Age 60
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Rain
You are quite wrong. When most of the older pilots in UK became qualified the retirement age was SIXTY FIVE , it was changed, quite arbitrarily, by government decree and without any industry consultation. What we want is to continue the terms we were employed under, we didn't want change in the first place and want things returned to normal now.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbitrary retirement ages have usually been campaigned for and enforced by those who find their own careers threatened by the "old age and treachery" crowd.
But with more and more of us living into our 90's and beyond, demographics becomes the issue. It's really a case of fewer and fewer worker bees supporting more and more healthy retirees. My father died at 93 with seven decades of entries (1930-2000) in his log books.
There is no longer a reason for an arbitrary retirement age - and CERTAINLY not for pilots at age sixty.
But with more and more of us living into our 90's and beyond, demographics becomes the issue. It's really a case of fewer and fewer worker bees supporting more and more healthy retirees. My father died at 93 with seven decades of entries (1930-2000) in his log books.
There is no longer a reason for an arbitrary retirement age - and CERTAINLY not for pilots at age sixty.
Avibridge
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that most of the pilots that want the reitrement age raised have not had one wife and pretty much let ruined their finances on their own. The industry should not have to pay or be ruined by personal behavior or just bad luck. Keep the age where is belongs, where it has been for the last 40 yrs, and where it is safe for everyone!
I guess this comment was intended to stir some discussion, if not bring the blood to boil for a few.
What a fatuaous & judemental comment bus driver!
In enlightened and less bigoted countries such as NZ, one can fly professionally until one can either not pass the medical or not pass the proficiency test.
The age 60 rule (I am 61) is an Ass on discriminatory grounds alone.
It might as well be 40, 50, 70 or any other number of digits.
If a country has REAL discrimination laws then it is an easy (Costly) matter for an over 60 pilot (Or class action group) to challenge this ridiculous rule.
I have heard all the arguments as a past Unioun President, believe me.
Like:
Actuarial tables show higher health risks for over 60 pilots.
The facts is there is no large statistical pilot data base because of the Age 60 rule. Just as there were no data for the Wright brothers!
Insurer's policy restrictions.
Union rules.
Company rules.
Regulator rules.
Medical concerns.
Taking jobs from Junior pilots
Lowering pay scales.
Being unsafe.
Yadda Yadda Yadda.
In NZ the law on dicrimenation on the basis of age was challenged successfullly and pilots like my past air force instructor, Barry Gordon chose to fly over 60 as did several of his colleagues.
Last time I saw Barry a couple of years back he was flying night B737 freighter in NZ at 75+.
Of course flying past 50, 55, 60 or any age should be optional to the individual and is certainly not for me.
Some have good pensions.
Some have good lump sums schemes and good investments.
Some have their first wife.
Some have their third wife.
Some have no wife.
Some have a boy friend.
Some want to pursue a different career.
Some want to subscribe to the welfare dream of the 1930s and play golf or indulge in other hobbies or charities.
Some are judgementa bastards who have no place being in the close persoanl cnfines of a cockpit.
Some are religious zealots.
We are all unique and have different aims and aspirations for our lives.
As to the industry paying for older pilots to stay employed where exactly did that thinking come from?
Industry pays for services rendered. We are all units of labor no more no less.
As for safer? What about experience. The one attribute that younger pilots lack and can still be gained only one way. An industry of young guns? I think not.
Chok Dee
Aviation advisor (LOl)
I guess this comment was intended to stir some discussion, if not bring the blood to boil for a few.
What a fatuaous & judemental comment bus driver!
In enlightened and less bigoted countries such as NZ, one can fly professionally until one can either not pass the medical or not pass the proficiency test.
The age 60 rule (I am 61) is an Ass on discriminatory grounds alone.
It might as well be 40, 50, 70 or any other number of digits.
If a country has REAL discrimination laws then it is an easy (Costly) matter for an over 60 pilot (Or class action group) to challenge this ridiculous rule.
I have heard all the arguments as a past Unioun President, believe me.
Like:
Actuarial tables show higher health risks for over 60 pilots.
The facts is there is no large statistical pilot data base because of the Age 60 rule. Just as there were no data for the Wright brothers!
Insurer's policy restrictions.
Union rules.
Company rules.
Regulator rules.
Medical concerns.
Taking jobs from Junior pilots
Lowering pay scales.
Being unsafe.
Yadda Yadda Yadda.
In NZ the law on dicrimenation on the basis of age was challenged successfullly and pilots like my past air force instructor, Barry Gordon chose to fly over 60 as did several of his colleagues.
Last time I saw Barry a couple of years back he was flying night B737 freighter in NZ at 75+.
Of course flying past 50, 55, 60 or any age should be optional to the individual and is certainly not for me.
Some have good pensions.
Some have good lump sums schemes and good investments.
Some have their first wife.
Some have their third wife.
Some have no wife.
Some have a boy friend.
Some want to pursue a different career.
Some want to subscribe to the welfare dream of the 1930s and play golf or indulge in other hobbies or charities.
