Retirement Age for Pilots
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My son and daughter, both in their thirties, live with their spouses and young children in Central London; Wild horses would not drag them back to the country idyll.
Yet.
Yet.
Well, I am happy old fart who had to retire at 55 - far too young. So I found another job. I'm now fully retired and feel all the better for it. Like many others here, the idea of all those nights out of bed, early morning calls and multiple time zone changes at age 65, let alone 75, would fill me with horror.
I was lucky and have good pension, but feel it is much better to enjoy a quiet life after 60........or perhaps 65 at a pinch.
I was lucky and have good pension, but feel it is much better to enjoy a quiet life after 60........or perhaps 65 at a pinch.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny old thing, our two of similar ages have settled into very good engineering careers living in the country idyll (one in a thatched cottage). Wild horses would not drag them to a city!
Each to their own!
Each to their own!
I suppose the ideal comprimise would be to allow people to continue ad infinitum based on medical & operational competence, but at 65+ they go back to the bottom of the seniority list or have to reapply for their position. Surely therefore if they are up to the job and love their career so much then there will be no objection. I wouldn't like to think that they want to carry on purely based on the fact they have got to the top of the mountain but want to cling on to the nice view from the top for themselves?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a compromise, but it doesn’t go far enough for me.
As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.
Stopping at 65 can’t happen if the goalposts move mid-game and people who signed up to go at 65 force a change in the rules that mean they can carry on until they drop. By doing so they’re effectively forcing the rest of us to work longer than we would wish as the earnings we’re banking on, and the pensions we’re planning on, won’t exist at 65. The bottom line is that I shouldn’t have to work into my 70s because someone else has decided they’d like to.
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.
As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.
Stopping at 65 can’t happen if the goalposts move mid-game and people who signed up to go at 65 force a change in the rules that mean they can carry on until they drop. By doing so they’re effectively forcing the rest of us to work longer than we would wish as the earnings we’re banking on, and the pensions we’re planning on, won’t exist at 65. The bottom line is that I shouldn’t have to work into my 70s because someone else has decided they’d like to.
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.
Last edited by DuctOvht; 30th Jan 2018 at 21:24.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What all airlines will have when the market reaches saturation point & relentless expansion is no longer an option.
Just for you Trossie;
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list (if your airline has one). That is the only fair way for this to work.
Just for you Trossie;
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list (if your airline has one). That is the only fair way for this to work.
That is a compromise, but it doesn’t go far enough for me.
As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.
Stopping at 65 can’t happen if the goalposts move mid-game and people who signed up to go at 65 force a change in the rules that mean they can carry on until they drop. By doing so they’re effectively forcing the rest of us to work longer than we wish, because we won’t be getting the pensions we’ve planned for at 65.
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.
As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.
Stopping at 65 can’t happen if the goalposts move mid-game and people who signed up to go at 65 force a change in the rules that mean they can carry on until they drop. By doing so they’re effectively forcing the rest of us to work longer than we wish, because we won’t be getting the pensions we’ve planned for at 65.
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.
I see two distinct demographics, at a Legacy carrier anyway. Those who joined in the 70's/80's at a relatively young age, enjoyed a quick Command due to expansion combined with a longer than expected career as the Retirement age slowly stepped up to 65.
Then you have those on the other side of the curve, joined in the late 90's/2000's and have had rather stagnated careers. Firstly, many were hired into the Legacy carriers at an older age than the generation before them, missed most of the expansion so had to wait longer for promotion, yet had those promotions delayed even more as the retirement age crept up. Almost a generation of career FO's.
We all knew from the beginning that we'd eventually be forced to retire in this job. For those approaching 65, be thankful you've had an extra 5-10 years.
At the risk of poking the bear, Boomers and early Gen X's have had the best opportunities to set themselves up for retirement, not just Pilots, but overall. I could work until 80 and probably still not be as well off in retirement as some of the Captains I've flown with whose property portfolios alone dwarf my earnings as an FO.
