 at 09:39. Reason: Make a statement more clear
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Them's the facts, as we say in Eastern Nebraska. Take it however you like. Emotive, promotive, dismotive...doesn't matter to me.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: a land far far away
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On my EU Flight Crew Licence, issued by the CAA in 2014:
Page 3, Note IX (Validity) "This licence shall remain in force for the holder's lifetime unless revoked suspended or varied.
The privileges of the licence shall be exercised only if the holder has a medical certificate for the required privilege."
Now I have no axe to grind as I am happily retired, enjoyed it while I did it, and most certainly do not miss dragging myself out of bed at half past stupid o'clock.
However - the reading of note IX more than implies that once you've got the licence then you've got it for good. The limiter is that you must have the medical to use it. So where does it say you cannot pass a medical at 65+??
Page 3, Note IX (Validity) "This licence shall remain in force for the holder's lifetime unless revoked suspended or varied.
The privileges of the licence shall be exercised only if the holder has a medical certificate for the required privilege."
Now I have no axe to grind as I am happily retired, enjoyed it while I did it, and most certainly do not miss dragging myself out of bed at half past stupid o'clock.
However - the reading of note IX more than implies that once you've got the licence then you've got it for good. The limiter is that you must have the medical to use it. So where does it say you cannot pass a medical at 65+??
Last edited by vulcanite; 16th Jul 2018 at 12:24. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA will make no effort to defend the actual age. They will simply point out that at present it is an EASA regulation, so outside their control. Even if we leave EASA next year and they reviewed it, any change would be (like the Australian rule mentioned above) only valid in the UK since the age limit is an ICAO standard. I don't know of any airlines that only operate domestic flights....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(I am surprised at how many post on here without a basic knowledge of some of the things that they say, like the above quoted comments about domestic flights!! A lot of passengers would be able to give you that basic information.)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BGQ
Just to save you actually researching this yourself, Objective Justifications for a compulsory retirement age, are not exclusively restricted to justification of physical health, or mental deterioration as we age.
Purely as an example, two of many such justifications (currently) accepted in law are, inter-generational fairness, and preservation of dignity. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m merely explaining that is the law as it stands today.
On a slightly different topic. It is crystal clear that seniority systems are most definitely ‘de-facto’ indirect discrimination on the basis of age. I don’t see any OJs that would allow that form of discrimination. Seniority systems survive in some places, only because (bizarrely?) nobody in such a system has yet tested the law.
Of course I accept testing the law is all the current litigant is trying to do.
Not necessarily. ..it would appear the legal challenge in this case is about what you describe as "objective justifications". If one is being objective,in this case, evidence from Chile New Zealand Australia Canada Japan and a few other countries show that there is no increase in incidents or accidents by "Professional Airline Pilots" over 65 in those countries. Studies done in the US measuring general aviation pilots up to the age of 79 which tested landing or not decisions in low vis in simulators confirms what we all "know" to be true .... that performance deteriorates with increasing age.
Purely as an example, two of many such justifications (currently) accepted in law are, inter-generational fairness, and preservation of dignity. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m merely explaining that is the law as it stands today.
On a slightly different topic. It is crystal clear that seniority systems are most definitely ‘de-facto’ indirect discrimination on the basis of age. I don’t see any OJs that would allow that form of discrimination. Seniority systems survive in some places, only because (bizarrely?) nobody in such a system has yet tested the law.
Of course I accept testing the law is all the current litigant is trying to do.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'inter-generational fairness' - you young guys are going to have to work longer yourselves one day (just a fact that working lives are being extended) so start getting used to it now and be fair to those being discriminated against by age right now by abolishing a compulsory retirement age now;
'preservation of dignity' - when the general population is being told that they are expected to work longer it is bloody undignified to be told that you must stop work early because you are perceived to have become a more unreliable old codger at an earlier age than the rest of the population.
...
On a slightly different topic. It is crystal clear that seniority systems are most definitely ‘de-facto’ indirect discrimination on the basis of age. I don’t see any OJs that would allow that form of discrimination. Seniority systems survive in some places, only because (bizarrely?) nobody in such a system has yet tested the law.
...
On a slightly different topic. It is crystal clear that seniority systems are most definitely ‘de-facto’ indirect discrimination on the basis of age. I don’t see any OJs that would allow that form of discrimination. Seniority systems survive in some places, only because (bizarrely?) nobody in such a system has yet tested the law.
...
