Retirement Age for Pilots
 

Has any progress been made to extend the age limit for professional pilots engaged in Public Transport/ Airline Flying in Europe or North America.

Can only address the FAA. Through an act in Congress, both the Senate and House of Representative, attached a change to a bill making it age 65 for FAR121, 135 operations. The FAA did not have the courage to change the regulation.

There is talks about putting it back to 60.

There has indeed. It was increased to 65 for multi pilot ops.

How could the FAA change it-it was the law of the land. They only choice they had was to comply.

68 in Japan now I believe

I hear the 04.30 takeoffs, & the 05.30 & 06.30's. The thought of having to get out of bed at 04.00 - now aged 65 - for either Day 1 or Day 5 earlies, or anything in-between, is a horrific nightmare. The idea of a 22.00 departure for a 10hr night flight, 2 pilots, with 6-8 hour time change; 2 days off in an airport hotel, then return still knackered is also not high on the list of '10 best things to do before you die'.

BluSdUp - is having a joke at your expense. There is a cloak of mystery and intrigue about why the age of retirement went from 65 to 60 in the first place, around the early 1980s. The story I heard was that a particular CEO of a major in the USA was very unhappy about the grief his older pilots were giving him and he discussed this with his big buddy in the FAA at that time, the upshot was that, overnight, without consultation with the pilot bodies concerned, the age was moved from 65 to 60 and a a whole lot of older pilots were out of a job. The UK, for reasons never explained to the pilot body, followed suit within months.

The UK, for reasons never explained to the pilot body, followed suit within months.

Are you sure? I only remember the French being out of step with Europe's 65 with a 60 limit, extending even to foreign airlines overflying. That was never going to be enforced unless you landed on French soil. I also had an idea it was a pilot union initiative, not the XAA. I think EASA rules have changed that. There were company pension funds and employment contracts that restricted the retirement age to <65, but I don't think any XAA outside France did so. To be corrected.
It's an interesting conspiracy theory about the FAA. I thought Aalpa had considerable power & influence over such issues. After all, it would have had great financial impact on crews nearing pension age & costs.

Parabellum
 

Right You are, I had to drop that one for giggles.

Interesting on the history on the age limit, would be interesting to know exactly how and when it changed.

By the way , some important people ARE considering lowering the local retirement age to 60, namely my wife and family!
Under the Fish More Work Less program.
Indeed!

Anyway
We have a Catch22 here: Demanding to work past 65 as an Airline pilot shows that You are mentally unfit to work as such and Your medical will be cancelled promptly. The only way to regain medical is to agree that the only sensible thing to do is to ask to retire.
At this time the medical will be handed back with a gold Breitling and Great circle track to the nearest Flying club will be plotted into Your Tesla.
Happy Days

I'm sorry but why not raise the age to 70?

The 70 year old of today are as fit as the 50 year old of yesteryear, huge advances have been made in Society... no longer is 60 seen as 'old'.

Not all old fogeys nod off in the cruise ;)

The age limit I suspect is purely economics with just a tad of Medical realism thrown in.

I know the Youngsters will be pissed off by this...

The FAA's age 60 rule was introduced circa 1959/60 at the introduction of jet aircraft at American Airlines. The CEO of American a Mr CR Smith pressured the Administrator of the FAA to introduce a mandatory the retirement age of 60 to rid himself of a large group of senior pilots so he didn't have to pay them.

Flash8
 

So start at 20, fly 850hrs per year for 50 years, then according to this new ground breaking research: as you walk out at 70, You are feeling like a 51 year old.
Well I am 53 and some times feel like 73 after 5 days and 45 hrs block, but it is going to get better.
How about that!

I tell u what cut the dose in half and ask Scott to beam you up!

Sorry, that is entirely down to you.

I'm not saying you have to keep on chugging along, you can always retire, but those that wish to should have the choice!

I still maintain raise to 70 unless there is a probable safety issue.

PS. And it's not Scott.. it's Scotty.

RAT5 - For pilots flying public transport aircraft, above a certain weight, (can't remember the weight but it included the B737-200), as a captain, the age to stop was reduced in the UK from 65 to 60. All back to normal now, I think?

Why increase the age to 70? Will you not have earned enough money by age 65? Maybe those 5 extra years will finally let you get that Ferrari you've been wanting since you were 12 (though you'd look ridiculous in it at age 70).

There is safety reasons why we should not fly after 65: People start dying without warning! And JonnyJonnyFO with 350hrs TT just line-released has to take over on that stormy night!

Then there is the moral part of stealing a job from the young
.
Finely , it pulls down the lifetime earnings for us that started with regulation and a plan to retire at 60.

So .because of guys like YOU,:
we are now soon EXPECTED to work to 70 for the same money.
Pathetic Flash!

I am done now.

For anyone so, so desperate, with so little else of interest, that they need to fly beyond 65, boy (or girl) do I have a deal for you!

