ACPA would like to cut pension of retirees
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACPA would like to cut pension of retirees
ACPA is conducting, at this time, a WAWCON or a Poll to the membership where there is a question asking the membership if it would approve cutting ( stealing) the pension of Air Canada (pilots) retirees to help in their negotiations with the Cie.
ACPA is aiming to reach the lowest anyone could imagine. The retirees have fully contributed to the retirement fund and now ACPA wants to cut their retirement benefits for their own benefit in the contract negotiations....How despicable have they become....Like it was written here before, they are just a bunch of egocentrics...
ACPA is aiming to reach the lowest anyone could imagine. The retirees have fully contributed to the retirement fund and now ACPA wants to cut their retirement benefits for their own benefit in the contract negotiations....How despicable have they become....Like it was written here before, they are just a bunch of egocentrics...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will it possible, then, that someone at ACPA on this forum, would confirm that their is a WAWCON or was one where one of the question was with respect to the retiree pension and that in the preamble of the WAWCON it was specified that they will not diminish the survivor's benefits...amongst many other questions....
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you're an ACPA member, then you should have the email...if you're a retiree/survivor, then you should contact the Pionairs...
try this guy
Bruce Aubin - Chairman Pension and Benefits Sub Committee
Bruce AubinBruce Aubin, born in Hamilton, Ontario, is married to Nancy and has three grown daughters and three grandchildren.
Bruce graduated from S, Louis University in Aeronautical Engineering and McGill University in Business Administration, He is a licensed Professional Engineer, has a Commercial Multi Engine Pilot's License, an A & P Mechanic's License and is a qualified Accident Investigator. He has spent over 45 years in the Air Transport Industry - 40 years with Air Canada and 4 with USAirways.
He has held leadership positions in: Engineering, Purchasing, Real Estate and Facilities, Aircraft Acquisition, Maintenance, and Technical Operations.
In 1992, after retirement from Air Canada as Senior Vice President - Technical Operations and Executive Advisor to the Chairman, President and CEO, he joined US Airways as its Senior Vice President, Maintenance Operations, responsible for its Contract workforce of 10,000 Mechanics and the airworthiness, reliability and maintenance of its 440 aircraft fleet.
Pionairs
Bruce has been the Chairman of the Pension & Benefits sub Committee since 2005.
Chairman Pension and Benefits Duties
Director, Chair Pensions & Benefits Sub-committee
Reporting to the President and to the Board of Directors, the duties of the Chair are defined in accordance with the ‘Terms of Reference’ of the Pensions & Benefits Sub-committee ’ as adopted by the Board of Directors at the semi Annual Meeting on October 14, 2004 and revised and approved by the Executive Board Feb. 11, 2009 as follows:
Represent the Pionairs members in matters relating to the security of the Pension Trust Funds
Works closely with the elected Pension Plan representatives in monitoring pension fund reports, including actuarial reports and financial statements from AC and makes recommendations for any actions deemed necessary
On behalf of all retirees broadly monitors corporate activities relating to the pensions and benefits of retirees.
To the extent possible monitors performance of individual pension plans and contributions from the various diversified companies of ACE.
Meet with appropriate (Air Canada) Company representatives at least on an annual basis to be informed with regard to pensions and benefits of the retirees and surviving spouses. Such benefits include pensions and basic and supplemental health insurance plans maintained by the Company on behalf of retirees, as deemed necessary by the Chair in discussion with the President,
In consultation with and/or as delegated by the President, meet with such other organizations including government departments, other Retiree Associations, Unions, Regulators and Agencies as are required to meet the objectives of the Sub-committee,
Reports to the Executive Board at least on a quarterly basis and to the Semi Annual Board of
Director's meeting and the Annual General Meeting of Air Canada Pionairs.
try this guy
Bruce Aubin - Chairman Pension and Benefits Sub Committee
Bruce AubinBruce Aubin, born in Hamilton, Ontario, is married to Nancy and has three grown daughters and three grandchildren.
Bruce graduated from S, Louis University in Aeronautical Engineering and McGill University in Business Administration, He is a licensed Professional Engineer, has a Commercial Multi Engine Pilot's License, an A & P Mechanic's License and is a qualified Accident Investigator. He has spent over 45 years in the Air Transport Industry - 40 years with Air Canada and 4 with USAirways.
