Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End

[Raymond767]

On Thursday the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded its remedy hearing into the age discrimination cases brought by two pilots in 2003 and 2005 respectively, First Officer George Vilven and Captain Neil Kelly.

Although the Tribunal Chair reserved his decision (he suggested that he will try to complete the decision by June 1st) the issue of reinstatement was dealt with completely, save for the issue of the seniority accrual of the two pilots during their absence due to termination of employment, contrary to the age discrimination provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Chair elected to resolve the seniority question prior to issuing the Order of reinstatement. However, neither Air Canada nor the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) opposed the issuance of the Order of reinstatement.

Air Canada and ACPA both argued that the pilots' seniority should be discounted (i.e. not accrue) from the date of their wrongful termination until the date of their reinstatement. Both pilots argued that their reinstatement should be made with the seniority that they would have had, had their wrongful termination not occurred.

Air Canada did agree that once the pilots were ordered reinstated, they then could use their assigned seniority to bid a position assignment and that they would be provided a training course at the first available opportunity. Both pilots conceded that because of ICAO restrictions on pilots-in-command over age 65, they would be restricted to bidding positions as First Officers. Captain Kelly is now 65, and First Officer Vilven will be 67 in August, 2010.

The other issues in the hearing, all hotly contested, such as compensation for lost wages, mitigation of damages, reimbursement of expenses and damages for pain and suffering will be decided by the Tribunal in the coming decision.

The original decision on liability, rendered in August, 2009 by the Tribunal, has been set down for judicial review by the Federal Court in November, 2010. Notwithstanding, reinstatement will take place with the release of the Tribunal Order in the coming month. The Court challenge brings into question the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the mandatory retirement exemption under the Canadian Human Rights Act. An endorsement of the Tribunal's decision that the exemption violates the Charter would then strike down mandatory retirement in all of the federal jurisdiction to which the law applies--namely industries of transportation, banking and telecommunication.

This Tribunal development marks a landmark change in the affairs of Air Canada's Flight Operations policy. Not since the mid-1980's, after Air Canada lost a Human Rights Tribunal decision banning age limitations on pilot hiring has there been such a monumental change imposed upon the airline by a human rights quasi-judicial body.

[skol]

Lucky Canadians.
I fly with F/O's that are 70+. Flying airplanes is not a job for old people, I should get their salary as well because I do most of their work.

[MidgetBoy]

TC could just take away everyone's multi license as they hit 60...
Then this time they won't make the mistake and let someone clearly incapable of handling a multi end up smashed in pieces against a building.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Flying airplanes is not a job for old people


Define 'old' ?

I've just lost my Class 1 Med, not because I'm 'old' per se - no age limit in NZ - but because of course age has created the condition that now precludes my holding a Class 1 on medical grounds, not 'social' ones.

If one can't complete the required workload, that is a different issue.

[MidgetBoy]

Flying airplanes are perfectly fine for older people, but for me, if I do ever end up still flying til I'm old. When I hit 60, I'm going to walk into TC, give them my license, and end it there. Been there done that. Don't need to start slipping up or thinking that since I've flown for 40 years, I won't ever make mistakes anymore. If I want to fly, I'll go up with an instructor or a friend. But I don't want to die flying.

[ExSp33db1rd]

MidgetBoy .......

I felt exactly the same, and although I walked away I didn't actually hand in my licence, so when a few years later someone gave me a ride in the club 172 ........... it all started again !!

I don't regret it - yet.

[skol]

'Define Old'
Hard thing to do but what's needed is an 'age' and that's it, everyone goes.
62, 65 whatever. Fly 'til you die IMO is unacceptable. There's an old boy network going as well. It's hard to fail someone you've known for years, but Sim instructors, Check Pilots, Line guys, find it pretty hard to do the deed and all the associated paperwork and nasty meetings, better to leave it to someone else.

[mary meagher]

Come on, lads, we've all got to step down sometime. Otherwise we wouldn't have time on our hands to keep pontificating on PPRuNe.....

I've just had a letter from the Senior Aeromedical Adviser, CAA, informing me that I am assessed "temporarily unfit" under the provisions of the Air Navigation Order. And am invited to assemble all the reports and details, at my own expense of course, to revalidate. After 27 years of flying, at the age of 77, one rather expects to get that letter eventually.

You've all heard the one about the aged Captain, returning to the LH seat after a visit to the bog, murmuring "Now what did I come in here for?....."

[parabellum]

This is not an area where one can generalise, it has to be on a case by case basis that includes both a competency check and a medical.

The competency check can be carried out by the employer but must be witnessed by an independent and qualified representative of the licensing authority who has the final say, no 'old pals' act there.

I am still fit enough to fly safely, I know people several years younger than me who are not, there can be no situation of 'one case fits all'.

[clunckdriver]

Havnt ever done a check ride with any of "the old boys club", they had the smarts to fly the line and leave this stuff to the junior types who became checkers/trainers as anything was better than the ****ty blocks they could hold! In two months I have to do a ride on our 421/Citation both for I/R renewal and insurance coverage, I can assure you the checker does no favours, in fact I doubt if I will have set eyes on him/her before, so forget the crap about the "old boys club", he/she has a job to do and no doubt will do it in a totally profesional manner, and I will have to fly the aircraft in the same way.I think its up to the individual to know when to pull the pin, if he/she doesnt then the system should do it, as for staying on at my previous airline job beyond sixty, I wouldnt get out of bed for most of the pay scales I see these days, not to mention having a P2F sitting next to me! On a broader view, we in Canada are an ageing population, its becoming a huge social problem, this along with pension fund shortfalls has changed the whole retirment picture, its time to have a whole new look at retirment ,as for some of my group who tried to stay on, if they hadnt bought so many houses for women they hate their decision making process might have been a bit different!

[Raymond767]

I posted the update to our situation at Air Canada for the purpose of letting everyone know that the legal process slowly is coming to a close, in favour of change.

The subject of age limitations has two components in our context. The first one, competency, is not in issue, due to the fact that the government authorities regulate the subject through their requirements for periodical and continuous demonstration of professional and medical competence. The Government of Canada is on record with ICAO as opposing the age 65 limitation because it offends our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age. Canada abandoned the maximum limit on age for airline pilot licensing shortly after the Charter provisions came into effect in 1985.

The legal (and relevant) issue flows from the second component, the ability of an employer and a union to “contract out” of the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, vis-à-vis mandatory retirement. The Tribunal last August ruled that provision of the collective agreement of no force and effect, and now is in the process of issuing an Order of reinstatement to the two individuals who brought the action to the Tribunal.

At the moment, there are almost 150 similar complaints in the queue before the Tribunal. In addition, in this proceeding, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the administrative body responsible for looking after the public interest) that is a party to the proceeding before the Tribunal, is seeking a cease and desist Order against Air Canada to prohibit it from continuing to involuntarily terminate the employment of pilots on the basis of age.

So as much as we could continue debating the age “competency” issues in this thread, the key change here is the evolving legal aspect of age 60 in international aviation.

[Centaurus]

Australia has never had a "legal" retirement age for pilots. Before the 1989 Pilots Strike (or dispute - or a rose by any other name you want to call it) the pilots union in collusion with the airlines dictated the age 60 forced retirement.
That was later over-turned and now there is no age limit. Recently a 68 year old former captain has just been employed as a F/O. Best of luck to him, too.

[flash8]

Ahhh yes... ex crusty old Commanders become "armchair" commanders in the RHS. Nothing more irritating I can tell you. Didn't find the answer to that one in CRM.

[Huck]

All the while some young guy/gal with kids at home gets to wait some more for a job.....

[clunckdriver]

Ah yes Huck, the old "entitlement" whine, having just read the obesity figures for your part of the planet, belive me the old timers will be needed to keep things going, none of which has any bearing on a Canadian legal decision, but its my pet gripe as Im tired of fairly young pilots coming to me for a job that have allowed themselves to become total slobs! Now I feel better!

[clunckdriver]

Right on JO! Let me see now, been gone twelve years now, retired at the top of the heap, hey I just won the jackpot! The truth is Ive stayed in the air since leaving AC and make more money, and have a better life style than flying for any major, it reminds me of the mind set of those who took demotions to stay in the RCAF, not willing to leave the womb after being so comfortable for years, time to move on folks. Of to a wake this PM for another one who wont be collecting any more from the pension he paid for over many years, "what a pity wisdom is wasted on the old, and youth on the young!"

[skol]

Hey Clunk,
It's not so much their physical condition as what's going on between their ears. Physicals don't test that.
They might seem quite lucid during the day but at 0400 they're non compos mentis.

[767-300ER]

Greed - 100% of the reason, cloaked in "human rights". I wondered how long it would take for this farce to make it onto PPRUNE.

At a staff Christmas dinner in Dec 2009 I sat with my wife's boss....the bosses' husband told me he knew a recently retired AC pilot...the topic of age 60 came up...the husband told me that the retired AC pilot joined the "fly til we die" group....but he had no intention of flying again...joined just because he figured that some magical money tree would pay him some money for violating his "rights".

I have no problem with Air Canada pilots retiring at 65 or whatever...for any pilot hired after 01 May 2010...the problem comes into how we deal with guys already on the property or who have already retired...

Since the two poor souls (who's rights have been disrespected) advanced their entire careers because the pilots senior to them retired at 60...how about we do this Ray?

They can come back to a place where they were 5 years before they turned 60???? and while we are at it, everyone else who was forced to retire at 60 should be given the same opportunity....

Where do you think this money is going to come from Ray????

It going to come from your fellow pilots...thanks so much for the ultimate demonstration of screwing your buddies for your personal gain...

This is disgusting.

[Raymond767]

For those of you not directly affected by this change at Air Canada, may I apologize on behalf of my former associates who apparently cannot understand that the laws of Parliament supercede the laws of the collective agreement, that this change cannot be avoided, and that they have a fundamental choice about how to deal with it.

Instead of embracing the unavoidable change and working to minimize, through negotiation, the obvious adverse consequences to those most adversely affected, they choose to discard their otherwise reasoned professionalism and degenerate this discussion into ad hominem attacks, while still pursuing their futile fight against the inevitable.

The entire aviation world has re-examined the age 60 restrictions, the Parliament of Canada has outlawed the use of age-based criteria for employment, and these individuals focus exclusively on slaying the messenger.

Can't wait to get back in the flight deck with them!

[stampee]

Raymond767,

How can you be so sure the age 60 will end at Air Canada do you already have a crystal ball to see the future?

The whole issue from my perspective has nothing to do with human rights. The collective agreement with this particular company was established long before we joined the company, everyone knew the the date of retirement was age 60 when joining. If the issue of change was being brought forward by pilots in their 30's or 40's I could see a point.

This issue has everything to do with selfishness and greed and nothing else. No one is forcing these pilots to retire at 60, only from Air Canada. I am currently flying as a B767 Captain in Asia, for one reason among others is I do not have to deal with individuals like you in my daily routine. There are enough jobs over here for everyone retiring at 60, come on over. Good luck in your quest. Lets at least try to leave something for the younger guys in this profession! The rest has already been taken.

[Huck]

We're eating our seed corn, fellows.

Just an example of the larger picture, at least here in the U.S. The Baby Boomers got the fat of the land, the riches piled up and hoarded by the Greatest Generation. They blew through it all and now want to exit the stage by maxing out the credit cards.

A few are different - speaking of Sully, he's the chairman of the Young Eagles program at EAA - but the vast majority, from the leadership of ALPA on down, are burning the furniture to stay warm....

[parabellum]

Some rather short memories here! The retirement age was 65, not 55, not 60. Some companies like BA and CX had a retirement age of 55 but that was more pension related than anything else.

By an arbitrary declaration it became 60 sometime in the late seventies, very early eighties, that was in the USA and UK and many other countries chose to follow suit. I don't think fly 'till you die is a good idea but reverting to the original age of 65 seems like a very fair decision and good luck to all those who benefited from the arbitrary change that knocked five years of our career and gave you a jump start, a jump start that so many now seem to take for granted.

