Compulsory retirement age of 65 for 'hire & reward'
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The elephant in the room is the disconnect between retirement of pilots and the state pension, for Brits anyway.
When I retire I will have to wait a minimum of 2 years to collect my 144 quid or whatever a week. Not a big problem maybe for those who have had a stable career on the old style pensions, although look what happened to the bmi pension.
Those of you in the 20/30 year age bracket will be looking at 5 years. So I guess it's stacking shelves in Tesco. Unless one has been very mature in saving and not running up huge debts......but wait....
When I retire I will have to wait a minimum of 2 years to collect my 144 quid or whatever a week. Not a big problem maybe for those who have had a stable career on the old style pensions, although look what happened to the bmi pension.
Those of you in the 20/30 year age bracket will be looking at 5 years. So I guess it's stacking shelves in Tesco. Unless one has been very mature in saving and not running up huge debts......but wait....
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Unsettled
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The age restrictions used to be associated with the statistical frequency of serious, sudden, medical conditions, especially heart attacks.
A couple of things have happened since they were set up.
1. We know a lot more about heart attacks.
2. The incidence of heart attacks from 60 + yrs old in the past, now takes place at 70 + yrs old.
ICAO, EASA, FAA and CAA would be unable to justify the 65 rule in Euro/other Courts given current medical incident "averages"
However, I'd have thought that the variation between individuals is so high at 65+ that the suggestion above for tougher, individually focussed medicals would meet the needs of safety.
Balls out
The 60+ restriction was not re-instated due to the ICI incident. A number of Directors of a Division of ICI were killed due to a medical condition of a single pilot flight. The ICI gentlemen had rushed around looking for a way to get home when the commercial flights wouldn't do it. The big issue from that incident was single pilot flying for commercial purposes. (Was it also a single engine flight?) So that bit of history belongs more in the "single pilot for commercial flights" thread.
A couple of things have happened since they were set up.
1. We know a lot more about heart attacks.
2. The incidence of heart attacks from 60 + yrs old in the past, now takes place at 70 + yrs old.
ICAO, EASA, FAA and CAA would be unable to justify the 65 rule in Euro/other Courts given current medical incident "averages"
However, I'd have thought that the variation between individuals is so high at 65+ that the suggestion above for tougher, individually focussed medicals would meet the needs of safety.
Balls out
The 60+ restriction was not re-instated due to the ICI incident. A number of Directors of a Division of ICI were killed due to a medical condition of a single pilot flight. The ICI gentlemen had rushed around looking for a way to get home when the commercial flights wouldn't do it. The big issue from that incident was single pilot flying for commercial purposes. (Was it also a single engine flight?) So that bit of history belongs more in the "single pilot for commercial flights" thread.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continue the grind and die young; or bail out at a sensible age, learn how to retire and enjoy life and live longer. Your choice. Too many people do not know when enough is enough, or when they have enough. Do the sums and enjoy life. There is much more to it than an aluminium tube strapped to your backside for 12 hours a day.
penally.
I think I missed your point...wouldn't it make sense for industry to want young cheap workers in to replace the expensive old timers that are bed blocking?
I know my airline is tearing its hair out at the extra unplanned costs of pilots staying on past retirement age.
As for the rest of society, I do believe that the Western governments think that the scrapping of retirement ages and encouraging of people to stay on in work is going to bail them out of the pensions and demographics time bomb .
If one was cynical, you may ask yourself who makes up the largest demographic in Western society and who tends to turn out to vote....the elderly or the young?
I think I missed your point...wouldn't it make sense for industry to want young cheap workers in to replace the expensive old timers that are bed blocking?
I know my airline is tearing its hair out at the extra unplanned costs of pilots staying on past retirement age.
As for the rest of society, I do believe that the Western governments think that the scrapping of retirement ages and encouraging of people to stay on in work is going to bail them out of the pensions and demographics time bomb .