He has held leadership positions in: Engineering, Purchasing, Real Estate and Facilities, Aircraft Acquisition, Maintenance, and Technical Operations.
In 1992, after retirement from Air Canada as Senior Vice President - Technical Operations and Executive Advisor to the Chairman, President and CEO, he joined US Airways as its Senior Vice President, Maintenance Operations, responsible for its Contract workforce of 10,000 Mechanics and the airworthiness, reliability and maintenance of its 440 aircraft fleet.
Pionairs
Bruce has been the Chairman of the Pension & Benefits sub Committee since 2005.
Chairman Pension and Benefits Duties
Director, Chair Pensions & Benefits Sub-committee
Reporting to the President and to the Board of Directors, the duties of the Chair are defined in accordance with the ‘Terms of Reference’ of the Pensions & Benefits Sub-committee ’ as adopted by the Board of Directors at the semi Annual Meeting on October 14, 2004 and revised and approved by the Executive Board Feb. 11, 2009 as follows:
Represent the Pionairs members in matters relating to the security of the Pension Trust Funds
Works closely with the elected Pension Plan representatives in monitoring pension fund reports, including actuarial reports and financial statements from AC and makes recommendations for any actions deemed necessary
On behalf of all retirees broadly monitors corporate activities relating to the pensions and benefits of retirees.
To the extent possible monitors performance of individual pension plans and contributions from the various diversified companies of ACE.
Meet with appropriate (Air Canada) Company representatives at least on an annual basis to be informed with regard to pensions and benefits of the retirees and surviving spouses. Such benefits include pensions and basic and supplemental health insurance plans maintained by the Company on behalf of retirees, as deemed necessary by the Chair in discussion with the President,
In consultation with and/or as delegated by the President, meet with such other organizations including government departments, other Retiree Associations, Unions, Regulators and Agencies as are required to meet the objectives of the Sub-committee,
Reports to the Executive Board at least on a quarterly basis and to the Semi Annual Board of
Director's meeting and the Annual General Meeting of Air Canada Pionairs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
767-300ER you are a true politician. You answer a simple question with something which is totally irrelevant.
Therefore, it is true that ACPA is conducting a survey (WAWCON) to seek approval to cut pension benefits of retirees.
Therefore, it is true that ACPA is conducting a survey (WAWCON) to seek approval to cut pension benefits of retirees.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survey
Breguet: The answer to your question is NO. ACPA is NOT conducting a (WAWCON) survey seeking permission to cut the pension of retired pilots. This is a definitive and non-conditional answer.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a strange thread - a lot of cryptic comments and innuendo, no substance.
ACPA is conducting a WAWCON survey on pensions, part of which involves retirees. Whether this originated at the Pension Committee or the Negotiations Committee is a bit obscure but no matter, it evidently has the approval of the MEC. There are twenty-three questions - here are the six referred to above, in each case the requested answers follow the usual range from "strongly agree" through to "strongly disagree" with a "Don't care/Don't know" option.
Should Retirees Contribute to the Solution?
8. Retirees should contribute to the solution to correct the solvency shortfall in the RPP.
9. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, that contribution should be through changes to the benefits or security of the retirees RPP benefit.
10. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, that contribution should be through changes to the retirees SERP payments.
11. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, but a reasonable way to involve the retirees cannot be found, the pension plans should be split between current active pilots and retirees, and the retirees should be responsible to address their own solvency shortfall.
12. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, survivors should be excluded from the requirement to contribute.
13. If the pilots determine that retirees should NOT contribute
(OR if we find that we are unable to involve the retirees),
any changes to the pension should affect all active pilots equally regardless of the Trust to which they belong.
IT
ACPA is conducting a WAWCON survey on pensions, part of which involves retirees. Whether this originated at the Pension Committee or the Negotiations Committee is a bit obscure but no matter, it evidently has the approval of the MEC. There are twenty-three questions - here are the six referred to above, in each case the requested answers follow the usual range from "strongly agree" through to "strongly disagree" with a "Don't care/Don't know" option.
Should Retirees Contribute to the Solution?