[clunckdriver]

As stated in a previous post I went to a wake yesterday for one of our fellow pilots,very well attended, lots of good stories and company. This subject of course was a hot topic after a few nogins, the tack most of the conversation took was interesting to say the least, so rather than do my normal stunt of drinking/talking too much I decided to clam up, stay dry and listen and bring what I picked up back to this forum, I do so without comment on the various positions taken. (1) The overall consensus was that this is simply a cash grab by some, and a totally stupid legal exersize by the author of this case.{2} Many seemed to remember signing a contract to the effect that they would bail out at aged sixty, damned if I can remember that far back!{3}Most just cant get their heads around why doesnt the person involved understand that retirment at sixty opens so many door for a new life? (the pilot we were remembering certainly understood this, what a life he led!) (4) To try to seperate the safety arguments from the legal stuff is just" plain stupid"(quote) and this issue has no buisiness in the field of human rights, evryone who joined AC knew the contract from day one.(5) If the individual wants to keep flying, the insurance companies are begging for experienced drivers to fly corporate, survey ect(I am an example of this, turned down two more gigs last month, very happy and well rewarded where I am thanks) There were many derogetory remards made about the personality of the author of this action and that he was ,quote"a pain in the arse to work with" some sugested that the excursion of the end in the DC9 has affected him, (their words, not mine, just the messenger!) This will place AC in such a position with claims from the "tag alongs" that the very survival of the company will be in doubt. Lastley the feeling was it will in fact reduce the quality of life in retirment, and if the author wants to keep working stick to his law practice and that he would have been well advised to spend less time involved in law and more time reading the AOM when he flew the line. So thats it, not my words, just reporting back from the retiree bunch, I think I will try this listning and staying sober at the next function, gives one a whole new perspective!

[Raymond767]

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of 'things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger.

Machiavelli -- The Prince, 1513I shall not be responding to the ad hominem posts above, save to suggest the following. Despite the aspersions cast upon my motivation, I assisted in moving this legal issue forward by starting with a fundamental premise. Namely:


Premise: Age discrimination is illegal.

As difficult as it may be for some to get their minds around this fundamental legal reality, the reality is not going to change. Hence, one must adapt. The following corollaries flow from the premise.

Corollaries:

1. No amount of resources thrown at fighting the battle to either deny or to reverse the laws of the land will be successful in the long term. Hence, the change must be accommodated, sooner or later. Attempting to fight the inevitable will have very significant adverse consequences for the pilots, both in terms of the financial costs and in terms of the organizational cost, and a time when the industry is placing many other significant pressures on the resources;

2. It does not matter who blew the whistle. If it wasn’t blown by one person, it would have been blown by the next or the next. Attempting to continue an illegal practice is futile, especially when both the Association and the employer are on the wrong side of a huge and growing public policy issue;

3. Attacking the messenger and/or imputing nefarious motivations to the messenger, especially in the absence of any factual basis for those allegations, detracts from the resolution of the issue itself and lowers the credibility of those attacking;

4. Any legislative change necessarily implies a reordering of resources, especially over the short term, with some persons obviously benefitting and some obviously negatively impacted. This is one of the factors that the legislature must take into consideration when promulgating any law that changes the order of things. Nevertheless, the legislature cannot allow the potentially adverse consequences of legislative changes to prevent the evolution of the change, as that would mean that no change and no new laws would ever be possible, because there will always be someone who will be adversely affected by a change in the law.

5. Given the intractable nature of the legislative change, the key determinant of how successful individuals and organizations will be in moving forward is the speed and the degree to which they can anticipate, accommodate and manage the change—namely can they maximize the benefits while offsetting the most adverse consequences to those most adversely affected?

The age 60 rule, as well as many other factors related to our work relationship at Air Canada was never inscribed in stone. There was no “contract” when most of us were hired wherein we “agreed” to retire at age 60. In fact, before 1978 there was no Canadian Human Rights Act.

As a result, there was no restriction on discrimination in hiring with respect to sex (no female pilots), sexual orientation, age, height, or race. Air Canada was owned by the government, so its financial viability was not in question. Half of the regulations related to our employment did not exist prior to 1980. Is it possible to count the number of similar changes to our regulatory and work environment that have taken place over the last several decades--changes over which we have had no control? So why is this legal change any different?

Regardless, the Canadian Human Rights Act now exists. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms now exists. It is a fact that those statutory and constitutional enactments legally supersede any collective agreement provision that either exists or that was implied to exist when we were hired. And those laws are determinative of this issue.

So we shall change. How soon and how effectively we adapt to the change will speak more about ourselves than will any court or Tribunal.

[BALLSOUT]

Why should we have to retire before we either want, or have to, because we are no longer able. Here in the UK, a large proportion, if not the majoeity of people joining aviation over recent years is P2F. I would say the average age is early twenties. After mam and dad have paid for the training and type rating, they go straight into the right seat of a modern jet. Where i work it is not uncomon to see captains in their mid twenties. these guys and gals can expect 40 years of jet command time, and salary. In comparison, a large proportion of older captains came up through the old traditional route. This used to be called the self improver route. they would have worked their way up through PPL, CPL, air taxi, F/O on something small, gradualy getting bigger and eventually, if they are lucky, a jet command. Often on the way there would be a couple of redundancies, maybe a family to bring up, and for some, a divorce to live through. So these Captains with lots of experience of flying and life, but probably not too much put by and little or no pension, should retire just to get out of the way to let more P2F into their jobs. I think not!
I think as long as you want, and are able, you should be allowed to keep flying. there will still be plenty of time for the youngsters to get lots of flying in before they too reach an age and time in life when they see the other side of the story.

[clunckdriver]

Ballsout, if P2F ever comes to Canada I will be greeting them with a baseball bat, Im pretty certain it breaks our labour code as well to add to broken legs, maybe Ray could direct his efforts towards preventing such crap from ever getting a foothold in Canada, it would certainly be a more popular cause than his present rant.as an end note, to all the Brits e mailing me with offers of paying for their own training, forget it! I pay my F/Os during their training, now theres a novel idea!

[aileron]

clunckdriver,

hahahahaha

I left Canada because of P2F!!!!!

Too many pilots with a ParkerPen logbook, working for free to get on type, paying for a type rating etc etc. And lets not start talking about flying in Quebec or for the government if you are a White Anglo Saxon (Male) Protestant!!!! And the people running the small airlines?! How many times did I hear.......'Ive got a stack of resumes this high on my desk who want your job, if you dont like it you can **** off' Well thank you very much I did, and I havent looked back.

I didnt think life in AC could get any more bitter! Well, throw some over 60's into the mix!

[clunckdriver]

Aileron, yes there has been a lot of P51 time out there, however if you ever apply to me for a seat and I dont know you from way back I will break every privacy law in the country to check up on your background, flight times and anything else that may be needed, watched a good outfit bend two aircraft because they didnt do this. There is a new outfit in Canada doing very well and making the headlines all the time with how great they are, they would do well to check the background of some of their CHECK PILOTS before it bites them, more employers need to bite the bullet and do some REAL background checks on potential employees, another project for Ray!Where TC is on this I cant tell you, I know of severall cases when enforcement tried to go ahead with action but were prevented by those higher up the food chain, go figure!

[Huck]

Your premise is wrong.

Age discrimination is indeed legal. It is allowed in the U.S. under the Constitution and the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is allowed in laws if the discriminating governmental entity has a rational basis for their law. It is allowed in hiring if there is a safety rationale. From Wiki:

An age limit may be legally specified in the circumstance where age has been shown to be a "bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business" (BFOQ) (see 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1)). In practice, BFOQs for age are limited to the obvious (hiring a young actor to play a young character in a movie) or when public safety is at stake (for example, in the case of age limits for pilots and bus drivers).

Whether a job comes under the safety exception or not is debatable, but there is no doubt that age discrimination has been and will continue to be legal in the U.S., subject to applicable restrictions.

[Huck]

I would say the average age is early twenties. After mam and dad have paid for the training and type rating, they go straight into the right seat of a modern jet. Where i work it is not uncomon to see captains in their mid twenties. these guys and gals can expect 40 years of jet command time, and salary.

Absolutely not the case in the U.S.

Most folks at my company were hired in their mid-thirties to mid-forties.

Those hired within the last 8 years or so are looking at 12 years minimum to any left seat.

For the last ~250 pilots or so, they can expect 10 years just to get off the 727 panel.

[Raymond767]

Huck:

For the sake of simplicity, the premise was stated in relation to the issue before the Tribunal, namely age discrimination in relation to mandatory retirement. I don't need to explain that the law supports putting age restrictions on firefighters, the military, judges etc. or that the Canadian law prohibiting discrimination permits restrictions on minimum ages for licences. We know that.

Both Air Canada and ACPA attempted to bring the pilots' cases within the framework of bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) before the Tribunal. Both failed. Air Canada will be giving it another shot before the Federal Court in November, trying to persuade the Court that the Tribunal erred on their BFOR argument which was based not on the pilots' competency, but on the ability of the airline to operate its flights given the ICAO restrictions with respect to the Over-Under Rule: they said they can't do it, despite the fact that every other airline in the world that has to do it hasn't complained about it.

So, the premise of my fundamental involvement is that age discrimination is illegal. The sooner we get on with our professional lives, taking into consideration the consequences of that fact and making the necessary adjustments, instead of trying to make the water flow uphill and instead of cursing the dark, the better off we shall all be.

[pineridge]

Huck said....................
"Age discrimination is indeed legal. It is allowed in the U.S. under the Constitution and the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is allowed in laws if the discriminating governmental entity has a rational basis for their law."


Perhaps you should read some of the responses. Most of them relate to the Canadian situation where age discrimination is in fact illegal by statute.
The decisions passed down by the U.S.Supreme Court are without a doubt well thought out but as yet are not valid in the strip of land between the Great Lakes and the North Pole. Maybe one day.



"

[clunckdriver]

Have just been walking around the back forty, checking on the crops, this is the time on my own that I tend to think about things in generall, so whilst checking on the new seeding I had one of my rare briliant ideas, if as Ray says Parliment is the ultimate authority on such matters and as they are an elected democratic body, then surely the wishes of the majority of Air Canada pilots should be the ultimate decision makers in this case, they, and nobody else are affected by this, What do you say Ray, or are we going to hear another legal decision which will bind many thousand pilots to your restricted view of the universe? or let them hold a system wide binding vote as to their choice, not some body urged on by Ray to tell them what their choice is! Other working groups could do the same in their own fields, or are the Rays of the world going to dictate to the majority?Or does REAL democracy not fit into your world? And please, much as I find your legal mumbo jumbo interesting just answer the question in "pilot talk", Thanks!

[engfireleft]

Should Air Canada pilots also be permitted to exclude women by majority vote? How about visible minorities? Gays? If the majority of us thought sexual harrassment was OK does that take priority over Canadian Law?

Really Clunk. This is the law we're talking about here...not some club where we can exclude demographics that we don't like simply because they had a birthday.

That's a pilot answer by the way. Think of it as Air Canada pilots deciding they don't like a particular air regulation so they decide they aren't going to follow it. This is Canadian law, and individuals or groups within don't get to decide whether or not it applies to them. It does.

[clunckdriver]

Enginefireleft, dont reduce this discusion to the level of absurdity, its not allowed in debating clubs and serves no purpose here, niether adds to the level of debate or moves anything in the right {constructive} direction, as a member of a minority that the Master Race tried to make into bars of soap I find you arguments totally without merit and a reminder of times past. we are not talking about gays/ ethnic groups or others, its about a group of employees having a say in their own future, no more no less.

[engfireleft]

"its about a group of employees having a say in their own future, no more no less."

I agree completely. Who except ACPA and Air Canada are trying to deny anyone that?

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has determined last August that forcing pilots out at age 60 is age discrimination as is their mandate. Ray didn't decide it, the complainants didn't decide it, ACPA didn't decide it or Air Canada either. Both sides stated their case to the federal body legally constituted to decide these matters and and the decision has been made.

I'm sorry you can't see the parallels between age discrimination and all the other forms, but the CHRT and the laws of Canada do.

[clunckdriver]

Fire left, there will be no "forcing out" if the majority of AC pilots, through the collective bargining process decide that the majority wish to retire at sixty, this is the right of any group/union to decide their own fate, and the decision is made by the majority, the day that faceless buracrats from whatever government branch can impose their will on free unions then we are indeed going down the road that started in the mid thirties in Europe, go this route at your own peril, history has a nasty habit of punishing those who ignore its lessons.{end of sermon, opens can of cider!}

[engfireleft]

This is about individual rights and protection against discrimination. If you think that's the opening stages of a return to Naziism I guess that's your opinion. I can't quite see it myself.

[engfireleft]

"But because the truth is far less noble, you are seeing a backlash from the vast majority of those who will ultimately be affected negatively."

No. Ultimately we will all be effected positively because all of us will ultimately be 59.9 years old. When that day comes you will have the option of retiring (as you always have had and will have) or continuing to work.

Why can't the vast majority see that?

[Huck]

No. Ultimately we will all be effected positively because all of us will ultimately be 59.9 years old. When that day comes you will have the option of retiring (as you always have had and will have) or continuing to work.

Why can't the vast majority see that?

Because we understand the difference between 5 more years of captain pay and 5 more years of whatever pay we're at currently.

And we understand the time value of money.

And we understand the health effects of working five more years in the long-haul industry. You WILL die sooner than if you went out at 60.

