Retirement Age for Pilots
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitigation policy for reducing pensions liability
It's a conscious policy of governments and airline management to aid the premature killing off of pilots with fatiguing life threatening FTL's so that they have little to no pensions liability in the long term.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying for some is like a drug they can't give up and even after retiring they travel the same routes, stay in the same hotels, can't seem to shake of the "Good morning Captain jock strap" at the hotel reception.. plan to give up at 60 and start a hobby or part time job plan 5 years before, enjoy your life and get out of the rut! If I could afford it I would give up today after 23 years of stomach gas,haemorrhoids, sleepless nights.. would I want a 70 year old surgeon? perhaps as a consultant but not holding the control of the knife!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liek anything else - if you still like it/love it and they are willing to pay yoiu why not keep going?
My idea of hell is a retirement to an olde worlde cottage with a high maintenance garden in the sticks with no entertainment, no doctors and only similarly aged folk all around me..................
My idea of hell is a retirement to an olde worlde cottage with a high maintenance garden in the sticks with no entertainment, no doctors and only similarly aged folk all around me..................
I am fascinated by this thread and the number of posts against a rise in the enforced retirement age. Over on the rotary side there has been almost unanimous support for a rise albeit that many helicopters are single pilot and so caught by the restriction to multipilot from 60 to 65
This culminated in an employment tribunal brought by a pilot called Ian Evans who took on the CAA and their army of lawyers single handedly. In a week long hearing it was clearly shown and accepted by the court that the risk of incapacitation let alone death at 70 was less in about 2010 than the risk of death at 55 had been 20 years earlier. The CAA admitted there was no scientific reason to not raise the age limit but relied on legislation that allowed them to maintain the status quo simply on the grounds that changing the rule cost money they did not have
I can think of very few professions where many members argue to be banned. Bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. The excuse that it takes jobs off younger pilots is lame given the world shortage. Many pilots want to retire or change profession, but it should be their choice. On the other hand there is data in professions such as medicine that experience is the most important determinator of outcome, which for flying equates to safety.
This culminated in an employment tribunal brought by a pilot called Ian Evans who took on the CAA and their army of lawyers single handedly. In a week long hearing it was clearly shown and accepted by the court that the risk of incapacitation let alone death at 70 was less in about 2010 than the risk of death at 55 had been 20 years earlier. The CAA admitted there was no scientific reason to not raise the age limit but relied on legislation that allowed them to maintain the status quo simply on the grounds that changing the rule cost money they did not have
I can think of very few professions where many members argue to be banned. Bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. The excuse that it takes jobs off younger pilots is lame given the world shortage. Many pilots want to retire or change profession, but it should be their choice. On the other hand there is data in professions such as medicine that experience is the most important determinator of outcome, which for flying equates to safety.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well here in the UK the state pension age has risen to between 67 - 69 depending on your date of birth, few if any pilots jobs now come with final salary pensions, many pilots have had more than a handful of jobs so have little pensions with different providers and the state pension is now flat more or less anyway, so despite pouring huge amounts into HRC through our taxes you’ll get the same money as the lay about down the road.
Personally I have no great wish to go on and on, but I feel that so long as you pass your medical and 6 monthly sim check why make it mandatory?
The taking jobs off the young is a red herring, at worst it might delay but once you catch up with the retirement cycle it makes no odds, airline growth or lack of is a bigger threat to the young ones and many 19 year old pilots would benefit from having done something else, they would certainly moan less if they had worked in the real world.
Personally I have no great wish to go on and on, but I feel that so long as you pass your medical and 6 monthly sim check why make it mandatory?
The taking jobs off the young is a red herring, at worst it might delay but once you catch up with the retirement cycle it makes no odds, airline growth or lack of is a bigger threat to the young ones and many 19 year old pilots would benefit from having done something else, they would certainly moan less if they had worked in the real world.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My thoughts exactly. Over here in germany the retirement is currently rising from 65 to 67. As we do have to retire at 65 due to license regs (well, we could continue to work as TRI/TREs) drawing the state pension at 65 will actually result in losing 7,2% of it. So we are actually punished by the regulator for following its rules.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was the 65 XAA limit ever tested under EU age discrimination regs? There are some airlines whose contracts are automatically terminated at 60 or even less. It is not age discrimination, even under the 65 ATPL reg', because the employment contract you signed had an age limit in it. Having said that, some mates in the nationals, who were force retired between 55 & 60, had pensions higher than my full time salary at 62.
What always confused me was why, at say 57 with pockets brimming, they sought out the Asian airlines to continue having an aluminium tube strapped to your bum for 14 hours and 10 hours time change. My wife always said it was because of 3 x alimony. Perhaps she's correct. Sad.
But I wonder if there is a claim that forced retirement from a low or non pension employment, even dubious self-employment, before government old age pension age is penalising for no good reason. Ground based guys can continue until government pension age, it's just pilots. Or what about HGV drivers, train drivers, ship's captains etc. What rules do comparable professions operate under, including surgeons? But as I've said, most other professions of equal responsibility, education, income etc. will have the personnel enrolled in decent company pensions. I flew with 9 airlines in 4 different countries for 32 years and achieved a company pension in only one of them for 7 years. There will be others, and to create a gap in their retirement annual income of a couple of years seems harsh.