8. Retirees should contribute to the solution to correct the solvency shortfall in the RPP.
9. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, that contribution should be through changes to the benefits or security of the retirees RPP benefit.
10. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, that contribution should be through changes to the retirees SERP payments.
11. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, but a reasonable way to involve the retirees cannot be found, the pension plans should be split between current active pilots and retirees, and the retirees should be responsible to address their own solvency shortfall.
12. If the pilots determine that retirees should contribute, survivors should be excluded from the requirement to contribute.
13. If the pilots determine that retirees should NOT contribute
(OR if we find that we are unable to involve the retirees),
any changes to the pension should affect all active pilots equally regardless of the Trust to which they belong.
IT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now it is clear that ACPA wants direction to rip the pension of retirees to solve their problems which have nothing to do with retirees because they already made their contributions. Like I said before, ACPA is reaching the lowest imaginable for a union.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow...IMHO if ONE CENT of the retiree's pension is attacked by the active members, in ANY way, the race to the bottom is complete...and it would be your (ACPA's) fault for allowing it...why would it even be on a poll? Who came up with this load of sh*t? Shame on ACPA for even considering the issue. Your problems are not with the retired pilots, you guys need to concentrate on the feds, who are gleefully denying you your rights. (Along with the lovely team you work for.) Focus people, your own future is in danger and ACPA is looking the wrong way on this one.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A Pacific 'island'
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm....sock it to the retirees? Why not?
Yet, to quote a former union official: “We don’t negotiate for retirees.” (I guess what he meant to add was: “Not unless we can rip them off in the process.”)
My gut feeling is that ACPA has run out of the supply of its young to nosh on; it’s now looking to gnaw on those they’ve set adrift on the ice.
“Snake’s belly” doesn’t begin to describe that disgrace of a union.
Yet, to quote a former union official: “We don’t negotiate for retirees.” (I guess what he meant to add was: “Not unless we can rip them off in the process.”)
My gut feeling is that ACPA has run out of the supply of its young to nosh on; it’s now looking to gnaw on those they’ve set adrift on the ice.
“Snake’s belly” doesn’t begin to describe that disgrace of a union.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACPA is conducting, at this time, a WAWCON or a Poll to the membership where there is a question asking the membership if it would approve cutting ( stealing) the pension of Air Canada (pilots) retirees to help in their negotiations with the Cie.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WAWCON Survey
Breguet: To repeat your question: :Therefore, it is true that ACPA is conducting a survey (WAWCON) to seek approval to cut pension benefits of retirees?"
The answer is still no. A survey does not seek permission, but solicits an opinion from the members of the organization. This opinion is used to assist it forming policy. It does NOT seek permission. A VOTE, on the other hand, is the method used by a union to direct the MEC on policy and actions. Even then, the actions and/or policy must be legal.
The rumours generated by the survey propagated through the retirement community. ACPA released a statement confirming that current retirement benefits are NOT being changed.
My original answer to you stands.
The answer is still no. A survey does not seek permission, but solicits an opinion from the members of the organization. This opinion is used to assist it forming policy. It does NOT seek permission. A VOTE, on the other hand, is the method used by a union to direct the MEC on policy and actions. Even then, the actions and/or policy must be legal.
The rumours generated by the survey propagated through the retirement community. ACPA released a statement confirming that current retirement benefits are NOT being changed.
My original answer to you stands.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A Pacific 'island'
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flytdeck,
Methinks your post above is a tad misleading - hopefully that was accidental. On the other hand, perhaps you’re merely hung up on semantics...
Here’s a look at the methodology behind the survey:
"For many of the contractual provisions the [Negotiating Committee] has provided a recommendation....the NC takes its direction from the membership and we are relying upon the pilots to thoroughly examine and discuss the background material and proposals before approving or rejecting them..."
I’d say that the committee's asking for ‘direction about a recommendation/proposal’ is pretty much the same as your ‘seeking permission’ - wouldn’t you?
The survey you refer to (and the preamble that accompanied it) DO indeed contain questions that ask the membership for direction in forcing the retirees to become part of the solution by cutting their benefits. (With NO input from those retirees, I might add.) If you’re an active ACPA member you know all this from the info you’ve received.