And there's a pretty good chance we will NOT have the chance to go out at 60, not with full benefits. The B fund will be next - the IRS here in the states hasn't quite figured out that we don't really need a bridge between retirement age and Social Security any more.

In the history of the airline business, there is a select group - the group that was in the left seats when the flag dropped and we went to 65. That group got 5 more years of captain pay. Those that came before didn't get it - those that came after won't either. One's perspective on this issue, I've found, is strongly influenced over whether one was in that select group or not....

[engfireleft]

I'm not in that group, yet I can see the benefits. How is that possible? By what data do you confidently predict an individuals best five years will not still occur before they are 60 under the new conditions, and still be able to retire with the same benefit? It's just a bad guess that fits nicely into preconcieved and poorly considered opinions. Nobody knows for sure until it happens.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the current conditions. The ruling has been made and we will at some point have to get down to the business of complying with it. The longer that takes the worse off the pilot group will be.

The union has been studiously avoiding any mention of the current state of affairs or the inevitable conclusion now only a few weeks away. When the penny does drop who are we going to blame? The agents of inevitable change? The organization who fought the useless fight and refused to tell the truth to the membership? Or will it be ourselves for living in such selfish and short-sighted denial?

Whatever the answer is, it will have no bearing on the CHRT ruling or the direction we will have to go in the near future. It will only effect our attitudes.

[Raymond767]

J.O.:

If this case were truly and legitimately about age discrimination instead of just a cash grab, there would have been many more than two people signing up to take on this fight. Of that you can be sure.

In fact, there are almost 150 Air Canada pilots who have filed complaints with the Commission, since 2006, with about five new complaints being filed every month.

No one is arguing the fact that Canadian law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. What is being argued is:

whether the tribunal should be allowed to throw out a mutually agreed and collectively bargained working condition;The Tribunal not only has the jurisdiction but the duty to do so, when the provision offends the law, as it does. In fact, it has already ruled that the provision violates the Act. The Chairman stated that the pilots will be reinstated. A good portion of the hearing this week dealt with the terms of that reinstatement. Neither the airline nor the Association opposed the reinstatement.

the fact that these retirees frequently benefited from the mutually agreed retirement age when it came to progression up the seniority list and the requisite benefits that came with;Please read my post above regarding the impact of changes in the law;

neither of these gentlemen faced discrimination on the basis of age when they were hired by Air Canada, nor when they were moving up the seniority ladder as their elders retired;Absolutely not correct, in this case. First Officer Vilven received a letter from the Chairman of the Pilot Selection Board at Air Canada in 1974 stating that he was too old to be hired, and that he should therefore consider other options. He was hired 12 years later, after some other pilots took their case of age discrimination to the Tribunal, forcing Air Canada to abandon is maximum age of hiring restriction.

neither of these gentlemen has suggested that those who went before them at 60 were discriminated against and that those individuals who retired after the adoption of the Human Rights Act should therefore receive compensation prior to seeing anything themselves;The statute governs this, as well. Under its provisions, one cannot file a complaint until one’s rights are violated. Protesting would have had no impact. The fact that these were the first two pilots to file complaints should not affect the determination of whether their claims have merit.

they were members of a collective body (the union) that agreed that retirement at age 60 was mutually beneficial to the employees and their employer.Please read my post above regarding the impact of changes in the law. Unions are not entitled to bargain away one’s rights under the statute. Regardless of whether there was an agreement or not, the collective agreement is subservient to the law of Parliament. If parties could “contract out” of the human rights law, the law would have no validity.

I must say that invoking Machiavelli in this argument is interesting. Unfortunately the altruism you are attempting to convey just doesn't wash when one knows the particulars of the case. If this case had been presented solely on its merits and without hypocrisy, you wouldn't be seeing much of an argument. But because the truth is far less noble, you are seeing a backlash from the vast majority of those who will ultimately be affected negatively.

To what particulars and what hypocrisy are you referring? In what way was this case not presented on its merits? The pleadings are all public, the hearing was public, and the positions taken by all the parties were all public. Suggesting that there is a hidden, less noble agenda is not only unfair, but irrelevant. The real issue here is not the motivation of those supporting the change, but the fact that the change is coming, with or in spite of the Association’s position on the issue.

[Feather #3]

It's like deja vu reading this.

We went through the same stuff in Australia as the retirement age went from 55-57-58-60 and then ICAO lifted the international command age to 65.

Embrace the change and get on with it!:cool:

G'day ;)

[ChuckB777]

It ain't "Fly 'til you Die," it's "Fly if you Qualify" (and want to). Have carefully checked the Constitution here in the United States... nowhere does it say "except for airline revenue pilots" when listing rights and freedoms. Qantas has never had a fatal accident in their domestic system and has no age limit... experience is an added safety enhancement (ask the FAA, January 30, 2007). They should be paying experienced pilots a bonus to stay on. The pipeline of motivated aviators is empty. Would you want your child to pursue a career that starts out at $16,000 a year with mountains of training debt? Mine builds Boeings... doesn't fly them. U.S. Congress is trying to rule you must have 1500 hours (ATP) to fly a commuter... just did not say where they are going to find them. Hours mean nothing. Overseas they are putting 200 hour pilots in the right seat of long haul and not allowing them to fly, but they are building hours! One F/O had zero landings after 500 hours! Another had three. Why do you think ICAO invented the Multi-crew pilot license; empty pipeline. Boeing can't sell planes without crews, so they train them off the street. Zero hours going in, 12 real landings coming out over a year later, good to go in the right seat (but not quaified or licensed to rent a single pilot plane and fly). It's gonna get ugly, and it is not the experienced pilots that are the problem. Hooray for the Canadians for sticking it out all these years to win their case. Wish they had done it years ago.

[stampee]

I doubt the intent of most responding to this thread is to attack the messenger. Those against the age 60 change at AC are simply calling it the way they see it. Boring everyone with lengthy legal jargon to support your case goes no where in this forum.

This entire country has gone over the top, human rights tribunals, Canada labour board etc. what a joke, they are all nothing more then a heavily influenced, political Kangaroo court. Everyone has some gripe or complaint to play, whether it is age, race, disability, native or what ever. The people involved in this application have lost all sense of moral responsibility to their fellow pilots and are nothing more then a pack of thieves. The only people that will benefit from this change are themselves at the expense of others.

Lets not forget Air Canada pilots still enjoy the benefits of lucrative full pension plan on retirement at age 60. Other airlines without pension benefits or those lost to chapter 11 filings in the US are a different story. The major issue for most is how the age 60 issue relates specifically to Air Canada pilots and it's collective agreement that his been in place for many years.

It is very interesting you have chosen to take on this fight Raymond when you have just retired near the top of the seniority list at age 60. Why has no one started this fight when they were my age, 35? I have been discussing the issue with some of my First Officers who are hoping to join AC when (if) they begin hiring again. Should you be succesful in achieving what you hope, they can kiss their chances goodbye of ever working for this company, at least for the next five years. Real nice. It is obvious by your reputation while working for this company you have only ever cared about yourself. Embrace the change you say, sorry not with you guys!

[MidgetBoy]

Do the old ruler grab test to check their reflexes. If they're slow, can em.

Older pilots should understand it, especially ones retiring right around now. They were on good enough contracts where it doesn't matter if they quit at 60 or even 55. They need to realize the situation our economy is in today..

I just changed my job prospect towards working for NavCanada as an ATC instead of a pilot. It sucks really, I don't have my dream job, but at least the pay (assuming I get the job), MAY one day help me buy a home in Vancouver, though I highly doubt that seeing the ridiculous housing market.

[clunckdriver]

I think its time to look at recent history in regards to Air Canada pilots who have in the past run for Federal Office using the union/position/and the media, including the internet to pave their way to election , during my time at AC there were four, all used the same methodology, {1} Pick a cause which will grab the attention of those in the public who think in terms of slogans{ie" Im going to shut down all night flying at Vancouver airport "} this fellow, whose politics were somewhere to the left of Chaiman Mao was elected, another picked on a law and order ticket, somewhere to the right of Ronald Reagan, two were not elected, so Ray, call me a cynic if you will but with your bursting on this pilot webb site I see the same pattern/methods being used as those who went before emerging, tell us now, the real objective of your eloquent rant could it just be you have designs on Ottawa? The fact that all four, like youself had a far from event free history at the airline I think, in spite of the many derogatory remarks made about you at a recent gathering, should simply be put down to coincidence, anything else is to me totally out of line. So Ray, there we have it, is Ottawa actually your master plan?

[Huck]

Have carefully checked the Constitution here in the United States... nowhere does it say "except for airline revenue pilots" when listing rights and freedoms.


Age is not a protected class. Age limits are legal, provided they meet the criteria set up by the Supreme Court. Rights are not unlimited.

I can't join the military at my age, there's an age limit on running for president and being a firefighter and lots of other things. When Hollywood casts a love story about college kids they can turn down a seventy-year-old actor. Nothing magical about age - not legally, anyway.

[engfireleft]

What a myopic, petty, shortsighted bunch of crybabies we are.

All I'm hearing are attacks against the character of those standing up for their rights, and yours if you give it two seconds thought. In your zeal to punish them the pilot group wants to impose even more age discriminatory measures denying bidding rights and pension benefits to anyone over 60. How stupid can we be?

Sooner or later everybody is going to have to look up the meaning of "age discrimination" and apply it to our situation. The CHRT has already told us to, so quit :{ , act like mature grownups and get on with it.

[ea340]

And then there was Ross Stevenson of course that was then this is now. All those who supported Ross put up your hand . As I remember no one did hey if he stayed it would have slowed down many careers over the last 30 years

[clunckdriver]

EA340, for what its worth, if Ross {who I knew very well} had won his case he would in fact have died "on duty" maybe he would have wanted it this way, which brings up the pilot mortality figures, of the twenty five who joined on my intake, eight us us are still breathing above ground, make what you will of this in the context of "human rights", for myself I intend to banckrupt the pension plan! Flying tomorow, but its OK, my F/O is twenty four, her heart shouldnt stop pumping half way through the flight. For the folks demanding to stay at the "old firm", get a bloody life!Track me if you wish, CG KOZ.

[Commander Taco]

What a myopic, petty, shortsighted bunch of crybabies we are.


I have to say, enginefireleft, that the only crybabies I have seen are the ones who feel they need to stay past sixty - I've heard: "but I got cleaned out in a divorce", "lost a ton of money in the markets" (this particular genius tried to corner the market in beanie-babies!!), "joined the airline a bit later and didn't get promoted until I was fifty-one" (conveniently ignoring the fact that he had deliberately bypassed his first promotion opportunity on the DC9), "had my children a bit later in life and have university tuition bills to pay". And then there are of course what I call the ego boys: four gold stripes and a widebody airplane make them a somebody. After listening to all these crybaby stories over the last few years, I am left with one thought: What makes your crybaby story any more important than anyone else's?

No, enginefireleft, there isn't any crying from the FTYD opponents, just a well-developed feeling that it is somehow latently unfair for an individual to make it to the top of the pyramid, solely by virtue of the fact that hundreds retired gracefully ahead of him, only to have this same individual start (usually in his last few years before age 60) crying that his civil rights are being trampled on.

The attempts of Ray and his followers to intellectualize a position which is essentially one of unmitigated greed and ego is nauseating.

Taco

[ac482]

For anyone interested, and unfortunately Raymond not many are, Raymond has brought his thoughts to this forum because he has been rejected from a few others.

Raymond, if i may call you by your first name.
Human rights aside (if you call them that). Is the governance of Canada and an association such as ACPA not funded on the basis of democracy? You should know this better than anyone. Is it "democratic" for a select few to force judgement upon an entire workplace?
Your political agenda is very anti-democratic (border-line socialistic).
You seem to enjoy antagonizing the junior ranks to get emotional reactions and i urge everyone to be very careful at what they write as he does not answer questions, rather deflects them as a true lawyer would . Your legal jargon does not impress me or others and comments you've made such as "can't wait to fly with them" are rather childish and quite foolish.

[bugg smasher]

The rest of the civilized world has gone sixty-five, don't really see why AC should be any different. With improving health care, I don't doubt we'll see seventy in the next few decades.

But seriously my Northern friends, all the rattle-tossing going on in this thread really makes me wish I too, could suckle at the teet of a government flying club, safe and secure, oinking contentedly.

Not a happy place to be when a bankruptcy court vaporizes decades of pension contributions, tends to put a whole new Zen on the possibility of working another five years.

[ac482]

Ac Should Not Go To 65 Because Its Pilots Do Not Want To Go To 65. I Really Thought The Pilots Were The Ones That Mattered In This Case. Very Simple.