Some are judgementa bastards who have no place being in the close persoanl cnfines of a cockpit.
Some are religious zealots.
We are all unique and have different aims and aspirations for our lives.
As to the industry paying for older pilots to stay employed where exactly did that thinking come from?
Industry pays for services rendered. We are all units of labor no more no less.
As for safer? What about experience. The one attribute that younger pilots lack and can still be gained only one way. An industry of young guns? I think not.
Chok Dee
Aviation advisor (LOl)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sandbox
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Rain,
Once again you have unloaded so much crap that your eyes have turned brown. You and I have gone the rounds of the loss of retirement and you obviously have no interest in the truth or reality of the subject.
What stidies are you referring too. In our last argument you stated more than once that the pilots in the states are paid so much more than others. If that is true, how will you make the same money no matter how long you work. At my previous company I took a 58%pay cut after 9/11. How do your studies deal with that reality?
Why should anyone "get out of the way of the younger pilots?"
When you are hired, the job is yours until you are fired, forced to retire, or the company goes out of business. The job will be there for the younger pilots when I decide to give it up, and not when you decide I should give it up.
There is no one in this career that is working under the same rules now as when they started. This is one of the most dynamic professions in the world. It is changing daily. The managers of airlines change the rules as often as they see fit. And we have no choice but to go along. The absurdity of this statement is even more profound when you consider that you are with Emirates, who change the rules daily. That is the way it goes. You also have to keep in mind that if the older pilots had not insisted on rule changes over the years, we would all be working under the same rules and conditions of the 1960's. To say that " a select few want to change the rules in the twilight of their careers" is nothing more than the rantings of a little boy trying to play in a mans game. In the states alone, your "select few" are nearly 20% of the pilots flying for the major airlines. United is 11000 pilots and Usair is 6500 pilots. Delta and Northwest will have pension adjustments by the end of the year. All of us who lost our pensions have 2 choices to make it up, work longer or make more. There is no way to do the latter, so we must do the former.
How do you keep from changing horses in midstream with all of the airlines that have gone out of business in the last 15 years. Your a young man with an education, please tell us all how to keep a company from failing and workers loosing jobs!
France is not standing up for crap! They, like you have their heads in the sand!
The fact that you mantion marriages and ex wives shows how immature, ignorant, and silly you are. For every one pilot who must work for alimony I will show you ten who have to work because they lost their jobs and retirement and have been financially ruined.
And finally, The age 60 rule has been here since the 1950's and has nothing to do with safety. It never had anything to do with safety. The head of American Airlines, had a relative, (brother in law I think) that was head of the CAB.(civil aeronautics board). The CAB was in charge of aviation in the states before dereglation, and during the 50's it also did the what the FAA and NTSB do now. American was having "problems"with it's senior pilots over 60 years old. At the time there was no manditory retirement age. The older pilots were putting pressure on management for a better retirement plan that was making life for management unbearable. There were mini strikes and other job actions. So the head of American airlines got his brother in law to set a manditory retirement age of 60 to get rid of the old guys. And it worked. CAB trotted in the doctors on the payroll to testify in the hearings and said"there is a chance that a pilot over 60 may not be as safe". The CAB and AMR management knew that congress would never go for it if they tried the economic approach, so they used a phoney age/safety argument and congress bought it. We have been stuck with the law ever since. IT IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN ABOUT SAFETY.
It is only about economics.
I wish you would be a little more sensitive to the problems that some pilots have had in their careers. After all you will one day be an older pilot defending yourself to a young pup like you, and I am sure it will piss you off too!
Grow up!
330 Man
Once again you have unloaded so much crap that your eyes have turned brown. You and I have gone the rounds of the loss of retirement and you obviously have no interest in the truth or reality of the subject.
What stidies are you referring too. In our last argument you stated more than once that the pilots in the states are paid so much more than others. If that is true, how will you make the same money no matter how long you work. At my previous company I took a 58%pay cut after 9/11. How do your studies deal with that reality?
Why should anyone "get out of the way of the younger pilots?"
When you are hired, the job is yours until you are fired, forced to retire, or the company goes out of business. The job will be there for the younger pilots when I decide to give it up, and not when you decide I should give it up.
There is no one in this career that is working under the same rules now as when they started. This is one of the most dynamic professions in the world. It is changing daily. The managers of airlines change the rules as often as they see fit. And we have no choice but to go along. The absurdity of this statement is even more profound when you consider that you are with Emirates, who change the rules daily. That is the way it goes. You also have to keep in mind that if the older pilots had not insisted on rule changes over the years, we would all be working under the same rules and conditions of the 1960's. To say that " a select few want to change the rules in the twilight of their careers" is nothing more than the rantings of a little boy trying to play in a mans game. In the states alone, your "select few" are nearly 20% of the pilots flying for the major airlines. United is 11000 pilots and Usair is 6500 pilots. Delta and Northwest will have pension adjustments by the end of the year. All of us who lost our pensions have 2 choices to make it up, work longer or make more. There is no way to do the latter, so we must do the former.
