Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:

[eye_in_the_sky]

The very people who complain about the increased age of retirements are the same ones who have agreed to work for less and less dragging this industry down! I don't blame these guys for being selfish. We all are, and anyone who doesn't look out for number one is a fool. Having said that, I dont plan on holding up anyone's career, as I am walking and taking my fed pension at 50

[Mig29]

DanWEC, you're not looking at the big picture. First off, no offence, but you are crazy to think that you'll ever make any money in this industry just finishing your licence when you're 30. Second, the only way you will get a job, is if there is movement in the big leagues. Right now it takes around 10+ years to get into the big leagues where the starting salary is 30k. If there is a delay at the big leagues where people choose not to retire for another 5 years on average, it'll take you 15+ years to get into Air Canada.

Right now, if you get lucky, you can get on with Air Canada at age 40. Min retirement with no penalty is 25 years so you'll only have 5 years of penalty with collecting your pension at 60 instead of 65. You'll be retired at 60 when you would rather work until 65 to receive no penalty, but you'll be retired.

Let's look at the other scenario. So now you're a new hire with AC at 45 because it took you 5 years longer to get hired with no movement at the top and you're just starting to make 30k. Unfortunately management has noticed that the average employee is putting in 40+ years of service, so they decide to change the min retirement to 30years with no penalty. Now you can't retire without penalty until you're 70, and can't receive a full pension until 85. Will you try and work until you are 70 or the doctor tells you that you can't? I'd say most likely yes. Is this safe? probably not. Are you worse off financially then if you had gotten in 5 years earlier and were forced to retire at 60... pretty close but that's only if you manage to fly until you are 70. If you lose your medical at 60, you walk away with nothing.

Now do you think that the greedy old guy who's sitting at the top should retire with 70% of their wages and work elsewhere for 30% of their wage. They're still making as much as they would have been if they were still working with Air Canada but they're not inhibiting everyone else. As well they'll likely be flying a plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong, not endagering 100's of lives. It might seem selfish to you but if you have any desire to work in this industry, you should be one of the most vocal people on here. They're making up to 200k and complaining about retiring with 100k+ pension. The pilots trying to get into AC, are working for free and the pilots at the bottom of the pole are making the same as the welfare recipient next door. So tell us again who's selfish???

+1 for this

[YWGGuy]

The very people who complain about the increased age of retirements are the same ones who have agreed to work for less and less dragging this industry down! I don't blame these guys for being selfish. We all are, and anyone who doesn't look out for number one is a fool. Having said that, I dont plan on holding up anyone's career, as I am walking and taking my fed pension at 50

I am glad you are speaking on behalf of myself. Just to let you know, when I was only flying around piston singles I turned down a couple jobs - in particular Carson Air for pay and working conditions and other outfits as such. Where I am working right now requires no training bond, and pays about 30% more than other companies doing the same type of flying/same equipment. I also have group medical and dental which is not very common at all at my level. I knew this is where I wanted to work and strived to get here by being better than the people going to Carson Air etc.. Am I living where I want to? No. However the company actually treats me with respect and pays me what I feel I deserve. I hardly think I am responsible for agreeing to work for lesss.

[N2]

If someone doesn't like the way the game is played why not quit and put all the bitching and moaning behind them! Get into another profession and fly for fun.

Life is too short to be miserable.

[Mig29]

I agree about being miserable...

having said that, this 'game' is being brought on by few individuals and not the entire airline community.
Therefore, just like anything, abide by the rules that you SIGNED up for! If you don't like it, then quit and
find a job that will let you drive till you are 100 as far as I care. But don't get into something 20, 30 years ago
and complain about it on your 60th birthday!

Do you get my point??

At least let the people vote on this rule, and then based on the results, decide on your course of action. And over 85% of pilots
have made their voices heard....so am I missing something here folks???

Cheers

[bluemic]

This thread should actually be in the Air Canada section (as a matter of fact, it really should be in a private ACPA forum) but it's not, so what the heck...

Therefore, just like anything, abide by the rules that you SIGNED up for! If you don't like it, then quit and
find a job that will let you drive till you are 100 as far as I care. But don't get into something 20, 30 years ago
and complain about it on your 60th birthday!

