Compulsory retirement age of 65 for 'hire & reward'
 

There seem to be no threads on the subject of CRA of 65 with respect to flying for 'hire or reward'.

Having done a little research about six months ago I got feedback from the Secrerary of State for Transport himself, the CAA...and my MP, Vince Cable. Cable was very supportive of my querying the right of the CAA (or EASA for that matter) to restrict the CRA to 65 for pilots. The Secretary of State & the CAA were not so supportive.

If anyone is interested I can publish the correspondence here. It will only be a matter of time before someone challenges this upper age limit in the European court as ageist...and knowledgeable legal opinion would seem to be of the view that the 65 year restriction is indefensible in law.

This may be why there is a lot of talk in BA, I am told, about increasing the CRA to 67 at least. Apparently in Qantas there is no age limit but after 65 you are restricted to short haul work. There are no age restrictions, it seems, in Australasia as long as the Class 1 medical is retained. The USA only has an age limit of 65 for 'scheduled' flying under Part 121 of the FAA rules.

Any comments?

In Europe it is now the case that there is no compulsory retirement age in any other occupation. As pilots we are in the unique situation of having legislation in place that forces retirement at 65. In the UK this is especially iniquitous as I cannot claim my state pension till 67 so something is clearly wrong here. In the UK at least if the age limit isn't removed, then retiring pilots at least need to be able to claim their measly state pension from 65. Seems to me there needs to be a change in one or the other at the very least. It would be especially awkward for the government to allow one group of workers to claim their pension early so maybe the other has to give.

Brilliant....just what the industry needs. Sure remove the retirement age but here is your new contract. Oh and it's the same terms as the new guys you failed to protect. Enjoy

No need for a new contract, just an amendment of the end date in the old one. (And I think 65 is enough, especially long haul).

Who on earth wants to be flying for a living after 65??? They must have multiple divorces/parasitic children/a dragon at home or any combination of the above....:uhoh:

Hi Private Jet Would you change your mind if work consisted of a 5 day CPT and a 5 day HKG a month for example?
I don't see many over 60's flying full time if they can help it, however part time working is an attractive option for many.

Thank you for your replies, gentlemen.

I did my last flight on the 21st, Manston to Brussels...and as I passed through Ramsgate station ASLEF were there recruiting drivers. I said it was my last flight and they were amazed...you are apparently expected to work past 65 if you pass the medical which is 6 monthly. Bus drivers have no restriction (bar a medical) and there is no co-pilot there to take over in the event.

Several replies centre on reasons to want to fly past 65. Of course this is not for everyone; some of my colleagues retired at 50 in BA, but not many. I, for one, would not want to fly full time these days but would be very happy to do part time. I think there is a percentage of us who would like to wind a long career down gently as Hunterboy suggests. My point in starting the thread was to establish if anyone else had any knowledge of the legality of enforcing a 65 cut-off, and if so how to go about challenging it.

So here we go again. They moved the age from 60 to 65 a few years back and those that were at the top of the tree managed to milk a bit more out of the industry. Now they're back for more.

You've had the best years of aviation and benefitted from the best terms and conditions. Why not retire gracefully and actually let a flow of guys come up through the ranks.

Having flown with plenty of more mature skippers when I was RHS, there is a fine line between years of experience outweighing the shortcomings of age. Our skies get busier and the reaction times do not improve as we get older.

When I started flying, it was a case of retire at 60 and everyone knew it and planned for it. Deep nights are not for those pushing 70, nor really for anyone!!

Thanks for your comment FLYINTHESKY. I quite understand your point.

Two points: we are talking about a relatively small proportion of the flying fraternity who would still be interested in flying a few years more. I am only guessing but I would estimate maybe 20% maximum? And of those only a few would want to work full time, maybe because they did not benefit from the 'golden days' to which you refer by starting late and need the money.

Secondly, as you correctly point out, we all slow down as we get older but there are very wide variations. Assuming you can hold that Class 1 medical there is the small obstacle of the LPC. If this is conducted to specified standards then if you are not up to it you will fail...and that will be that. That is what these hurdles are there for, after all.

When I started flying in the RAAF at age 19 I expected to stay in the RAAF as a General duties pilot for as long as they would have me.

In those days it was compulsory for a GD Flight Lieutenant to be retired (out on your neck) at age 45 and out you went to fend for yourself. It was presumed that after age 45 you became dimwitted and your reactions too slow to fly a Dakota or Tiger Moth unless you received further promotion in rank up to Group Captain when you out on your neck at 55.

That's rather an inward looking over-generalisation. There is far more to the industry than airline folks who have a gold plated pension. The ones who don't - what do you suggest they live on until they can claim their well earned state pension, which is now to be withheld for two years?

So you must be one of the younger guys flyinthesky?

When I first got my licence the retirement age for pilots was 65, (UK), and I planned for it, this was arbitrarily reduced to 60, without evidence or consultation, by the minister at the time, I eventually lost five years pay as a B744 skipper. When the age for retirement recently went back to 65 all that happened was a grievous wrong was righted. Please try and see the big picture.

I'm interested to know when the UK retirement age for pilots was reduced from 65 to 60. I can't remember that (the fact that it was 65 previously I mean).

Flyin the sky
Who is They? I seem to remember that the EU changed the law WRT retirement age.
I also remember that the UK government waited until the very last minute to change UK law to comply with the ruling. Did you write to your Euro MP to give your views on this, or are you just criticising the particular group of pilots that are the first to benefit from this ruling?

There was never a complete ban on transport flying at over 60 in the UK. The reg's changed from a retirement age of 65 to a gross wt restriction for captains of 20 tons. you could still command an aircraft of 20 tons or less, or be an F/O on anything up to 65. The restriction was removed a few years ago.
I agree that we should be able to fly in command up to any age, as long as we can pass a medical, especially two crew. Single crew already has an age 60 limit. This was imposed after a crash out of Leeds when a Navajio crashed killing half of the management from ICI.
You can still continue to fly at any age for both corporate and aerial work.

There needs to be a fixed retirement age and not just based on having a medical. It is not exactly difficult to find a doctor who will let you pass. Some geriatrics would keep on flying until they keel over otherwise, which is hardly good for safety. And no, I am not talking out of personal interests as I already have command. Whether that limit should be 65 or something higher is up for scientific debate, but better to retire too early than too late, just because you need to pay your 4 ex-wives.

Age? An 80 year old has just climbed Everest!

80-year-old Yuichiro Miura claims new Everest record

In reply to 'Really Annoyed', you suggest that it is possible to get around the Class 1 medical but finding an amenable medic. Do you really think it is possible to get around the six monthly ECGs and other tests? You may well be right about having a declared retirement age, but the Aussies (with their famous love of rules & regulations) don't.

The real test of whether you are still up to it or not should be with the LPC and other annual or six monthly checks. And maybe to ensure that there is no lowering of standards on the day there should be an a CAA Ops. Inspector present.

I wonder what BALPA's take on the age issue is?

Yes Pedds, I really do think it is possible to get around those tests. I have seen doctors where the eye test consisted of me being able to see him and the hearing test whether we could have a normal conversation.

The vast majority will know when to quit, but there will be those out there who refuse to give up command until they are forced to it. Safety can and must not be comprimised for personal vanity.

hunterboy

I don't want some over 65 year old just flying once or twice a month thanks very much. As parabellum says 65 is quite enough especially for long haul.