The link
 

Page 13;
http://www.icao.int/safety/Documents...port_FINAL.pdf

Yes but that's according to an icao flight safety report. EASA licence regulations contradict the statement on page 13.
EASA ATPLs read: "this licence shall remain in force for the holder's lifetime unless revoked, suspended or varied".
There is certainly no mention of any such restrictions applying to my licence.
If the licence isn't valid for life then I think the onus is on EASA to clear up this rather important ambiguity!

I guess the simple way would be to state that Class 1 medicals would not be issued beyond age 65, which would allow the licence to remain valid for eg PPL etc.

The fact that the ICAO regulations may change does not effect the rights of individual operators to continue with the " combined 120 rule". This is not age discrimination etc etc, if an operator wants to let you fly a desk or just sit on the jump seat it's entirely up to them. Many companies have fixed term contracts, when the contract is up, thats it, game over. Personally, I have no desire whatsoever to fly until 65! I hope I will have earned enough to retire and enjoy life. I suspect the class one and other OMLs will do a fair bit of " natural culling"

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that, although the licence remains valid, it is not valid for scheduled passenger use beyond 65. I know of at least one person flying a jet as he approaches 70, but it is a private aeroplane. So, if you are flying a corporate jet, OK, but the majority of pilots are flying for the airlines. Don't say that pilots should have a private pension in place. Many had company schemes that went down the tube with the airline (think Robert Maxwell/BA helicopters), and the government guarantee has only been in place for a few years.

There are a number of people who could probably afford to retire but enjoy the flying and not necessarily because it is well paid! There seems to be sympathy for people who need the money. But why should people who are comfortably off, because they have been lucky with their working/private lives and happen to like the job, be considered selfish for wanting to continue flying for a living?

lederhosen
 

Because the "guilty"party is someone else. I'm sure selfish would not be the descriptive adjective if the tables were turned. :rolleyes:

I am not sure I understand you Desert185. You seem to be in agreement with the statement that people who like flying should be considered selfish if they want to continue as long as they can. You then say that the guilty party is someone else. Are the authorities the guilty party (as you put it)? Or is someone else to blame and of what? Life is not always fair and I can accept that people envy or even resent others they perceive as getting a better crack of the whip.

Life expectancy and people's potential useful working life has increased. The skills required by an airline pilot have also changed. Not everything has got better. But flying a modern jet is definitely easier than flying used to be on earlier generations of aircraft. Conversely pilots have had to become more efficient, with longer working hours for less pay. There are also many more of us than there used to be with quite different life experiences from earlier generations. I am pretty sure I will not continue to 65. But I certainly do not think that those who do are selfish.

In the UK there are a good many pilots still working beyond the age of 60; sure, it is their legal right to do so and this number will surely increase as T's & C's are eroded over time. However, the majority in the current group who have elected to soldier on between 60 and 65 have spent the vast proportion of their time in the business under the clear assumption that they would have to retire from flying at 60 or in the case of BA and some others at 55. Those on 'golden' terms are exercising their rights but are nonetheless hindering progress from below.

This scenario will change over time as in the majority of airlines, the doors to the first class carriage are well and truly shut. Those pilots across the age spectrum who are not in the front part of the train will need to continue a little longer as they anxiously keep an eye on their money purchase pensions but at least we all know what the upper age limit is until those wise politicians in Europe change their minds yet again.

Of course, 65 is only a limit and is not compulsory contrary to popular opinion !

Oh Grand!,
 

At least I will be among the most experienced FOs ever, before I get to fly as CDR on medium jets. I thank the older pilots who worked hard to raise the retirement age so that I could accumulate more hours before upgrading. Now, if only they would work towards making 70 the retirement age I would be even more experienced.

Talk about a screw job!!:eek::eek:

Lederhosen
 

Maybe I didn't state my opinion properly. I agree with you. When those younger folks become our age and perhaps decide to continue flying for whatever reason, they will not consider themselves selfish.

I don't know, Desert, the words "you'll pry that left seat only from my cold, dead hands", which I've now heard numerous times from the guys to whom I lovingly refer as "fossils" sound pretty selfish to me. I could, of course, be wrong.

I understand. Why should leaving your profession be hinged on an arbitrary age while one still has the ability to perform? Why should only the older ones be labeled as being selfish?

It wasn't that long ago that gray hair was respected. Now it seems the young crowd talks slow to the older crowd. Well, if they enunciated properly we would have understood them the first time. :ok: Whatever...I told this one young lady that she didn't have to talk slower, as I was picking up what she was laying down. I got a nice smile as a result. Don't remember if she had tats and a nose ring, but I'm sure something was pierced.

Enjoying my senior discounts, while still flying heavies, but not in an airline environment. Given that, I couldn't possibly be selfish. :D

They shouldn't be. I totally accept and acknowledge that my wanting to see some sort of career progression after almost a decade of at best stagnation, but mostly backward movement is selfish. I just don't understand why the older crowd refuses to acknowledge their selfishness as well or why in the rare cases when they do, somehow their selfishness is better than mine.

As for "still having the ability to perform", that's a whole separate conversation, isn't it?

I think there's a little mis-comparison going on here. Those who worked for companies with early retirement ages, such as 55 at BA and 60 at VA, tended to have rather generous final salary pensions or had private pensions that matured in the heydays before the financial collapse (my father gets every month what I can look forward to annually, such is the decline in private pension performance). As for those who say that the shortfall was known before the career was chosen, that is only true for those who took it up within the last couple of years - 65 has been a retirement age and pension qualifier for several decades now.

I totally agree with Alumium shuffler, the goalposts have shifted so significantly that we can all expect to be much working longer. Sadly, gone are the days of gold plated pensions in the UK!

AS

Couple of points, personal pensions can be taken from 55 I believe whilst state pensions are being hoisted up to ages greater than 65 - worth a check.

To Ramrise & flyboyike I would say, if you don't like the rate of career progression where you currently are, instead of blaming the "dinosaurs", get off your @ss & take your evidently honed skills to where they will be better appreciated (I.E a company in some other country experiencing rapid expansion ) in other words put your money where your mouth is & demonstrate the "flexibility" many of us have HAD to show for decades.

You also seem to miss the fact that Command is not a foretold perogative & some of those who shout the loudest have been (in my experience ) amongst those who (despite "extensive" experience) have mystifyingly failed to make the cut when required to "walk the walk" as well as they "talk the talk".
Old age appears to start quite early for some folk , & those achieving Command at an advanced age don't always hack it. . . .is that a good reason to turf the "oldies " out ? Er, I somehow don't think so.

You may resent the crusty old bar-steward sitting next to you on top dollar for a few more years than you would like, but, in a different era to the one you have experienced, he has most likely earned it. Excuse us if we turn our hearing aids down a tad to muffle your whines.

:D:ok:

I like it! Although, there are those who deserve the above and those who don't.

I like it, too! Captplaystation openly displays the "I got mine, :mad: you!" mentality, and makes no apologies for it. I can respect that. It's when fossils start breaking into sob stories on how that have to "make up for what they've lost" (while acquiring Corvette #7 and ex-wife #6) that I feel like I'm being played.