How do you keep from changing horses in midstream with all of the airlines that have gone out of business in the last 15 years. Your a young man with an education, please tell us all how to keep a company from failing and workers loosing jobs!
France is not standing up for crap! They, like you have their heads in the sand!
The fact that you mantion marriages and ex wives shows how immature, ignorant, and silly you are. For every one pilot who must work for alimony I will show you ten who have to work because they lost their jobs and retirement and have been financially ruined.
And finally, The age 60 rule has been here since the 1950's and has nothing to do with safety. It never had anything to do with safety. The head of American Airlines, had a relative, (brother in law I think) that was head of the CAB.(civil aeronautics board). The CAB was in charge of aviation in the states before dereglation, and during the 50's it also did the what the FAA and NTSB do now. American was having "problems"with it's senior pilots over 60 years old. At the time there was no manditory retirement age. The older pilots were putting pressure on management for a better retirement plan that was making life for management unbearable. There were mini strikes and other job actions. So the head of American airlines got his brother in law to set a manditory retirement age of 60 to get rid of the old guys. And it worked. CAB trotted in the doctors on the payroll to testify in the hearings and said"there is a chance that a pilot over 60 may not be as safe". The CAB and AMR management knew that congress would never go for it if they tried the economic approach, so they used a phoney age/safety argument and congress bought it. We have been stuck with the law ever since. IT IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN ABOUT SAFETY.
It is only about economics.
I wish you would be a little more sensitive to the problems that some pilots have had in their careers. After all you will one day be an older pilot defending yourself to a young pup like you, and I am sure it will piss you off too!
Grow up!
330 Man
Last edited by 330 Man; 27th Jul 2005 at 12:03.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Germany, as an employee, you pay in a pension fund. currently pension starting is 65 years old, word is, they wanna change that to 67 or even 70. how should I survive 5,7 or 10 years ? And maybe, Mr. LHR rain, you cannot imagine this, but THERE is a bunch of guys that are not with the flag carriing Airlines and their pension schemes.
A very close relative of mine was flying commercially until 68 and was the most capable pilot I met until now (15 years / 6300 hrs) to the last day.
Personally I haven´t seen such a study and even then I would doubt it - compare the elder people of today and their "forerunners" - healtcare and good living conditions at least at the developed world show an impact - thats why people getting older and older...
regarding the topic, maybe you can get a job on a privatly operated A/C ? Then you´re okay beyond 60...
A very close relative of mine was flying commercially until 68 and was the most capable pilot I met until now (15 years / 6300 hrs) to the last day.
Personally I haven´t seen such a study and even then I would doubt it - compare the elder people of today and their "forerunners" - healtcare and good living conditions at least at the developed world show an impact - thats why people getting older and older...
regarding the topic, maybe you can get a job on a privatly operated A/C ? Then you´re okay beyond 60...
Controversial, moi?
study after study has shown that you will make the same money in your career no matter how long you work
Let me guess you are aged around the 30 mark and believe life will pan out exactly as you planned? You want to retire early then feel free, some of us cannot for many reasons, not all of which were within our control.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to see the overreactions to the post from LHR Rain. Some of what he says is absolutely applicable to the thread. There are two different but related topics here. One is the age to which we should be able to fly aircraft (medically based sounds fine with me), the other topic is the retirement age at the respective airline (company) you work for.
For example, at my airline they have never been in synch (we retire at 56, while the mandatory retirement age is now 65, it used to be 60). Since the change in Europe to 65 most companies are out of synch. In the USA it is only a matter of time before the 60 rule will be changed.
The pilots who want to fly past their company's retirement age want to do so at their "own" company in the position that they hold at that particular time. In all probability heavy command. If they were allowed to do so, this would put a heavy burden on all the guys below them on the seniority list. The junior guys time to command would increase and there would be a delay in hiring the next generation of pilots to replace them. What LHR Rain pointed out is absolutely legitimate, although undiplomatically put. The motives for these people to continue to fly vary greatly, and range from the admirable (in love with their jobs) to total self interest based on financial needs. The people who tend to talk about increasing the length of their career at my airline would mostly be in the latter column. I tend to think this would be the case for most of the people who are so emotively posting in this thread.
I appreciate that life sometimes throws curve balls at people which make their carefully laid out financial planning go south. The asinine retirement schemes in mostly Anglo-Saxon countries plays a large role here as well (United, US Airways, Enron etc, etc). The retirement benefits in the USA don't seem to be worth much more than the paper they are printed on. All legitimate reasons to want to extend ones career to make ends meet. Becoming a door greeter at Wallmart isn't as sweet as it sounds. None of these arguments would change my mind about increasing the retirement age at my company. You knew the age when you signed, it is time to go when that date comes, the generation who was ahead of you did the same thing and survived.
Now the beauty of it is, all you do is retire from the company you have worked for. In Europe at least there is nothing stopping you from flying for another airline (probably low-cost, or charter) until the ultimate age (for the time being) 65 comes up. I know of plenty of examples of people who have done this. And if you have worked for an honorable and good company you get your pension and the wage from your next job. You take with you a wealth of experience, and probably a type-rating. A win-win proposition.
