Age Discrimination - help needed!
Delay? What delay?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would someone please explain
what gives people like srjumbo the right to demand that experienced pilots like packsonflite and others be forced to retire possibly prematurely (i.e. they can still operate a/c safely etc etc), just because they (srjumbo et al) are in debt? I think I'll just go and get into huge debt at Harvard Business School and then demand that Bill Gates gives me his job! The world owes no-one a living.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F,D&H
The problem with this is that it won't... This "group" will get their promotions e.g. to Captain, by retirements. If you delay all the retirements by X years, they are no better off. Increasing the retirement age just puts a temporary ban on recruitment effectively until the retirements start again.
However, for the UK and European airlines, this argument is getting pointless. For ages, BA and elsewhere, the CRA is endlessly debated between the seniors (want to stay on) and juniors (who want to seniors to go), is ~50:50, and everyone seems to hold a strong viewpoint.
With the 2006 legislation - forget it. Its the law, we all have to comply, and we should stop slagging each other off. Quite how the Licensing Age limits are dealt with is another matter - but its not going to be pilots who decide it...
Just all IMHO... NoD
From a selfish point of view there are a substantial number of pilots who came late to the profession, and spent their life savings to get there. The extra five years could make a huge difference to that group.
However, for the UK and European airlines, this argument is getting pointless. For ages, BA and elsewhere, the CRA is endlessly debated between the seniors (want to stay on) and juniors (who want to seniors to go), is ~50:50, and everyone seems to hold a strong viewpoint.
With the 2006 legislation - forget it. Its the law, we all have to comply, and we should stop slagging each other off. Quite how the Licensing Age limits are dealt with is another matter - but its not going to be pilots who decide it...
Just all IMHO... NoD
Join Date: May 2004
Location: England
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD - I agree, delaying the retirement age means longer time to command, and effectively it means an extra 5 years at F/O wages. If you get your first job at age 35 the extra 5 years means you are looking at a 30 year career rather than a 25 year one. Financially that that's worth about £175-200k, but the extra 5 years of pension payments will make a bigger difference.
As you say however, it's the law so arguing about it is pretty fruitless. I do believe it's a good law (for once), even though I am one of the people who will take longer to get command as a direct result.
As you say however, it's the law so arguing about it is pretty fruitless. I do believe it's a good law (for once), even though I am one of the people who will take longer to get command as a direct result.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 79
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD
I think that you're only partly correct in your assertion.
Everyone assumes that raising the maximum age to 65 will result in no retirements for a five year period. This would just not be the case.
I know of many colleagues who can't wait to retire and given that the NRD in most UK airlines is currently 60, the vast majority will want to retire when their pensions mature. I would agree that there may well be a slowing down in career flows, but it certainly won't become static for 5 years.
After 1st October 2006, it will become illegal to even state an NRD in a contract. Pilots will thus be able to retire when they judge that they can afford to do so on the basis of time in their respective pension schemes. That assumes of course that in the future company pension schemes will still be available!!!
Packsonflite
I think that you're only partly correct in your assertion.
Everyone assumes that raising the maximum age to 65 will result in no retirements for a five year period. This would just not be the case.
I know of many colleagues who can't wait to retire and given that the NRD in most UK airlines is currently 60, the vast majority will want to retire when their pensions mature. I would agree that there may well be a slowing down in career flows, but it certainly won't become static for 5 years.
After 1st October 2006, it will become illegal to even state an NRD in a contract. Pilots will thus be able to retire when they judge that they can afford to do so on the basis of time in their respective pension schemes. That assumes of course that in the future company pension schemes will still be available!!!
Packsonflite
Adding 5 years to the end of your career will (on average) cutoff 5 years at the beginning of the next generation's careers.
However that is your prerogative, and does not deserve some of the comments you have received. The only thing I would ask if people stay longer, that some of the minority "whingers" who stay on, cheer up. Having escaped to the LHS I don't suffer it anymore, but F/Os I fly with still get the "I hate the airline/wife/world" bitter rantings. If you don't like it GET OUT and get a life you do enjoy.