If one was cynical, you may ask yourself who makes up the largest demographic in Western society and who tends to turn out to vote....the elderly or the young?
Last edited by hunterboy; 29th May 2013 at 05:34.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancient Observer, I wasn't saying that the whole age 60 restriction came from the ICI incident. It did however figure highly in the age 60 single pilot rule for public transport. There were 8 ICI exec's killed on the flight and it was a Navajio which is a twin! I did quite a bit of flying for ICI at the time and they imediatley made it a company ruling that they must only fly 2 crew.
parabellum, Don't know what you are on about, you can fly til any age where you live already.
parabellum, Don't know what you are on about, you can fly til any age where you live already.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Gone Global
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hunterboy
First off, thankyou for taking my critique so well. For starters one has to agree on a common playing field; and that's not the case here. Your last sentence hit the nail on the head – for me, elections don't play a role because we don't live in a democratic system (certainly insofar as the general population is concerned). If I'm correct then that begs the question, who is running the show ? I'm sure you can guess the rest.
The increase in the retirement age is not about getting people to work longer. It's about delaying the payment of their pension until they reach that age. In the case of pilots, those who do work longer, generally do so under (new) conditions more favourable to the company. Brevity dictates that I simplify
as well as generalise but that is basically it.
First off, thankyou for taking my critique so well. For starters one has to agree on a common playing field; and that's not the case here. Your last sentence hit the nail on the head – for me, elections don't play a role because we don't live in a democratic system (certainly insofar as the general population is concerned). If I'm correct then that begs the question, who is running the show ? I'm sure you can guess the rest.
The increase in the retirement age is not about getting people to work longer. It's about delaying the payment of their pension until they reach that age. In the case of pilots, those who do work longer, generally do so under (new) conditions more favourable to the company. Brevity dictates that I simplify
as well as generalise but that is basically it.
Ballsout,
Yeah, that puts it more clearly.
I don't think it was 8 ICI bosses being killed. I thought it was 3. Maybe I'm thinking of a different incident?
The service ICI used was variously called the Co jet and/or the McAlpine jet. However, the service used on the flight that I am thinking about was, I thought, an irregular acquisition of a service.
as you say, ICI Shell BP et al then started insisting on 2 pilot flights only.
I seem to remember that the Insurance Cos started to be difficult around that time, aswell. However, i don't think they had any input in to CAA rules.
Yeah, that puts it more clearly.
I don't think it was 8 ICI bosses being killed. I thought it was 3. Maybe I'm thinking of a different incident?
The service ICI used was variously called the Co jet and/or the McAlpine jet. However, the service used on the flight that I am thinking about was, I thought, an irregular acquisition of a service.
as you say, ICI Shell BP et al then started insisting on 2 pilot flights only.
I seem to remember that the Insurance Cos started to be difficult around that time, aswell. However, i don't think they had any input in to CAA rules.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BALLSOUT
parabellum, Don't know what you are on about, you can fly til any age where
you live already.
I retired here, I flew on a UK licence (and ME and SE Asia licences). Not allowed to work here anyway on my visa then, Australian Licence or not and as for getting an airline job in Australia, as a Brit. on a long stay Temporary Residence visa? Dream on! The queue is very long and a lot of well qualified Australians are overseas and looking for opportunities to come home.
I wanted the extra five years arbitrarily taken away from me that cost me five years as a B744 skipper, that is all.
Last edited by parabellum; 29th May 2013 at 23:30.
60, or 65, or even 70, is an arbitrary number. Aviation thrives on arbitrary numbers - you see it all the time in aircraft certification criteria
and myriad number-based rules. However, most of the enlightened world has put anti-age discrimination into law. Hence pilots should NOT be singled out for special treatment (of the wrong kind) on the basis of some number.
I have flown with guys who were well past it by the time they were in their late 40's or early 50's. Some who never even had the 'right stuff' at 30 - and probably never would. But they made it to command. These are the ones who do need to be weeded out by the check and training system, because they sure won't get better as they age.
