Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:

[55+]

Senior citizens who can collect their CCP at full rate(65) and old age supplement are now gonna be flying at AC........ same age group that is having difficulties with gas pedals and floor mats on Toyota cars............

[teacher]

I quick Google search turned up this. Coming from .. blog it may be biased however that old (20 years old) Boeing study has been quoted before and the info comes from other non AC source.

Monday, November 06, 2006
Does retiring later mean dying sooner?
The current retirement age for pilots at Air Canada is 60 years although some current and recently retired pilots support moving the retirement age to age 65. Many Air Canada Pilots do not support such a move.

Part of the discussion has turned to the effects of a later retirement age on a pilot's health and if it will lead to an earlier death.

There are different opinions on this.

Boeing Retiree Study

The study of Boeing retirees, "Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement" has been on the internet for many years. The study by Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng came to the conclusion that people retiring at the age of 50 had an average life span is 86; whereas for people retiring at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8. The important conclusion from this study was that for every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.

The one problem with the Boeing study is it's age. The study was reportedly done over 20 years ago.

Shell Oil Retiree Study

And other studies came to different conclusions. An October 2005 study "Age at retirement and long term survival of an industrial population: prospective cohort study" examined past employees of Shell Oil who retired at ages 55, 60, and 65 between 1 January 1973 and 31 December 2003.

The conclusion of this study was: Retiring early at 55 or 60 was not associated with better survival than retiring at 65 in a cohort of past employees of the petrochemical industry. Mortality was higher in employees who retired at 55 than in those who continued working.

University of Virginia Rat Study

A study by University of Virginia researchers released November 2006 is probably most relevant to pilots who are debating the idea of working past age 60.

The researchers reported that shifting the time cycle six hours once a week for up to 8 weeks hastened the death of elderly rats but was generally not fatal to younger rats.

According to a WebMD article reporting the study:

53% of elderly rats put on an advanced-time schedule were dead after eight weeks, compared with only 17% of the elderly rats on a normal schedule.

Advancing the rats' schedules was more lethal than delaying them say Alex J. Davidson, PhD, Gene D. Block, PhD, and colleagues in an article in the Nov. 7 issue of Current Biology.

"The dramatic differences in morbidity associated with phase advances of the biological clock raise important issues about the safety of … rotating shift work and the potential long-term health consequences for airline crews regularly crossing time zones," Davidson and colleagues conclude.

The researchers didn't start out studying jet lag. They were working on a different study when they noticed older rats tended to die when their time schedules were advanced.

Davidson and colleagues took groups of young and old rats and shifted their time zones once a week. One group had their schedules advanced by six hours, while another had their schedules delayed by six hours. A third group stayed on their normal time.

Eight weeks later, there was no difference among the young rats.

But for elderly rats, the difference was remarkable. Only 17% of the normal-time rats had died. But 32% of the delayed-schedule rats were dead, and a whopping 53% of the advanced-schedule rats had expired.

Stress did not seem to be a factor, as the dead animals did not have high levels of stress-related hormones.

Exactly what did kill the rats isn't clear. Davidson and colleagues say sleep deprivation or disruption of the immune system may have been to blame.

Whatever the reason, the researchers say upsetting the internal time clock can have serious health consequences -- and these consequences may be far worse for those getting on in years.

Davidson is currently with Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta.

Source:
Jet Lag Proves Deadly in Rat Study - November 6/06 - WebMD

Related:
Jetlag 'can damage your health' - November 6/06 - BBC

Chronic Jet-Lag Conditions Hasten Death in Aged Mice - November 6/06 - Newswise

http://...blogspot.com/2006/11/doe ... ooner.html

[Dash-Ate]

And all along I thought the ruling banning Hedley was the most important ruling in Canadian aviation

[Guido]

Whew... thanks go to Transport for saving us from the impending pilot shortage!

[Morav]

If you don't take piss poor paying jobs while waiting for AC to call you should have nothing to worry about...

[The Old Fogducker]

Guido, can you elaborate on what Transport has to do with this matter? You're the first to introduce this agency into the mix of posts on the ruling ... and since TC has zero to do with the whole process, I'm curious what info you've got.

[North Shore]

^ C'mon, Foggy, you, as an unapologetic rightie, should know the reason for that: When all else fails, it's the Government's fault!

[The Old Fogducker]

North Shore .... yup, I had lost contact with my intrinsic sense of values I guess, and slipped into "investigator mode." Heaven forbid.

The Old (super-sleuth) Fogducker

[Big Pistons Forever]

So now the guy can go back to being an FO while flying backside the clock, max duty day, min rest turns, breathing stale air and being micromanaged at every step .....at age 70 ..... while making less then he did when he retired at 60 . I have a hard time seeing how this is a "victory"

[Mig29]

All you whining broken records who keep spouting off about this subject are in serious need of a reality check. Pilots WORLWIDE are now working to 65. Why should Canada or the ‘Chosen Ones’ at AC be any different? Ask any Lufthansa, British Airways or American Airlines pilot how this has changed their career prospects and the answer is simple. It is the way it is, and they will then laugh at you for feeling sorry for yourselves.