If governments change rules to save money which they and friends have frittered away, without considering all the victims, is not responsible. I guess it was because the national pilots' unions were centred egotistically at the unaffected national airlines and did not oppose the matter.
However, I'm not advocating raising the piloting age limit to match the pension age, rather advocating that certain professions that have a mandatory retirement age are not penalised without any options. Do civil servants still get their pension at 60? Well then, if so, discretionary deviations are possible.
What always confused me was why, at say 57 with pockets brimming, they sought out the Asian airlines to continue having an aluminium tube strapped to your bum for 14 hours and 10 hours time change. My wife always said it was because of 3 x alimony. Perhaps she's correct. Sad.
But I wonder if there is a claim that forced retirement from a low or non pension employment, even dubious self-employment, before government old age pension age is penalising for no good reason. Ground based guys can continue until government pension age, it's just pilots. Or what about HGV drivers, train drivers, ship's captains etc. What rules do comparable professions operate under, including surgeons? But as I've said, most other professions of equal responsibility, education, income etc. will have the personnel enrolled in decent company pensions. I flew with 9 airlines in 4 different countries for 32 years and achieved a company pension in only one of them for 7 years. There will be others, and to create a gap in their retirement annual income of a couple of years seems harsh.
If governments change rules to save money which they and friends have frittered away, without considering all the victims, is not responsible. I guess it was because the national pilots' unions were centred egotistically at the unaffected national airlines and did not oppose the matter.
However, I'm not advocating raising the piloting age limit to match the pension age, rather advocating that certain professions that have a mandatory retirement age are not penalised without any options. Do civil servants still get their pension at 60? Well then, if so, discretionary deviations are possible.
Last edited by RAT 5; 28th Jan 2018 at 21:07.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand there is data in professions such as medicine that experience is the most important determinator of outcome, which for flying equates to safety.
I can’t speak for medicine, but for flying, what a load of bolony.
Anyone with more than 15 minutes in this industry will tell you. The number of hours in your logbook is absolutely no determinant whatever of competence! Yet on the flip side, certainly I’m not aware of any pilot claiming to be better in their early 60s than they were in their early 50s! Sadly, and inevitably, we go downhill as we age. Any reduction in our mental capacity is seriously frowned upon. Just look at the minuscule blood alcohol limit proscribed for pilots!
I would suggest, the most important determinant of safety in flying is a combination of basic abilities (which inevitably reduce as we age!) combined with quality training.
In any case, there are perfectly acceptable justifications in law for stipulating a retirement age for pilots. Only one of which is preservation of the dignity of older pilots.
Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law.
Er, let me be the one then...I feel that experience albeit dependant on the type of experience does make you better ergo I am ‘better’ than in my early 50s. I am indifferent personally to continuing beyond 65 but feel that if people are willing and fit, why not? My personal incredulity extends to a post that ends ‘congratulations to the caa’ , in 40 years airline flying, I’ve never heard that expression...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you say that that expression disqualifies the poster on grounds of something like diminished faculties? I too find that expression rather astounding!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry. I should probably have been a little more specific? I should really have said:
“Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law”, and preserving the dignity of those who, seemingly have lost the common sense to do it for themselves.
Does that read better?
“Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law”, and preserving the dignity of those who, seemingly have lost the common sense to do it for themselves.
Does that read better?
Sadly not
I know too many pilots with crummy pensions who would carry on safely were it not for rules that have no scientific basis and which the CAA accept are wrong. We would all like to retire at 40 but at least many other professions can keep their nose to the grindstone to achieve a comfortable retirement.
All we are asking is the same freedom of choice most other people have and rules that have a scientific basis
I know too many pilots with crummy pensions who would carry on safely were it not for rules that have no scientific basis and which the CAA accept are wrong. We would all like to retire at 40 but at least many other professions can keep their nose to the grindstone to achieve a comfortable retirement.
All we are asking is the same freedom of choice most other people have and rules that have a scientific basis
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah I see.
So I think you’re saying that some pilots feel compelled to continue flying beyond 65, purely for financial reasons? It’s not that they actually want to? As you say, we’d all like to retire at 40.
If you accept that many of us would be unsuitably equipped to continue flying into our 70s. Isn’t there a danger that circumstances, rather than suitability, become an inappropriate driver for pilots continuing into old age.
That alone seems to be a perfectly justifiable reason for preserving older pilots dignity. One of a number of Objective Justifications for compulsory retirement allowed in law
Edited to add: What do you mean ‘crummy pensions’? Do you mean in 45 years in the workplace, these people haven’t managed to save a penny?
So I think you’re saying that some pilots feel compelled to continue flying beyond 65, purely for financial reasons? It’s not that they actually want to? As you say, we’d all like to retire at 40.
If you accept that many of us would be unsuitably equipped to continue flying into our 70s. Isn’t there a danger that circumstances, rather than suitability, become an inappropriate driver for pilots continuing into old age.