Being a wide-body captain myself I don't talk from the position of a nervous junior pilot who sees his chances of career advancement under threat. I sympathize with the people who are genuine in their wish to fly past a company's retirement age, but most of these people don't belong in that category, these people need to look in the mirror and acknowledge to themselves the true motives behind their wish. Not hide behind high minded principles, it is just self interest. A self interest that has severe implications for the people sitting next to them in the right seat, and the generation coming up.
Lastly if their company's were allowed to increase the retirement age to the legal limit it would have severe repercussions on the cost structure for the company (all in the company's benefit). In the least the retirement benefit costs would be reduced right down. You would now be working five years longer (giving you and the company five extra years to save for your pension), and as an added bonus you would be drawing out of the fund five years less (because you would hopefully still make it up to the right old age you were going to reach, working for five extra years is unlikely to increase your longevity). A simplistic calculation would see a minimum of ten years benefit from the retirement scheme's savings.
So lets realize that in Europe we are already in a position that moots most arguments, and the USA will follow in the next little while. But the argument of having your cake, and wanting someone else as well holds no water with me. Even it the USA ups the 60 rule I would be dead set against the companies being allowed to automatically follow (chapter 11 is doing enough harm to the industry for now). And for some reason the whole exercise becomes a lot less attractive to these people if they need to switch employers and learn a new company's methods.
Greetings O.
For example, at my airline they have never been in synch (we retire at 56, while the mandatory retirement age is now 65, it used to be 60). Since the change in Europe to 65 most companies are out of synch. In the USA it is only a matter of time before the 60 rule will be changed.
The pilots who want to fly past their company's retirement age want to do so at their "own" company in the position that they hold at that particular time. In all probability heavy command. If they were allowed to do so, this would put a heavy burden on all the guys below them on the seniority list. The junior guys time to command would increase and there would be a delay in hiring the next generation of pilots to replace them. What LHR Rain pointed out is absolutely legitimate, although undiplomatically put. The motives for these people to continue to fly vary greatly, and range from the admirable (in love with their jobs) to total self interest based on financial needs. The people who tend to talk about increasing the length of their career at my airline would mostly be in the latter column. I tend to think this would be the case for most of the people who are so emotively posting in this thread.
I appreciate that life sometimes throws curve balls at people which make their carefully laid out financial planning go south. The asinine retirement schemes in mostly Anglo-Saxon countries plays a large role here as well (United, US Airways, Enron etc, etc). The retirement benefits in the USA don't seem to be worth much more than the paper they are printed on. All legitimate reasons to want to extend ones career to make ends meet. Becoming a door greeter at Wallmart isn't as sweet as it sounds. None of these arguments would change my mind about increasing the retirement age at my company. You knew the age when you signed, it is time to go when that date comes, the generation who was ahead of you did the same thing and survived.
Now the beauty of it is, all you do is retire from the company you have worked for. In Europe at least there is nothing stopping you from flying for another airline (probably low-cost, or charter) until the ultimate age (for the time being) 65 comes up. I know of plenty of examples of people who have done this. And if you have worked for an honorable and good company you get your pension and the wage from your next job. You take with you a wealth of experience, and probably a type-rating. A win-win proposition.
Being a wide-body captain myself I don't talk from the position of a nervous junior pilot who sees his chances of career advancement under threat. I sympathize with the people who are genuine in their wish to fly past a company's retirement age, but most of these people don't belong in that category, these people need to look in the mirror and acknowledge to themselves the true motives behind their wish. Not hide behind high minded principles, it is just self interest. A self interest that has severe implications for the people sitting next to them in the right seat, and the generation coming up.
Lastly if their company's were allowed to increase the retirement age to the legal limit it would have severe repercussions on the cost structure for the company (all in the company's benefit). In the least the retirement benefit costs would be reduced right down. You would now be working five years longer (giving you and the company five extra years to save for your pension), and as an added bonus you would be drawing out of the fund five years less (because you would hopefully still make it up to the right old age you were going to reach, working for five extra years is unlikely to increase your longevity). A simplistic calculation would see a minimum of ten years benefit from the retirement scheme's savings.
So lets realize that in Europe we are already in a position that moots most arguments, and the USA will follow in the next little while. But the argument of having your cake, and wanting someone else as well holds no water with me. Even it the USA ups the 60 rule I would be dead set against the companies being allowed to automatically follow (chapter 11 is doing enough harm to the industry for now). And for some reason the whole exercise becomes a lot less attractive to these people if they need to switch employers and learn a new company's methods.
Greetings O.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never heard such a load of rubbish as propounded by LHR Rain's second post. Having got myself quite angry, I thought I had better put the story right when I noted that several other heavyweights had already come in on page two with similar thoughts. First a bit of history. The UK ATPL has been valid until the age of 65 for a good many years, although prior to the late 1980s you were restricted from flying anything over 20,000Kgs once you hit 60. i.e. turboprops like the F27, HS748, and Herald.