[clunckdriver]

Bug Smasher,{Ah memories of the Beech 18!} Government flying club? Your a bit behind the times old chap, Canada has followed the American privitization god, ie "its not a vital part of our national infrastructure, its only for the big cities and the shareholders , the hell with small town Canada, they can do with a piston twin flown by two kids making $20,000 a year". Air Canada was privitized many moons ago, we are well down the road in the "race to the bottom".using the American comuters as a model.

[Huck]

U.S. as a model? God help you.....

[bugg smasher]

My apologies clunck, a belated welcome then, to the dark side...

[engfireleft]

Ac Should Not Go To 65 Because Its Pilots Do Not Want To Go To 65. I Really Thought The Pilots Were The Ones That Mattered In This Case. Very Simple. Pilots won't have to go to 65 if they don't want to just as before. No one is making them stay, and no one is changing the pension so they have to continue working. The only thing that's changing is the ability to force someone out at age 60. In this country that is age discrimination which is illegal. Majority wishes, negotiated contracts, compensation schemes and a misguided attachment to how things used to be do not grant permission to break the law in Canada. Air Canada pilots are in for a rough time until they wrap their brains around that fact.

No, enginefireleft, there isn't any crying from the FTYD opponents, just a well-developed feeling that it is somehow latently unfair for an individual to make it to the top of the pyramid, solely by virtue of the fact that hundreds retired gracefully ahead of him, only to have this same individual start (usually in his last few years before age 60) crying that his civil rights are being trampled on.Yes Taco, I know what's causing all the angst over this issue and I completely agree it's anger over a few people walking away with a perceived windfall. So what? These laws will be with us for decades to come and will provide you, me and everybody else with the option when we reach age 60 instead of forcing us out. In the larger picture it is protecting every single one of us against a form of discrimination which cannot be imposed upon us by majority opinion, just like every other form of discrimination. Viewed in the larger context the anger against those few who stood up for their rights (and yours whether you see it now or not) is small minded and petty. In time all but the most narrow minded will see this as inevitable and right.

for myself I intend to banckrupt the pension plan! Flying tomorow, but its OK, my F/O is twenty four, her heart shouldnt stop pumping half way through the flight. For the folks demanding to stay at the "old firm", get a bloody life!Track me if you wish, CG KOZ. Man...where to start. You would be happy bankrupting the pension? Thanks Clunk, but I would rather it be around for me and everyone that follows. You should also follow your own advice to get a bloody life because it sounds to me like you're still working.

[clunckdriver]

Fire left, If you consider teaching deserving kids to fly a twin and getting valid real life multi time, so they can get a good flying job, to be work, then we will have to disagree, and by the way they get paid a living wage whilst doing same instead of paying the dual rate for the aircraft which in the case of a 421 can be as high as $1500 per hour, its called "giving somthing back", I realise this concept in the "Me Me " age we live in may be hard for some to grasp, also flying "Hope Air and Angel Flight" can hardly be considered work! Nor can flying a little airplane upside down once a week be clasified as "work", nor landing in a lake to drown some worms be considered "work", nor can be helping Air Cadets come under the heading of "work", but its obvious that we are on the other end of the teter toter when it comes to this stuff! A little story before I go, just had a beer with a 380 F/O who turned up twenty years ago at our outfit , with his single mum, he having quit in grade nine and was only one step ahead of the police, he now makes more money than any AC /WJ pilot and in turn is "giving back". As for bankrupting the pension, I can only hope I can live as long as my parents, come from stock with a history of longevity,{mind you they most likely lived a far more healthy life stlye!} Now watch as I keel over during my medical today! May you have as much fun in your future a my wife and I do in our dotage, the view from the outside looking in at the airlines doesnt seem nearly as much fun as it once was, and I doubt that regardless of the merits of this discussion that the atmosphere within the ranks of AC will improve as a result of this dispute, Regards Clunck.

[engfireleft]

If you consider teaching deserving kids to fly a twin and getting valid real life multi time, so they can get a good flying job, to be work, then we will have to disagree,

I sometimes have a hard time considering what I do "work" as well. I too am teaching young pilots how to operate fast, complex jets at the same time they earn a wage (although not enough of one). I am also considering voluntarily extending the time at which I contribute to the pension while selflessly reducing the time that I draw from it. That will help improve the chances the pension will be around for those very same young pilots.

They can thank me later.

The trouble with being judgemental is that people usually change their attitudes as they get older and they end up on the other side of the argument without ever seeing the irony.

[pitotman]

engfireleft

"I sometimes have a hard time considering what I do "work" as well. I too am teaching young pilots how to operate fast, complex jets at the same time they earn a wage (although not enough of one)"


If your an Air Canada pilot the above statement is an outright lie.......we don't have young pilots at this airline. Ninety percent of Air Canada pilots are over the age of 30 when they join and most have thousands of hours on various types...if they are from the military I am sure the training they have received is more than adequate!


"I am also considering voluntarily extending the time at which I contribute to the pension while selflessly reducing the time that I draw from it. That will help improve the chances the pension will be around for those very same young pilots."

Spare me...Your way to good to us Jr membership. I wonder how you would feel selflessly being a 777 rp rather than a Captain........:ugh: Intrest rates are rising and our pension is going to be just fine without your voluntary contribution to fly till ya die...

"They can thank me later."

Hold your breath and wait for the thank you!

"The trouble with being judgemental is that people usually change their attitudes as they get older and they end up on the other side of the argument without ever seeing the irony."


The problem with greed is you actually believe you deserve to make a couple of hundred large a year while booking off to further reduce your schedule from a whopping 9 days a month to 6 because its your right. I have been with AC for 10 years 4.5 I was on the 744 as an RP in Vancouver and I can tell you that not a single flight went by when someone over the age of 58 did not fall asleep in the flight deck. Take your hard earned pension and do what the Gentleman ahead of your did............Retire.

What ever happened to the class of pilot who actually wanted to leave this industry in a better state than what they found it in....

pitotman

[engfireleft]

Apparently you don't recognize tongue in cheek very well pitotman. Air Canada does have a large number of inexperienced jet pilots at the bottom of the list, but I will agree with this statement:


we don't have young pilots at this airline. Ninety percent of Air Canada pilots are over the age of 30 when they join


In fact the average age of a new pilot at Air Canada is 34. These people not only deserve a chance to earn the same pension as was originally envisioned (35 years service), but they will eventually wake up to the fact they are fighting aggressively to rob themselves of that. Then you will see some abrupt 180's in their attitude.


The problem with greed is you actually believe you deserve to make a couple of hundred large a year while booking off to further reduce your schedule from a whopping 9 days a month to 6 because its your right.


Seniority rights are seniority rights. I notice you can't wait to get there yourself and are prepared to cashier people before they are ready to achieve it. Is that greed I smell?

Also, why do you assume everybody in favour of eliminating age discrimination is old and at the top of the seniority list?

[Tan]

pitotman
Hmm I’ve only been flying AC aircraft for over 30 years so I couldn’t possible know as much about the airline as you do. If you’re serious about improving your take home pay why are you hiding out in Vancouver the most senior base? I’ve never fallen asleep in my seat on any aircraft however I’ve noticed all the young lions hang out in business class whenever they can or can’t wait to get into the bunk because they didn’t get their proper rest before reporting for duty. I would suggest that you put a rag in it before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

[pitotman]

engfireleft,

I know what I signed on for here at Air Canada and I will honor it as I am a man of my word. A large number of inexperienced jet pilots.........come on man who are you kidding........every single pilot in this airline came from a commuter turbo prop, military, or a corporate outfit...I find it humorous that these inexperienced jet pilots have to have their hands held by you.

Inexperienced usually means hired out of university into the right seat of a 737 ala Ryan Air........so please again spare me! Fast jets or slow Jets are still a hell of alot easier to fly than a turbo prop.


"Seniority rights are seniority rights. I notice you can't wait to get there yourself and are prepared to cashier people before they are ready to achieve it. Is that greed I smell?"

See my first line, how am I greedy if I am willing to honor the contract that I signed on for? I don't for a second believe that you have to be old and sr to want to fly past 60. One of my best mates joined here at 32 and wants to fly to 65 and freely admits its for his own personal gain. I for one would like to sit back and have my career advance with attrition as it is designed to do.

The under lying problem for pilots is the sense of entitlement and greed. The cause to fly over 60 is one thing........but to mask it as a human rights issue is laughable and insulting to anyone who has ever had their human rights violated.

I am one of very few at Air Canada who have flown with pilots over the age of 60 and as I have stated on many occasion less that 10% of the pilots I have flown with can still fly to satisfactory standard. The marked decrease in one's attention span, fatigue and ability dramatically decreases as you approach 60 and continues to decrease in a linear fashion... I know a few guys who are over 60 and still fly better than the competent 40 year old. However they are the exception not the rule.....


How many times have you flown with an over 60 pilot across the pacific in the middle of the night?

Pitotman

[OKFINE]

Joined AC at 25, left at 57. Knew a few who would eventually have to be dragged, kicking and screaming when the finish line came. Felt sorry for them actually. I always felt that being an airline pilot was what I did....not who I am. Me thinks there are some who can't distinguish between the two. I flew with George Vilven many times...nice enough fellow. If he really wants to strap a triple7 to his ass at 67 years of age then fill your boots; more to be pitied than laughed at because the one thing money can't buy is time-the rarest of commodities. Just sayin.

[engfireleft]

A large number of inexperienced jet pilots.........come on man who are you kidding........every single pilot in this airline came from a commuter turbo prop, military, or a corporate outfit...I find it humorous that these inexperienced jet pilots have to have their hands held by you.

I didn't say I hold their hands. If they didn't have the credentials they wouldn't have gotten the job. But only a rube would assume they are ready to jump into a left seat here coming off a Beech 1900. I came from military jets myself and it took at least two years before I felt ready to take on a command in the company I first worked for. I can tell you I learned a lot in that two years, and it wasn't from reading how to fly manuals. Twenty years on I'm still learning as you should be too.


I know what I signed on for here at Air Canada and I will honor it as I am a man of my word.

Irrelevant argument. Many things change in a contract that you don't object to, and it's not like you're going to reject a pay raise is it? And as has been said countless times, this isn't a contractual issue. It is a human rights issue. Every province and territory in Canada says it is as well as the CHRT in this particular case. Every industry in Canada has to comply because it is the law. And when you actually retire at 60 then the statement above will be truthful, but until then it is just an opinion that is as likely to change as not.

I for one would like to sit back and have my career advance with attrition as it is designed to do.

That's nice. I for one do not want to be discriminated against when I turn 60. The law's on my side.


I am one of very few at Air Canada who have flown with pilots over the age of 60 and as I have stated on many occasion less that 10% of the pilots I have flown with can still fly to satisfactory standard.

Perhaps you should notify Transport Canada.

The marked decrease in one's attention span, fatigue and ability dramatically decreases as you approach 60 and continues to decrease in a linear fashion...

I'm afraid actual studies prove you wrong. But if that does occur to an individual then check rides and medicals will have to be up to the job of discovering it...just like it should be now. If someone is physically incapable or has lost the competence to do the job then no one will argue that they should have their certificate revoked. But there is absolutely no evidence supporting your blanket statement above. Quite the opposite.

[pitotman]

pitotman
Hmm I’ve only been flying AC aircraft for over 30 years so I couldn’t possible know as much about the airline as you do.

Tan,

I never proclaimed to know more than anyone, let alone you sir. I have been on Med to long haul for the last 10 years. As I stated in my opinion from what I have witnessed there is a noticeable decrease in pilot's ability to do the job as they get older...I also flew 4 of those years in either Japan or Rep of Taiwan. Both allow pilots to fly past 60 and on numerous occasions on both of those contracts pilots sleeping was more prevalent in the over 58 crowd than the younger pilots...!

"If you’re serious about improving your take home pay why are you hiding out in Vancouver the most senior base? "

Not sure why you put the above comment...I am not hiding out anywhere. When Air Canada hired me they placed me in this base. The fact that it happens to be a Sr. base is irrelevant. This is where my home has been since I immigrated and that is unlikely to change for any reason! If I was in this job for the money I would have stayed at my last contract job which was one of the highest paying contracts in the world.

"I’ve never fallen asleep in my seat on any aircraft however I’ve noticed all the young lions hang out in business class whenever they can or can’t wait to get into the bunk because they didn’t get their proper rest before reporting for duty."

That is great for you and obviously your the type of pilot who takes good care of yourself and brings a professional attitude to the flight deck and that is to be applauded. But one only has to sit in the bar at the Danubius to see that most do not share your enthusiasm.

If you can honestly say that you never burnt the candle at both ends when you were younger than again I applaud you. But I would venture that the younger demographics at Air Canada these days take better care of their bodies than our forefathers over the last 75 years.



"I would suggest that you put a rag in it before you make a bigger fool of yourself."

I am a fool because I have an opinion against fly till ya die so be it. I'd rather be a fool than a hypocrite.