However that is your prerogative, and does not deserve some of the comments you have received. The only thing I would ask if people stay longer, that some of the minority "whingers" who stay on, cheer up. Having escaped to the LHS I don't suffer it anymore, but F/Os I fly with still get the "I hate the airline/wife/world" bitter rantings. If you don't like it GET OUT and get a life you do enjoy.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 474
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A short story from the west side of the Atlantic…..at my company, we have a large cadre of management pilots (no rotation from line to management). Some flight qualified folks worked solely in the training center (Sims). The company decided that after 60 (max FAA 121), they would reduce their salary because of their diminished status (not 121 flight qualified after 60).
A group of them got together, went before the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), and said their job and responsibilities did not change. The commission agreed and they are receiving previous pay grade.
And yes, the company then closed the door on this particular management position/description. It is now a rotation position (Ops/Standards/Training/etc.).
A group of them got together, went before the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), and said their job and responsibilities did not change. The commission agreed and they are receiving previous pay grade.
And yes, the company then closed the door on this particular management position/description. It is now a rotation position (Ops/Standards/Training/etc.).
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: U.K.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
srjumbo
The next time one of us "selfish old gits" give you a line or sim check, I hope you'll show a bit more respect for our superior maturity and experience. You don't get far in this industry by expecting it to owe you a living!!
The next time one of us "selfish old gits" give you a line or sim check, I hope you'll show a bit more respect for our superior maturity and experience. You don't get far in this industry by expecting it to owe you a living!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 79
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Way Up
I can't completely agree with you on your first point. Adding up to 5 years to the careers of pilots at or approaching the current cut-off won't necessarily add the same amount to those coming up behind.
If you assume that it takes 33 and 1/3 years to reach the maximum pension, many will opt to leave at that point. For example a cadet pilot joining a company at age 20 will have a full pension by the time he's 53. It will be up to him how much longer he stays after that. Similarly someone who's joined at a later age will still be able to get in enough service to enable them to look forward to a financially secure retirement.
On your second point, I would certainly agree that there's are some wingers out there, and not just in the LHS! Speaking for myself, I don't believe that I'm one of those as I love the job and am very happy with my current employer. My view on the latter may well change if they force me out at age 60.
PacksonFlite
I can't completely agree with you on your first point. Adding up to 5 years to the careers of pilots at or approaching the current cut-off won't necessarily add the same amount to those coming up behind.
If you assume that it takes 33 and 1/3 years to reach the maximum pension, many will opt to leave at that point. For example a cadet pilot joining a company at age 20 will have a full pension by the time he's 53. It will be up to him how much longer he stays after that. Similarly someone who's joined at a later age will still be able to get in enough service to enable them to look forward to a financially secure retirement.
On your second point, I would certainly agree that there's are some wingers out there, and not just in the LHS! Speaking for myself, I don't believe that I'm one of those as I love the job and am very happy with my current employer. My view on the latter may well change if they force me out at age 60.
PacksonFlite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mentaleena
Cheer Up!
My comment about retirement at 55 was a friendly dig at BA, CX, QF, KLM etc. etc. where the retirement is enforced, not meant for people like you who are voluntarily leaving at 55 because they are fed up.
My comment about retirement at 55 was a friendly dig at BA, CX, QF, KLM etc. etc. where the retirement is enforced, not meant for people like you who are voluntarily leaving at 55 because they are fed up.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PonF
Thats why I caveated my message with a
However, delaying all by 5 years may be a good estimate... since as you say there will be no compulsory age to stop.. so 55 (for some companies) may go 60, 65, 70? Who knows?