Around 1988 when the JAR licence was first being talked about and we were looking for a level platform (Huh!), the CAA FL Dept decided to start the ball rolling by removing the 20K restriction. They did add the rider that everyone would be responsible for obtaining their own individual permission to fly into a country's airspace and the bit about only one pilot on the flightdeck being over 60. Almost immediately they followed this with what they thought was going to be a great help to UK pilots. They wrote to all ICAO countries and asked them for blanket clearance for all UK pilots over 60 to overfly/ operate into their airspace!!
Nobody had really given it a thought until this point and UK over 60s had been flying commercially world wide on small corporate type aircraft for years without seeking any permission.
Countries sarted thinking about the problem and some (who had much earlier decided to stick with an age 60 limit on their ATPLs) could see The UK and others having a perceived advantage and said NO. CAA published lists of those who said YES, Maybe and NO. Apart from the USA we all know who led the NO field in Europe. Germany carried on giving permission to anybody by means of an individual permit - I still have mine. The battle has now been going on for 25 years. Unfortunately, virtually anyone flying south to the sun from UK has to cross France so it has hit us much harder than pther European countries.
Of course LHR Rain and others have got confused between "legal licence requirements" and State retirement rules with their associated pension issues. Believe me, French and Italian opposition to over 60 has nothing to do with their support for their pilots and everything to do with the age at which pensions are triggered - for all professions.
Traditionally, aviation pensions in the UK were set up to kick in at 60 (maybe because of the 20K weight restriction). If airline X didn't have any below 20K aircraft, pilots would have to retire at 60. BA as we know used 55 although I gather there is pressure to change this to 60 or more. What is fact is that in days of old i.e. 40 years plus ago there was little incentive for a 60 year old to retire at 60 and then look round for an airline that operated under 20K aircraft. For a start there weren't very many of them, remember the huge growth that there has been in our industry. Probably not much call for more than about a dozen oldies a year in the UK. As for the ethics of old preventing progress of the young, it really isn't a problem; the numbers looking for over 60 places is really a very small percentage of the pilot body in the UK
Around 1988 when the JAR licence was first being talked about and we were looking for a level platform (Huh!), the CAA FL Dept decided to start the ball rolling by removing the 20K restriction. They did add the rider that everyone would be responsible for obtaining their own individual permission to fly into a country's airspace and the bit about only one pilot on the flightdeck being over 60. Almost immediately they followed this with what they thought was going to be a great help to UK pilots. They wrote to all ICAO countries and asked them for blanket clearance for all UK pilots over 60 to overfly/ operate into their airspace!!
Nobody had really given it a thought until this point and UK over 60s had been flying commercially world wide on small corporate type aircraft for years without seeking any permission.
Countries sarted thinking about the problem and some (who had much earlier decided to stick with an age 60 limit on their ATPLs) could see The UK and others having a perceived advantage and said NO. CAA published lists of those who said YES, Maybe and NO. Apart from the USA we all know who led the NO field in Europe. Germany carried on giving permission to anybody by means of an individual permit - I still have mine. The battle has now been going on for 25 years. Unfortunately, virtually anyone flying south to the sun from UK has to cross France so it has hit us much harder than pther European countries.
Of course LHR Rain and others have got confused between "legal licence requirements" and State retirement rules with their associated pension issues. Believe me, French and Italian opposition to over 60 has nothing to do with their support for their pilots and everything to do with the age at which pensions are triggered - for all professions.
Traditionally, aviation pensions in the UK were set up to kick in at 60 (maybe because of the 20K weight restriction). If airline X didn't have any below 20K aircraft, pilots would have to retire at 60. BA as we know used 55 although I gather there is pressure to change this to 60 or more. What is fact is that in days of old i.e. 40 years plus ago there was little incentive for a 60 year old to retire at 60 and then look round for an airline that operated under 20K aircraft. For a start there weren't very many of them, remember the huge growth that there has been in our industry. Probably not much call for more than about a dozen oldies a year in the UK. As for the ethics of old preventing progress of the young, it really isn't a problem; the numbers looking for over 60 places is really a very small percentage of the pilot body in the UK
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bof the issue very much transcends your few pilots over 60 looking for work. The watershed moment would be in the airlines being able to break open their contracts, from a competitive point of view, to base their pension scheme on a higher age than we are now seeing pilots retire at. As an example BA could up its scheme to 60 years of age as a first step. Than your argument of "As for the ethics of old preventing progress of the young, it really isn't a problem", becomes silly in the extreme. And don't make any mistake that is what we are talking about here. Not the few you mention.
The airlines executive are standing on the sidelines and enjoying the show of us fighting against each other. They don't have to exert any pressure, or spend management time on it. We will fight their battles for them.
In my previous posting I mentioned that there are enough possibilities to extend your career. Under no circumstances is it right for someone to want to change a vital contract clause as they see a deadline heading their way which was there long before they started in this industry.
If as most people seem to support in this thread; to increase the age limit it will have huge implications which will stretch far beyond their brief career extension. Anyone saying different is just trying to put one over on all of us, or isn't able to clearly analyze the issue out.