PitotFool

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It is really interesting how many pilots think that being over the age of sixty means one becomes less competent and less suited to flying an airplane.

It is even more interesting to read this.


I am one of very few at Air Canada who have flown with pilots over the age of 60 and as I have stated on many occasion less that 10% of the pilots I have flown with can still fly to satisfactory standard.

I guess those of us who maintained competency past the age of 60 are really fortunate huh?

I retired at 70 because I wanted to enjoy what ever years I have left without all the B.S. involved in aviation. For sure it was not because I was no longer flying to a satisfactory standard, unless those who were doing my check rides were falsifying the paper work.

Oh, by the way the flying I was doing was far more demanding of flying skills than managing a big jet.

[Tan]

pitotman

quote

""If you’re serious about improving your take home pay why are you hiding out in Vancouver the most senior base? "

Not sure why you put the above comment...I am not hiding out anywhere. When Air Canada hired me they placed me in this base. The fact that it happens to be a Sr. base is irrelevant. This is where my home has been since I immigrated and that is unlikely to change for any reason! If I was in this job for the money I would have stayed at my last contract job which was one of the highest paying contracts in the world."

end of quote

With that statement if you don’t understand what I said I have to question if you’re even an AC cruise pilot. In short you could bid out of YVR at any time to improve your lot. Perhaps actually flying an airplane might improve your attitude..

[engfireleft]

Most pilots at Air Canada choose a base/aircraft/seat below what they could hold for a myriad of valid reasons. For them though wailing about career stagnation is disingenuous. If it really meant that much to them they would bid the next higher position the moment their seniority could hold it.

[GMC1500]

Reading this thread, here's my observations:

Clunkdriver is the coolest, classiest guy on here. :D

Ray767 is a pompous ass. Sort of a Charles Emerson Winchester type.

Same for engfireleft, but more of a Frank Burns type.

Wonder how they got the nickname 'skygods'? :oh:

[engfireleft]

Pragmatic realism and recognition of contemporary societal values might not be cool to some people, but it is a lot smarter. Committing everything to keep outmoded and illegal practices in the face of inexorable change is not.

The personal attacks that have characterized this issue are a disgrace as is the blanket of silence enforced over anybody supporting the elimination of mandatory retirement by ACPA and at least one other aviation website.

This is only going to end one way, and how we as individuals and as a group conduct ourselves will not change the outcome because this is not simply an Air Canada issue. It does however put our character on display for better or for worse.

[GMC1500]

Frank Burns eats worms.

[GMC1500]

Stop eating your young.:= You were once young too. Retire somewhere cheap. Forget about Victoria, already.

[engfireleft]

Stop eating your young

Melodrama. I think you'll find your world won't end and you might actually get a full pension at the end of your traumatic and unsatisfactory career.

[pitotman]

Tan,

I didn't miss your point mate...........my point is this...Where in the above text do I complain about my pay....Dude I can assure you I would not move to YYZ for all the marbles in the toy box so you can have them. I know exactly how much of a financial penalty I am paying buy living in Vancouver and I gladly accept it.

I have had family members have their human rights and civil rights violated and I take particular offense to a bunch of greedy airline brats complaining about your rights....At least with Buck in Vancouver we are under no illusions as to why he wants to come back....hell he has a 24 year old bride who needs taking care of and those little blue pills only go so far!!

I would respect your group a little more if they came out and announced "Heh its about money, the need to still work, or whatever.........

But human rights..........come on man give your head a shake! Thirty years you have had with this airline Tan I wonder why you are so set on staying on another year what is it 1.1 million or is it just a million of your rights that are being violated.............

I am done with you lot...I honestly can say I wish you all a happy, healthy, safe and long retirement.........nothing more nothing less! Just hope ya take you blinders off to enjoy it!


pitotman

[GMC1500]

Stop eating your young

I see you chose to ignore the rest of my statement. Read it once more, its relevant too.
What makes you think my career is traumatic and unsatisfactory? I'm actually one of the lucky ones who got out of Canada.
I'm very satisfied with my career, and I'm not planning to eat my young in the dying days of it. In fact, I plan to retire as early as possible. As Clunkflyer wisely said, one shouldn't confuse what they do with who they are.

[engfireleft]

You were once young too. Retire somewhere cheap. Forget about Victoria, already.


I didn't forget the rest of your statement, I just didn't respond to it because in 12 short words you made three incorrect assumptions. I'm still a long ways from retirement, I will be retiring somewhere reasonably cheap and it won't be Victoria.

Since your life has gotten so much better now that you've left Canada for (correct me if I'm wrong) that bastion of human rights UAE, why are you in this debate anyway? It doesn't effect you.

[GMC1500]

OOOOOOOHHHHHH Gooooody!
I'm overjoyed I've drawn such a master-debater into this (melo)drama!
We can delve into your 'reasonably cheap' retirement villa for the insane at a later date.
Is that you, Dick?(credit to GK)

[555orange]

This is an interesting post indeed!

Why are you guys interested to work past 60? Don't you have some great pension going on? Why would you want to delay your pension and work at the same company? Makes more sense to take the door and double dip.

Also, wouldn't you be negatively affecting the hard fought for seniority that you yourselve's have enjoyed for many years? And thereby negatively affecting all those that come after you? These are also issues that cannot be ignored.

I tend to agree with Pitot. The door is the way.

Yes of course you have a right to work past 60, but thats not the whole story is it. Because of the above issues...including competency... You may NOT have a right to work past 60 as a commander at AC. However I hear Home Depot is hiring.

I for one do not want to be a passenger with a Captain who is over 60.

Perhaps the answer...to meet half way... is to allow it, but only in the RHS.

Orange

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I for one do not want to be a passenger with a Captain who is over 60.

WOW..... If ever there was a generalization that one wins first prize.

Lets see, let me think for a moment...yeh now I have it, Bob Hoover was still doing his routine at airshows well into his eighties so that means he was incompetent for over twenty years and unsafe to fly with?

The truth is being a pilot only requires average intelligence and average motor skills.

[GMC1500]

wait for it.....

[engfireleft]

Why does it (sic)effect me? Because my family is in Canada, and thus daily flights, let alone other destinations would make it much, much easier to plan time at home. 500 seats 3x per week each way nearly sold out, you do the math. Gee, why doesn't AC offer direct flights to Dxb?
Is that you, Dick?(credit to GK)

I think you're getting your tirades mixed up. We were talking about mandatory retirement in Canada, not EK's plans for world domination.

Why are you guys interested to work past 60? Don't you have some great pension going on? Why would you want to delay your pension and work at the same company? Makes more sense to take the door and double dip.

The pension was designed to max out after 35 years service because when it was conceived the average age of a new hire was around 25 years old. For many years now the average age of a new hire has been 34. That means the pension for them and anybody else hired in the foreseeable future will not be nearly as good as was intended. They will figure that out eventually and be quite happy someone else earned them the right to stay a little longer and improve their retirement if they so choose.

Contrary to impressions some people not only like flying for a living, but like doing it for Air Canada.

There are a hundred other reasons why someone would want to continue working past 60, none of which are subject to anyone's approval but their own. It is not for you, me or anybody else to pass judgement on why someone chooses to stay. It is none of our business.

Age discrimination is not permitted anywhere in Canada. Mandatory retirement has been deemed discriminatory in every jurisdiction within Canada. Deriding a few people for standing up for their right to not be discriminated against is ignoring a fundamental reality in this country in favour of petty retribution against those same people. To me it's childish and unbecoming a group thought by the public to be clear headed professionals.

[dozing4dollars]

My son Tommy is eight and wants to drive my car. I think he's too young, but I can't prove it. He drives better than me on Mario Cart. I'm waiting for the summons from the Human Rights Tribunal.:}

Beware those whose unassailable position on a subject are co-located with their position of maximum self interest.

[retired747driver]

Hello Raymond767:

I applaud your efforts, both past and present, to rectify what seems to be a blatant contravention of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Freedoms etc. etc.
As is mentioned by a previous poster, discriminating based on age (or for that matter, on any criteria other than capability) is not something we need to address to know it's wrong.

The problem lies with - what to do now that we have identified the problem and made it right?

Unfortunately, what has also been previously posted is correct in that you and all other retirees have acceded to the lofty position of command based on those ahead of you who were on the seniority list retiring in a timely manner (age 60), as was the norm until now.

So what to do with those caught in the middle ... ie: those who joined AC with their future progression based on age 60 retirement and who now find that their advancement expectations are being sabotaged by people such as yourself.

This smacks of the old adage "changing the rules of the ball game in the 7th inning" ...... something that is equally as blatantly wrong as the original sin of retirement based on age.

The only fair way out would be to simply state a new rule:
As of today, all new hires will have the option to retire at whatever age their medical or licensing ceases to be effective. Anyone who is presently in the system or now retired and out of the system .... tough titties ! You joined under a particular set of circumstances .... and you will retire based on that set of circumstances. End of story.

If this doesn't suit the "work 'til you die" crowd, then maybe the pro "retire at age 60" group should band together and sue for an estoppal order. After all, age 60 was agreed to by the union and the company ... and has been the standard for the better part of the last 60 years. Why break with tradition now?

Submitted for your consideration .... although I already know what the answer will be.

[ACAV8R]

"Seniority rights are seniority rights."

There is no such thing as 'seniority' apart from the collective agreement which the "Flytillyadie" group have chosen to challenge.

Yet, when they return they will want to be protected by the same system they have chosen to challenge.

[engfireleft]

Forget the collective agreement. The contract now violates Canada's discrimination laws and it was only a matter of time before someone pointed that out. It might even have been you when your turn came.

The law in this country has changed. Air Canada pilots think it doesn't apply to them and that our collective agreement supercedes Canadian law. They are dead wrong.

On this issue ACPA has committed the mother of all Gross Navigational Errors despite countless billboard sized direction signs staring them in the face. Even after being told point blank last August they were going the wrong way they insist on staying the course and making the situation even worse.

[ea340]

Engfireleft of course you are right . Does not negate the fact that they knew the terms of the contract when they were hired fought Ross Stevenson loved the contract until they got to the top of the hill . Not one of these folks said a word about discrimination though the 70's 80' or 90's just discovered it in 2005. . There was a time when retiring at 60 was a perk can you still retire at 60 yes for the time being . Soon to max out on pension staying beyond 60 will be reqiured. The major good coming out of this is the pension will be in better shape for those that live long enough to collect reread Clunckdrivers post:ok:

[engfireleft]

Does not negate the fact that they knew the terms of the contract when they were hired fought Ross Stevenson loved the contract until they got to the top of the hill . The view from the top is outstanding . Not one of these folks said a word about discrimination though the 70's 80' or 90's just discovered it in 2005. Will they win yes will thay be welcomed back noSour grapes that has no place in this issue. It certainly shouldn't dictate our response to it which is what ACPA has done. It's irresponsible.

There was a time when retiring at 60 was a perk can you still retire at 60 yes for the time being . Soon to max out on pension staying beyond 60 will be reqiured.
Maxing out the pension already requires staying beyond 60. How many times do we have to be told the average age of new hires is 34? Do the math.

Clunckdrivers postClunkdrivers posts are editorial llfestyle comments that might pertain to him, but not to everyone. He is being judgemental over people with different priorities than him which is not appropriate. It's none of his business.

[555orange]

Not so dumb brandman. Nothing wrong with aspirations. Its just that sometimes there's a time to have new ones. We all have to close the page on chapters in our lives and let others carry the torch. Of course there is nothing wrong with working past 60. Discrimination is not the issue because retirement at 60 is a normal function. Not abnormal. I don't think it will fly in court. Your fight is with the company and company policy. Of course maybe you will have to change the rules to allow it with the gov't first. But just because the law will be changed doesn't mean the company will change or the employee group (if its a union) will allow it. Personally, I don't know why you wouldn't embrace a new challenge instead. Try something new! Good luck with your fight.

[retired747driver]

Raymond 747

It would seem that you have a point regarding age discrimination and the age 60 retirement thing. However, you did make it to the top (or fairly close) of the pile based on the age 60 retirement of your predecessors.

It would seem blatantly unfair to change the rules of the ball game in the 7th inning (how's that for an analogy) by now allowing those who wish to, to retire at any age, as determined by their medical or performance standard deteriorating.

Those who joined the system expecting career progression similar to what you enjoyed will now not be able to do that ... and for the most part, they are pension prisoners and can't go somewhere else to start over.

It would seem that the only fair thing to do now is stipulate that anyone joining the company from this date forward can retire whenever but those already here are stuck with the status quo. Barring that ... I would be seriously looking at an estoppal order to prevent anyone senior to me from degrading my progression in the system by their staying longer than age 60.

[ea340]

Engfireleft one mans sour grapes is another mans hypocrisy . Everyone of the guys on the present fly past 60 list would have fought this 10 years ago .The law is the law and we will go to 65 .