The compromise is that should anyone wish to carry on beyond the age of 65 they can do so as FOs, on FOs money, at the bottom of the seniority list. That is the only fair way for this to work.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, we all signed up to retire at 65. I’d sincerely like to retire before that if I can. For that to happen, my career needs to pan out the way I expected it to when I signed on the dotted line. I know there are pension issues in a number of airlines at the moment, but that is another debate.
With current mandatory pilot retirement and state pension age only 1 year apart, today the margin is in fact the narrowest it has ever been (although that is currently set to widen again).
Another unfortunate reality is that in many cases the occupational pensions that pilots “signed up” to decades ago, didn’t live up to the promises and expectations that always allowed for that careful fiscal planning to bear the fruit it supposedly promised.
For those pilots that wanted to, needed to, and were medically fit to do so, it wasn’t unreasonable that they continued flying beyond their once planned retirement dates up to the new retirement dates the law allowed. The natural leveller was always going to be the ability to maintain a medical certificate as it always had been and as it is now. Far from being a wave of pilots that retired at 55, and then 60 and later 65, the medical Standard has always smoothed out the curve such that the wave is more of a ripple than a tsunami by the time it reaches the compulsory buffer.
I have seen pilots happy to retire early, or at the date their occupational pensions first allowed, or as late as the current legislation allowed. I have also seen a lot who were medically forced to retire early. Whatever the case, it should always be their choice. Inevitably, this same demographic comprises the most experienced pilots in the industry. These pilots therefore have a value and should be encouraged and rewarded to stay on.
Exuberance of youth will always want everybody ahead of them to get out of the way in their anxiety to achieve the pots of gold that they perceive they are being blocked from. I was the same, and watched as those at the top of the seniority list glacially clung on as long as they could. The closer you get to that pinnacle, the more you will have experienced the reasons why people want to continue.
Whilst it is true that those drawing a pension can maintain a standard of living on today’s levels of reduced remuneration to a greater or lesser extent, it is not true that those pilots are causal to that reduced remuneration. When the lo-co revolution started to take hold in the “nineties” the levels of command pay remained fairly consistent. It was the legislative changes to FCL requirements that brought hoards of youngsters with 250 hours (previously 700 hours) clamouring for a licence and the right seat of a jet. The laws of supply and demand coupled with a healthy dose of business acumen, opportunity and greed, brought the T&C’s at the entry level crashing down. It was only a matter of time for that to make its way further up the tree, and “hey presto” it arrived!
You can remove the age limitation for pilots (and sooner or later they will) and the medical standard will then be the sole attrition tool.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Or go into private ops, if you're up to it.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Not everyone was an airline pilot.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m afraid the law will not allow for pilots who reach a certain age (65?) to effectively be demoted to FO, or to be repositioned at the bottom of a seniority list, should one exist. Indeed any less favourable treatment, purely on the basis of age will by definition be clearly ‘ageist’! That is against the law. Absolutely correctly, it should not be tolerated.
However...... There are a number of Objective Justifications allowable in law, to proscribe compulsory retirement of pilots upon reaching a certain age. Not only is a compulsory retirement age legal. To many of us, it appears eminently sensible.
It doesn’t escape many’s attention that those agitating for an increase in retirement age, tend to be those coming to the latter stages of their careers. Having, for decades taken full advantage of the compulsory retirement of the cohorts of pilots before them!
Where are the legions of twenty year old pilots pushing for an extension to all of our careers?
However...... There are a number of Objective Justifications allowable in law, to proscribe compulsory retirement of pilots upon reaching a certain age. Not only is a compulsory retirement age legal. To many of us, it appears eminently sensible.
It doesn’t escape many’s attention that those agitating for an increase in retirement age, tend to be those coming to the latter stages of their careers. Having, for decades taken full advantage of the compulsory retirement of the cohorts of pilots before them!
Where are the legions of twenty year old pilots pushing for an extension to all of our careers?