Go to www.seek.com.au and look for the Fokker 100 DEC gigs with Air Niugini (PX, aka Poxie). They will accept up to age 75 - no, not a misprint age seventy five.
Of course you do need to spend time in Port Moresby, and will be rostered only on domestic routes. The best part of that is there is virtually no night flying in PNG so those who worry about back of clock effects in the elderly need not. Now whether a 70+ year old liver could handle the drinking culture there is entirely another matter, but you will need to partake of strong drink to fit in with your fellow derelicts.

I can't understand why people can't just walk away.
Much better to walk away at a good time than wait for a brown trousers moment to convince oneself to leave...

There is no limit in Australia- if you can hold a medical, you can fly.

Flew with a 74 year old T/C the other day- and a damn fine pilot he is too!

Mitigation policy for reducing pensions liability
 

It's a conscious policy of governments and airline management to aid the premature killing off of pilots with fatiguing life threatening FTL's so that they have little to no pensions liability in the long term.

Flying for some is like a drug they can't give up and even after retiring they travel the same routes, stay in the same hotels, can't seem to shake of the "Good morning Captain jock strap" at the hotel reception.. plan to give up at 60 and start a hobby or part time job plan 5 years before, enjoy your life and get out of the rut! If I could afford it I would give up today after 23 years of stomach gas,haemorrhoids, sleepless nights.. would I want a 70 year old surgeon? perhaps as a consultant but not holding the control of the knife!

Liek anything else - if you still like it/love it and they are willing to pay yoiu why not keep going?

My idea of hell is a retirement to an olde worlde cottage with a high maintenance garden in the sticks with no entertainment, no doctors and only similarly aged folk all around me..................

I am fascinated by this thread and the number of posts against a rise in the enforced retirement age. Over on the rotary side there has been almost unanimous support for a rise albeit that many helicopters are single pilot and so caught by the restriction to multipilot from 60 to 65

This culminated in an employment tribunal brought by a pilot called Ian Evans who took on the CAA and their army of lawyers single handedly. In a week long hearing it was clearly shown and accepted by the court that the risk of incapacitation let alone death at 70 was less in about 2010 than the risk of death at 55 had been 20 years earlier. The CAA admitted there was no scientific reason to not raise the age limit but relied on legislation that allowed them to maintain the status quo simply on the grounds that changing the rule cost money they did not have

I can think of very few professions where many members argue to be banned. Bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. The excuse that it takes jobs off younger pilots is lame given the world shortage. Many pilots want to retire or change profession, but it should be their choice. On the other hand there is data in professions such as medicine that experience is the most important determinator of outcome, which for flying equates to safety.

Well here in the UK the state pension age has risen to between 67 - 69 depending on your date of birth, few if any pilots jobs now come with final salary pensions, many pilots have had more than a handful of jobs so have little pensions with different providers and the state pension is now flat more or less anyway, so despite pouring huge amounts into HRC through our taxes you’ll get the same money as the lay about down the road.

Personally I have no great wish to go on and on, but I feel that so long as you pass your medical and 6 monthly sim check why make it mandatory?

The taking jobs off the young is a red herring, at worst it might delay but once you catch up with the retirement cycle it makes no odds, airline growth or lack of is a bigger threat to the young ones and many 19 year old pilots would benefit from having done something else, they would certainly moan less if they had worked in the real world.

My thoughts exactly. Over here in germany the retirement is currently rising from 65 to 67. As we do have to retire at 65 due to license regs (well, we could continue to work as TRI/TREs) drawing the state pension at 65 will actually result in losing 7,2% of it. So we are actually punished by the regulator for following its rules.

Was the 65 XAA limit ever tested under EU age discrimination regs? There are some airlines whose contracts are automatically terminated at 60 or even less. It is not age discrimination, even under the 65 ATPL reg', because the employment contract you signed had an age limit in it. Having said that, some mates in the nationals, who were force retired between 55 & 60, had pensions higher than my full time salary at 62.
What always confused me was why, at say 57 with pockets brimming, they sought out the Asian airlines to continue having an aluminium tube strapped to your bum for 14 hours and 10 hours time change. My wife always said it was because of 3 x alimony. Perhaps she's correct. Sad.
But I wonder if there is a claim that forced retirement from a low or non pension employment, even dubious self-employment, before government old age pension age is penalising for no good reason. Ground based guys can continue until government pension age, it's just pilots. Or what about HGV drivers, train drivers, ship's captains etc. What rules do comparable professions operate under, including surgeons? But as I've said, most other professions of equal responsibility, education, income etc. will have the personnel enrolled in decent company pensions. I flew with 9 airlines in 4 different countries for 32 years and achieved a company pension in only one of them for 7 years. There will be others, and to create a gap in their retirement annual income of a couple of years seems harsh.
If governments change rules to save money which they and friends have frittered away, without considering all the victims, is not responsible. I guess it was because the national pilots' unions were centred egotistically at the unaffected national airlines and did not oppose the matter.
However, I'm not advocating raising the piloting age limit to match the pension age, rather advocating that certain professions that have a mandatory retirement age are not penalised without any options. Do civil servants still get their pension at 60? Well then, if so, discretionary deviations are possible.

I’ve heard similar nuggets to this many, many times before.

I can’t speak for medicine, but for flying, what a load of bolony.