Do you get my point??

No I don't.

When we (well, me anyway) 'signed on' many things were different. Duty day, crew rest, security, pay scales, hiring age, female pilots, medical exclusions, education requirements - to name a few. And as some have stated in other threads and forums, back in the "olden days" apparently the mandatory age limit for retirement was LOWER!

Yet I don't know of anyone who took your sage advice and "quit and [found] a job" elsewhere when those changes came along.

Do you?

At least let the people vote on this rule, and then based on the results, decide on your course of action. And over 85% of pilots have made their voices heard

If memory serves, the question that the "85%" answered was somewhat ambiguous - and fwiw, no one who was retired got to respond, despite their vested interest. But "vote/schmote" - it's actually irrelevant. In this country, I believe the way it works is that a majority vote by a union doesn't trump human rights...

However ACPA is famous for attempting to repudiate this simple concept.

...so am I missing something here folks???

I think you're missing the point that change happens. You're missing the point that the rest of the world has accepted this particular change and it's been pretty much a non-event. And you're missing the point that other pilot unions - even those in this country - have dealt with this issue long ago...and I daresay at little cost.

Unfortunately, your union - rather than being proactive - seems bent on learning the hard way. (I'm being presumptuous about your status here, as I assume you're an active ACPA member...)

mic

[TreeBlender]

If memory serves, the question that the "85%" answered was somewhat ambiguous - and fwiw, no one who was retired got to respond, despite their vested interest. But "vote/schmote" - it's actually irrelevant. In this country, I believe the way it works is that a majority vote by a union doesn't trump human rights...

The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

Where in the above statement does it state that you should be allowed to fly an airplane full of trusting individuals no matter how old you are? This is not a human rights issue, this is a safety issue. It's like a geriatric fire fighter arguing that he should still be allowed on the truck when he can't even lift a hose. I pay taxes for firefighters that are capable just like I pay good money for a pilot that is capable.

Medicals are a joke. The ability to accurately test hand eye co-ordination and other required skills that are proven to deteriorate rapidly over the age of 60, is not present in the current medical testing. Feel free to continue flying, just don't do it on a carrier that myself or my family might be on.

Welcome to reality... with age comes deterioration, accept it and move on.

[square]

Haha I LIKE that study on retirement age vs. lifespan. Shocking stats, a guy who retires at 50 lives to 86, a guy who retires at 65 lives another year and a half before he croaks. That's just typical statistics there boys.. they're two different sample groups being treated like the same one. What do you think the big difference is between people retiring at 50 and those retiring at 65? The reason they retire at that age.. Money! And success. A guy retiring at 50 is obviously in a position to do that, and a guy retiring at 65 probably needed the money! It speaks to a lot of factors, like how well they'd been able to take care of themselves.. whether he was saving money or spending it on a certain lifestyle. Doesn't even say they're pilots, the majority of people retiring at 65 probably didn't lead executive lifestyles and for certain reasons if you know what I mean.. There's a reason some people are more successful than others.

Anyway that really has nothing to do with flying I just love how people use statistics hehe, in my opinion you can't say this wasn't coming. Lifespans have probably gone up 15 years in the past 50 years. Health and function of the older generation has been going steadily up. If they can pass a medical and a ride there's no reason they shouldn't be able to fill a seat up front. I guess there's some lingering concern in peoples' minds that the guy may die at the wheel, and he might.. and it would be a very sad event with very little impact on flight safety or operations. Any airline pilot can safely do an approach by himself. So that's not really an argument.. if the retirement age got kicked up a notch it would suck, but it's fair. And it would actually help the airlines in the long run, they'd be paying fewer years of pension. As it is you retire a guy at 60 and pay a second person to fill his seat til hes 65, 75, and so on. If you retired him at 65 instead, that's 5 years of pension they no longer have to pay. Which is what, little under a million dollars per pilot?

[Prairie Chicken]

Ah, the NOW generation ... I WANT WHAT I WANT, AND I WANT IT NOW!!! It doesn't matter if I am qualified for it or how many people I walk on to get what I want--I want it now!!! Well, sorry boys, but those who are older, wiser, AND in positions to make the decisions are not likely to cave to your impatience.

