Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LH Pilots In Court: Retiring Age 65 Now  
User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 806 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 4834 times:

The search function has not revealed any matching results, and as I thought it might be of interest, here's the topic:

http://www.aero.de/news-13483/Klaege...gen-statt-neuer-Altersgrenzen.html
http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,785921,00.html
(both german)

Three LH pilots wanted to keep their jobs longer than their contracts stated concerning retirement age, which is exactly the day they turn 60. They went to the German court which then redirected them to a common European authority, stating that such practice is a way of discrimination, based on age, assuming that older pilots are 'less capable'. The European Court has ruled out that such practices may be reasonable for certain jobs, but the Pilot can be exempted from such special treatment.
Negotiations with the Pilot Unions will follow. They (Vereinigung Cockpit - VC) stated that they are not in favor of the court's ruling. LH did not want to make an official statement about the subject yet, however people within LH management said they were quite happy about it, since they can be more flexible in planning with a greater number of senior pilots.


It seems strange in today's world that there are people who are so much in love with their job that they rather work 5 more years. The common trend is the opposite - As soon as the retirement age is set higher due to economic or demographic reasons, and if it's only by 2 years, those concerned cry out as if it was their life's end. It's nice to see that there is a job out there which people like to work at.
For me personally that may or may not have consequences, as I am undergoing ab-initio flight training. If less people retire, less people might be employed. We'll see.

What are your thoughts?


// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8900 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 4804 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Semaex (Thread starter):
It seems strange in today's world that there are people who are so much in love with their job that they rather work 5 more years.

I guess they love they job that much that they want to fly couple more years. As long as possible. Or they need the money because they are divorced 3+ times 

I personally am affected of this as well. As this is my Captain position which will be available a lot later if they come back and if many others fly until 65 at LH...

Let's see what LH makes out of it. As the contract between the pilots and the company still say 60 as max age. So that has to be changed first. So will take a while and I am sure there is some interesting end...

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 4778 times:

Quoting Semaex (Thread starter):
It seems strange in today's world that there are people who are so much in love with their job that they rather work 5 more years

What is so strange about it? the law in germany says that pilots can fly until 65 years when mandatory retirement becomes effective. Of course only if they passe the medical tests. That is also a condition of the law.

LH's internal retirement practise is a privately negotiated agreement with the union VC (Vereinigung Cockpit) which has now been ruled by a European Supreme Court as discriminatory. That means, LH and VC have to go back to the negotiating table allowing pilots who want to fly longer to simply do that at their request.

The solution could be that retirement at 60 is optional with the same conditions as before and whoever wants to stay in the job until 65 or as long as health allows can do that.

In an aging society that makes a lot of sense.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 4656 times:

We are going through the same thing here with Air Canada.

Basically, throughout your career wages and working conditions improve as you become more and more senior. More are hired at the bottom, more leave at the top. Right up to the last 5 - 10 years when wages are at their maximum, and working conditions are now for what you have worked the previous 20 years ... namely the best.

It is what we all signed on for, and what we all knew was going to happen.

So it is not a surprise that once you are at that level, you want to stay longer.

Of course it is supremely selfish. That is human nature. It is also human nature that the loudest opponents to working past 60 very quickly change their tune when they reach that age.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineLoveTheSkies From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

I was reading another thread about "the oldest working F/A" where age discrimination was brought up at the mentioning of a mandatory retirement age. I don't want to compare these two jobs but talk about some general ideas. With life expectancies now well into the 80's in most western societies, it may be necessary to reevaluate a mandatory retirement age of 60/65 for pilots specifically and the idea of a mandatory retirement age in general.

First, those additional years we'll live have to be financed. Years ago, a pilot retiring at 60 had enough money saved to cover his 10-15 yrs in retirement. Now, he'll need to be prepared for 20+yrs. That is quite a difference.
Then, there are the medical advances over the years that make the average 60yr old of today healthier than a 60yr old of times gone by.
And finally, I want to mention the value of an experienced employee in general. While I understand those just starting out or those (like me) waiting to move up may not like to hear it (talk about ppl being out of touch or old fashion can be heard,) there is something to be said about someone who has spent decades at his/her job dealing with all those out of the ordinary situations that come up.