Again - a caveat. You will/may be able to continue working beyond the previous NRD/CRA stated in your current contract and pension rules i.e. the NRD / CRA in your contract becomes null & void. However, there is nothing proposed to say that the NRD/CRA in your pension scheme will alter... So you will be able to continue working, but not necessarily earning any extra pension rights... And you certainly cannot rely on earning the same pension rights i.e. those currently in a FSS may suddenly find that after the old CRA (e.g. 55 in BA) they are now in a MPS.
NoD
I think that you're only partly correct in your assertion.
Everyone assumes that raising the maximum age to 65 will result in no retirements for a five year period. This would just not be the case
Everyone assumes that raising the maximum age to 65 will result in no retirements for a five year period. This would just not be the case
If you delay all the retirements by X years
After 1st October 2006, it will become illegal to even state an NRD in a contract. Pilots will thus be able to retire when they judge that they can afford to do so on the basis of time in their respective pension schemes
NoD
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
srjumbo
Well you are going to be a pilot that no airline would want aren't you! Why do you begrduge people who scrimped and scraped, and might very well have spent a fortune on getting into an airline. Some might have been in the same airline for 20 or 30 years!
Well wait your bleedin' turn my boy, everything comes to those who wait. But......................how long have you been trying? How many times have you been turned down? What is it that turns people off you? Might it be your attitude - you have plenty of that.
In 2006 the EU law will state that employees have a right to decide if they want to retire at the 'current' (whatever that is) retiring age, and they will be able to opt out if they so wish and stay. However, certains elements of aviation law have to be legislated in the EU to make it standard. Word has it that it will be 65 and EVEN the French will have NO right to arrest a pilot overflying France - as in the past.
So sit back dear boy and grow up into the real world where things change almost every day. Today is not your luck day. But then that might never come if you maintain that attitude. And do take my advice, NEVER upset a trainer!
Well you are going to be a pilot that no airline would want aren't you! Why do you begrduge people who scrimped and scraped, and might very well have spent a fortune on getting into an airline. Some might have been in the same airline for 20 or 30 years!
Well wait your bleedin' turn my boy, everything comes to those who wait. But......................how long have you been trying? How many times have you been turned down? What is it that turns people off you? Might it be your attitude - you have plenty of that.
In 2006 the EU law will state that employees have a right to decide if they want to retire at the 'current' (whatever that is) retiring age, and they will be able to opt out if they so wish and stay. However, certains elements of aviation law have to be legislated in the EU to make it standard. Word has it that it will be 65 and EVEN the French will have NO right to arrest a pilot overflying France - as in the past.
So sit back dear boy and grow up into the real world where things change almost every day. Today is not your luck day. But then that might never come if you maintain that attitude. And do take my advice, NEVER upset a trainer!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 79
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Took a look at srjumbo's pprune profile - he claims that he's an SFO on B747s, something that makes his irrational outpourings all the more puzzling. If he works for either BA or Virgin then he must be on a half decent salary, however if he was with EAT then he has my wholehearthed sympathy as I've been in the same situation myself. Of course it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he's just another wind-up merchant!!
I've never quite worked out how the French would know how old the Commander of an overflying aircraft was, after all there's no requirement to file that info on the flight plan or to show one's passport on reaching the FIR boundary.
The French continue to drive a coach and horses through various aspects of EU law that don't suit them, perhaps it's time we applied the same principle in respect of this issue. The real oddity in the French situation is that, prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL 1, the French age limit was 65!!!
PacksonFlite
......EVEN the French will have NO right to arrest a pilot overflying France - as in the past.
The French continue to drive a coach and horses through various aspects of EU law that don't suit them, perhaps it's time we applied the same principle in respect of this issue. The real oddity in the French situation is that, prior to the introduction of JAR-FCL 1, the French age limit was 65!!!
PacksonFlite
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PonF
You and I will be at a variance. I would like to be able to retire at 55, as it suggested on my contract when I joined, after getting a command at the time that it looked like it would happen for the last 9 years.
Others will feel differently.
The item that we are all over looking on the issue of this forthcoming legislational change is the effect it will have on the school leavers of 2006/7/8/9/10.