[engfireleft]

Everyone of the guys on the present fly past 60 list would have fought this 10 years ago .The law is the law and we will go to 65 .


I don't doubt this for the most part which is why I say most people fighting it now will change their attitude when they approach 60. Human nature.


But just because the law will be changed doesn't mean the company will change or the employee group (if its a union) will allow it.


555orange

First of all the law already has changed. Second....

Oh never mind.

[Raymond767]

EA340: Everyone of the guys on the present fly past 60 list would have fought this 10 years ago.

-----------------------------------

Completely incorrect. I am on the list, and I can categorically state that I would not have fought this ten years ago. Why? As of ten years ago I had already spent two years appointed to one of the provincial Human Rights Commissions and I had already been practising law for over ten years. Which would have led me then to arrive at the same conclusion that I arrived at four years ago, when George Vilven asked me to become involved.

Namely, as EngineFireLeft has succinctly stated on this thread, and as I emphatically stated on the ACPA Forum in 2006 and many, many times since, fighting the change is futile. You cannot fight the law of Parliament, when you are armed only with the law of contract, especially given the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights law.

The fight that we should have been engaged in, the fight that it is now too late to be engaged in, is the fight to get some benefit from the impending change, specifically to avoid the worst consequences for those most vulnerable to the impending inevitable change--namely, the junior pilots.

Consider this: four years ago, had Air Canada and ACPA simply offered Air Canada pilots the ability to continue working to age 65 only, as many other Canadian airlines did, most of the Complainants would likely have been satisfifed and would have either withdrawn their Complaints or not filed them in the first place. Evidence put before the Tribunal indicates that the vast majority of pilots want to continue only one or two years beyond age 60.

But now look at where Air Canada and ACPA are, legally speaking. Aside from the issue of liability for damages (a whole separate issue) the Tribunal ruled that the entire exemption clause for mandatory retirement in the statute is of no force and effect. Result: there is no age restriction whatsoever. Transport Canada rules apply, which means pilots can continue to work so long as they pass their professional and medical competency requirements. So now you are going to have pilots staying beyond age 65, which makes the situation even worse for the junior pilots.

Worse for Air Canada, however, is the coming very real prospect of losing their right to terminate the employment of any employee at any age. That is precisely what will result from the Federal Court judicial review this November, should the Court uphold the Tribunal's decision. The real irony is that it was Air Canada (and ACPA) who filed the application for judicial review. Poetic justice!

[ea340]

Good point Ray767 so why did you not find a guy to bring a case in say 1988or 1995.Who stood up for Ross Stevenson no one of the fly past 60 group did correct me if I'am wrong including you. No one in this group brought this up at any Calpa or Acpa meeting until correct me if I'am wrong again until about 2005 or so. No one wants this to pass until its their turn to stand at the top of the hill. 65 will go through but here is little support for it on the line but the law is the law.

[engfireleft]

No one wants this to pass until its their turn to stand at the top of the hill. 65 will go through but here is little support for it on the line but the law is the law.

I wouldn't say that. I am one of many people who are no where near retirement but can plainly see which way this was going to go from day one. Many people like me also agree that forcing someone to leave their job simply because they had a birthday is wrong. But they are the silent factor here because whenever they try and put forward their viewpoint they are shouted down. Or, as has been happening on the ACPA website and others (you know who you are) their point of view has been consistently and repeatedly deleted from the forum altogether so no one gets to read it.

When this issue was first put before the membership the MEC had already made up their minds that they were going to fight it. If you don't believe me then please look on the ACPA website and read the question they put to the membership for the vote. Not surprisingly it was presented to the membership from only the MEC's predetermined perspective. The membership has never heard the alternative side of the issue, and ACPA and others are quite successful at ensuring they never do.

But rest assured the tribunal and courts are hearing the other side and have made their ruling accordingly.

[cloudcity]

Apparently complaints with the HRC have no effect until a pilot is actually forced to retire so filing a complaint beforehand is not registered. It appears that over 90 percent of all current AC pilots, well over 2500 pilots will not make the max pension unless they work past 60 because of the hugely high average hiring age and yet vast sums are going to prevent the membership from partaking in the max pension benefits via years of service. The best time for past 60 to take effect is of course when each pilot reaches 60 and is then eligible to file a complaint. Of course at each of those specific points in time, many of the pilots at less than 60 will try to prevent the pilot at 60 from realizing his right to work.

[ea340]

Dont worry Engfireleft you will get your chance to fly past 60 be careful about what you wish for. The first group to fly past 60 will win large the rest the law of diminishing returns sets in . There is a group who were hired late in life and 60 plus will help them to some degree no doubt but it is not the group from the 70's . Anyone from this group is looking at maybe $500,000 above pension for staying for 5 extra years . If you are hired in the 80's or later good luck flying long haul at night at 65 will not be fun trust me. Over and out:ok:

[a330pilotcanada]

As one who has been flying since he was 17 and is now ready to depart the fix at Air Canada with over thirty years I will just add what I consider some truisms that I have seen in life.
One should never define their persona by what they wear when they go to work.
Develop a plan early in life of what you want to do with the rest of your life after you retire as you have to be more busy in retirement than your working life.
As hard it is for some to consider, yes there is a life to be enjoyed outside of flying.
There will come a time when you might be forced to leave so why not leave under ones power and dignity.
I have noticed this annoying tendency that some great people I have known over the years have not made it past 70.
Keep the same spouse, it also allows you to stay in the same house along with keeping the "toy's" intact.
For myself last year I was diagnosed with melanoma which the biopsies had shown it being fast spreading and aggressive. So after a few "slice and dices" along with the four month check ups I was absolutely amazed by when one steps up to and looks into the abyss how ones thinking is clarified in the most succinct of ways.
Our job is not the healthiest of careers not with standing being hypoxic, circadian rhythm upset, breathing that lovely recycled air, eating meals when your stomach can not handle it or just feel free to add the subject you want.......
That being said I have had a wonderful career and it is time to let someone else enjoy it.
So to Ray 767 is it intellectual curiosity that leads you into this crusade or is it an exercise in self aggrandizement to become a politician in the next federal election?
In addition, should you not expunge all the personal data such as addresses of Air Canada pilots and their birth dates that you have in your data base?
You realize that keeping people's personal information with out their knowledge or permission such as the above might raise some interesting ethical issues as a lawyer?
Also in the hearings it was reported that one of your colleagues said "that A.C.P.A. and Air Canada treated its older pilots like the Nazis treated Jews." If I misquote it was something I read very quickly but the flavour was there. I must state very emphatically that after visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the concentration camp at Dachau Germany and the exhibit on ethnic cleansing at the Imperial War Museum in London I was deeply offended by that remark and you should distance yourself from that individual and apologize to A.C.P.A. along with Air Canada.

[Raymond767]

so why did you not find a guy to bring a case in say 1988or 1995.

A few pilots attempted to do so then. None were successful. One took the appeal of the refusal of the Commission to refer his case to the Tribunal to the Supreme Court of Canada; he lost. Why? Two reasons, both based on the legislation.

First, the substantive portion of the legislative exemption, namely Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That allows for mandatory retirement provided that it is done at “the normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work.” In the 1980’s, age 60 was the normal age of retirement. So no cases were referred to the Tribunal—they all failed on the merits at the administrative stage. So there was no point in me or anyone else complaining—the Commission simply would not accept the complaints.

Of course, that all changed after 2000, with the normal age in the industry moving off age 60. Hence, the Commission allowed the complaints, and referred them to the Tribunal for adjudication.

In the Thwaites case (hearing completed in January, 2010, decision not yet rendered) we presented substantive evidence that Air Canada pilots account for less than 40% of the pilots in the industry, hence the normal age of retirement (50% plus 1) is no longer age 60. Air Canada’s mandatory retirement, we suggest, no longer meets the statutory requirements.

Second, the interpretations of the Charter re the mandatory retirement exemption, have been changing. With the changing demographics, with changing public policy with respect to mandatory retirement, with the improvement in health and fitness, combined with the job shortages at the intake stage of the labour market, the factors that the Supreme Court of Canada considered in their seminal cases in the early 1990’s are being re-evaluated by the Courts.

The Federal Court, in its review of the original Vilven-Kelly decision, had trouble with the idea that the statute permitted discrimination provided that the discrimination is applied to everybody. The judge suggested that the remedy to that statutory interpretation problem lies in the Charter, specifically Section 1, and she struck down the provision under Section 15(1) (the equality provisions) as being contrary to the Charter.

Regarding bringing the matter up at CALPA or ACPA, we already know the result of that option. Other pilot unions facing the same issue decided to remain neutral, or even to finance both sides of the dispute. Not so ACPA. It chose to use the dues of those opposed to mandatory retirement to pay for the legal fight against themselves. How could a union, taking such a position, treat the minority fairly, in view of the outright conflict of interest that it put it self in?

Does that make the violation of the law any less a violation?

So your point then goes again to the issue of fairness, which is separate from the reality that you are facing—namely the reality that you are supporting a union position that is attempting solve the solution by denial and obfuscation.
Last night I observed the PBS interview of Bill Clinton. Some of his words hit home on our issue.

He said the following:

“Change is totally disorienting to people if it threatens their employment, their social status, or their sense of political empowerment. … You can scream, “Stop the world, I want to get off,” and look for ways to make it simple again. .. What I think we have to do is get back in the future business, and I don’t think there is any option cause I don’t think you can get off the world. Denial is not a strategy. It never works—ever!”

[555orange]

My personal opinion here, but I think you guys are wasting your money fighting this as discrimination. What makes this any different than limiting a drivers or pilot to have a license at 18, or an ability to attend a bar at 21? I could drive a car just fine at 16 just like you argue you can continue to fly past 60.

Im not saying its good or bad to go either way. Im just calling it as I see it. Each case has its own merits... retire 60, or 65. But I don't see much of a benefit for 65 where a good pension is involved. It really looks more like a case of not being able to let go. Making the transition to retirement is tough for some that really embrace their work, and perhaps love flying as much as I do. I can understand it, but it doesn't mean its a legal right or a discrimination. Its just the way it is, insofar to manage a group of employees. A general retirement that must be applied fairly to everyone. Maybe we can change it, but we have to look at how we can do it and minimize the negative affect on other demographics. Perhaps we should look at other factors. How it affects the finances of the company or how it might reduce the opportunities for young hopefulls wanting to join. Maybe its possible, but just not practical for everyone. If it benefits a smaller group to a lesser extent, then maybe its not the right thing to do.

[Tan]

Hmm why does our pilots association waste our valuable resources fighting battles we cannot win? We have quite a long track record of doing so. I remember one of our VP’s saying 'a good contract is one in which no one is happy'. Let’s get all the parties together and compromise. Probably half of the pilots that wish to continue only do so because they don’t like being told they have to retire. After a few years they happily retire on their own terms. Those that try to go full term only enrich the pension plan with their premature deaths in which case we all benefit. So it a rest and move on, its going to happen regardless of the venting on this forum.

[ea340]

Ray 767 when you win the case will the Fly Past 60 group support forcing Air Canada to include all retired pilots not just this narrow group in a return to work order. I guess what I'am saying is forget the legal answer will this group continue the fight to allow any retired Air Canada pilot the right to return to work and would you lead the fight. My problem with this whole exercise is the top of the hill syndrome if some want back all should be allowed back . You are aware no doubt of several sim instructors some in their 70's who could return to work with just line indoc. As for other pilots making attemps to stay past 60 is it a fair statement to say they had little or no support and fought the battle alone.

[Raymond767]

[W]hen you win the case will the Fly Past 60 group support forcing Air Canada to include all retired pilots not just this narrow group in a return to work order [?]

These misconceptions are part of the problem with having no few effective means to communicate among ourselves. Thankfully, for the most part, the conversation here on this Forum is candid and open, so that misconceptions like that can be laid to rest.

Fact 1: Those who haven’t asserted or protected their rights under the statute by filing a Complaint within the one-year limit allowed by the Act have no recourse to regain their employment as a result of any alleged violation of their rights.

Fact 2: There is nothing in the actions of our group that supports any proposition that anyone should be forced to be employed beyond age 60. We have asserted only that it is improper, under the Act, to involuntarily terminate the employment of pilots on the basis of age. It should be a matter of choice for the pilots, whether they wish to stay employed or accept their pension and terminate their employment.

Fact 3: We have supported the Commission’s request for an Order requiring Air Canada to cease and desist from involuntarily terminating the employment of pilots, based on age. That is one of the issues that will be decided by Tribunal in its decision that is expected to be rendered on or before June 1st. If the Order is granted, Air Canada will be required to inquire of each individual, prior to termination, whether he or she plans to terminate his or her employment at that age, or continue working.

