The new law on "ageism" - where does it leave pilots and crew who want to carry on!?
 

When the new law on ageism comes into force. Employers will not be allowed to make you retire if you want to stay! That, as I understand it from the enquiries I have made, is how the law is to be framed.

Interesting then that the CAA *may* have to review the question of 60 in regard to the current retirement age. And the airlines who insist on 55.

Makes for a debate in the search for the real answers.

There always seems to be a transport get out clause!

Indeed there is a clause for airline pilots as reported by the BBC's Six o' Clock News this evening.

"Obviously we will not see 68 year old airline pilots being kept on with failing eyesight"

I guess what the reporter was trying to say was pilots are exempt from this new bill, perhaps?

I don't know if the airlines with compulsory retirement ages under the national limit will finally be forced to abandon their unreasonable limits and bring them into line with other airlines who have the national limit.

I think it's time that particular practice was made illegal don't you? If a pilot can pass the Class One or even company medical then they should not be forced to retire from that airline at age 55 IMHO.

VFE.

The only problem i can see with that is, that if ther 'older' crew members shall we say want to stay on for as long as possible, that means that new pilots that have just passed their CPL will have to wait even longer than the year queue at the moment for a job?

One has to ask if it is wise to fly too long into the higher age bracket. I felt when I quit fast jet fighter flying at 53 that it was time - not that I felt unsafe just flying but I needed bi or vari focals to read the closer displays and, consequently, my lookout suffered. I could still use my experience to avoid many potential hazards and I could still pass the annual medical but I wondered if I was still as sharp if things went pear-shaped. I could probably have continued a few years but would it have been safe to do so?

It is all very well to tell companies that they are not allowed to ask people to retire on age grounds but what about the safety of their customers? That must come first.

.... brilliant !

All one has to do is to keep on passing the class 1 medical, as well as ones six-monthly LPC/OPC's - so just what is the problem that ?

And yes I know that some will say that it stiffles career progression for the new / younger guys, but, imho, that's tosh as it'll all even out in the end as the pilot pool is still the same size - all that will happen is that some might have to take a couple of years longer in the RHS ( which in some instances might be no bad thing ! ).

Of course for those who don't want to carry on with the trade then good for them, they can burger off - but some of us wouldn't give it up untill we're forced to, i.e. it's a great job, why give it up in the prime ones life ?!

Great news - as I anticipate needing this career untill I am at least 80 to be able to afford to retire!

It's about time!

The European Union (EU) Joint Aviation Authority (JAA), the FAA of Europe has mandated the EU's fifteen nations to adopt age 65 as their maximum airline pilot age.

Australia and New Zealand, after reviewing FAA rule-justifying studies, have gone to no age limit. Canada and Japan both use age 63. .

JAA is not the FAA of EU. EASA will in time become so but licensing will not come under their umbrella for the first 4-6 years.

The short answer is that we will probably be exempt, as we are from almost every aspect of (UK) employment legislation that protects workers from excessive hours, compulsory breaks, dismissal etc.

Just because the law protects you from enforced retirement, I doubt it will prevent you from being moved into 'other duties' with the same employer. I expect a rash of over-60's with a bucket and sponge cleaning bugs off the windshield.

International aviation is covered by an ICAO treaty to which nearly all countries in the world are signed up to. The treaty stipulates 65 as the maximum age for visiting/overflying commercial pilots holding licences issued in other states. Of course individual countries can set their own limits for their own national licence above age 65 , but they cannot under the treaty allow their own nationals to fly over other countries above age 65. France, as one would expect, has it's own interpretation of what this treaty means in practice and only allows visiting copilots (not captains) to age 65 - but this could be challenged, if an ICAO country was willing to pursue the matter.
It seems to me that when this law comes into force, a UK pilot will, in practice, only be able to fly to age 65. At that point his employer will be able to dissmiss him because he is unable to fly to or over any other country and therefore unable to do the job for which he was contracted.
Incidently, the French have to abide by the same EU directive on age discrimination, and it must be established into French Law by Dec 2006. French pilots will then presumably be able to resist premature retirement on purely age grounds through the French Courts. The French DGCA view of the ICAO treaty will presumably be challenged from within France.

...and the name of that EU directive was ???

The new law on "ageism" - where does it leave pilots and crew who want to carry on!?
 

I would think they would still be better keeping that sort of thing as discrete as possible. 'Affairs' of this type can lead to bad press and damage our image as clean living Knights of the sky! :p :ok:

What is wrong with you people I for one would like to retire as soon as I can afford to.The main motive I fear is greed. Two or Three holiday homes not enough or is it all the ex wives well thats your own falt should have kept it in your pants.Have you noticed how car insurance go's up after your 65 I wonder why?The salarys paid to Captains are very large compared to other jobs so if you can't manage your life so you can afford to retire then perhaps that could be classed as incompetence and should incompetant people fly aeroplanes you answer that one.

Nobody is stopping you retiring early SCD. I am trying to look past the arrogance in your post and failing dismally. I can only presume you fell out of the wrong side of the bed this morning?

Clearly you have had an easy existence throughout your career allowing you the luxury of early retirement. Let's think of some of the guys and gals out there that had to pay their own way through, probably been made redundant a few times and have family problems beyond their control, requiring them to work on for some time.

Incidentally not all pilots discard wives at the drop of a hat, having gone through the financial exercise in their heads and thought better of it.

Stage Coach Driver,

If only life was that simple. Yes, there are pilots aplenty who have had the good fortune to be in continuous employment with the opportunities to retire comfortably at a relatively early age. If I was among them, I would look forward to hanging up my flying boots and enjoying life. However, I have had the misfortune to work for several airlines that ceased trading and have thus had several lean years of no flying and a fragmented pension situation. As I write I have no flying job, despite being a 12000 hour captain - my crime appears to be that I'm over 50.

I am by no means alone in this predicament - there are many like me who will need to work longer than we would wish to fund a reasonable retirement. I sincerely hope you are able to avoid this situation, but a little understanding for the less fortunate would not go amiss.

For the record, just the one wife, no holiday home, no Porche.


Confundemus

HR
No i'm not retired yet still a long way to go but if you hadn't guessed from my name i'm a flight engineer . We have had the no retirement age for a long time. I think you will find that the oldest F/E still on the CAA books is 73 do you still think that is a good idea.Would you like to be in the middle of the pond in the middle of the night with the f/e fast asleep when the S##t hits the fan.The only reason the government have bought in the new law is due to shortage of funds for pensions.

Regardless of legislation, how about recognising one's limitations?

One thing that separates the vast majority of avaition professionals from their equivilant in other trades is the ability to know when enough is enough.

I am not suggesting that Captain Bloggs should retire from their command of a B747 at 60 and never fly again, they obviously have a wealth of experience which could be passed on by other work in the industry, just as many ex - operational atco's go on to become instructors or work in the development of safety and systems.

I only hope that whatever l legislation is passed, we are still allowed to give something back without having to fight our way through layers of red tape and nonsense.

fiftyfour

The ICAO requirements are contained in Annex 1 (Personnel Licensing) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Annex 1 sets an age limit of 60 for pilots-in-command and recommends an age limit of 60 for co-pilots. It is the JAA which have agreed to an age limit of 65 in JAR-FCL. There is no legal obligation (only a moral one) on JAA member states to implement JARs. For legal (and political) reasons the French have decide not to implement the JAR-FCL age limit and insisted on compliance with the ICAO standard in their airspace. The will however accept deviations from the recommended practices and allow co-pilots up to the age of 65.

The French action is entirely in accordance with the Convention.