bpi,

Is that just tongue in cheek or do you have a source for it ?

Be interesting to see just how many caveats that will come with! :)

I’m not at liberty to divulge it’s source, but I assure you it’s very real.
It’s awaiting final approval.
But since this is a pilot rumor network, just call it speculation until it happens.
I asked why 67 and 11 months, and the answer was “because they wouldn’t bite off on 68”

As long as you can still pass a medical I think
it’s ok

That only applies within Oz though I believe

It'll also be interesting to see how many people stay beyond 65 if/when this increase comes about.

While I haven't seen any data, empirically, not everyone who can stay to 65 does.

If increasing the max age doesn't produce many more pilots remaining in the system, it's much ado about nothing...and solves almost nothing. Only time will tell.

It's going to ruffle some junior feathers though. :eek:

P.S. Found this spot of data by a DL pilot who went through one month of data to see what the attrition looks like (my kinda geek !). Without LOTS more, it really doesn't tell the whole story but it's something:


From the January seniority list to the February seniority list we lost a total of 40 pilots.

22 went to age 65
4 were over age 64 but less than 65
3 were new hires (less than a year)
11 were between age 51 and 62 (4 were SIC outs)

Basically 26 out of 37 went to age 65 last month.

bpi,

Why does it have to be a secret at this point ? I'd expect the Federalies to be shouting it from the rooftops to show everyone how they've saved the airlines from doom. :rolleyes:

It's the UK - everything is secret until announced by a Govt. Minister

just look at "Yes Minister/prime Minister" - the civil service prefer a quiet life to talking to the press.......... and God Forbid, any peon.

Germany already moved to 67? So why not UK/rest of Europe?

I read statistics about pilot longevity for those who remained until age 65.
The average number of months were sixteen.
If you were to go to almost 68, I’d expect your life expectancy to be even shorter.
It’s like The Shawshank Redemption, where you get institutionalized, and can not function out in the real world.
You must retire early, and reinvent yourself.
Or you will soon be pushing up the daisy’s

For the general retirement age yes, for pilots? A big fat NO. Didn’t happen. Which means of course pilots will be screwed out of their full state pension.

Surely if EASA remains 65 no member state can adopt regs more lenient, only more stringent. Is EASA still 65 for commercial ATPL ops?

pbi,

Well, can you say if your source is in government or industry ?

Is there a projected announce date ?

I've Googled around and checked with my government source; neither had any knowledge of this announcement.

I'm surprised something like this could be kept secret.

As the late 411a said, there is nothing more grotesque then seeing someone flying at 70 or more
At least 68years 11months won't allow that. One American Airline, who shall remain nameless, had 2 hosties over 70.

The oldest cabin crew I believe was Delta’s Bob Reardon at age 90.
Others were United’s Ron Akana and Iris Peterson at 83.
And American’s Bette Nash at 82.
Each have a valid claim to some record.

Do you remember the old Qantas advert that said “fly to Australia to see your grand mother, not with your grand mother.”

My source for the 67/11 was neither industry or government, but rather trade union based.
You won’t find anything published as of yet. Because it’s still in committee.
I really don’t care if it ever comes to fruition, as I have no interest in working past minimum retirement age.

Upon retirement, the worst thing you can do is just go home.
I believe and plan on having a motor home, and doing a three month decompression road trip.

There was a pilot who was number one on the west coast. Upon his retirement he’d put on his uniform and sit in his car at the end of the runway to watch HIS flight take-off to Hawaii. He didn’t notice that the lights had changed. And blew his mind out in a car. Just like The Beatles song goes.

This is just a job that we do so we can make some money so we can do other things.
Take it, or yourself too seriously and you’ll have a hard time in retirement.

There are others so traumatised that they would sit in full uniform, under the stairs, eating a cardboard meal on their knees watching the electricity meter, gas meter, water meter and checking the fuse box every so often. :rolleyes:

Others discovered there's a whole new world out there and lived a longer & happier retirement.

I'd willingly retire tomorrow but unfortunately I've still got quite a few years left till I can afford to live off my meagre pension - and the state pension has got a year further away for me than previously advertised and six years further away for my wife.

Why didn't I and quite a lot of others save enough to retire "early"?
The 9.5% mortgage rate which increased to 15% just after I'd signed the contract to buy our first home didn't help. That sudden increase (mid 1980s for those still in nappies back then) actually put us below the breadline, as a junior military officer. I reckon there's more than a few youngsters eager to complain about older generation folk "taking their jobs" who will see things very differently once the mortgage rates start to increase, which they undoubtedly will. Regrettable all round, but life is a big competition, despite what some state schools chose to teach.