Exuberance of youth will always want everybody ahead of them to get out of the way in their anxiety to achieve the pots of gold that they perceive they are being blocked from. I was the same, and watched as those at the top of the seniority list glacially clung on as long as they could. The closer you get to that pinnacle, the more you will have experienced the reasons why people want to continue.
As another poster mentioned, I'm yet to see any youngsters pushing for the retirement age to go up.... in fact, the only Pilots I have spoken to that support an increase are fast approaching 65 while also occupying the LHS of a Widebody.
While I do agree to some extent that the Medical should be the deciding factor, I've also seen how ugly things can get when a senior pilots abilities start to deteriorate and they get stood down. Stones get thrown, names called, Lawyers paid, in the end, an unfortunate way to finish ones career.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh absolutely,
The young will never push for a rise in the retirement age. I certainly didn’t. At 20 I fully expected to be well off by the time I was 40 and that thing called retirement was something so far over the horizon that it didn’t really matter much. In any event the dinosaurs I sat next to at work were forever banging on about how good our scheme was, the very pride of the golden goose! Then life happened.
The retirement scheme was made more expensive. Employers of funded schemes availed themselves of contribution holidays content to believe that the sun would always shine. Then came the deluge. The economy tanked. The scheme was frozen to new members. Then it was frozen to existing contributions. Then it was turned into a supreme burden that had to be hived off into a quasi-state protection scheme with significantly reduced terms, in order to protect our jobs.
In much the same way your retirement planning can be wrecked by significant stock market, bond or commodity price falls, the end result is the same.You either work longer to try and salvage the position you want or need, or you resign (no pun) yourself to a poorer and weaker retirement. It is inevitable that many people will do whatever they can and take whatever opportunities are available to them in order to protect theirs and their families futures. If that means working longer, then so be it.
On the subject of life getting in the way, things such as children, divorce, redundancy, luck, and a catalogue of other things are for most people going to radically modify their retirement planning as the intervening years pass. As the young get older (and it happens much faster than they expect) their perceptions are very likely to change.
Before they know it, retirement is visible on the horizon and the potential number of paydays can be counted in double digits. The loss of those potential paydays starts to hit home.
When you look at the the pension realities on the table for people coming up through the system these days, it isn’t pretty. Dismissing the risk of Defined contribution pensions, the lifetime limit (beyond which there are punitive tax charges) of currently £1m, is only likely to generate a joint income of around £28k a year in annuity. A lot of people are going to take every opportunity to “stash the cash” while they are still able to, and that is likely to be in the last few years of employment once the mortgage is paid off. It is in this environment that the young of today are eventually going to reverse their opinion.......Watch!
The young will never push for a rise in the retirement age. I certainly didn’t. At 20 I fully expected to be well off by the time I was 40 and that thing called retirement was something so far over the horizon that it didn’t really matter much. In any event the dinosaurs I sat next to at work were forever banging on about how good our scheme was, the very pride of the golden goose! Then life happened.
The retirement scheme was made more expensive. Employers of funded schemes availed themselves of contribution holidays content to believe that the sun would always shine. Then came the deluge. The economy tanked. The scheme was frozen to new members. Then it was frozen to existing contributions. Then it was turned into a supreme burden that had to be hived off into a quasi-state protection scheme with significantly reduced terms, in order to protect our jobs.
In much the same way your retirement planning can be wrecked by significant stock market, bond or commodity price falls, the end result is the same.You either work longer to try and salvage the position you want or need, or you resign (no pun) yourself to a poorer and weaker retirement. It is inevitable that many people will do whatever they can and take whatever opportunities are available to them in order to protect theirs and their families futures. If that means working longer, then so be it.
On the subject of life getting in the way, things such as children, divorce, redundancy, luck, and a catalogue of other things are for most people going to radically modify their retirement planning as the intervening years pass. As the young get older (and it happens much faster than they expect) their perceptions are very likely to change.
Before they know it, retirement is visible on the horizon and the potential number of paydays can be counted in double digits. The loss of those potential paydays starts to hit home.