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A seniority system is used by virtually every airline in the US. Much of what’s posted about vacations ect.. regarding a seniority system is wrong. At most US airlines you can choose between pay and quality of life. You can use your seniority to bid a higher paying aircraft or stay on a smaller aircraft if you want to insure summer vacations and weekends off.
The important thing about a seniority system is it removes all pressure on pilots to make decisions management may favor but contrary to flight safety. The most important job as pilot has in today’s industry is deciding when to say no and shut a operation down or divert. Seniority systems give you the ability to do that without any fear of repercussions.
The important thing about a seniority system is it removes all pressure on pilots to make decisions management may favor but contrary to flight safety. The most important job as pilot has in today’s industry is deciding when to say no and shut a operation down or divert. Seniority systems give you the ability to do that without any fear of repercussions.
One aspect of a 'seniority system' - last-in-first-out - is already illegal in British law. I don't think that any modern airlines use seniority systems.
Just for the avoidance of confusion there is at least one large U.K. airline that still uses a senority system when it comes to monthly roster bidding, and aspirational equipment changes. Other issues such as leave, reserve etc are handled either by a purely points driven system or by a mixture of points and senority. Whether that airline can be regarded as “modern” or not is probably a matter of opinion.
At that airline the possible conflict between “last in, first out” vs. Seniority in the event of redundancies has, fortunately, not yet been tested.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume that because UK law complies with EC Directives, then Trossie might mean as in all 28 enlightened countries of EU - i.e. in Europe alone, there is a documented legal consensus on discrimination law ruling the lives of some 512 million on this planet, which makes the 325 million less recently enlightened among the other well known group of some united and some not so united States, look a bit stale and pale by comparison!
Granted that due to one or two notable and supposed actual protected (?) or unofficially protected/"hands off our nice little earner" status jobs still pervading in some parts of EU, there are still one or two examples plaguing some industry sectors both ways on the basis of age (you have to join the club in a narrow age band window, and then you have to agree to retire from it early). Yes, even EU exhibits the odd conspicuous example of where some still get away with failing to practice even the spirit of what its lawmakers long ago started to preach.
In this thread we are discussing "the old one" who is making waves to avoid compulsory retirement as a pilot, and in another aviation example, we have at least one ATC organisation who not only retire 'em early, but still think they can unashamedly discriminate on the ages of new applicants for training until they get forced not to.
Eurocontrol still has an unbelievably low age 25 age bar, and they baldly state right there on their website: "We do not make exceptions to the age limit – for two reasons. Firstly, younger trainees have a better chance of success. Secondly, controllers usually retire at 55. You need to build up a reasonable pension, so the longer you work, the better for your future pension." which I'd love to have seen tested long ago as it is so much Neanderthal stereotyped bollox unless they have immediately available documentary research evidence showing they can without fail objectively justify using age as a proxy for sifting the best candidates. I wonder who that "You" is who needs "to build up a reasonable pension"? Ah that might be the IJAIA's ("I'm Jack and I'm Alright") already sitting comfortably within the organisation, controlling the gates to future riches, and seniority in that branch of aviation. Funny thing is, I'm close to what many might suggest is the third age - will they make an exception to assist me in bolstering my eventual pension prospects? Why not? Will they to buggery ...bloody small-minded bigots.
Unless someone can show me a legally bulletproof reason why not, I'd say if anyone aged over 25 reading this has the energy and wherewithall, and if they fancied applying to be a trainee air traffic controller, Eurocontrol is surely there for the taking (i.e. straight to court for a test case to get the age bar removed). No ifs, no buts, just a piece of paper from Eurocontrol saying we appreciate you visited our website and tried to apply but you were turned down by our published FAQ #1. Such a denied application should be enough to kick off a very straightforward case. I reckon a new 2018 result bringing that particular outfit into line would certainly help Captain Bayley invalidate the nonsense the bigots spout about the mandatory retirement case for pilots. It's taken far too long for case law to get developed on this gnarly subject in the aviation sector, mostly due to still pervasive deeply entrenched cultural bias in perhaps the majority of parts, and intransigence, but there's no real excuse, is there?
Granted that due to one or two notable and supposed actual protected (?) or unofficially protected/"hands off our nice little earner" status jobs still pervading in some parts of EU, there are still one or two examples plaguing some industry sectors both ways on the basis of age (you have to join the club in a narrow age band window, and then you have to agree to retire from it early). Yes, even EU exhibits the odd conspicuous example of where some still get away with failing to practice even the spirit of what its lawmakers long ago started to preach.