And I suppose that one solution would be to go part-time and ease your way into retirement. And then you might get back to enjoying the job again and want to do it for a bit longer? So a combination of easing yourself into retirement and easing yourself out to retirement. That could mean that you go on in the job a bit longer and enjoy everything so much that you have no traumatic breaks and live an even longer and happier retirement?

D@mn! I forgot that the regulators won't allow that. You have to get heaved out of the door at some or other number of some sort... age, or some other 'just a number' thing like that. What was it? 'Some people need to be saved from themselves' or some old 'nanny state' thing like that.

I remember those! 'Twas 9.3% for us. "The lowest you'll ever see" they said, "Borrow as much as you can at that rate" they said. Good thing we didn't. When it went up to that 15% they were all crying 'negative equity' while we just had almost all of our 'spare' take away. But then we were saving all we needed in those days for our pensions, those gold-plated 'final salary' pensions that would leave you living in luxury in retirement at 60. Yes, those same 'final salary' pensions that are now crashing down around everyone or being shut early so that the remnants of pensions won't have you living in any of that luxury. And then you've got to stop working a year before you can get your State Pension. And those who were in nappies while you were helping to establish the jobs that they enjoy now (by being in work and helping those airlines to survive to now) want to push you out a year before the State will give you a pension. Ungrateful brats! Watch, they'll be pushing very vociferously for a much, much later retirement age when their turn comes!! Well, I hope that the br@ts that follow them object just as strenuously to them wanting to stay on!!

What ??
 

Pushing it back to 60 ? OMG...why is FAA so obsessed with age limits. Here in Oz, you can fly as long as you want, if you pass their medicals (and they are stringent). Ageism is alive and well in the US, it seems
If USA adopted the same policy, there goes away half the shortage problem.

It seems quite counter intuitive that the FAA would lower age limits at this time. If they did so right now, they would put a big target on their backs for exacerbating the "shortage" problem, especially with respect to the regionals. Once the mainstream media gets a hold of it, it would be trumpeted that they are the cause of it and climbing ticket prices... nevermind that fuel is the largest single component of a ticket price.

It sure does !!

But to an unacceptable extent, particularly in multi-crew operations?

ShotOne and JPJP
 

The genesis of the problem is demographic.

As successive governments ignored an aging population and impact on expenditures and declining revenue, so did airline management ignore it. They drove terms and conditions to the point that insufficient new pilots are willing to take the necessary investment for what is now on offer. Self defeating in the long term, but driven by short term bonus culture it was always someone else's problem.

The reason for retirement of airline pilots at a particular age approximating 60 was due cognitive decline.
Whilst not evident in all pilots at the same time, 'on average' statistically it was correlated with an age profile.
This progressive decline was accelerated with circadian rhythm disturbance, digestive imbalance and many of the things pilots (and indeed Cabin crew) live with.
Whilst it is important to note that not all pilots deteriorate universally, many of the studies refuting the decline are done with older pilots EXERCISING private pilot licences and not those involved in Long Haul night operations.

Now airline management who have previously simply targeted limits to drive 'efficiency' aren't happy. Safe with their weekends off, nights in the own beds and Christmas with their families, they want more.


The regulators are being pressured to lift the retirement age again. Airlines want more from crew, not less.
Qantas CEO Joyce already virtue signaled the Australian regulator CASA to lift the limit for operating crew beyond the current 20 hours.
Interestingly and rather unsurprisingly, the studies undertaken for the long range flying being undertaken by the Qantas 787 did not include pilots and cabin crew.

In Australia you can fly beyond 65 years (domestic) as long as you meet the (more) stringent medical requirements.

We don't seem to have many 'older' guys dieing or being incapacitated in flight.

If you want older pilots to GTF out of flying so you can take their place, well, that's quite selfish. Those guys earnt their stripes, and their experience.

If the UK government lowered the State pension age, instead of steadily increasing it as they have been doing, it would put a few more pilots "in the bracket" and they might take the option to hang up the headset that one last time.

I obtained my first Class One CAAC medical at the age of 66. I renewed it again that year and again three times after that. When my contract finally expired when I was 68 I still had a Class One medical certificate.

That being the case, why do the Chinese have such restrictive hiring criteria age-wise. . . . . . . . and also, what happened to the post from button push ignored claiming that something was about to be imminently rubber-stamped, that all went a bit quiet , along with his post .

All the in-flight incapacitations that I have heard about for quite some time have involved pilots much younger than 60!

Regarding those selfish younger pilots who just want the 'older pilots' out of the way, with the increasing pilot shortage that argument is very much part of the past and one would expect younger pilots to have the 'situational awareness' to be able to see that! (However, I suppose that that sort of selfishness does somewhat blinker their thinking. Maybe that might explain why many of them are still 'SFOs'!)