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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

What's a "seniority list"?

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.

My thoughts exactly.

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.

Thats actually what I meant.

Apologies, I’d assumed you meant back to the bottom of the LHS seniority list.

No we didn’t “all sign up to retire at 65” many of us will have expected to retire at 55 or later 60 when we “signed up.” Even then, with the option to retire anything up to 5 years earlier on reduced pensions. For men, that was anything up to 15 years (if you took your occupational pension at the earliest normal qualifying date) before the state pension kicked in. The reality is that the world has moved on over the last few decades. Combine technological improvements to safety, improvements to medical stability in previously disqualifying conditions, and wholesale legislative changes to equality and state welfare regulation, and it is a whole new ball game whether you like it or not.

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.

Or go into private ops, if you're up to it.

We don't want old airline pilots, thankyou.

Not everyone was an airline pilot.

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?

Whilst I understand the overall tone of your post, I must point out that these youth clamoring for the pots of gold are often in their 50's, certainly at the Legacy carriers anyway.

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.

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!

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!

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.

"if your airline has one" - And if it doesn't?

From what I've been reading on another nearby Thread, I'm not that sure that we want some of the young pilots, thank you!

Bealzebub,

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that's the case. I'm guessing you’re talking about people employed by a certain airline that mandated they retire, from them, at the age of 55 on a very generous pension. They were still able to go on and fly elsewhere until the age of 65 which is the point at which they could no longer hold a medical for commercial ops, hence they signed up to fly until 65 should they wish. Many people did and did very well out of it indeed. All that change achieved was to bring it into line with other airlines.

What we're talking about here is completely different. I'm a long way past my early 20s sadly, and I expect to retire at or before I turn 65. It is unacceptable that a potential change to the medical requirements (allowing people to work past 65) would leave many of us no choice but to do the same, against our wishes. If legal action starts for the former, then I expect BALPA to represent the very large number of its members who would be seriously detrimentally affected by any change. Preventing the career progression of younger pilots, i.e. those not retiring imminently, is also age discrimination, however you look at it. It works both ways.

I would suggest the reason that you don't get many under 40's clamouring to work beyond 65 is that we are pretty much the first generation(s) of pilots who have consistently flown close to 900hrs a year. Many of those approaching 65 haven't, certainly not on shorthaul. No one knows what state we'll all be in when we get to 65, indeed most guys & girls I know that are at or around my age are either talking about going part-time, or have already done so.


Trossie, then they just become FOs. It's quite simple.

This is not the case elsewhere though; there doesn't seem to be much of a moral leaning in industries where there is no requirement for a medical or mandatory loss of privileges at a specified cut-off point. I understand that EASA have recently commissioned a study on this very subject and there is some interest among employers for an extension in some specific CAT operations where much of the training and examining expertise is weighted toward the upper end of the age scale.

I had to retire 10 years ago at age 60 shortly after my airline had eliminated pilot retirements. I wonder how many of the 30 and 40 year olds who thought I should have to go so they could move up would have been happy to retire with only what they had saved.

It is not hard to find a doctor who will be fairly lax in his medical examination, if you really want it. The 60+ pilots I have met, have in vast majority shown a rapid decline in skills once they passed 60. I have seen several who really should have retired, but kept going to pay for the many ex wives or desired to retain the perceived status. Pushing retirement age further than it already is, is an accident waiting to happen.

And no, I am not advocating for my own sake as I upgraded years ago.

Oh well, very scientific... The declining cognitive skills of the over 60's is anecdotally confirmed to be correct... I don't know how I managed to land a 737 in a 33 knot crosswind on Saturday night with my declining and waning intellectual powers. Probably a sign of aforementioned brain deterioration is responding to unverified drivel...I don't really care one way or another but it is interesting to note that (as usual) in this industry vested interest always comes to the fore. The perceived wisdom is that my generation is full of selfish bar stewards unwilling to relinquish the left hand seat and obviously led the high life with a string of wives in tow. The reality is that a lot of this group have had their pensions decimated by ruthless and unscrupulous 'management' and face a bleak financial future not because of perceived profligacy. If they are fit enough and are still willing and skilled, why not? I'm not one of them before the insults start flying around.Oh and btw, my AME stated that the smokers and boozers are normally time expired in their late 50's while the remaining 'survivors' are normally medically sound to fly past 65.

DuctOvht

Firstly, that quote wasn't from me, but from your text it appears so, which of course is, well, simply not true.

Secondly, nobody loses their medical at 65. In fact it is quite legal to fly Airbuses into your 80ies, however only in private OPS, and airline like run flight departments of big companies actually do that with the same level of safety, SOPs and usually quite a bit more training. And why not if the pilot in question can pass his medical and OPC/LPC.

What? Deny a new FO of a job?

There will be a new auction site on Prune. Old farts at 65 auctioning off their seats to wannabes. They've already spent an bundle; another 30,000 should be possible, and tax free for the OF. Ah, there is an interesting career process. F/O to O/F in 40 years. :ok:

Denti,

My mistake, it was Bealzebub I was quoting. Sorry. I’ve edited the post.