As long as one can meet all the requirements for a job, I don't think age should be a consideration.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 8740 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Just to explain - mandatory retirement is at 65 in Germany probably in other European countries as well.

The legal case was against a private contract between the carrier as an employer and the union. The high court has ruled that the conditions of mandatory retirement in this private contract are discriminatory and have to be reviewed.

Indeed it is so that these days "60" is not old. Pilots in Gernany, at least those working for that big company, do not have to worry about their income when they retire at 60, they still take home more than the large majority here. saving for retirement is an issue in the US maybe, not so much here.

But if the law says that mandatory retirement is 65 it does not make sense to retire 5 years early. Will be interesting to see how the union will solve that problem.



I'm not fishing for compliments
User currently offlineDHstrike From Netherlands, joined Nov 2009, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 4417 times:

Hello,

Think about financial advantages... You don't start to drain your retirement funds for 5 years, even better you still put money ( and so does your company with a much bigger share) in the retirement fund. So depending how long you are within the company, this can make a huge difference in retirement pay. Roughly between 20.000 Euro till 50.000 Euro annual retirement pay.

A different story will be when the goverment ( taxes) will decide that you have to work till 65. Then you could think off that the retirement funds 100% full won't be achieved when you are 60 but only at 65. That means same money but only 5 years longer work. This is a less good scenario, but better for the company, since they pay the same contribution but stretched till 65 years old.


User currently onlineairevents From Germany, joined Jan 2002, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

Many of the colleagues in LH are quite unhappy about this court ruling I believe. Personally, a flight attendant, I would prefer to stop working at 55 and hope that this "can" ruling will not end in a "must" higher retirement age for everybody... But then, some people don´t seem to have hobbies (or maybe three ex-wives and some kids to entertain financially...)


www.airevents.com
User currently offlinetozairport From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 681 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4210 times:

An am totally fine with the retirement age change. My only requirement would be that they should have to go fly F/O on the most junior equipment. That way they could see how "enjoyable" this job is for all of those that they are keeping down. They wouldn't last a week.


Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
User currently offlineAmsterdam From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

At KLM the retirement age is 56.
If that would change to 60 or even higher it will mean that for more than 1700 pilots their career development will be delayed for many years. Plus young pilots won't be let in the company for many years.

So it should be kept as it is.
You shouldn't have signed that contract if you don't like it.
If you want to fly longer than what is stated in your contract, go and fly for an other airline.

Any change in the retirement age should only be made to NEW contracts.

[Edited 2011-09-14 10:36:33]

User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8900 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4101 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 9):
At KLM the retirement age is 56.
If that would change to 60 or even higher it will mean that for more than 1700 pilots their career development will be delayed for many years. Plus young pilots won't be let in the company for many years.

That is the same at LH. If all the captains come back who are between 60 and 65 and all after that stay until 65 I will be captain in 15 years. Well, at least shortly before I retire myself 

Problem is, if it is the German law that pilots can fly until 65, and only the LH contract says 60, then something has to be done about it - if we like it or not.

Quoting Amsterdam (Reply 9):
Any change in the retirement age should only be made to NEW contracts.

Would be an option. Or say for all those who become captain from 1st January 2012 have the option to fly until 65. But then the others will comlain again and say: "we don't have that option and lose a lot of money..."

It will be difficult and complicated.

wilco737
  



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2756 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

Quoting Semaex (Thread starter):
It seems strange in today's world that there are people who are so much in love with their job that they rather work 5 more years.

Those people love their job now that they are SENIOR; they were PERFECTLY happy with the younger retirement age when they were junior. Now they want to change the game to suit their own purposes.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 3):
It is also human nature that the loudest opponents to working past 60 very quickly change their tune when they reach that age.

I certainly saw it in the US. Can't wait for the age 65 bubble to hit: all of us in our 30s and 40s certainly took a five year pause in our career progression to let 777 and 747 Captains fly five more years.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12323 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 5):
Just to explain - mandatory retirement is at 65 in Germany probably in other European countries as well.