That alone seems to be a perfectly justifiable reason for preserving older pilots dignity. One of a number of Objective Justifications for compulsory retirement allowed in law
Edited to add: What do you mean ‘crummy pensions’? Do you mean in 45 years in the workplace, these people haven’t managed to save a penny?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Face it - 65 was set as the standard retirement age in the Uk in 1912 when people were expected to die when they were 68
People live longer. they're fitter AND they start work almost a decade later
So should everyone work to 75? Of course not
but a cut-off set 100 years ago is also stupid.......
People live longer. they're fitter AND they start work almost a decade later
So should everyone work to 75? Of course not
but a cut-off set 100 years ago is also stupid.......
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Scribble
Know your law.
The law accepts Objective Justifications which, in certain circumstances, allow a compulsory retirement age. Age being the only one of the nine ‘protected characteristics’ to which OJs apply.
Ageing has a deleterious effect on humans. Not only is a compulsory retirement age recognised as acceptable in law, in specified circumstances. It is also common sense.
Though I accept, some of our elderly will not like it.
If you really MUST continue earning beyond 65, move to a state that allows elderly pilots, or find a job that is less critical to the safety of the flying public.
Heathrow Harry
1912 was an interesting year. Only 9 years after the Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, I imagine the majority of ‘pilots’ were airship (derigible) pilots? Certainly it was the year of the creation of the RFC, and the first US Marine Corps pilot commenced training. Some were struggling to fly across the English Channel in a time of around 60 minutes. The World Altitude record was around 13,000’!
I imagine it also preceded ATC since Mr Marconi had only invented a very heavy, and primitive radio set in 1895.
My, how the demands on our steely eyed aviators have changed!
Know your law.
The law accepts Objective Justifications which, in certain circumstances, allow a compulsory retirement age. Age being the only one of the nine ‘protected characteristics’ to which OJs apply.
Ageing has a deleterious effect on humans. Not only is a compulsory retirement age recognised as acceptable in law, in specified circumstances. It is also common sense.
Though I accept, some of our elderly will not like it.
If you really MUST continue earning beyond 65, move to a state that allows elderly pilots, or find a job that is less critical to the safety of the flying public.
Heathrow Harry
1912 was an interesting year. Only 9 years after the Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, I imagine the majority of ‘pilots’ were airship (derigible) pilots? Certainly it was the year of the creation of the RFC, and the first US Marine Corps pilot commenced training. Some were struggling to fly across the English Channel in a time of around 60 minutes. The World Altitude record was around 13,000’!
I imagine it also preceded ATC since Mr Marconi had only invented a very heavy, and primitive radio set in 1895.
My, how the demands on our steely eyed aviators have changed!
Last edited by 4468; 29th Jan 2018 at 23:36.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I think anyone who wishes to do this job beyond the age of 65 is nuts. My opinion.
Personally, I’ve got absolutely no desire to be up all night crossing multiple time zones in my late 60s or early 70s unless I’m going on holiday. Every single pilot flying today has always known that they have to retire at 65, and that’s what I signed up for. I fail to see why promotion opportunities should be effectively closed off (for an undefined period of time) because others choose to try and move the goalposts at the end of their career, to suit their own circumstances.
The law doesn’t really come into it, as you cannot hold a Class 1 medical for commercial flying purposes beyond the age of 65. If you’ve failed to sort a pension during what is a reasonably well paid career then that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay for it. “Age discrimination” doesn’t cut it as an argument either, as changing the medical rules & effectively removing the CRA discriminates just as much against younger people by preventing their career advancement by ‘bed blocking’ (for want of a better expression)
If this is the way we’re heading, and people must absolutely keep flying beyond 65 then feel free, but do so as an FO in the right hand seat, on FOs money.
Personally, I’ve got absolutely no desire to be up all night crossing multiple time zones in my late 60s or early 70s unless I’m going on holiday. Every single pilot flying today has always known that they have to retire at 65, and that’s what I signed up for. I fail to see why promotion opportunities should be effectively closed off (for an undefined period of time) because others choose to try and move the goalposts at the end of their career, to suit their own circumstances.
The law doesn’t really come into it, as you cannot hold a Class 1 medical for commercial flying purposes beyond the age of 65. If you’ve failed to sort a pension during what is a reasonably well paid career then that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay for it. “Age discrimination” doesn’t cut it as an argument either, as changing the medical rules & effectively removing the CRA discriminates just as much against younger people by preventing their career advancement by ‘bed blocking’ (for want of a better expression)
If this is the way we’re heading, and people must absolutely keep flying beyond 65 then feel free, but do so as an FO in the right hand seat, on FOs money.
Last edited by DuctOvht; 30th Jan 2018 at 14:38.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4468, you sound as if you have become an old fart far too young! There is no 'Objective Justifications' saying that you must get old too quickly.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: over the rainbow
Age: 75
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From birth they lived and grew up in an 'olde worlde' cottage complete with a professionally manicured country garden.
Now both highly successful in their respective careers, they live with their spouses and young children in Central London. Wild horses would not drag them back to the country idyll.