Anyone with more than 15 minutes in this industry will tell you. The number of hours in your logbook is absolutely no determinant whatever of competence! Yet on the flip side, certainly I’m not aware of any pilot claiming to be better in their early 60s than they were in their early 50s! Sadly, and inevitably, we go downhill as we age. Any reduction in our mental capacity is seriously frowned upon. Just look at the minuscule blood alcohol limit proscribed for pilots!

I would suggest, the most important determinant of safety in flying is a combination of basic abilities (which inevitably reduce as we age!) combined with quality training.

In any case, there are perfectly acceptable justifications in law for stipulating a retirement age for pilots. Only one of which is preservation of the dignity of older pilots.

Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law.

Er, let me be the one then...I feel that experience albeit dependant on the type of experience does make you better ergo I am ‘better’ than in my early 50s. I am indifferent personally to continuing beyond 65 but feel that if people are willing and fit, why not? My personal incredulity extends to a post that ends ‘congratulations to the caa’ , in 40 years airline flying, I’ve never heard that expression...

Would you say that that expression disqualifies the poster on grounds of something like diminished faculties? I too find that expression rather astounding!

Sorry. I should probably have been a little more specific? I should really have said:

“Congratulations to the CAA for upholding the law”, and preserving the dignity of those who, seemingly have lost the common sense to do it for themselves.

Does that read better?

Sadly not

I know too many pilots with crummy pensions who would carry on safely were it not for rules that have no scientific basis and which the CAA accept are wrong. We would all like to retire at 40 but at least many other professions can keep their nose to the grindstone to achieve a comfortable retirement.

All we are asking is the same freedom of choice most other people have and rules that have a scientific basis

Ah I see.

So I think you’re saying that some pilots feel compelled to continue flying beyond 65, purely for financial reasons? It’s not that they actually want to? As you say, we’d all like to retire at 40.

If you accept that many of us would be unsuitably equipped to continue flying into our 70s. Isn’t there a danger that circumstances, rather than suitability, become an inappropriate driver for pilots continuing into old age.

That alone seems to be a perfectly justifiable reason for preserving older pilots dignity. One of a number of Objective Justifications for compulsory retirement allowed in law

Edited to add: What do you mean ‘crummy pensions’? Do you mean in 45 years in the workplace, these people haven’t managed to save a penny?

WOW! So the CAA's task is to 'preserve our dignity'?

First time I've ever heard that!

Face it - 65 was set as the standard retirement age in the Uk in 1912 when people were expected to die when they were 68

People live longer. they're fitter AND they start work almost a decade later

So should everyone work to 75? Of course not

but a cut-off set 100 years ago is also stupid.......

The Law actually says that age can not be used as a factor to discriminate.

Capt Scribble

Know your law.

The law accepts Objective Justifications which, in certain circumstances, allow a compulsory retirement age. Age being the only one of the nine ‘protected characteristics’ to which OJs apply.

Ageing has a deleterious effect on humans. Not only is a compulsory retirement age recognised as acceptable in law, in specified circumstances. It is also common sense.

Though I accept, some of our elderly will not like it.

If you really MUST continue earning beyond 65, move to a state that allows elderly pilots, or find a job that is less critical to the safety of the flying public.

Heathrow Harry

1912 was an interesting year. Only 9 years after the Wright brothers at Kittyhawk, I imagine the majority of ‘pilots’ were airship (derigible) pilots? Certainly it was the year of the creation of the RFC, and the first US Marine Corps pilot commenced training. Some were struggling to fly across the English Channel in a time of around 60 minutes. The World Altitude record was around 13,000’!

I imagine it also preceded ATC since Mr Marconi had only invented a very heavy, and primitive radio set in 1895.

My, how the demands on our steely eyed aviators have changed!

To be honest, I think anyone who wishes to do this job beyond the age of 65 is nuts. My opinion.

Personally, I’ve got absolutely no desire to be up all night crossing multiple time zones in my late 60s or early 70s unless I’m going on holiday. Every single pilot flying today has always known that they have to retire at 65, and that’s what I signed up for. I fail to see why promotion opportunities should be effectively closed off (for an undefined period of time) because others choose to try and move the goalposts at the end of their career, to suit their own circumstances.

The law doesn’t really come into it, as you cannot hold a Class 1 medical for commercial flying purposes beyond the age of 65. If you’ve failed to sort a pension during what is a reasonably well paid career then that’s on you. I shouldn’t have to pay for it. “Age discrimination” doesn’t cut it as an argument either, as changing the medical rules & effectively removing the CRA discriminates just as much against younger people by preventing their career advancement by ‘bed blocking’ (for want of a better expression)

If this is the way we’re heading, and people must absolutely keep flying beyond 65 then feel free, but do so as an FO in the right hand seat, on FOs money.

4468, you sound as if you have become an old fart far too young! There is no 'Objective Justifications' saying that you must get old too quickly.

My son and daughter, both in their thirties, would probably agree with you.

From birth they lived and grew up in an 'olde worlde' cottage complete with a professionally manicured country garden.

Now both highly successful in their respective careers, they live with their spouses and young children in Central London. Wild horses would not drag them back to the country idyll.