It'll be going up in stages; I'm in my early 40s and by the time I retire (I'm not a pilot), the retirement age will probably be about 67 or 68. I think the pension issue is a big one, because in many companies - not just airlines - across Europe, this is an issue and it's a big one. If someone wants to do a job and he/she is fit to do it, then they should be allowed to do it. Not all pilots will WANT to go on beyond 60; I would think that a significant number have planned to retire at 60 and are happy to do so; maybe they have their own private pension plans/investment portfolios. But those that want to should be allowed to.

I appreciate that it's a pain for those younger pilots waiting for a command, but at the end of the day, this was going to happen at some stage; if not now, then 5 or 10 years from now.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 3):
Of course it is supremely selfish. That is human nature. It is also human nature that the loudest opponents to working past 60 very quickly change their tune when they reach that age.

I really don't see it as selfish; someone has a job they like and they're fit to do it; why should they retire at an age that was arbitrarily fixed 40 or 50 years ago, before their careers even began? Again, I don't think it's compulsory that people will go beyond 60; it's just for those who choose to do so. I think that's only fair and reasonable.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3807 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tozairport (Reply 8):
My only requirement would be that they should have to go fly F/O on the most junior equipment. That way they could see how "enjoyable" this job is for all of those that they are keeping down. They wouldn't last a week.

Alas, this is certain to run contrary to age discrimination rules...

Question, I vaguely recall a rule where if the pilot is over age X, the F/O must be under Y. Is that true or was that a myth?

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 806 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3506 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 13):
Question, I vaguely recall a rule where if the pilot is over age X, the F/O must be under Y. Is that true or was that a myth?

If I understand you right, what you mean is a certain age limit between Captain and FO, since when it comes to seniority it may happen that the FO is older than the captain, however I do not have a number on this.
What I do know from reading the FAZ printed paper report on the Age-65-Rule, at airlines in Europe where the Captain is over 60, the FO (or whoever is in the right seat) must be under 60.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 43
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3400 times:

Quoting Semaex (Reply 14):
What I do know from reading the FAZ printed paper report on the Age-65-Rule, at airlines in Europe where the Captain is over 60, the FO (or whoever is in the right seat) must be under 60.

To me, this defies logic ... if you have to restrict the number of crew members over 60 in a cockpit, then there should be NO crew members over 60 in the cockpit.

In other words, if there is a perceived increased risk of having older pilots flying, then why have them flying at all? Especially as there are more than enough younger pilots looking to move up the ranks.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1034 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

The age 60 rule, which was enacted in the U.S. in 1960 was basically changed because of the ruination of pilot retirement benefits in Chapter 11 restructuring, most notably at UA and US. 2/3rds of what we negotiated vanished in the wind.

I would have loved to have retired at 60, but now I have no financial choice but to keep flying as long as I can. I love my job, but I've been flying for the airlines since 1978 (since I was 23) and it would have been nice to ease on out. The change to the age 60 rule keeps me down in seniority, too. I'm still a narrow-body reserve captain after 26 1/2 years on the property.

[Edited 2011-09-15 21:50:44]

User currently offlinefraT From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 3137 times:

I am pretty sure that none of the LH captains who sued LH is doing that for financial reasons. The pension they are getting now when retiring at age 60 is quite high and even with 3+ divorces, they should be doing alright.  

User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2010 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting fraT (Reply 17):


I am pretty sure that none of the LH captains who sued LH is doing that for financial reasons. The pension they are getting now when retiring at age 60 is quite high and even with 3+ divorces, they should be doing alright.

Absolutely.. these are indeed people who can't imagine a life outside of flying. One pilot I know (nearly 60 now) is seriously dependent on this ruling, as he's utterly scared of retirement.

By the way: the pilots who went to court over this are all over 65 now   their success came a bit late..



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinefraT From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 18):
By the way: the pilots who went to court over this are all over 65 now their success came a bit late..

But there more between 60 and 65 who will probably come back now.
I would like to know, how high this number is.
Any Idea, Wilco?


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6641 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

Quoting fraT (Reply 19):
But there more between 60 and 65 who will probably come back now.