As each year passes, people usually retire from their positions throughout the workforce. New people enter the workforce, and take up these positions.
Come late 2006, this will slow down dramatically.
It will be bad for our children or grandchildren.
You and I will be at a variance. I would like to be able to retire at 55, as it suggested on my contract when I joined, after getting a command at the time that it looked like it would happen for the last 9 years.
Others will feel differently.
The item that we are all over looking on the issue of this forthcoming legislational change is the effect it will have on the school leavers of 2006/7/8/9/10.
As each year passes, people usually retire from their positions throughout the workforce. New people enter the workforce, and take up these positions.
Come late 2006, this will slow down dramatically.
It will be bad for our children or grandchildren.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: France
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the JAA system will be replaced around the end of the year by EASA, and that LHS operation up to age 65 will be enshrined in EU legislation. Individual states will not then have the right to vary the conditions.
As a rather wrinkly person myself, I think that the performance of the older pilot can vary enormously, just as it can in other age groups. The experience advantage makes a lot of difference, and I feel we have a lot to offer.
As a rather wrinkly person myself, I think that the performance of the older pilot can vary enormously, just as it can in other age groups. The experience advantage makes a lot of difference, and I feel we have a lot to offer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Hartlepool
Age: 79
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA_jumbo_SFO
I do agree with your position. In fact it reinforces what I’ve said earlier. I believe that the vast majority will want to retire as soon as they have made adequate financial arrangements for their retirement.
You are obviously in the envious position of having come through the system of a major airline and by the time you reach 55 will have achieved the pension arrangements that will be satisfactory by that time. You must remember that there are others who are not in such a fortunate position. i.e. those who came into flying at a later age and those who have lost pensions in failed companies.
As to blocking the career opportunities of those still at school; yes that will be the case, but this issue will by then be enshrined in law and they too will be protected from age discrimination when they approach the end of their careers.
I do agree with your position. In fact it reinforces what I’ve said earlier. I believe that the vast majority will want to retire as soon as they have made adequate financial arrangements for their retirement.
You are obviously in the envious position of having come through the system of a major airline and by the time you reach 55 will have achieved the pension arrangements that will be satisfactory by that time. You must remember that there are others who are not in such a fortunate position. i.e. those who came into flying at a later age and those who have lost pensions in failed companies.
As to blocking the career opportunities of those still at school; yes that will be the case, but this issue will by then be enshrined in law and they too will be protected from age discrimination when they approach the end of their careers.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
packsonflite
...........no, sorry, your assumption is wrong. I joined relatively late, with no prior pension.
I believe I have set my goals reasonably, my family and I try and live within our means, and try not to be too greedy.
I hope to retire at 55, and hope that I dont have to be quite as carefull with my pennies as my parents.
I think there are a lot of greedy people in the industry.
Sad really. I hope your live to enjoy some of your retirement!
...........no, sorry, your assumption is wrong. I joined relatively late, with no prior pension.
I believe I have set my goals reasonably, my family and I try and live within our means, and try not to be too greedy.
I hope to retire at 55, and hope that I dont have to be quite as carefull with my pennies as my parents.
I think there are a lot of greedy people in the industry.
Sad really. I hope your live to enjoy some of your retirement!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oxfordshire. U.K.
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wider look at the age issue...
Understandably, many senior colleagues aren't best pleased when an aspiring youngster wants them to take up gardening and "free up a seat" ! ....
But equally, comments like "wait your turn" and "the world doesn't owe you a living" aren't helpful. I would suggest that few of today's senior pilots had debts of £ 50,000 to £ 80,000 hanging over their heads at the start of their career !. (Even larger if people pay their own type / line training !). The new guys are keen (desperate) to work.
Some of the best people that I have flown with and learned from were in their 60s and 70s.
But most people either won't keep their class one medical or won't have the desire to work on through their 60s.
Should there be a "finish now" age or should it be "subject to medical" ?. It ought to be the latter, but ......