In this thread we are discussing "the old one" who is making waves to avoid compulsory retirement as a pilot, and in another aviation example, we have at least one ATC organisation who not only retire 'em early, but still think they can unashamedly discriminate on the ages of new applicants for training until they get forced not to.
Eurocontrol still has an unbelievably low age 25 age bar, and they baldly state right there on their website: "We do not make exceptions to the age limit – for two reasons. Firstly, younger trainees have a better chance of success. Secondly, controllers usually retire at 55. You need to build up a reasonable pension, so the longer you work, the better for your future pension." which I'd love to have seen tested long ago as it is so much Neanderthal stereotyped bollox unless they have immediately available documentary research evidence showing they can without fail objectively justify using age as a proxy for sifting the best candidates. I wonder who that "You" is who needs "to build up a reasonable pension"? Ah that might be the IJAIA's ("I'm Jack and I'm Alright") already sitting comfortably within the organisation, controlling the gates to future riches, and seniority in that branch of aviation. Funny thing is, I'm close to what many might suggest is the third age - will they make an exception to assist me in bolstering my eventual pension prospects? Why not? Will they to buggery ...bloody small-minded bigots.
Unless someone can show me a legally bulletproof reason why not, I'd say if anyone aged over 25 reading this has the energy and wherewithall, and if they fancied applying to be a trainee air traffic controller, Eurocontrol is surely there for the taking (i.e. straight to court for a test case to get the age bar removed). No ifs, no buts, just a piece of paper from Eurocontrol saying we appreciate you visited our website and tried to apply but you were turned down by our published FAQ #1. Such a denied application should be enough to kick off a very straightforward case. I reckon a new 2018 result bringing that particular outfit into line would certainly help Captain Bayley invalidate the nonsense the bigots spout about the mandatory retirement case for pilots. It's taken far too long for case law to get developed on this gnarly subject in the aviation sector, mostly due to still pervasive deeply entrenched cultural bias in perhaps the majority of parts, and intransigence, but there's no real excuse, is there?
Last edited by slip and turn; 17th Jul 2018 at 16:25.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People here are forgetting that there are two issues here. Retirement through loss of licence, ie no licence no job, and retirement from mandatory retirement age from a company. Case law has already been made within the UK to make a precedent about a company forcing an age related retirement age. So it maybe you can keep your licence beyond 65 but it is a different case as to whether a company can retire you from the company at an age. Law suggests the second is okay, in fact it’s been up to the Supreme Court already. It maybe that you can maintain a licence longer but that doesn’t mean you stay at the top of the seniority ladder with your nose in the trough.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People here are forgetting that there are two issues here. Retirement through loss of licence, ie no licence no job, and retirement from mandatory retirement age from a company. Case law has already been made within the UK to make a precedent about a company forcing an age related retirement age. So it maybe you can keep your licence beyond 65 but it is a different case as to whether a company can retire you from the company at an age. Law suggests the second is okay, in fact it’s been up to the Supreme Court already. It maybe that you can maintain a licence longer but that doesn’t mean you stay at the top of the seniority ladder with your nose in the trough.
Seldon was a partner in a modest legal firm not a commercial pilot. He may or may not have been dead wood. He wasn't tested. For reasons of dignity (perhaps), no tests exist that might have identified deterioration in his performance or continuing suitability to remain as a partner at his firm (and probably the same is true at most other legal firms). Else, as I think was alternatively put by the Respondent, he was scheduled to be culled (my words) for reasons of acceptable intergenerational fairness (perhaps), at an age that Seldon himself had perhaps been involved in agreeing as one of the partners who decided some years previously before age discrimination and now equality law had been fully developed.
In the particular case, it was supposedly judged that either of the above aims would be a legitimate aim in the particular case but only if it could be shown that one of those legitimate aims was actually being pursued rather than something less defined that was not objectively justified as a legitimate aim. I think it was sent back to the lower court for that to be decided - I am not sure about that but I don't think it matters in contrast to the pilot case where objectivity pervades constantly.. There is a world of difference between objectivity in different industries and it couldn't be much more stark than between professional lawyering and professional flying. I took it that the judges in the Seldon case warned as much in summary: "All businesses will now have to give careful consideration to what, if any, mandatory retirement rules can be justified".