Get a bloody grip. Spend your energy and money fighting management and not one another.

RANT OVER

And who has brought this fight may I ask???? Management or Pilots to them selves??? I didn't see management jumping up and down and forcing anyone to work past 60!? As a matter of fact AC requires you to work 25 years and you can have a pension (not full of course).

I know this forum is not a valid place to vent because majority of decision making people in our industry does not read it, but I will say it anyways...this is one big crap shut we have brought on our selves folks, and you can't blame anyone else but us for this!! With the help of "human rights society" gestapos who pretty much rule in favor of anything that comes their way, but effectively squash the rights of an ordinary human being. Ironic!?

I will say it again, I am happy for you if you can work past 60 and get your medical! Great, you kept your body in a good state and so go for it, but do it from the back of the line if you so GREATLY love this flying gig! Let others move up because if you don't they will stagnate so bad that next thing we'll have guys demanding to work til 70 (as this 65 was just not enough time "to pay all my bills, educate all my kids and buy another ski lodge for my 3rd wife...etc"). For crying out loud, if you are 60 and you STILL have kids asking you for money then something is really wrong!! I worked since I was 16 and when I was done school at 22, I never asked for money from my parents! And my folks are not even 60 yet! If you have to work til 65 and support your kids then they are not kids but 30-35 year ADULTS!!! (with few exceptions of course).

Why don't air force pilots work til 65? Or 55 or 45 for that matter??? Because the job demands certain (high) level of efficiency and physical ability. Why do Europeans have a thing called "Beneficiary Pension"?. Do you even know what that is? It's for high risk/stress jobs like Surgeons, Police, Firefighters, Air Force (and Airline pilots used to be there but are losing that battle), who accrue pension at a faster rate. (For 1 year of service you get say 15 months, so as you get close to 55 or so, you effectively have worked 65 years). Now, why you ask??? Because someone smarter then me and MOST OF YOU has figured out that body after constant and prolonged stress breaks apart earlier and dies. (Teacher has posted a great example above).

Air Canada used to retire earlier then 60, waaaay back, now it's 60, soon to change to 65. When does it end people???? And this is not directed to AC, but every other airline pilot who may decide that 65 is not "in accordance with human rights and freedom"!

You people are more laughable then a 2 year old lying in their own poop

[beast]

Yes, it is truly tyranny of the minority....

Prepare for mechanic787's or acculumous's typical response:

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Yes, it is truly tyranny of the minority.... Prepare for mechanic787's or acculumous's typical response: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!

You should give them both a lot more credit than that, I think. Although I certainly don't agree with everything they say, they are both individuals who back up their posts with solid, clearly explained reasoning. In my view, the long series of exchanges between Mechanic787 and Brick Head, for example, were some of the most balanced, informative and unemotional posts made on this Forum in the last couple of years. At least somebody here has something valuable to contribute, even if that contribution is somewhat one-sided.

['effin hippie]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

[bronson]

Retirement age was 65 when I started, can't recall if it was mandatory. ZBBYLW....if you see light at the end of the tunnel, it's probably your proctologist trying to get your head out of your ass.

[swordfish]

All you whining broken records who keep spouting off about this subject are in serious need of a reality check. Pilots WORLDWIDE are now working to 65. Why should Canada or the ‘Chosen Ones’ at AC be any different? Ask any Lufthansa, British Airways or American Airlines pilot how this has changed their career prospects and the answer is simple. It is the way it is, and they will then laugh at you for feeling sorry for yourselves.

Get a bloody grip. Spend your energy and money fighting management and not one another.

RANT OVER

+1

Get a grip and accept your job for what it is: one of the best in North America.

[willing to fly]

I have mixed feelings on this one. For the record, I'm in my early 30's and still at a 703/704 Company.

Looking ahead, I don't like the idea of someone standing over my shoulder telling me what to do and when to do it (that ironically, describes a typical day at work). I don't like the principal of being forced to quit doing what I love to do.

On the flip side of the coin, mandatory retirement and pensions were implemented in the great depression to make room for younger workers to get into the workforce. What has changed since then? The economy is a little better then when my grandparents were getting into the workforce but I don't see any marked change in the philosophy. Aviation in Canada is basically dominated by one player. When they don't hire, it trickles down.

The reality is that by increasing the age from 60-65 or 70 will create a bubble. Those people have to retire or die at some point and not everyone will want to work past 60. I want to choose the terms of my exit from this industry. Right now I can't say when that will happen so I can sympathize with those who support raising the age limit. That said, I'll never get to their position if they work until they're 110.

[Prairie Chicken]

I can't believe the stupid comments here. What possible argument can there be for mandatory retirement other than the selfish desires of those who want to move into the vacated jobs. How do you define wanting to force someone to stop working so you can have a job as anything other than selfish?

They aren't a safety risk. They are more qualified than the people replacing them. What possible right does anyone have to force them to stop working?