As for other pilots making attempts to stay past 60 is it a fair statement to say they had little or no support and fought the battle alone [?]

This has been a David vs. Goliath battle from the outset. Air Canada must have spent over $1 million on legal fees, plus a huge additional amount of money on internal expenses to cover the hidden costs of its managers supporting the unwinnable case (their internal lawyers (on salary, not fees) and their senior managers (on salary) were constantly tied up in the hearings; their senior flight ops managers had to act as witnesses and provide technical support to their legal staff).

ACPA’s legal fees on this issue are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Again, those fees do not include the hidden internal costs of supporting the action. For example, ACPA has had one of its labour relations staff attend each of the hearings (salary) and has had to spend countless hours internally for its Committee members and the MEC to deal with the litigation.

On the Complainants’ part, how could one pilot be expected to fight this ground-changing battle alone? Notwithstanding the propositions of some external writers (such as Ezra Levant) that the burden of fighting an human rights case before the Tribunal largely lies on the Respondents, not the Complainants, the fact is that no pilot on a pension the size of G.V.’s pension (nowhere close to the maximum) could have single-handedly afforded to finance this litigation against these titans.

[engfireleft]

My personal opinion here, but I think you guys are wasting your money fighting this as discrimination.


555orange

Please don't take this as an insult because it's not meant to be, but based on a previous post your understanding of the hierarchy of law vs. labour contracts is wanting and I would encourage you to read this entire thread again to see how things lie. Also, forcing Air Canada pilots to retire at age 60 has already been ruled discriminatory last August by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. So no, it's not a waste of time or money. What is a waste of time, money and pilot solidarity is continuing a divisive fight that was lost 9 months ago.

[ea340]

Ray 767 forget the legal answer will the Fly Past 60 group support the return of already retired pilots in any meaningful way your short answer appears to be no . As for the folks who fought this battle before you will you agree no one supported them including any of the the Fly Past 60 group is that correct. . If the Fly Past 60 group does decide to support the all ready retired group I will take my hat off to the group .

[Raymond767]

EA340: You obviously haven't digested my previous posts. In a nutshell, why should I or anyone else waste valuable time or resources taking on a cause that has absolutely zero chance of succeeding, given that the action is now statute-barred by reason of timeliness?

What I have been suggesting here is that people should deal with facts, not with fantasy or with what is not an option.

Similarly, despite the tendency to overlay the issues with all sorts of irrelevant emotional distractions, such as anyone's purported motivation, we need to address the one issue that is before us, namely integrating the necessary changes into our workplace.

[Vic777]

ea340
It strikes me also, that you don't seem to comprehend Ray's very clear simple answer to your question. The FlyPast60 group has chosen a specific fight, who cares what you think the terms of engagement should be?

[1049]

Ok- rant switch- ON
I personally do not have a problem with those who want to work past 60. I plan on retiring at 60 and enjoying the fruits of my labor. I get miffed though when people attempt to change the rules mid-game and think they can tell ME I now have to work past 60 in order to recieve a pension.
If those who are challenging the very the age 60 contract that gave them many years of personal gain in pay and equipment are ok with "grand-fathering" the age of retirement changes to become effective when AC starts hiring again then I applaud them - anything else just seems to reek of greed.
Rant switch - OFF

[Lost in Saigon]

Here is my rant....

When I "signed on" we were paid for training and got full credit for deadhead. Things change as I am sure you know.

One thing that won't change is your right to retire at age 60. No one is trying to change that. They just want the choice to work past 60 if they want to.

You might argue that if your career is temporarily stagnated you will be forced to work past 60 to make up the difference. Well guess what... Everyone's career is being stagnated by all the cuts YOU voted in. Oh yeah tell me again how it wasn't you who voted YES to all those concessions. It was always the other guy who gave away our contract and our profession.

I welcome the right to chose when I retire. It's looking more, and more, like we will all need a few extra years.

[engfireleft]

I get miffed though when people attempt to change the rules mid-game and think they can tell ME I now have to work past 60 in order to recieve a pension.


Well, since no one is trying to tell YOU that you now have to work past 60 to recieve a pension...what are you getting miffed at?

This is what happens when the union doesn't explain things to the membership, and the membership doesn't bother to learn it themselves before flying off the handle.

[1049]

The law in this country has changed. Air Canada pilots think it doesn't apply to them and that our collective agreement supercedes Canadian law. They are dead wrong.
Left Eng - you're not talking about the same agreement you benefited from all these years from are you?

Well guess what... Everyone's career is being stagnated by all the cuts YOU voted in. Oh yeah tell me again how it wasn't you who voted YES to all those concessions. It was always the other guy who gave away our contract and our profession.

L in S - You have no idea how I voted. I am not anymore impressed with the degradation of our profession than you are. I agree that when the next round of negots begin we need to take a firmer stance and regain some of those items lost such as full credit DHs and training for example.
I digress slightly, what is important to me is that when I choose to retire at 60 (feel free to retire at 70 or even 80 if you like!) any annuity I would be entitled to will not degraded as a result of the fallout from the tribunal/appeals court decisions. :=

[a330pilotcanada]

Good Morning from wet and dreary CDG

There seems be a under current that if the age 60 plus goes through, is one that in the next contract pensions will be addressed in a prejudicial manner to reflect growing anger with career stagnation by junior pilots affected by same.

Some how the quote attributed to the Duke of Welligton after the Battle of Waterloo seems relevent " there is nothing as sad as battle field lost as a battle field won".

It would seem that Ray 767 is not concentrating on the next round and has acquired target lock on present battle. So that being said Ray 767 do not wish to hard for something as you just might get it.

In the writers humble opinion yes fight for the change but make it for the next up lift of new hires at Air Canada to decide if they want to go past 60 to make your argument be other than intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt

Back to the cafe au lait...........:)

[engfireleft]

Left Eng - you're not talking about the same agreement you benefited from all these years from are you?



Do you mean the contract in constant retrenchment featuring throwing 320 pilots under the bus and the creation of second class Air Canada pilots with the Pay Group? Do you mean that one? Then yes, I guess that's what I'm talking about.

Contracts change all the time and NO ONE at Air Canada can take the high road with this "you knew what you were signing on for" rubbish, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue anyway. You do know that Canadian Law supercedes our contract don't you? You do know that this is not an Air Canada issue don't you?

Mandatory retirement based on age alone is discriminatory in this country. Wrap your minds around that. It isn't discriminatory for some people, it's discriminatory for ALL people. That means it stops...full stop. Our anachronistic 60's mindset has been living on borrowed time at Air Canada and this is way overdue.


what is important to me is that when I choose to retire at 60 (feel free to retire at 70 or even 80 if you like!) any annuity I would be entitled to will not degraded as a result of the fallout from the tribunal/appeals court decisions.


The flypast60 group is in complete agreement with you, and Ray and others have been trying for the entire time to get the union to manage this change to ensure minimal negative effect rather than put all their effort into fighting it. Now of course the union has lost, and done nothing to minimize the fallout.

The union did this of course with the blessing of a large segment of the membership who refused to consider any other option. Ask the union (and yourself) why nobody was preparing for this day?

[O360A1A]

Lots of comment about past history on this issue; much of it appears uninformed.

At one time, Canada had a limit of 45 on flying "for hire and reward" (and no women permitted)

Pilots retiring from Air Canada in the early 70's told me they had been hired under that age 45 limit; but they flew on when the rules changed, and no-one expected them to go at the age in force when they joined.

Pilots hired when no-one could fly with various medical conditions such as monocular vision, diabetes, heart problems etc, did not leave when they got those conditions, despite the rules in place when they were hired.

There was no mention of 60 in the Contract at AC till the mid eighties; the union of the day opposed fixed retirement. 60 was slipped into the contract in response to Ross Stephenson fighting 60. 60 was not "negotiated", nothing was gained for it, and those hired prior to its appearance in the contract cannot be said to "have agreed to it when they were hired".

Various pilots did speak out about mandatory retirement prior to approaching 60. They (myself included) were discounted as "not understanding" the system. Same results as when they questioned other things like no women. Some have been consistent in questioning this issue throughout their careers. Ross Stephenson had supporters; some of whom now deny that support.

As one of the posters above points out; there are many who have supported this change, but they are shouted down if they speak out, and ACPA has lost an opportunity to manage the change to the benefit of its members.

One benefit advocated was to use pension savings from those working past 60 to allow others to go early with less or no penalty. ACPA's own committees reported to the MEC that an age change from 60 was "neutral to positive", but the MEC decided to fight rather than manage the change; further, ACPA did not educate the members before calling a vote on the issue.

ICAO looked at the numbers before changing its age recommendations. Older pilots are safer, and less likely to have a disabling medical event. Medical events causing incapacitation typically occur earlier than 60 or much later than 65; peak period for males is in the forties. ICAO recommended the change to 65, because they looked up to that age. 65 is not cast in stone, nor is the "over/under" rule. Canada has no age limit on pilots; the "over/under" rule does not apply in Canada or the U.S. Other Canadian carriers do not have Age 60 retirement; nor do they have any problem with the "over/under" rule.

Another misconception is that persons retiring early live longer. Large studies show otherwise. There is bogus information on the net about Boeing employees; that fabrication showed persons working to 65 dying at 65.2 years! Boeing itself countered with the actual numbers about its retirees. Those retiring at 55 die earlier than those who retire at 60 or 65. There is no significant difference in death rate for retirees or those who work beyond60. Shell published a similar study with similar findings.

The Tribunal and the courts will decide this issue; the decisions may not be popular with some, but the results will be real. It is generally better to manage change than to fight it; that opportunity appears to have been lost here.

[MackTheKnife]

0360A1A,

:ok: Please for the love of God put your post up on the ACPA forum for all to read.

MTK

[cloudcity]

It's likely not a good idea to post anything over there.

[Raymond767]

Lest anyone think that this issue affects only the pilots at Air Canada, think again. The CHRT has a number of complaints scheduled for hearings on the mandatory retirement issue, not just with Air Canada.

The first new hearing is a Tribunal hearing scheduled in June in Montreal with a different Air Canada union:

CHRT - Hearings Schedule (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/cases-affaires/hs-ap-eng.asp)

In addition, there is a backlog of other cases before the Tribunal on the same issue, with respect to the trucking industry.

Essentially, all the mandatory retirement cases deal with the same issue already decided by the Tribunal in the Vilven-Kelly liability hearing, namely, can the employer rely on Section 15(1)(c) of the CHRA to involuntarily terminate the employment of all persons in a particular work category?

[bcflyer]

There has been alot of talk in this thread about mandatory retirement now being illegal in Canada. As far as I know the laws have only been changed on a Provincial level. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Air Canada falls under federal law and I'm pretty sure that mandatory retirement is still legal at that level. (is there not a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court judges for example?)

[Raymond767]

There have been two attempts to repeal Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age). Neither has been enacted. The first was a government bill that died on the Order Paper in 1995 when an election was called. The second is a private member's bill that is currently before Parliament. You are correct, there has not yet been an outright repeal of the legislative provision.

Further, not all federal jobs come within the purview of the CHRA. Separate statutes apply to others, such as the military, the judges, and federal civil servants.

However, the exemption under Section 15(1)(c) allows for mandatory retirement only if it occurs at the "normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work."

To date, the Tribunal and the Courts have interpreted that statistically, meaning 50% plus one defines the normal. The Federal Court had real problems with that concept in the V-K judicial review, for the simple reason that the statistical interpretation leads to condoning discrimination provided that it is enforced by a majority against a minority--an anethema to human rights principles. The Court suggested that the Charter should cure that problem, and it overturned the original Tribunal decision that found that Section 15(1)(c) did not violate the prohibition on discrimination against age found in the Charter.

The Tribunal then found that that violation of Section 15(1) of the Charter by the exemption was not justified by Section 1 of the Charter. Because a Tribunal can only interpret legislation and not strike it down, it has to interpret each decision that comes before it. The Tribunal decision that the exemption is not saved by Section 1 of the Charter is now on its way back to the Federal Court by way of a separate judicial review, to be heard in late November. If the Court strikes down the exemption, that will end mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction, subject to the Federal Court's decision being appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The general postulation made earlier, however, is still valid. Age discrimination violates the Act, and although the Tribunal is not legally bound to follow even its own decision with respect to Section 1 of the Charter, the likelihood of it arriving at a different conclusion on the basis of a separate case of mandatory retirement is near zero and will soon become moot. As of now, that simply means that each new case must be relitigated to have the Tribunal repeat the same decision (a two year process).

That may also change, especially with respect to Air Canada pilots, when the V-K decision is released regarding the Commission's request for an Order against Air Canada to cease involuntarily terminating the employment of pilots based on age. There is also a huge number of other cases on the subject pending hearing before the Tribunal, from other professions and industries, including the trucking inddstry

[bcflyer]

So in other words mandatory retirement at a company governed by federal law is currently not illegal..

