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.

Agree totally with Pirate as I am in a similar position. This legislation would be excellent news if applied to aviation and we should lobby our representative bodies to ensure that it is.

Older pilots also have a wealth of experience and wisdom which they can pass on and are often good mentors to the less experienced.

As an aside, my father was still examining instructors on light aircraft when he was 80 plus!

Cathar,
If you are sure that you are right, then I stand corrected that the ICAO limit is 60 for Captains. I was writing from memory and do not have the ICAO document to hand.

Firefly Bob,

Was your dad Hector Taylor by any chance? He did my instructor rating test in 1979. It was quite a revelation to be sharing a cockpit with a man who learnt to fly on the Avro 504.

There is no reason whatsoever why anyone should feel the need to explain why they continue in work as long as they wish.
Those who feel that they can tell others how to run their lives should be treated with the contempt which such people deserve.

So there! :}

HotDog

There is no retirement age for pilots in Canada. However the airlines or more accurately the unions insist upon the imfamous age 60 rule.

The pension plans are in flex at the present moment so I expect that we are going to see a change in the future. Some folks are old at age 60 some arn'nt.

Tan - you are absolutely right. Some people can perform safely for much longer into old age than others. I am also sure that most responsible airline captains recognise their limitations as they get to the point at which they should retire and do so. It is, however, a little worrying that some on this forum see the need to fly as long as possible regardless.

The problem is surely for the airline companies - if the government rules that they have to let these people continue to fly regardless, who is responsible when things fall apart because one of their old employees screwed up. Well, obviously the government, but who foots the bill?

There will have to be exceptions where the safety of the customer is involved.

There doesn't seem to be much of a relationship between numerical age and performance.... I can remember one of the ancestors, cattleman all his life, cutting out scrubbers in his eighties, tooling through the trees and over the rocks at a hundred miles an hour, horse full stretch, stockwhip cracking, sweat flying, dust and sparks, all action.... Some people, on the other hand, seem to start tripping over things when they hit fifity. Some don't get that far.

My impression, just looking at these older guys, is that if they are fit enough to want to go to work, then they very probably are fit enough to do it.

Seems the Australians and the New Zealanders, yet again, have got it right.

Might be worth bearing in mind that if employers decide to pull you off the flight deck at 60 or 65 and allow you to stay on in another role, any final salary pension could be considerably reduced. After all, do you really think any beancounter worth his salt will pay the same salary for a ground bound old fogey to that of his marginally younger flying counterpart?

I can see the airlines falling over backwards to assist any way they can with this one - just imagine the savings!

Every final salary pension scheme I know of has provisions that adequately cover change of job and salary within the company. It is also normal for such schemes to allow early pensions for those who have to retire early due to company policy.

:confused:

I believe in many cases, at least to this point in time, pilot Union Contracts have prevailed in the establishment of a mandatory retirement age. :*

These unions fostered the idea of retirement at age 55/60/65 early on by writing that number into their contracts in a day and age vastly different from today. At a time when women on the flight deck would merely serve tea and leave. Not so nowadays my friend.
Pilots believed 'there came a time' when it was time to get out and that number seemed to fit rather nicely back then. Pilots bought it, companies bought it and so it went. Here we are today. Not only in conflict with ourselves but also with our past, our civil laws and our civil liberites. How things have changed? It's incredible.

Who's right?

What's right?

I'm not certain the Airlines and pilot unions generally (worldwide) have it right as far as retirement age goes, anyway? Certainly not in this day and age. After all, the reality is, we're living longer, we're in better health much longer in life and able to contribute longer. So why not stay on??? At least, let's make it more of a mutual decision but within reason.
The way this industry is going who in their right minds would wish to continue flying much beyond 60 anyway?

Some out there may have enjoyed a stable and successful flying career with an established carrier that has maintained reasonable financial health over the past 30-40 years. Others haven't been so fortunate and as a result might well wish to provide a better retirement for themselves by staying beyond age 55 or 60. Let's not forget that in the 60s and 70s the term Low Cost Carrier wasn't heard. Nor did there exist the number of IT carriers to the extent they do today. I see them popping up left, right, and centre these days and failing at a similar rate. So, why not let a bloke continue to fly for as long as he's able to maintain 'the standards' across the board??