Taking another angle, myself and a number of friends came into commercial flying in our late thirties / early fourties - and have been looking for our first flying jobs for many months. (Some guys over a year). But the phrase "age commensurate with experience" comes up quite often. (No new guys over thirty it would seem - too much of a training risk perhaps ??? !!! - Despite first time passes from some of the best flight schools in the country ...).
Any advice from the senior guys on this one ?.....
But equally, comments like "wait your turn" and "the world doesn't owe you a living" aren't helpful. I would suggest that few of today's senior pilots had debts of £ 50,000 to £ 80,000 hanging over their heads at the start of their career !. (Even larger if people pay their own type / line training !). The new guys are keen (desperate) to work.
Some of the best people that I have flown with and learned from were in their 60s and 70s.
But most people either won't keep their class one medical or won't have the desire to work on through their 60s.
Should there be a "finish now" age or should it be "subject to medical" ?. It ought to be the latter, but ......
Taking another angle, myself and a number of friends came into commercial flying in our late thirties / early fourties - and have been looking for our first flying jobs for many months. (Some guys over a year). But the phrase "age commensurate with experience" comes up quite often. (No new guys over thirty it would seem - too much of a training risk perhaps ??? !!! - Despite first time passes from some of the best flight schools in the country ...).
Any advice from the senior guys on this one ?.....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good God! Some people just can't help themselves, can they?
It should, ideally, be up to the individual when they retire, medicals and proficiency being suitable.
Why should a 55 year old be forced out on the flimsy justification of allowing an AFI to move one step up the ladder? It doesn't work that way in other industries, so why should it in ours? Accusing someone of selfishnesh because they won't retire and allow you to have their position smacks rather heavily of hypocrisy! As the man states, there are all sorts of inocent, sometimes selfless reasons why a 55 year old may not be in a financial position where retirement is desireble.
It's a shame that those on the lower rungs, such as me, will be held up by those staying on at the top that little bit longer, but a specific rate of career progression was not part of the deal when most joined the profession, and it's not unreasonable to ask people to think of what they'd be doing if the shoe was on the other foot.
It should, ideally, be up to the individual when they retire, medicals and proficiency being suitable.
Why should a 55 year old be forced out on the flimsy justification of allowing an AFI to move one step up the ladder? It doesn't work that way in other industries, so why should it in ours? Accusing someone of selfishnesh because they won't retire and allow you to have their position smacks rather heavily of hypocrisy! As the man states, there are all sorts of inocent, sometimes selfless reasons why a 55 year old may not be in a financial position where retirement is desireble.
It's a shame that those on the lower rungs, such as me, will be held up by those staying on at the top that little bit longer, but a specific rate of career progression was not part of the deal when most joined the profession, and it's not unreasonable to ask people to think of what they'd be doing if the shoe was on the other foot.
As regards BA, I, along with a number of others, are hearing the increase in CRA may come sooner rather than later.
The reasons for this are purely financial as far as the BA beancounters are concerned in that any increase in CRA will be accompanied by a 'tweak' in the pension contributions/scheme that will mean the deep dark black hole in NAPS suddenly starts to fill surprisingly quickly.
BA wins in two ways. Beating the 2006 date they can declare themselves a 'forward looking, staff orientated' company whilst behind the scenes the pension coffers will be recuperated.
Overall a slightly better pension for those who sign on the dotted line but certainly not worth 5 years at the current accrual rate.
The reasons for this are purely financial as far as the BA beancounters are concerned in that any increase in CRA will be accompanied by a 'tweak' in the pension contributions/scheme that will mean the deep dark black hole in NAPS suddenly starts to fill surprisingly quickly.
BA wins in two ways. Beating the 2006 date they can declare themselves a 'forward looking, staff orientated' company whilst behind the scenes the pension coffers will be recuperated.
Overall a slightly better pension for those who sign on the dotted line but certainly not worth 5 years at the current accrual rate.