Also the argument that the no side deploys of life expectancy (like AIRWAYS) is a none starter. I know from our pension office that the average life expectancy of our pilots is slightly more than two years beyond the non-flying population. This does not mean that our job isn't costing us years off our life, as we tend to be a more healthy and better monitored group than the average Joe, but we certainly don't drop dead at the rates sometimes quoted. I know statistics at two major US carriers bear this out as well.
So I would suggest both sides keep the arguments they employ as pure as possible.
Greetings O.
The airlines executive are standing on the sidelines and enjoying the show of us fighting against each other. They don't have to exert any pressure, or spend management time on it. We will fight their battles for them.
In my previous posting I mentioned that there are enough possibilities to extend your career. Under no circumstances is it right for someone to want to change a vital contract clause as they see a deadline heading their way which was there long before they started in this industry.
If as most people seem to support in this thread; to increase the age limit it will have huge implications which will stretch far beyond their brief career extension. Anyone saying different is just trying to put one over on all of us, or isn't able to clearly analyze the issue out.
Also the argument that the no side deploys of life expectancy (like AIRWAYS) is a none starter. I know from our pension office that the average life expectancy of our pilots is slightly more than two years beyond the non-flying population. This does not mean that our job isn't costing us years off our life, as we tend to be a more healthy and better monitored group than the average Joe, but we certainly don't drop dead at the rates sometimes quoted. I know statistics at two major US carriers bear this out as well.
So I would suggest both sides keep the arguments they employ as pure as possible.
Greetings O.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the beauty of it is, all you do is retire from the company you have worked for. In Europe at least there is nothing stopping you from flying for another airline (probably low-cost, or charter) until the ultimate age (for the time being) 65 comes up. I know of plenty of examples of people who have done this. And if you have worked for an honorable and good company you get your pension and the wage from your next job. You take with you a wealth of experience, and probably a type-rating. A win-win proposition.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry about me. If the T&C's I signed up for stay put, I will happily retire at my contractual retirement age. I can tell you from personal experience that the majority of the pilots at the majors are looking forward to that day. It is only the people who have had bad luck or have made a bit of a bungle of their finances, or even the few who can't do without the job who will be coming your way.
This will change big time though, if (when) the airlines change the retirement age to the "new" legal limit, and you can count me in that group.
The last ten years has seen a steady erosion to our T&C's. The attempt to change the 60 rule should be viewed as another attack on those T&C's. I know there are a lot of guys leaving the low costs to take up the positions that are slowly opening up at the major carriers in Europe. They do this to better themselves and take advantage of the overall T&C's that generations of pilots have fought for. The retirement package forms a huge chunk of that attraction.
So foxmoth what you are saying is correct, if the 60 rule changes there will be another move downward in other T&C's on your side of the fence. The brown smelly stuff tends to move downhill. That is why I just can't rap my mind around these people who view the 60 rule in isolation. It will affect everyone, don't make any mistake about it.
Regards O.
This will change big time though, if (when) the airlines change the retirement age to the "new" legal limit, and you can count me in that group.
The last ten years has seen a steady erosion to our T&C's. The attempt to change the 60 rule should be viewed as another attack on those T&C's. I know there are a lot of guys leaving the low costs to take up the positions that are slowly opening up at the major carriers in Europe. They do this to better themselves and take advantage of the overall T&C's that generations of pilots have fought for. The retirement package forms a huge chunk of that attraction.
So foxmoth what you are saying is correct, if the 60 rule changes there will be another move downward in other T&C's on your side of the fence. The brown smelly stuff tends to move downhill. That is why I just can't rap my mind around these people who view the 60 rule in isolation. It will affect everyone, don't make any mistake about it.
Regards O.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All well written stuff Otterman but you seem to have totally missed the point.
What about those of us, (and there are many), who signed up to a retirement age of 65 then saw it arbitrarily reduced to 60? We saw our RHS guys get a sudden lift, you see returning to the 'norm' of 65 as giving the RHS guys a sudden career reversal.
Your entire post is written as though the original age was never 65, for all weights, well it certainly was in the UK and I, for one, saw five worthwhile years chopped off the top end of my career, I want them back.
Possible that some of the confusion comes from the fact that at the time the age in the UK was dropped from 65 to 60 the majority of airlines in the UK operating heavy equipment were few and far between and had their own retirement age anyway, which was around 55, possibly 60 for pension purposes, when my ATPL was issued I could fly all weights up to the age of 65.
What about those of us, (and there are many), who signed up to a retirement age of 65 then saw it arbitrarily reduced to 60? We saw our RHS guys get a sudden lift, you see returning to the 'norm' of 65 as giving the RHS guys a sudden career reversal.
Your entire post is written as though the original age was never 65, for all weights, well it certainly was in the UK and I, for one, saw five worthwhile years chopped off the top end of my career, I want them back.