Perhaps it’s only my take on what you wrote Flytdeck, but you also make it sound as if this notion was never considered and that ACPA has now confirmed it NEVER was. We both know it most definitely was a proposal, ergo the survey questions. After all, the NC wouldn’t waste ink asking for direction about proposals that they aren’t considering for the negotiating table...would they?
In actual fact the MEC has now informed the NC and the Pension Committee to forget about involving the retirees. If you’ve read the recent MEC Newsletter #21 it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read between the lines. (Hint: If the apology expressed in it doesn’t quite do it for you, then words like “renewed direction” and “the NC is to be advised” should speak volumes on their own.)
I suspect the hand of the new Chair in all of this. IMO, he’s a man of high moral standards - as well as being one very brave hombre for taking the job! - and I'd like to think that when he assumed office he was appalled at the direction the NC had gone.
The whole idea of involving the retirees without their consent was a callous and repugnant concept. Its architects are the “snakes’ bellies” that I referred to earlier.
Methinks your post above is a tad misleading - hopefully that was accidental. On the other hand, perhaps you’re merely hung up on semantics...
Here’s a look at the methodology behind the survey:
"For many of the contractual provisions the [Negotiating Committee] has provided a recommendation....the NC takes its direction from the membership and we are relying upon the pilots to thoroughly examine and discuss the background material and proposals before approving or rejecting them..."
I’d say that the committee's asking for ‘direction about a recommendation/proposal’ is pretty much the same as your ‘seeking permission’ - wouldn’t you?
The survey you refer to (and the preamble that accompanied it) DO indeed contain questions that ask the membership for direction in forcing the retirees to become part of the solution by cutting their benefits. (With NO input from those retirees, I might add.) If you’re an active ACPA member you know all this from the info you’ve received.
Perhaps it’s only my take on what you wrote Flytdeck, but you also make it sound as if this notion was never considered and that ACPA has now confirmed it NEVER was. We both know it most definitely was a proposal, ergo the survey questions. After all, the NC wouldn’t waste ink asking for direction about proposals that they aren’t considering for the negotiating table...would they?
In actual fact the MEC has now informed the NC and the Pension Committee to forget about involving the retirees. If you’ve read the recent MEC Newsletter #21 it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read between the lines. (Hint: If the apology expressed in it doesn’t quite do it for you, then words like “renewed direction” and “the NC is to be advised” should speak volumes on their own.)
I suspect the hand of the new Chair in all of this. IMO, he’s a man of high moral standards - as well as being one very brave hombre for taking the job! - and I'd like to think that when he assumed office he was appalled at the direction the NC had gone.
The whole idea of involving the retirees without their consent was a callous and repugnant concept. Its architects are the “snakes’ bellies” that I referred to earlier.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sidney, BC, Canada
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Permission
Bluemic:
Not commenting on the ethics of the situation. Answering your question and the answer is still NO, they were not seeking, nor could they seek, permission for anything.
Reiterating: A survey is not a platform for permission, but a method encouraging participation in reaching a consensus. This is fact, not semantics.
Possibly a better question may have been framed thus: "Is ACPA polling the membership for direction on how to solve the pension shortfall, one of the options involving retiree participation?"
I answered your question correctly as it was posed. To the question in the previous paragraph, I would have answered "Yes".
As you have likely read, there will be no proposal from ACPA that involves modifying retiree pensions. Unfortunately, it is likely out of their hands and in the jurisdiction of much less sympathetic powers.
Not commenting on the ethics of the situation. Answering your question and the answer is still NO, they were not seeking, nor could they seek, permission for anything.
Reiterating: A survey is not a platform for permission, but a method encouraging participation in reaching a consensus. This is fact, not semantics.
Possibly a better question may have been framed thus: "Is ACPA polling the membership for direction on how to solve the pension shortfall, one of the options involving retiree participation?"
I answered your question correctly as it was posed. To the question in the previous paragraph, I would have answered "Yes".
As you have likely read, there will be no proposal from ACPA that involves modifying retiree pensions. Unfortunately, it is likely out of their hands and in the jurisdiction of much less sympathetic powers.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Here
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I Close or way off the mark here?