That said, you’ll note in the post of mine you quoted that I said “They were still able to go on and fly elsewhere until the age of 65 which is the point at which they could no longer hold a medical for commercial ops”. I’m aware you can fly whatever you want privately, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

In light of the above I’ll make this my last comment as I feel like I’m repeating myself. In response to the ‘why not?’ questions my point once more is this;

We all knew/know that as far as commercial ops are concerned 65 is your lot, as the licencing authorities have deemed that’s as far as you can go for medical reasons. I very much plan to be done at 65, if not before. For me to do so, my DC pension pot needs my career to pan out as I expect it to. I’m not expecting a command tomorrow, but at some point in the future, yes.

Hypothetically, everything suddenly changes, and the time to command (and projected earnings) that were based on other people retiring at 65 are now based on absolutely nothing, as people can go on until they drop. Assuming a good number of people choose to go on beyond 65 for whatever reason, that leaves me with no option but to carry on working too, potentially into my 70’s. Do I want to be doing a command course in my early 60s? Hell no.

The whole concept of a change like this, and the effect it will have on people further down the ‘foodchain’ is just ridiculous. I hope it never happens.

Ah, you young lads will change as you get older.
I'm embarrassed by the views I held in the RHS on a stagnant seniority list.
My last airline was lobbying their regulator to put the age up to 67-68, but they stopped when they realised that nearly all the Capts were naturally leaving at 63-64 as I did, not many stayed to the end.
If a guy wishes to continue, is it the politics of envy driving your arguments?

I am horrified that the regulator (CAA) has the right to regulate my 'dignity'!

How undignified would it be to meet one of the locals in your village, who has always known you to be energetic and active and enjoying your job, who commented that you seem to be at home a lot these days and you had to say that you weren't allowed to work any more as the assumption was that due to your age you might be going gaga and incompetent.

Our vet has a wonderful statement about this: "Age is just a number". The same would logically apply to human animals too.

Point of information for those unaware. It’s not the CAA that ‘has the right’.

Objective Justifications. Of which preservation of dignity forms a part, are the law of the land I’m afraid.

It saves you from the probably greater ‘indignity’ of having to explain to “one of the locals in your village, who has always known you to be energetic and active and enjoying your job” that you have just been sacked, as you were no longer up to the job!

Sorry if that comes as bad news. But as I say. It’s the law.

I’m afraid some people need saving from themselves.

But if this dictatorial State is going to 'protect our dignity' then surely the age of forced retirement should be lowered to the lowest age that may have any age-related medical conditions could cause a loss of flying medical? I am sure that on those grounds a case for enforced retirement between about 45 and 50 could easily be argued. All to protect everyone from the risk of the indignity of any age-related loss of medical.

The same with mental competence. What is the lowest age that people suffer from dementia? That is what The State should dictate as the forced retirement age for pilots, all to protect them from themselves and 'preserve their dignity' of course!

Now if defining the age that low is seen as ridiculous, then why is the present age not equally ridiculous. It is a nicely 'rounded off to the nearest five' figure. Why not 70 or 75? Why not any figure in between? What about people who are unfairly penalised by a day because they were born in the 'wrong' year and didn't get their fair share of extra leap-year days through their career? I'll go back to our vet's comment: "Age is just a number". But a thumb-sucked number-to-the-nearest-five is chosen as the cliff-edge to 'protect people from themselves' and ensure that The (Nanny) State can chose your indignities for you.

Not to mention the possibility of a couple of airlines going bust underneath you, followed by a period of unemployment before starting over again as an FO, the overall effect can reduce the estimated pension pot by as much as a half.

Age is personal, it depends on the individual. Call that an old Theory of Relativity...

Age remains an area of discrimination, and of course is controversial where seniority systems exist where there is no expansion underway. Downunder, I am not certain that there has been any real effect on age extensions that have happened over 30 years, and finally resulting in the removal of all age limits as is the case in NZL. In AUS, the regionals are having difficulties in filling cockpit seats, which says as much about terms and conditions, but there is a shortage, and we have been effective as an industry in removing incentive for people to take up the "profession".

The EU and China, as well as the USA will take a long time to alter their position, but as has been suggested, we do not see a significant age related risk occurring in the industry where age has been raised or removed as a constraint.

For those that can retire early, well played, other players may have had a different outcome, but most would be happy to be sitting on the dock fishing if they could, except for the few that remain enthusiasts who haven't had the industries continuous race to the bottom turn their outlook to a bilious jaundiced view of the world around them, yet.

Ultra long haul at 70 sounds like hell, but smacking around regional space & time sounds appealing. Right now, I'm barrelling around at low level at high speed because there is no one else crazy enough to do the job. As much fun now as when I did it in camo 40 years ago. Age is a personal thing.

You sound like a real pilot!

But watch out, because ofThe Nanny State (and I won't 'advertise' this time!) wants to take away your right to chose your own 'indignity' as the Nanny State considers thatBut then there are some countries, and you appear to live in one, that are grown up enough to let people choose their own indignities without the interference of so-called 'Objective Justifications'.

However, the reality is that "Age is personal, it depends on the individual." State imposed bans at a certain number is an aberration of nature.

A thread-worthy subject in itself.

fdr

Mind if I ask what are you doing right now and your age? Sounds like an old dog still in love with aviation! ( with all my respect and same pasion as you to the aviation industry ). It is difficult to keep that enthusiasm over the years, I wish I could have it in 40 years now! :D

Rules set to change from age 65 to age 67 and 11 months.