+1 to that! And Modi13 beat me to suggesting that those of you nicely established with ok jobs should get out of the way for those who don't have a job yet! KK7, give your head a shake! You have no idea why those pilots elected to fight this fight & to go back to work! Maybe they did it to pay for all their kids' flying lessons! Nor does it matter why they wish to keep flying. It is their choice; keep building experience & wait your turn!

[KK7]

KK7, give your head a shake! You have no idea why those pilots elected to fight this fight & to go back to work! Maybe they did it to pay for all their kids' flying lessons! Nor does it matter why they wish to keep flying. It is their choice; keep building experience & wait your turn!

It doesn't matter. I have very little sympathy for people who get screwed by their own collective agreements that they signed onto. They (as a union looking after the best interests of their members) agreed to this arrangement.

As I said, I completely agree that mandatory retirement is horsesh_t, and the airlines that don't force people to quit once they reach a certain age have it right. However this has been the established method at Air Canada. The fact is that their employees agreed to with a lack of foresight that is no fault of my own. Now because they realize they shot themselves in the foot, the rest of us have to pay for it? They should change it, but gradually. Making the retirement age disappear overnight will only destroy the careers of many good folks who deserve advancement.

This isn't being selfish - this doesn't affect me a whole lot... but I'm all for what's best for the industry overall.

[beast]

The flypast60 group have constantly used the argument that the necessity for a higher retirement age is driven by the higher average age of new-hires! Of course, they were all hired at a very young age, so that can't possibly apply to them - but why let facts get in the way, this is "discrimination"!

So the obvious answer would be to change the retirement age to 65 for all new-hires starting tomorrow. Pretty obvious.

people who get screwed by their own collective agreements

Yes. Because being forced to accept a $130,000/year salary for playing golf and traveling definitely fits the definition of "getting screwed".

Most people in our society would kill for the ability to retire at 60 with a six figure pension. Remember that.

[Green Onions]

Seems funny to me that so many are mad about pilots wanting to work past 60 at AC, saying it will slow their upgrade down and not allow them to achieve as much in their AC career (or even get to AC) by the time they retire. I wonder how many of these same people were (or are) flight instructors that helped pump more and more new pilots into an already flooded market while trying to advance there career?

Just saying maybe the problem is at the entry level, and not with those coming up to retirement.... be it this year or 5 years from now.

[TreeBlender]

We are our own worst enemies...

Why would anyone argue to continue to work past a mandatory retirement age. Don't be surprised if 5 years from now the average retirement age becomes 65. Then when managment observes the increase in the number of years being worked they put on their thinking caps and suddenly you are required to work 40 years before you are eligible for a full pension.

If you really want to waste your last years stuck in a stale cockpit, Quit, take your pension and top up your income with another carrier. If you have a full pension at 35 years, how much money would you need to make on the side to top it up? If you were making 100g and are receiving 70% with pension, can't you find another job that pays 30g, while you collect your pension?

I've sat beside very few individuals who haven't lost their touch after crossing age 60. Who cares if their ticker is still working fine if you can't do the job as good as you once did. There is the odd freak of nature that is just as sharp at 70 as they were at 30 but they are few and far between and I don't have much faith in the medical department deciphering which ones they are.

[beast]

Seems funny to me that so many are mad about pilots wanting to work past 60

Do you really think thats what so many are mad about?

The reason why everyone despises this tiny minority is that they DIDN'T consider it discrimination until the moment before they were to retire, after everyone ahead of them in the company (industry, etc) had already been "forced" to leave, leaving them all of the gain, with none of the pain. A perfect scheme.

Vilven and Kelly are not going to have a fun time back at work.

[grimey]

If they're healthy and fit to fly I don't see the problem here... I'd imagine the average life expectancy to go up in the future anyway, so why force guys to retire early??

Because there aren't enough jobs for everyone, and not just in aviation. Historically retirement ages have gone up with life expectancy. Look this up in France, they just recently had a bunch of civil unrest due to the increase in retirement age.

The controversy retirement age in France has more to do with their ridiculous pensions becoming insolvent and a sense of entitlement than it does with a lack of jobs. You wouldn't have the unions protesting if the issue was a lack of jobs for new workers. You can have the workers work longer, and be less of a drain on the pension system, or you can have them run out of money 5 years after they retire, and become a massive drain on other social programs.

It's NOT about a lack of jobs.

[DanWEC]

It's the selfish that are complaining.... I doubt they would be complaining at 60 if they are being pushed out of a job. I sure would be.
Since I'm 30, and just finishing my CPL, It's good news for me. Sure, it will cause a giant freaking reduction in upward movement for about 5-10 years, but after that everything will be as usual. I will have a pretty good shot at flying for the airlines when I'm 40.

Big question though- what's going to happen with medicals? Will the dynamic there change? Stricter requirements for Cat 1? Maybe AC creating THEIR OWN company medical requirements in order to curtail rampant geriatricism? lol. But really.

The problem with this ruling is that, external to the aviation aspect, it's just about age discrimination, which is illegal. Tailored to aviation, I think that from a practical and safety standpoint a mandatory retirement age of 65 would be prudent, BUT that brings us right back to illegal discrimination. It's a catch 22.

[TreeBlender]

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???