I also think this discussion is in the right forum--it is an industry, cultural debate--not just an AC issue.

Mig29 doesnt' think DanWEC is looking at the big picture. I think Dan has it right, so -1 for your argument that the guy who has made it to the top of the pile should bow out just so you can get to the top.

Medical fitness is a whole other argument. Of course you shouldn't be flying if you are not fit--regardless of age! So, are you now going to argue that everyone over, what, 60?, 65?, 70?, is medically unfit or mentally incompetent?

[HavaJava]

Ok...this is a completely serious idea.

Since medicals don't directly measure psychological and cognitive ability and there is no guarantee that our train-to-standard simulator training will be modified, maybe any returnees should be given the cog and psych test (the same one that new-hires have to complete) in order to guarantee that they are still up to a comparable standard of competency.

I actually think that if these tests are important enough to weed out competitive candidates in the hiring process, maybe they should be a part of the continuing medical process for all pilots.

It always amazes me that all my 80 year old grandmother has to do to keep her drivers licence is a written exam every couple years. Having no practical driving test for the elderly is insane in my opinion (and my grandmother has multiple accidents and close calls in the past few years to prove it). Pilots obviously submit to more intense screening, but whether you're 41 or 71, all the hurdles are basically the same. I truly believe that as pilots age they should be screened much more carefully in the practical, cognitive, and psychological departments.

If it's good enough for our new hires, then it's definately not discrimatory for our returnees.

[TreeBlender]

HavaJava hit it on the head. There's numerous stats out there showing that people over the age of 60 cause more accidents than teenagers. We have numerous restrictions across Canada for teenagers who have their drivers licence but very few for the elderly. Canada is even lowering the legal alcohol limit to .05 across the country. Does anyone really think that a 25 year old who's had one drink has slower reaction times, hand eye co-ordination and less cognitive ability than a 70 year old? It's not popular to say that Grandpa is no longer capable, so society shoves the issue under the carpet and goes on with life. Yet I bet everyone of us has many stories of their Grandma/Grandpa just about killing them while driving. Ignoring what happens on the streets is one thing but ignoring what happens in the sky is another.

[Cat Driver]

Does anyone really think that a 25 year old who's had one drink has slower reaction times, hand eye co-ordination and less cognitive ability than a 70 year old? It's not popular to say that Grandpa is no longer capable, so society shoves the issue under the carpet and goes on with life. Yet I bet everyone of us has many stories of their Grandma/Grandpa just about killing them while driving. Ignoring what happens on the streets is one thing but ignoring what happens in the sky is another.

Making broad general assumptions regarding the physical and mental conditions of any pilot at age seventy does not fully address the subject.

I made the decision to retire at seventy so as to be able to live the remainder of my life with the freedom to do as I want.

When I retired I was still flying as an airdisplay pilot in the European air show circuit and held an unrestricted airdisplay authority valid under JAR, and Breitling and Red Bull were still willing to sponsor me. Renewing an airdisplay license is far more demanding than passing a sim session when it comes to airplane handling ability and the ability to retain situational awareness.

So your opinion on this subject has some flaws in it and does not fit every pilot.

[TreeBlender]

You are right Cat it is a generalization. I'm speaking in averages. I'm not saying that every 70 year old is incapable of flying. You probably were one of the few that was still as sharp at 70 as you were at 50. My point is that the testing they use now does not catch those who have lost the ability to safely fly, while still letting the competant ones through. Because of that, you have to pick an age where the average cognitive ability begins to fade and use that as the "no fly age", as far as airlines are concerned.

If you are going to allow pilots to fly in the airlines past 60, they should have an over 60 cognitive testing session along with their sim and medical. That being said, you will never be able to know when you will be forced to retire. Knowing that there will be forced retirement at age 60, will also help you plan your retirement. Planning on flying until you're 75 and losing your licence at 60, will leave you in a world of hurt.

Right now there isn't anything stopping these pilots from continuing to fly. They just have to do so in a lower risk setting, outside of the airlines.

[bluemic]

The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

It doesn't seem to say a thing about age in your statement above. What is the source for your quote btw – or did you just make it up?