At the other end of the smarts spectrum, I have a couple of close friends one of whom is mid 70's and the other just turned 80. They still pass their first class medicals and can still fly safely, though they only dabble in it now. In fact the guy in his 70s recently did a B737 Type Rating simply because he had no jet time and wanted to see how hard it was. He found that it wasn't.
Since turning 60 I have done two jet and one complex turbo-prop type ratings and did not find any of it difficult. What did begin to hurt the old body was the tiring effect of successive maximum duty days and it was this that pushed me into giving up full-time flying - oh and they stiffed me on entitlements, but that's another story.... I am now fortunate to have a part-time position with the rarely-found freedom to actually manage my fatigue like the book says and refuse any trip I don't like. Lucky me.
So, it should be acknowledged by the industry that deterioration with age is a highly variable process. Perhaps all civil aviation authorities could learn from Australian CASA, which has its own way of dealing with us old-timers, while acknowledging the law against age discrimination. As a pilot ages, CASA keeps upping the ante on their medical requirements. Ever with their snouts in the trough, the medical specialists keep upping their costs. Setting up appointments (two months' notice needed to see aviation-approved opthamologists and cardiologists in some cities) and running all over town to jump through hoops every six months becomes a pain in the bum. Chuck in all the peripheral bullsh!t like recurrent security courses, dangerous goods certification, CRM, police checks for ID etc every two years and that natural part of aging - intolerance (aka grumpy old man/woman syndrome) - means most go gracefully around the 65 year mark anyway. A few do need to hang on past that age because they have had a few wives (some of them their own).
If the embuggerance of medicals and certification does not do it, young guns waiting for the LHS may need to pay off the right people in the rostering department to ensure that the old timers cop all the long, back-of-clock trips, with minimum rest. That must soon translate to health issues which will get to the hangers-on eventually. Then their most recent wives can look after them in their decrepitude. Quite right, too.
So, Gen X and Gen Y, stop your whining, you will be 65 soon enough.
and myriad number-based rules. However, most of the enlightened world has put anti-age discrimination into law. Hence pilots should NOT be singled out for special treatment (of the wrong kind) on the basis of some number.
I have flown with guys who were well past it by the time they were in their late 40's or early 50's. Some who never even had the 'right stuff' at 30 - and probably never would. But they made it to command. These are the ones who do need to be weeded out by the check and training system, because they sure won't get better as they age.
At the other end of the smarts spectrum, I have a couple of close friends one of whom is mid 70's and the other just turned 80. They still pass their first class medicals and can still fly safely, though they only dabble in it now. In fact the guy in his 70s recently did a B737 Type Rating simply because he had no jet time and wanted to see how hard it was. He found that it wasn't.
Since turning 60 I have done two jet and one complex turbo-prop type ratings and did not find any of it difficult. What did begin to hurt the old body was the tiring effect of successive maximum duty days and it was this that pushed me into giving up full-time flying - oh and they stiffed me on entitlements, but that's another story.... I am now fortunate to have a part-time position with the rarely-found freedom to actually manage my fatigue like the book says and refuse any trip I don't like. Lucky me.
So, it should be acknowledged by the industry that deterioration with age is a highly variable process. Perhaps all civil aviation authorities could learn from Australian CASA, which has its own way of dealing with us old-timers, while acknowledging the law against age discrimination. As a pilot ages, CASA keeps upping the ante on their medical requirements. Ever with their snouts in the trough, the medical specialists keep upping their costs. Setting up appointments (two months' notice needed to see aviation-approved opthamologists and cardiologists in some cities) and running all over town to jump through hoops every six months becomes a pain in the bum. Chuck in all the peripheral bullsh!t like recurrent security courses, dangerous goods certification, CRM, police checks for ID etc every two years and that natural part of aging - intolerance (aka grumpy old man/woman syndrome) - means most go gracefully around the 65 year mark anyway. A few do need to hang on past that age because they have had a few wives (some of them their own).