I used to be a 24 year old CPL wishing the old fellas into retirement so I could have my crack at it. However, today at age 52....I've 'ad enuff Mate! Can't pack it in soon enuff!!!

AT some point though, surely to goodness, retirement MUST be mandatory.
:ok:

SCD are you for real? I fly with a "senior" flight engineer, who is by pilot terms way over the hill! Hs is also one of the sharpest weve got....lets leave the decision in the same place as it has been in the past........The medical and the CAA appointed examiners.Its hard in this day and age to get past the media, but the choice of the healthy individual must,providing all else is in good order,be allowed.
;)

Timeless age1
 

For those on JAA/JAR. 65yrs. It's what the local authority authorizes? If you are fit..then be my guest!
The problem, is what do you do about the limitations stipulated on the individual labour agreements, between union and company? That's, I m afraid, going to be a long discusssion...I know I am still fighting it!;)

Well, they're saying now that 60 is the new 40!! Good on the distingiushed elder gentlemen!

Could I please have the "name, number and rank" of that EU directive or at least a link to that new UK law on ageism ?

Just to add my threepenn'th.

I had to retire at 60 and, quite honestly, I'd had enough of the present Airline business by this time - well, certainly of operating out of LHR.

My gripe is they wouldn't even let me carry on flying a light twin for a living, - or rather a paying hobby.
Trouble is I'm fortunate enough to be as fit as a fiddle and I'm just not ready, mentally, to pack it up at an instant. I really hoped for a gentle reduction in the demands on me.

I actually fly because I always wanted to,because I actually enjoy it and because I'd probably go to an early grave if I was forced to stop flying altogether !

In the meantime I teach aerobatics.

Regards, Sleeve. :ok:

dusk2dawn,

The link you need is http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/equality/age

Taken to its logical conclusion the new law could mean that a lot of 87 year old pilots will be watching 97 year old lap dancers during their stopovers!!!

Yes, I know you wouldn't really do that, but if they can pass the medical and want to continue......(the pilots I mean, we all know that lap dancers are too old at 26).

My mind is beginning to boggle.

Whilst there are undoubtedly those who become doddering old fogeys at the age of 55, many people these days are staying fitter, healthier and mentally younger than their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s. My late uncle, at the age of 99 was not only still driving his car, but he also serviced it himself - in over 80 years of driving he never had an accident. There are many of us like that in aviation nowadays (not 99 year old pilots who service there own aircraft, he hastens to add!!). IMHO, if a pilot is able to pass the medical and the proficiency checks required for his/her licence, there is no good reason to stop him/her flying until at least 65. Aviation legislation (and ICAO) also need to keep up with the times and recognise that people in general are living longer, healthier lives.
SCD, you must also recognise that not old all airline pilots are highly paid Jumbo drivers. There are many of us flying helicopters, or flying as bush pilots in third world countries who earn very mediocre salaries who could not possible afford to retire at 50 or 55. We have one 65 year old pilot in my company who still flies a DHC6 in the bush for 6 or 7 hours a day and is very fit and sharp.
Surely, it's just the old 'horses for courses' thing. There are those who want to retire early and those who don't. There are those who are old at 50 and those who are young at 70 and the new proposals just seem to take these things into account (though it being the EU, one is never quite sure:hmm:

OK I agree not all people are over the hill at 60 or 65 but who then has to police the situation.To say if you can get a medical then you should be allowed to carry on is rubish as not all AME's are the same.I used to see one some years ago that if you could find his office you had passed.I am sure most people know of someone who they think I wonder how he carry's on or why do they let him carry on.The airline way these days is not what you know but who you know. The only way to police this is as we have now set rules that say when you are 60 you stop flying large a/c.OK this will stop some who are capable of carrying on but how else can you do it.How many people have sat at home and just watched the news and seen a judge let someone off for murder or given them 2 years and said these judges are not in touch they are over the hill. Well i'm sure if you asked them they too would say I'm ok to carry on ?

Hi,
Just for info and to "level the playing field", here are the texts of ICAO Annex 1 and JAR-FCL 1 on max age:

ICAO Annex 1:
JAR-FCL 1:
This age limit in JAR-FCL applies only to commercial air transport, and not to aerial work, corporate aviation, instruction/training flights, testing, etc.

Cheers,
RedBar1