I submit that the more astute amongst us will put primary emphasis on the two words "if any" and deduce from that that many if not most mandatory retirement ages are unlawful, rather than just a few, and even if it is just a few, mandatory retirement ages for commercial pilots will be amongst the most likely to be unlawful because of what we know is different about the controlled measureable environment around the role compared to any other job. DIgnity cannot be used in the pilot case as it is always a red herring when facts of regular industry standard tests speak for themselves. Intergenerational fairness is a joke and I think only got a hearing because the judges were over familiar with such feelings through their own experience and somehow falsely translated it to also being a state sponsored social policy. By the time most of us reach retirement, we've almost lost count of all the firms we worked for. Intergenerational fairness means all things to all men or women so I fail to understand why judges think they are on to something rational in trying to judge it as a useful concept let alone a legitimate aim, especially when trying to test it against accepted state sponsored social policy. It's as daft as insisting Brexit always means Brexit and by the way yes its what the people voted for (I reckon
).
Last edited by slip and turn; 19th Jul 2018 at 09:33. Reason: Spelling of Seldon (no h!)
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: 60 north
Age: 59
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I am such a good driver that the speed- limit does not apply to me. "
Its my God given right!
If you want to fly after 65 join a flyingclub.
Seriously!
When I started I expected to be able to retire at 60, now some traitors want to hand this gift to management!
Get a life!!
Its my God given right!
If you want to fly after 65 join a flyingclub.
Seriously!
When I started I expected to be able to retire at 60, now some traitors want to hand this gift to management!
Get a life!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there is a current retirement age of 65, you still have the right to retire at 60 if you so wish.
It appears that this pilot is simply saying that it is age discrimination to deny him the exact same right to choose an age above 65 to retire.
Why oppose him? Get a life!
Since I started flying for airlines I’ve always known I would have to retire at 65, and I have no problem with moving over to allow younger pilots to get their noses “into the trough”, as someone put it earlier. What I do have a problem with has nothing to do with what happens in the USA, or Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else. My objection is the UK government deciding that the state pension which I have had to pay for since I started work at sixteen will now not be available to me until I am 67, two years after I am forced to retire.
If they were to make exceptions to that rule and keep the pension age at 65 for any professions with a mandatory retirement age, then I will be quite happy.
My plan always was to go back to instructing, but we all know that doesn’t pay so well, unless you do it as an SFI. It would be interesting to see how many TRIs in their thirties, forties or fifties who moonlight on their days off for the likes of CTC or CAE would be prepared to forgo that extra income to let over sixty-fives make a living....
If they were to make exceptions to that rule and keep the pension age at 65 for any professions with a mandatory retirement age, then I will be quite happy.
My plan always was to go back to instructing, but we all know that doesn’t pay so well, unless you do it as an SFI. It would be interesting to see how many TRIs in their thirties, forties or fifties who moonlight on their days off for the likes of CTC or CAE would be prepared to forgo that extra income to let over sixty-fives make a living....
We are still dancing around the issue. The CAA believe something happens on your sixty fifth birthday that renders you incapable of holding the qualification that you had a week before. They should be required to defend this belief with rational, logical and demonstrable evidence. We know that they cannot. They know they cannot. It is arbitrary.
The court will decide if it is legal or not.
Again, here in Australia we have no such rule for domestic operations. No sign of a decrease in safety or pilots dying at the controls.
The court will decide if it is legal or not.
Again, here in Australia we have no such rule for domestic operations. No sign of a decrease in safety or pilots dying at the controls.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus2001, very valid comments!
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BluSidUp - you appear to have entered this argument/discussion well after the starting post. For years and years the retirement age was the same as for everyone else, 65. Quite arbitrarily the UK minister of the day changed this limit to 60, no discussion, no evidence, just imposed. Fortunately, but many, many years later, this decision was reversed and a pilot’s retirement age returned to the original age of 65. The retirement age of 60 was never universally accepted by the pilot community, only certain self interested groups within the community and was continuously fought until it was reinstated as 65.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. Until 1947 the age limit was 45. This was followed by a period with no upper limit ending in 1959 when FAA limit became 60, followed by ICAO in 1963. It’s only quite briefly ever been “same as everybody else”
Finally, the parting claim about being “continuously fought” gives an entirely false impression of unanimity. It can scarcely be argued that those wanting the limit raised weren’t a “self-interested group”
Finally, the parting claim about being “continuously fought” gives an entirely false impression of unanimity. It can scarcely be argued that those wanting the limit raised weren’t a “self-interested group”
Last edited by ShotOne; 18th Jul 2018 at 18:59.