If the embuggerance of medicals and certification does not do it, young guns waiting for the LHS may need to pay off the right people in the rostering department to ensure that the old timers cop all the long, back-of-clock trips, with minimum rest. That must soon translate to health issues which will get to the hangers-on eventually. Then their most recent wives can look after them in their decrepitude. Quite right, too.
So, Gen X and Gen Y, stop your whining, you will be 65 soon enough.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 30th May 2013 at 10:04.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am totally with Mach E Valli .You all will be 65 far too soon as you will realise eventually.
Thank God for Australia and New Guinea and New Zealand and Fiji where I can happily fly my 767 at age 67.
And I will until at least 72.
Thank God for Australia and New Guinea and New Zealand and Fiji where I can happily fly my 767 at age 67.
And I will until at least 72.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U K
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]those who do work longer, generally do so under (new) conditions more favourable to the company. [/QUOTE
In Europe it is against the age discrimination regulations to insist on you accepting any reduction in your terms and conditions because of your age so you shouldn't accept them. If the company is challenged in this way they would soon back down.
In Europe it is against the age discrimination regulations to insist on you accepting any reduction in your terms and conditions because of your age so you shouldn't accept them. If the company is challenged in this way they would soon back down.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum, even though the retirement age went up to 65, presumably, you would not have been able to secure employment in Australia, from what you say, anyway. But by going to 65, again, presumably, you regret the freedom of choice of, perhaps, being able to go another five years, somewhere else ? Frustrating & cost you, potentially, another five years of top-end earnings. Was there any possibility of seeking employment outside of Australia up to age 65 ?
Mate of mine worked for a ME carrier that just could not handle the age issue. Local Regulatory Authorities all cleared the Age 65 Rule. His company, forced to recognise this (local labour laws didn't for expats) got into a terrible muddle. Enhanced medical standard was enforced (not by the local CAA but by the company) and quite a few failed. Only one year contracts of employment were issued. He fell fowl of the enhanced medical but took up his case with the UKCAA. He obtained his UK CAA Class one & local CAA AME passed him for the local Class one. The Company went nuts and insisted that he was required to pass the Company enhanced medical & had no interest in where he obtained his Class one medical certs ! He battled on but , eventually, all pilots aged over 60 were didmissed. I cannot say if this was for expats or locals too.
He feels as miffed as you do & often wondered if there was a case for these pilots to sue on the basis of loss of earnings. He was 63 at the time of the cull & just got on with retirement, pleasingly, very happy.
For your loss, parabellum, there is probably insufficient case to head towards the courts & I doubt you would want too anyway. All a bit of a disappointing mess for those caught in the transition. My mates in UK carriers never faced these problems. Age went up to 65 & that's it. Cool.Anyway, five years earnings as a B747 Skipper is nothing, eh ?.........Yeah, right.
Mate of mine worked for a ME carrier that just could not handle the age issue. Local Regulatory Authorities all cleared the Age 65 Rule. His company, forced to recognise this (local labour laws didn't for expats) got into a terrible muddle. Enhanced medical standard was enforced (not by the local CAA but by the company) and quite a few failed. Only one year contracts of employment were issued. He fell fowl of the enhanced medical but took up his case with the UKCAA. He obtained his UK CAA Class one & local CAA AME passed him for the local Class one. The Company went nuts and insisted that he was required to pass the Company enhanced medical & had no interest in where he obtained his Class one medical certs ! He battled on but , eventually, all pilots aged over 60 were didmissed. I cannot say if this was for expats or locals too.
He feels as miffed as you do & often wondered if there was a case for these pilots to sue on the basis of loss of earnings. He was 63 at the time of the cull & just got on with retirement, pleasingly, very happy.