Possible that some of the confusion comes from the fact that at the time the age in the UK was dropped from 65 to 60 the majority of airlines in the UK operating heavy equipment were few and far between and had their own retirement age anyway, which was around 55, possibly 60 for pension purposes, when my ATPL was issued I could fly all weights up to the age of 65.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the input BlueEagle. Of course I don't pretend to have all knowledge on the subject. But from my point of view you have your 5 years back (at least in Europe). What I am saying is that it is not fair to be able to extend one's career at the current carrier. Not sure about your career path, but anyone flying for a major at the very least knew his retirement age upon signing the contract, and none was beyond the age of 60.
Not sure how old you are but at my airline there is not one pilot who has ever seen any other retirement age than the one we have now. The last change was an upping in 1967 from age 50 to 56. But this was way before the extensive retirement schemes that we have had since.
Regards O.
Not sure how old you are but at my airline there is not one pilot who has ever seen any other retirement age than the one we have now. The last change was an upping in 1967 from age 50 to 56. But this was way before the extensive retirement schemes that we have had since.
Regards O.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What I am saying is that it is not fair to be able to extend one's career at the current carrier".
Maybe not now, if one has started one's career when the published age was 60 but for those of us that started when it was published as 65 then it is most certainly very fair!
(My first professional licence issued in the mid sixtys).
Maybe not now, if one has started one's career when the published age was 60 but for those of us that started when it was published as 65 then it is most certainly very fair!
(My first professional licence issued in the mid sixtys).
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do carry on!
Why would you guys not want to read more interesting stuff from LHR Rain? I get a real kick out of this sort of stuff!
I must declare an interest here: I am 57.6 and have had not a career as such but more a series of jobs in aviation. I started with a mis-spent youth in Viet Nam as a humble fitter, then advancing to a maintenance supervisor before attempting to drop out once back in the States.
I was finally ejected from the hippy movement for failure to abjure the misuse of grammar and failing a drugs test (with a negative) before finally returning to aviation as a last resort. I soon found myself in Apocalypse Now Redux (Nigeria). There I have clawed my way from Cessna driver to Dornier Aviator. But all too soon the party is ending with the search for continued employment at the advanced age of 58.
I have heard all the arguments for and against wrinklies continuing to fly. LHR Rain seems, here, to epitomise most of the half-thought-out ones against that. One could not hope for a better advocate for a cause one hopes will be lost!
When I was learning to fly gliders (sailplanes to you lot) the best instructor I had was some old Navy guy who had flown Hellcats against the Japanese Empire, so that he was older than dirt. But could he fly! I was very impressed. No flies on that fellow, despite his being rather wrinkly. I could only aspire to such an old age, myself.
Then I met a German doctor of psychology who specialises in motorcycle training, Dr. Spiegler (I think it is). The good doctor is also seriously old, until he pulls on his riding kit and straddles his BMW to lead a fast group around the Nordschleife of the Nuerburgring. Someone who thinks all the over-60's are useless should perhaps try keeping up with this guy and see how they come off. Or where they come off, more like it!
The last time I was there I had to laugh when a kid on a Fireblade told me that BMWs were 'for old guys'. I asked if I might just fit the profile, while refraining from pointing out that I was faster on my BMW than he was on his Fireblade. I guess it was that I had ten years riding around the 'Ring under my belt where he was there for the first time, making this a classic case of 'old age and treachery' against 'youth and quick reflexes.'
When I was a spotty youth I thought anyone over 30 must have one foot in the grave. I could not imagine that one might derive any serious pleasure from life and work beyond such an advanced age, so that compulsory euthanasia might have seemed a reasonable option. Now, of course, I think I know better. LHR Rain and those of his ilk might be correct in their cold logic, but I bet he changes his mind, what there is of it, if he manages to age. That is assuming he can overcome his obvious stupidity, a real threat to his survival in its extremity.
I hope he does not get wiped out in a bar fight with some ancient 5th Dan sensei. Good luck with that! (On second thought, omit the 'not' in the above screed.)
I really couldn't care less if EU legislative change sees all the yoof weeping in their beer over the unfairness of it all. I will take all that I can get, even though I am still on my first marriage and very well known for hoarding my ducats in a way that might be called 'obsessive'. It might just be that I like being involved in aviation. I certainly would never describe myself as a 'bus driver' even in jest.
I would be happy to accompany LHR Rain to a training course at the 'Ring if his interests extend to fast bikes, when he might like to try his mettle against the aged, creaky and alarmingly fast Dr Berndt S., to see if that changes his mind a little bit about the abilities of the geriatric. Somehow, though, I get the impression that this fellow really hasn't thought this age-related question through and has no particular wish to do that.
To all you fellow wrinklies out there, Good luck, and let's hope we can keep flying!
I must declare an interest here: I am 57.6 and have had not a career as such but more a series of jobs in aviation. I started with a mis-spent youth in Viet Nam as a humble fitter, then advancing to a maintenance supervisor before attempting to drop out once back in the States.
I was finally ejected from the hippy movement for failure to abjure the misuse of grammar and failing a drugs test (with a negative) before finally returning to aviation as a last resort. I soon found myself in Apocalypse Now Redux (Nigeria). There I have clawed my way from Cessna driver to Dornier Aviator. But all too soon the party is ending with the search for continued employment at the advanced age of 58.