When you look at the the pension realities on the table for people coming up through the system these days, it isn’t pretty. Dismissing the risk of Defined contribution pensions, the lifetime limit (beyond which there are punitive tax charges) of currently £1m, is only likely to generate a joint income of around £28k a year in annuity. A lot of people are going to take every opportunity to “stash the cash” while they are still able to, and that is likely to be in the last few years of employment once the mortgage is paid off. It is in this environment that the young of today are eventually going to reverse their opinion.......Watch!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet...... They......... (We)........ Don’t complain!
At least not until ‘we’ have enjoyed decades to benefit greatly from the compulsory retirement of the legions of ‘previously young’ that plough this ungodly furrow ahead of us!
Only THEN, when our own way ahead is clear of hindrance! When we have surfed the wave of ‘bitter ageist prejudice’, to reach the pinnacle of our own careers, do ‘we’ first utter the slightest peep that, “it’s an outrage!”
When 20 something’s are joining the clarion call for change, only then will I believe the moral high ground is held by those believing compulsory retirement is egregious!
Each generation playing precisely the same game!
At least not until ‘we’ have enjoyed decades to benefit greatly from the compulsory retirement of the legions of ‘previously young’ that plough this ungodly furrow ahead of us!
Only THEN, when our own way ahead is clear of hindrance! When we have surfed the wave of ‘bitter ageist prejudice’, to reach the pinnacle of our own careers, do ‘we’ first utter the slightest peep that, “it’s an outrage!”
When 20 something’s are joining the clarion call for change, only then will I believe the moral high ground is held by those believing compulsory retirement is egregious!
Each generation playing precisely the same game!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view there are two different things. The regulatory side, which does not care, nor should it, about career progression. And exactly that, career progression.
The regulatory side at the moment does have an age discrimination, especially in countries where the required retirement in airline operations means a lower pension despite having paid the max contribution for 30+ years. And it is even harder to swallow if you can easily pass both your medical and simulator checks. Human beings in general, pilots included, do live longer and healthier, at least in developed countries. An arbitrary retirement age might therefore be the wrong way to go, especially in a time where everything else goes "performance based", from training, over hiring to career progression.
The career progression side is of course not an easy thing to tackle, especially as it is extremely different for many. There are those that join a legacy carrier age 20 and enjoy a mostly uninterrupted career throughout their working life. And yes, those carriers tend do have lower growth and pretty slow career progression, which means any change in retirement age will cause a major change for the normal career of those that are not commanders yet.
And then there are those, that through no fault of their own, have to change airlines several times in their career and/or work in non-seniority based airlines. Getting that retirement fund to where one wants it to be can take considerably longer, depending on when one has to change airlines, personal likes and dislikes of those being in charge of career progression and other arbitrary factors. A possible longer career simply means more time to sort out retirement and the personal problems caused by the repeated disruptions over the working life of those affected.
The regulatory side at the moment does have an age discrimination, especially in countries where the required retirement in airline operations means a lower pension despite having paid the max contribution for 30+ years. And it is even harder to swallow if you can easily pass both your medical and simulator checks. Human beings in general, pilots included, do live longer and healthier, at least in developed countries. An arbitrary retirement age might therefore be the wrong way to go, especially in a time where everything else goes "performance based", from training, over hiring to career progression.
The career progression side is of course not an easy thing to tackle, especially as it is extremely different for many. There are those that join a legacy carrier age 20 and enjoy a mostly uninterrupted career throughout their working life. And yes, those carriers tend do have lower growth and pretty slow career progression, which means any change in retirement age will cause a major change for the normal career of those that are not commanders yet.
And then there are those, that through no fault of their own, have to change airlines several times in their career and/or work in non-seniority based airlines. Getting that retirement fund to where one wants it to be can take considerably longer, depending on when one has to change airlines, personal likes and dislikes of those being in charge of career progression and other arbitrary factors. A possible longer career simply means more time to sort out retirement and the personal problems caused by the repeated disruptions over the working life of those affected.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: A little south of the "Black Sheep" brewery
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"if your airline has one" - And if it doesn't?