Some questions ALL CANADIANS should be asking because this is a CANADIAN problem not just an Air Canada Industrial problem.
How much of a pension holiday has Air Canada Management taken in the last 20 years? I don’t think they are keeping up their pension contributions so the pension has become a liability. The money that was supposed to go to pensions was used to pay off debts overseas or used in compensation to Management.
If anyone has a pension in Canada, you run the threat of losing it, except the Canadian Government of Course.
How much money is Air Canada Management siphoning out of Canada each year? Is Air Canada Management being paid to keep these overseas payments to other large corporations?
If Air Canada Management get their way, how many jobs will leave Canada? Have they just moved their maintenance out of the country?
Ask yourself why? It’s so that Air Canada Management can line their own pockets with MILLIONS of CANADIAN DOLLARS and after 3-5 years leave to some nice sunny climate while Canadians are left jobless.
Air Canada Management doesn’t care about Air Canada or Canadian jobs, they are there to get as much money as possible for themselves and leave. They don’t care if Air Canada is left in better or worse shape after their tenure. It’s all about taking as much money for themselves as possible.
And this is being done with the sanction of the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT.
All working class Canadians should be in an uproar about this. This is just not an Air Canada Industrial Relations problem; it’s a Canadian problem by allowing Big Canadian Corporations to outsource Canadian jobs to line their own pockets.
Everyone should be talking to their local government official and ask if this is acceptable to move Canadian jobs overseas.
Sounds like a good investigating piece for W5 or at least a good rant on the Rick Mercer Report.
I’m surprised this is not all over the paper but all I see is that the Employees are the bad guys and we have Canadians spitting in the faces of their own Countrymen or Countrywomen without prosecution. I wonder if that Gentleman is a government official doing the spitting?
What has this country become?
Am I close or way off the mark here?
Good luck
How much of a pension holiday has Air Canada Management taken in the last 20 years? I don’t think they are keeping up their pension contributions so the pension has become a liability. The money that was supposed to go to pensions was used to pay off debts overseas or used in compensation to Management.
If anyone has a pension in Canada, you run the threat of losing it, except the Canadian Government of Course.
How much money is Air Canada Management siphoning out of Canada each year? Is Air Canada Management being paid to keep these overseas payments to other large corporations?
If Air Canada Management get their way, how many jobs will leave Canada? Have they just moved their maintenance out of the country?
Ask yourself why? It’s so that Air Canada Management can line their own pockets with MILLIONS of CANADIAN DOLLARS and after 3-5 years leave to some nice sunny climate while Canadians are left jobless.
Air Canada Management doesn’t care about Air Canada or Canadian jobs, they are there to get as much money as possible for themselves and leave. They don’t care if Air Canada is left in better or worse shape after their tenure. It’s all about taking as much money for themselves as possible.
And this is being done with the sanction of the CANADIAN GOVERNMENT.
All working class Canadians should be in an uproar about this. This is just not an Air Canada Industrial Relations problem; it’s a Canadian problem by allowing Big Canadian Corporations to outsource Canadian jobs to line their own pockets.
Everyone should be talking to their local government official and ask if this is acceptable to move Canadian jobs overseas.
Sounds like a good investigating piece for W5 or at least a good rant on the Rick Mercer Report.
I’m surprised this is not all over the paper but all I see is that the Employees are the bad guys and we have Canadians spitting in the faces of their own Countrymen or Countrywomen without prosecution. I wonder if that Gentleman is a government official doing the spitting?
What has this country become?
Am I close or way off the mark here?
Good luck
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A Pacific 'island'
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flytdeck,
You say “toe-may-toe”, I say “ta-mat-oh”...
However, I do agree with your last comment, namely: "....it is likely....in the jurisdiction of much less sympathetic powers."
You say “toe-may-toe”, I say “ta-mat-oh”...
However, I do agree with your last comment, namely: "....it is likely....in the jurisdiction of much less sympathetic powers."
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You use a nickname of "Maple Leafs", then ask ...
Seriously though, there should be an investigation. In Canada as in the USA the Media is in bed with the Government. Maybe there is a Ryerson Journalism dropout with nothing to do .... they seem to have left St James Park.
Am I close or way off the mark here?