If they are already retired how can they come back?


User currently offlineAmsterdam From Netherlands, joined Mar 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3007 times:

Quoting fraT (Reply 17):
I am pretty sure that none of the LH captains who sued LH is doing that for financial reasons. The pension they are getting now when retiring at age 60 is quite high and even with 3+ divorces, they should be doing alright.

Not every one has started flying and joined his company at a young age.
And certainly not every one has been wise with his money.

I'm sure some of those guys can use that extra money.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4760 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2947 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
If they are already retired how can they come back?

Two at AC won a court case and came back. Both as B777 F/Os. Not a bad gig really, on top of their $100,000+ a year pension, they would make $175,000 as a Triple F/O!

One didn't make it through the course, (he was away for more than 5 years without flying), the other is off on medical leave.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineearlyNFF From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):
If they are already retired how can they come back?

There are rules for this (JAR-OPS). If it´s less than two years, a minor issue only. Thereafter a little more training required.
Same as for longer Illness.


User currently offlineearlyNFF From Germany, joined Sep 2007, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 22):
Not a bad gig really, on top of their $100,000+ a year pension, they would make $175,000 as a Triple F/O!

You sure, they have the salary and the pension?

This will definitely not be the case in LH, either or!

The company will benefit, they save the pension.


25 Boeing747_600 : My take: If they pass the medicals and still retain their flying skills, let them fly as long as they want.
26 chrisMUC : As they are about to turn 65, I can't think of any other reasons than financial ones.
27 fraT : a) they love flying. b) It was not only the three who filed the suit but a lot more in their late 50ies and early 60ies. So they wanted a court to ma
28 earlyNFF : do you really think they knew in the first place they had to wait five years to go through all the instancies? Of course, now what is left for them i
29 Aquila3 : Not so sure. Depends all on your ex-partner(s) greed. Been there, believe me.
30 longhauler : The problem (in this case) is that these two pilots were already collecting their pensions, into which they paid. So, yes, they continue to receive t
31 Semaex : Back to my OP, what do you think will become of the airline (in this case LH) in terms of recruiting new pilots? Not to sound too dramatic; but will I
32 longhauler : The two best examples might be the US or Canada. In the US, the change of retirement from 60 to 65 virtually meant a 5 year "stall" for everyone's ca
33 PanHAM : What the union has to do is re-negotiate the contract. I think it is not mandatory for pilots to be a union member, which is very good. For LH the co
34 earlyNFF : Sorry semaex to spit in your soup, this is a matter of LH pilots only. You (Intercockpit) are struggling in the world outside LH where the max age of
35 earlyNFF : Not quite, I guess LH is leaning very much to the canadian side of this comparison. LH has to abide by the law, too late for the union to get a good
36 PanHAM : That is exactly what I meant. Unlike some other countries, no one in Germany can be forced to join a union.
37 Semaex : Very true, LH Passage does not affect me is much as I would love it to be, regarding my way of getting into the cockpit. Nonetheless, LH is more than
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
QF Pilots In Court Over Unsafe Ops. posted Wed Sep 15 2004 05:41:27 by 777ER
LH In Court Over Rude Crew Member posted Thu Mar 5 2009 23:11:07 by BALHRWWCC
Retirment Age 65 About To Be Reailty In US posted Thu Dec 13 2007 13:55:38 by CXB744
Age 60+ Foreign Pilots In US Airspace posted Sun Mar 12 2006 20:31:55 by PIA747
LH Loses Cross-Ticketing Case In Court posted Sun Feb 20 2005 19:43:34 by Leskova
ATA Reportedly In Court Right Now posted Mon Oct 25 2004 22:49:29 by Aa717driver
LH Pilots Vote In Favor Of Strike! posted Thu May 3 2001 19:09:41 by TurbineBeaver
First Pic Of LH B748 In Full Colors posted Sun Sep 4 2011 14:04:44 by LHPII
Mesa Loses In Court To Delta posted Mon May 17 2010 19:37:02 by n7371f
Could LH Come In And "save" US? posted Fri Apr 23 2010 13:49:28 by USAirALB