I have heard all the arguments for and against wrinklies continuing to fly. LHR Rain seems, here, to epitomise most of the half-thought-out ones against that. One could not hope for a better advocate for a cause one hopes will be lost!
When I was learning to fly gliders (sailplanes to you lot) the best instructor I had was some old Navy guy who had flown Hellcats against the Japanese Empire, so that he was older than dirt. But could he fly! I was very impressed. No flies on that fellow, despite his being rather wrinkly. I could only aspire to such an old age, myself.
Then I met a German doctor of psychology who specialises in motorcycle training, Dr. Spiegler (I think it is). The good doctor is also seriously old, until he pulls on his riding kit and straddles his BMW to lead a fast group around the Nordschleife of the Nuerburgring. Someone who thinks all the over-60's are useless should perhaps try keeping up with this guy and see how they come off. Or where they come off, more like it!
The last time I was there I had to laugh when a kid on a Fireblade told me that BMWs were 'for old guys'. I asked if I might just fit the profile, while refraining from pointing out that I was faster on my BMW than he was on his Fireblade. I guess it was that I had ten years riding around the 'Ring under my belt where he was there for the first time, making this a classic case of 'old age and treachery' against 'youth and quick reflexes.'
When I was a spotty youth I thought anyone over 30 must have one foot in the grave. I could not imagine that one might derive any serious pleasure from life and work beyond such an advanced age, so that compulsory euthanasia might have seemed a reasonable option. Now, of course, I think I know better. LHR Rain and those of his ilk might be correct in their cold logic, but I bet he changes his mind, what there is of it, if he manages to age. That is assuming he can overcome his obvious stupidity, a real threat to his survival in its extremity.
I hope he does not get wiped out in a bar fight with some ancient 5th Dan sensei. Good luck with that! (On second thought, omit the 'not' in the above screed.)
I really couldn't care less if EU legislative change sees all the yoof weeping in their beer over the unfairness of it all. I will take all that I can get, even though I am still on my first marriage and very well known for hoarding my ducats in a way that might be called 'obsessive'. It might just be that I like being involved in aviation. I certainly would never describe myself as a 'bus driver' even in jest.
I would be happy to accompany LHR Rain to a training course at the 'Ring if his interests extend to fast bikes, when he might like to try his mettle against the aged, creaky and alarmingly fast Dr Berndt S., to see if that changes his mind a little bit about the abilities of the geriatric. Somehow, though, I get the impression that this fellow really hasn't thought this age-related question through and has no particular wish to do that.
To all you fellow wrinklies out there, Good luck, and let's hope we can keep flying!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle your license pre-dates the 60 rule, but it certainly won't pre-date any contract you may have/had with an airline which stated that your retirement age would be 60 (or earlier). The guys ahead of you cleared out at those ages (probably to your benefit). And this was in a time when we certainly aren't talking about the biggish retirement packages that we have now, and which are quickly eroding. A little math would support the assumption that you are either very close, or have retired.
There are obstacles in your way in wanting to continue your career from this point forward, but the option is there. Your original promise of 65 is back. And you belong to the first group who has had this option in the last 35 years or so.
I personally can't think of an airline who has had a retirement age of 65 at anytime. So my original argument that this career extension should not take place at your airline holds in my humble opinion. You have known of this magic date coming your way for a long time, the extra five years we are talking about is only a recent pleasant addition for you, I hope you are able to enjoy them.
As with almost all changes like these there are people who win and loose. You might have belonged to the winning group when the original change to the 60 rule was made. But if you have been active in our business since the mid-sixties you can't have had anything but an awesome ride, from the dawn of a modern business to the hectic pace that we have now.
Good luck in your endeavors,
Greetings O.
There are obstacles in your way in wanting to continue your career from this point forward, but the option is there. Your original promise of 65 is back. And you belong to the first group who has had this option in the last 35 years or so.
I personally can't think of an airline who has had a retirement age of 65 at anytime. So my original argument that this career extension should not take place at your airline holds in my humble opinion. You have known of this magic date coming your way for a long time, the extra five years we are talking about is only a recent pleasant addition for you, I hope you are able to enjoy them.
As with almost all changes like these there are people who win and loose. You might have belonged to the winning group when the original change to the 60 rule was made. But if you have been active in our business since the mid-sixties you can't have had anything but an awesome ride, from the dawn of a modern business to the hectic pace that we have now.
Good luck in your endeavors,
Greetings O.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR Rain: Some people need the money, some love their job and want to continue it's not your place to judge, tell people when they should give up living/working or make nasty insinuations about personal life matters.
If a pilot is healthy and can do the job whatever sex religion race creed colour or age then so be it.
.............and the best, most inspired and inspiring pilots I have ever flown with have been the older guys!.
If a pilot is healthy and can do the job whatever sex religion race creed colour or age then so be it.
.............and the best, most inspired and inspiring pilots I have ever flown with have been the older guys!.