But fwiw, in the lead web page of the CANADIAN Human Rights Commission it states:

"The idea behind the Act is that people should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because of their age, sex, race or any other ground covered by the Act. That is discrimination and is against the law."

Here's the link.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/about/human_rights_act-eng.aspx

You also said:

Feel free to continue flying, just don't do it on a carrier that myself or my family might be on.

If you practice what you preach - and if you actually believe what you write - it appears that your choice of carrier for your next family vacation will be somewhat limited. Pretty much boils down to Air Canada. Not Jazz. Not WJ. Not a US carrier. Not a host of other airlines actually. But it's always nice to see such loyalty; I'm sure AC really appreciates it!

But wait! You're gonna have to check the crew list first. You know, just in case you're unlucky enough to find V or K sitting up front. I guess then you'll have to take the train to Europe.

As I said: The rest of the world has already done this. Only ACPA is still on the floor, holding their breath, kicking and screaming.

…I'm speaking in averages. I'm not saying that every 70 year old is incapable of flying.……My point is that the testing they use now does not catch those who have lost the ability to safely fly, while still letting the competant ones through. Because of that, you have to pick an age where the average cognitive ability begins to fade and use that as the "no fly age", as far as airlines are concerned.

WHERE'VE YOU BEEN? Pardon my shouting, but ICAO (and its 190 contracting states) have already picked "an age". They did so back in November of 2006 and that age is under sixty-FIVE (for PIC). Other states – Canada included – have opted for even higher (i.e. older) limits. Again, the noticeable holdout is – you guessed it! ACPA.

You mention increased testing or cognitive testing? Here I agree with you. I think EVERY person who has the lives of others in their hands should be regularly tested, not just the ones who've reached an arbitrarily set age. Everyone. Without (here's that word again!) 'discrimination'. But practicality tells me that it'd be a very long list so I'm not holding MY breath.

Lastly...oddly enough - since ICAO made the change - I can't recall any reports of airliners (complete with blue-rinsed grizzled veterans sporting wraparounds and attempting to peer over the control column) routinely missing stop bars, backing into parked airplanes or running up on the grass where there might be pedestrians. In fact, I can't even recall one instance where a sexagenarian captain mistook the throttle for the park brake…

Okay, okay. That last bit was "tongue-in-cheek". My bad.

mic

[Mig29]

Why does it matter who I work for bluemic?? I could be a grass cutter for all I care
....why do people always create a new avatar on Avcanada when they have a 'touchy' subject to write about? So someone in the hiring department does not get a wind of your opinion and you end up not getting that 'dream job'? I could care less, if this a debate, everyone's opinion should be respected, wether we all agree is another thing.

Anyways, hava java brought a point that is excellent, but it has been overlooked by many of us, because it's become a non issue nowadays. Medicals ARE a joke in most cases, but they really don't test your reactionary skills, and just like it's scare to see an 80yr old drive, I would not want to put my family onboard some airline that has 65 or even 60 year old pilots. My dad is creeping towards 60 and I can notice that even though he's safe, his 'driving' sharpness has gone....

And square, lets not bring this whole rich/can't afford to retire issue again. If someone pulling over 200k/yr CAN'T afford to retire on a 100k pension, then they are simply GREEDY. Period! Try raising a 4 member family on less than 30k (COMBINED) household income and surviving in Canada. Or try surviving in a war torn country under $300 a month and your rent being $200, and support the kids to school at the same time!! And these are fairy tale examples compared to some parts of this world.

Call me I WANT IT NOW generation all you want, but what makes then you guys, who have it all, and still can't have enough??

[Cat Driver]

My decision to quit posting in this forum was a sound one, however there are times it truly scares me to see how myopic a lot of pilots are and to make it worse they could be paired up in the same airlines I may one day fly on.

The age argument is not a true means of deciding the ability of a pilot.

How many of you guys who are biased with regard to the age thing could fly to the skills level of Bob Hoover when he was doing his routine near the end of his career???

By the way he was in his early eighties then.

To address the safety issue if a pilot over the age of 60 becomes incapacitated am I to believe one of you younger ones could not safely complete the flight as the second crew member?

