Is crowdfunding via this website allowed?

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”

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.