For your loss, parabellum, there is probably insufficient case to head towards the courts & I doubt you would want too anyway. All a bit of a disappointing mess for those caught in the transition. My mates in UK carriers never faced these problems. Age went up to 65 & that's it. Cool.Anyway, five years earnings as a B747 Skipper is nothing, eh ?.........Yeah, right.
Past 65, if you can get work as a part-timer or sim instructor, this is a good way of staying connected, earning beer money and putting your knowledge and experience to good use. Medical opinion seems to support the idea that over 60's who remain mentally active and moderately challenged have a better chance of prolonged healthy lives.
On the other hand, flying maximum hours with minimum rest and the associated stress of meeting employer demands appears to have the opposite effect if you persist with it for too long. If you are in the unfortunate position of having to fly to the max to pay the bills at age 65, chances are you're gonna die sooner rather than later.
My ambition is not to be the richest man in the graveyard, but to die with a dollar in the bank and by being shot by the jealous husband of a 35 year old.
I reckon I will achieve the dollar remaining OK, but am not too confident that I will justify the shooting bit.
On the other hand, flying maximum hours with minimum rest and the associated stress of meeting employer demands appears to have the opposite effect if you persist with it for too long. If you are in the unfortunate position of having to fly to the max to pay the bills at age 65, chances are you're gonna die sooner rather than later.
My ambition is not to be the richest man in the graveyard, but to die with a dollar in the bank and by being shot by the jealous husband of a 35 year old.
I reckon I will achieve the dollar remaining OK, but am not too confident that I will justify the shooting bit.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 30th May 2013 at 10:43.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi slowjet, thanks for that, yes nail on the head. At the time of my retirement the USA, France, India and Italy would not allow an aircraft in it's airspace if a pilot was over 60 so there were no viable alternatives.
Think I may know your friend from the ME, good friend of mine too, now in Cyprus!
Yes indeed, why get upset at losing five years as a top end earner with an airline that has been known to pay up to five months salary as annual bonus!?
Think I may know your friend from the ME, good friend of mine too, now in Cyprus!
Yes indeed, why get upset at losing five years as a top end earner with an airline that has been known to pay up to five months salary as annual bonus!?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the responses have tended to be around the cushey long-haul captain (on his umpteenth marriage) in a 'milk and honey' airline and why should he want to continue working and holding some 'poor' first officer back from promotion because surely he must be 'beyond it' from now. There has also been a lot of finger-pointing at the employers for not keeping pilots on after certain ages.
Well let's consider the real world out there. There are hundreds and hundreds of pilots that have had airlines go bust around them causing chaos to future retirement financial planning. There are also hundreds of pilots who have had their pension provision plummet, either due to unscrupulous airline owners or to the vagaries of the values of money-purchase pensions. There are also hundreds of pilots who have had no company pension provided by their employers. Those pilots would all like to have the option to continue working to be able to build up to what they probably had expected to be able to retire on but is now just that bit (or quite a bit!) further away.
Ability to continue should be seen in context: one of the marvels of the modern western world is that on average people are living a lot longer and are remaining fit and capable for a lot longer. In the most tightly regulated industry in this aspect, medical fitness and operating competence should not have any arbitrary age consideration but should be considered on an individual basis. A 70-year-old has been into space, so flying an airliner should not be limited by age, as long as there is the correct regulatory monitoring.
The big problem here is that UK law prohibits anyone from acting as a captain or a co-pilot on any public transport aircraft over the age of 65 (this is not a 'hire and reward' issue as there is not the same age limit for various other 'hire and reward' jobs like flying instruction and other aerial work). UK law is also raising the age that one is able to draw a state pension above 65. This means that any pilot who has suffered a financial catastrophe and has poor pension provision is not allowed to continue to work in his job over 65, but is also not allowed to have the top up of the state pension that he has paid towards for all his working life. This issue shows that any claim by any politicians in Britain that age discrimination is illegal in Britain is a blatant lie.