I'm back out of here because it is embarrassing to my vision of pilots to read some of the stuff here.


And scary

[Prairie Chicken]

Welcome back Cat, even if only for a short time to share your wisdom on this topic. You are right: It is embarrassing, and scary.

[TreeBlender]

Are those that are against the mandatory retirement age saying that your cognitive, hand-eye or memory doesn't deteriorate with age?

Are they saying that the limited medical testing that is done, will catch this deterioration?

or,

Are they saying that it is our human rights to fly a plane no matter how deteriorated we have become?

You can tell when a topic is sensitive when no-one answers the question at hand.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The problem going forward isn't going to be old guys in the cockpit it is going to be the capabilities of the the other half of the flight deck team.....the guy/gal siting in the right seat. You only have to look at Europe to see the future. When the excrement hits the rotary occilator, the person "helping" the Captain is going to be a 250 hour wonder who is there not because he/she is the best and most qualified, but because they have enough money to pay huge bucks to the airline "profit centre" formally know as the training department.

Can't happen here......guess again the precident has allready been set by JAZZ. The bean counters are just salivating at the prospect of filling the cockpits with starry eyed 250 hr newbies happy to work for "B" scale at what will be their very first flying job. Not a problem right now because of the small numbers of low timers hired and the fact that JAZZ cherry picked the cream of the crop out of the colleges, but wait untill they figure out that they can not only do away with the expense of providing training, they can actually make a profit selling that right seat jet "job"......

[Frank Gallagher]

The number of mouth breathers here is staggering.

Look if I have a job it is my job not yours on loan. It's not up to anyone but myself and my boss when that job should come to an end not some snot nosed punk nipping at my heals with a knife placed firmly in my back.

suck it up princesses.

get back to your mama's teet for a few more years and grow up at least till your nuts drop.

[TreeBlender]

Hahaha... I'm sure everyone is hoping that you stick around past 60. Doesn't sound like you're a old, bitter or senile and a real joy to spend time in the cockpit with. Do I really have to wait until my nuts are also dragging on the floor before people like you will leave? Can I, as a passenger, choose not to fly with you, cause you are kind of making me nervous. It sounds like you have a beautiful life waiting for you beyond the workplace, why don't you go enjoy it.

[Cat Driver]

Reading these posts makes me wonder how it is possible for anyone to be so abysmally stupid as to think the way some of you do.

Some of the best pilots I ever met had no nuts.

I just recently lost my wife to cancer and reading this kind of infantile garbage makes me wonder how anyone can post such idiotic stuff as I read here.

For all you immature macho wannabe pilots who think like this was you are a disgrace to the human race.

And so far from professional pilots it is unbelievable.

[Lurch]

Reading these posts makes me wonder how it is possible for anyone to be so abysmally stupid as to think the way some of you do.

Some of the best pilots I ever met had no nuts.

I just recently lost my wife to cancer and reading this kind of infantile garbage makes me wonder how anyone can post such idiotic stuff as I read here.

For all you immature macho wannabe pilots who think like this was you are a disgrace to the human race.

And so far from professional pilots it is unbelievable.

Cat, Cat, Cat, you seem to forget that this is the me generation, nobody cares about others, just themselves.

Sad thing is once these same "professional" pilots get to be 65 they will be financed to the 9s, won't be able to retire, and whining that there shouldn't be such a thing as forced retirement.

Lurch

[Cat Driver]

Yes Lurch I realize times have changed and integrity and caring about others is getting lost in self interest.

Before Pene died she wanted me to continue writing about aviation and try to set an example for the new generations.

I came very close to dying myself since she lost her battle with cancer.

I think I am going to recover at least enough to maybe some day go back to flight instruction because that is what she wanted me to do.

For sure there are a lot of really good young people out there who deserve to be helped.

The morons are easy to identify.

[Cat Driver]

I just read this by Big Pistons Forever in one of his posts which he started on the flight training forum about instructing.

D) Being a flying instructor is to be the Rodney Dangerfield of aviation. There is plenty of Cat Driver like personalities out there who will go out of their way to disrespect you. Best to just suck it up and ignore them

Seems Avcanada is not the venue for me to try and give advice to the younger generation.