And final to those first officers who have been grumbling about captains not retiring and thereby not 'releasing' command positions for them: just sod off, stop being so self-centred and greedy, and wait your turn!!
Well let's consider the real world out there. There are hundreds and hundreds of pilots that have had airlines go bust around them causing chaos to future retirement financial planning. There are also hundreds of pilots who have had their pension provision plummet, either due to unscrupulous airline owners or to the vagaries of the values of money-purchase pensions. There are also hundreds of pilots who have had no company pension provided by their employers. Those pilots would all like to have the option to continue working to be able to build up to what they probably had expected to be able to retire on but is now just that bit (or quite a bit!) further away.
Ability to continue should be seen in context: one of the marvels of the modern western world is that on average people are living a lot longer and are remaining fit and capable for a lot longer. In the most tightly regulated industry in this aspect, medical fitness and operating competence should not have any arbitrary age consideration but should be considered on an individual basis. A 70-year-old has been into space, so flying an airliner should not be limited by age, as long as there is the correct regulatory monitoring.
The big problem here is that UK law prohibits anyone from acting as a captain or a co-pilot on any public transport aircraft over the age of 65 (this is not a 'hire and reward' issue as there is not the same age limit for various other 'hire and reward' jobs like flying instruction and other aerial work). UK law is also raising the age that one is able to draw a state pension above 65. This means that any pilot who has suffered a financial catastrophe and has poor pension provision is not allowed to continue to work in his job over 65, but is also not allowed to have the top up of the state pension that he has paid towards for all his working life. This issue shows that any claim by any politicians in Britain that age discrimination is illegal in Britain is a blatant lie.
And final to those first officers who have been grumbling about captains not retiring and thereby not 'releasing' command positions for them: just sod off, stop being so self-centred and greedy, and wait your turn!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: LGW
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trossie.....Bang on! It never ceases to amaze me how many FO's seem to consider it their God given right for an upgrade and that older skippers should just stand down/step aside to allow them to climb the greasy pole.
I wonder what their stance will be when they reach 60 plus and a new breed of greedy FO's are telling them to
off and allow them to move up!
I wonder what their stance will be when they reach 60 plus and a new breed of greedy FO's are telling them to
off and allow them to move up!
Last edited by Easy Glider; 2nd Jun 2013 at 21:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: varies between UK, Belgium & Turkey
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was written in 2004:
Upon review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.
So is anyone interested in getting a group together to address this inequality in the regulations?
I am meeting my MP, Vincent Cable, to see what the procedure is for a challenge in Europe.
Upon review of the existing evidence, the Aerospace Medical Association concludes there is insufficient medical evidence to support restriction of pilot certification based upon age alone.
So is anyone interested in getting a group together to address this inequality in the regulations?
I am meeting my MP, Vincent Cable, to see what the procedure is for a challenge in Europe.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP MEETING.
I wish you the best of luck, pedds, when you see Mr Cable.
Before this coalition setup grabbed the helm, I used to think he talked a lot of common sense, unusual in that trade!
But since he went into government, blotted his copybook with truthful but embarassing statements, he seems to be imbibing the Parliamentary equivalent of bromide in his tea, and can no longer get it up politically.................................! Don't hold your breath for the outcome?
And anyway, with nearly 80% of our legislation already signed, stamped and sealed as it leaves the EU offices to be "gold-plated" and made even more silly by UK Civil Service, what can our reps in "Halitosis Hall" do for us anyway?
Before this coalition setup grabbed the helm, I used to think he talked a lot of common sense, unusual in that trade!
But since he went into government, blotted his copybook with truthful but embarassing statements, he seems to be imbibing the Parliamentary equivalent of bromide in his tea, and can no longer get it up politically.................................! Don't hold your breath for the outcome?
And anyway, with nearly 80% of our legislation already signed, stamped and sealed as it leaves the EU offices to be "gold-plated" and made even more silly by UK Civil Service, what can our reps in "Halitosis Hall" do for us anyway?