[engfireleft]

So in other words mandatory retirement at a company governed by federal law is currently not illegal..


Age discrimination in this country is illegal and has been for many years. The CHRT has determined that there is no justification for forced retirement at Air Canada at age 60, and that it is age discrimination.

From that you can conclude that forcing pilots out at age 60 is against the law. Nothing difficult to understand there, just as it's not difficult to understand that this is a lost battle for ACPA, Air Canada and any other organization that tries to kick people to the curb based on age alone.

You can grasp at as many straws as you like, and you can continue to rationalize it in your mind as much as you like. But ACPA lost, as was inevitable from the beginning for anybody who gave it two seconds of actual thought.

[bcflyer]

So using your logic, any employee governed by federal law who is forced to retire at 65 can claim age discrimination, sue their former employer and fellow colleagues and continue to work as long as they want?

PS The final decision in this case is far from being decided. Appeals can take years to work their way through the courts...

PPS Everyone knows this case has absolutely NOTHING to do with age discrimination. Its all about GREED pure and simple.

[engfireleft]

So using your logic, any employee governed by federal law who is forced to retire at 65 can claim age discrimination, sue their former employer and fellow colleagues and continue to work as long as they want?



Not quite. It isn't my logic, it's the law of the land. Get used to it. Or keep doing this :ugh:


PS The final decision in this case is far from being decided. Appeals can take years to work their way through the courts...


So you and ACPA wish. But it only means you don't know when you've lost and you continue to fight with no possible hope of winning. Start paying attention to what's going on around you in this country.


PPS Everyone knows this case has absolutely NOTHING to do with age discrimination. Its all about GREED pure and simple.


Man, I love it when you guys start throwing around the GREED word. This topic encompasses societal issues that will be with us for decades. Much longer than me, you, or any of the people who actually stood up for their (and your) rights will be around for. You think you can stop this for...what...your next upgrade? You don't even recognize your own motivation for fighting this, and yet you have the audacity to accuse other people of being greedy?

[bcflyer]

If its the law of the land how can mandatory retirement still be legal?

Do you have any reason to believe this won't be in the courts for years?

I have to admit that I'm puzzled why someone as junior as you claim to be supports this so wholeheartedly. This will do nothing but penalize the junior ranks.. Senior guys benefit, junior guys get hung out to dry again.. Sound familiar?

[engfireleft]

If its the law of the land how can mandatory retirement still be legal?


It's legal only if the case can be made that it's required. ACPA and Air Canada didn't make that case...ergo it's illegal.


Do you have any reason to believe this won't be in the courts for years?


Yes.

I have to admit that I'm puzzled why someone as junior as you claim to be supports this so wholeheartedly.


Several reasons. First of all because I believe it's discriminatory to force someone out of their job for the sole reason they had a birthday. Secondly because I am capable of thinking beyond my own immediate future. There are more reasons but they are the biggest.


This will do nothing but penalize the junior ranks..


False. You will realize that when you get older and see how this benefits you and every other pilot. Not to mention every other working person in this country. If you want to lay blame on someone for any negative effect this has on you, look to ACPA and yourself. You didn't insist ACPA prepare for this and so they didn't.


Senior guys benefit, junior guys get hung out to dry again..


You have not been hung out to dry. Don't believe a fraction of the bs ACPA has put forward justifying this.

[Raymond767]

BC Flyer: You say, "Senior guys benefit, junior guys get hung out to dry again..." and "This will do nothing but penalize the junior ranks..."

Have you given any thought at all to addressing the fundamental issue that I raised at the outset of this thread? Namely, the reality that this law cannot be overcome, and that it must be dealt with?

This entire fiasco could have been avoided had ACPA dealt with the facts and reality of the law when this issue first arose over four years ago. That was my advise then, and that has been my advice since. Ignored.

Nobody appears to want to discuss the fundamental facts that ACPA members will have to face. There are now almost 150 Complainants before the Commission and the Tribunal, all of whom will likely be given the same option as G.V. and N.K. to return to full employment. Most of us won't be restricted to flying as F/O's, as they were, by reason of their conceding the restrictions related to ICAO for pilots-in-command over age 65. And the cease order will make it a lot easier for many, many others now coming up to age 60 to opt to stay, without even being visible or litigious. The change is now upon us.

To my understanding there is a large segment of the ACPA membership, in addition to the approximately 25% that voted in favour of ending mandatory retirement, that was not even on the premises when the vote was taken in April, 2006. Many of those pilots (average age of hire, 34) may start to flex their voting muscles, once the legal pendulum starts to inevitably swing--they may very well demand that ACPA revisit its strategy of spending their union dues fighting an unwinnable cause that they were not even given the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights of participation in, regardless of whether they favour the change or not.

As I said earlier in the thread, "...despite the tendency to overlay the issues with all sorts of irrelevant emotional distractions, such as anyone's purported motivation, we need to address the one issue that is before us, namely integrating the necessary changes into our workplace."

The impact on the junior pilots is now almost a given. It need not have been that way. Don't blame me or us for the failure of your own Association to manage the inevitable impact of the law of the land on your working relationship. There were many manageable alternatives available, all of which were discounted and/or ignored by ACPA in favour of denying or delaying the day and cost of reckoning. Still your Association fights on, suggesting appeals as well as alternatives that propose to continue the age discrimination in one form or another, notwithstanding the Tribunal's finding that its actions were and are illegal. The work of the renowned historian Barbara Tuchman comes to mind..."The March of Folly...From Troy to Vietnam."

Finally, let's talk about your assertion, " Its all about GREED pure and simple..."

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that that assertion is correct. That accusation has been levelled at me and at every one of my associates who realize that mandatory retirement is no longer legally supportable. I do not agree with the proposition (for a number of reasons than could be the subject of a separate thread), but nevertheless, does that change anything for you? Anything at all?

Not one iota. The decisions of the Tribunal and the Courts have no regard to the motivation of the litigants, and the Tribunal members and judges are loathe to contaminate their reviewable decisions by taking any such evidence into consideration, even if that evidence were before them, which it is not.

So the decisions are coming, regardless. The impact will be identical, regardless of who brought the case forward and regardless of what their motivations were. And your working relationship will be impacted.

What are you going to do about that? Manage it, or curse it? Are you planning to deal with it in a positive manner or in a negative manner? Are you planning to support creative incentives for pilots to leave at age 60 or earlier, or are you going to support negative incentives that purport to continue the discrimination based upon age and punish those who elect to stay even for one year beyond age 60?

In other words, is your motivation and action going to be based upon reason, or will it be based upon emotion and contempt arising from your assumptions about others' motivation, notwithstanding the inevitability of the law and notwithstanding how irrelevant their motivation is to the outcome?

How about answering that question?

[MackTheKnife]

Raymond767,

I have to ask you one simple question. Why Bother ?

If the BCFLERS of this profession haven't figured the why's and wherefore's by now , they never will. :ugh:

My guess is that about 98%, after giving it some thought, will go with the flow realizing it was inevitable,finally glad to put it to bed and get on with life.

Then there's the other 2% who will cause problems ( for a while ). For some strange reason there is a very small minority in the ACPA membership that appear not to be able to accept reality.

The saving grace is that most who come back will be flying with senior F/O's in the company who in my experience are a very enjoyable and stable bunch of pilots to work with.

MTK

[Raymond767]

It would have nice if 98% would have accepted this concept in 2006, when we could have traded off some benefit for the windfall to the employer by reason of the increased contributions to and decreased draw from the pension plan.

Fewer than 50% appear to accept it now, and apparently zero percent of those controlling the direction of it on an executive level accept it now.

The issue arises in the context of implementation. According to the proposals tendered at the YYZ Council meeting, the Association is planning to attempt to continue the discrimination on the basis of age even after the ruling comes down, by attempting to make amendments to the terms of the contract that prejudice anyone who wishes to stay working beyond age 60--which is a recipe for continued litigation and for continued breach of cohesion among the members, at a critical period, not to mention the potential adverse impact on the workplace environment.

[O360A1A]

AC reaps a huge benefit from pilots staying longer. ACPA should have tired to share this. Training costs of $40K times seven or so courses for every retirement, plus the pension benefits. Even at five courses, the saving is $200K which doesn't have to be paid out till someone actually goes. Raising the age defers training and saves current funds, as well as resulting in fewer total training courses. AC will likely benefit by about a two year reduction in retirement training; savings that would really give the company a boost. Of course, since AC and ACPA decided to fight, the savings may go out in damages instead.

There is no logical reason for AC to fight this, other than a desire to control. The quality of testimony from the AC witnesses at the hearings would suggest that AC doesn't really want to win, but to appear supportive of ACPA.

When considering motivations, how about an ACPA committee member who will have almost a 40 year career (because he got in at 20 through influence) telling someone that got in at 34 that they can only have a 26 year career; what is the motivation there?

ACPA attempts to perpetuate age discrimination defy logic. Perhaps their legal counsel has told them he can win if only this fight is stretched out forever. He gets big bucks an hour; no motivation there!

In any case, hopefully we will move on to the next stage in a couple of weeks. If things go the way they appear to be going, ACPA can accept reality or waste more money and time.

Place your bets on the likelihood of reality!

[cloudcity]

If discrimination has been found to occur, and it has, and if the discrimination has been ordered to stop, and if certain parties elect to draft proposals to further discriminate under a contract that has already been judged to be discriminatory, would the architects of that set of proposals not fall under the criminal code? If they are talking about altering the contract to further discriminate on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, would the Company not have to be party to any amendments and so would they also fall under the criminal code?

[Idle Thrust]

0360A1A wrote:
how about an ACPA committee member who will have almost a 40 year career (because he got in at 20 through influence) telling someone that got in at 34 that they can only have a 16 year career

It would appear that you passed mathematics "through influence".

[engfireleft]

0360A1A wrote:

Quote:
how about an ACPA committee member who will have almost a 40 year career (because he got in at 20 through influence) telling someone that got in at 34 that they can only have a 16 year career
It would appear that you passed mathematics "through influence".


His point is still valid. People who will accrue the 35 years service necessary for a full pension are trying to restrict a large percentage of current pilots, and all future pilots to 25 - 26 years of service. At some point those pilots will suss on to that fact, and when that happens they will be thankful their earlier misguided efforts to force retirement at 60 failed.

[bcflyer]

Some many things to reply to and so little time.. (I actually try to have a life outside of aviation and all its politics but more on that later)

ELF:
Would you mind elaborating on your single word answer about why you think this case won't be in the courts for years to come?

Please explain how this will benefit every pilot in the country. The way I see things this will delay everyones advancement in the company by at least 2-4 yrs. That means 2-4 yrs longer at lower pay, worse schedules, perhaps even layoffs. All of which equates to a much poorer lifestyle. For the pilots waiting to come to Air Canada, it means at least 2-4 yrs longer before they have the opportunity to get hired. For the pilots waiting to start their career in aviation it means a much harder slog to find that first job. All for the oppportunity to work an extra 5 yrs before they retire? Sounds like a real win, win situation to me....

The argument that pilots are being hired older and therefore need the extra years of service to top up their pension doesn't wash. Alot of the older pilots that came in during the last hiring spree are already quite well set up for their retirement. Alot of us came from Jazz or other airlines and brought all our pension money from our time there. Add in RRSP investments and the pension, while nice to have, isn't the be all end all that it was when pilots were hired at age 22 and had nothing else to fall back on. I would much rather retire at 60 with my $70000.00 yr AC pension (might be shocking to some but you can live on the amount) and enjoy my life while I still can.

Raymond767:
Once again a long winded post full of legalese. I did notice one interesting comment in your post though. All through these proceedings your group has claimed that the junior pilots would not be negatively effected. I believe your original propoganda stated that the delay in advancement would only be 3-4 months. Now you are openly stating that "the impact on junior pilots is a given" What has changed?
As for your assertion that only about 50% of the pilots support
Earlier posts have mentioned several pilots that brought this same case before the courts in the past. Did you openly support them then? Did you bring all your legal expertise to the table and fight for them as hard as you are fighting now? Or did you just sit in the background and watch it unfold? After all if they had won their case, you might not have had the career you did.
To answer your question as to how I plan to manage this attack on my career, I fully support ACPA on this one. Enough said?

Macktheknife:
Spoken like a true senior pilot.... Believe me there is a much bigger percentage of pilots who are against this than you seem to believe.

And now back to my life OUTSIDE of flying!

[engfireleft]

ELF:
Would you mind elaborating on your single word answer about why you think this case won't be in the courts for years to come?



I don't mind at all. Every single jurisdiction in this country except federal has banned the practice of mandatory retirement on the grounds that it is discriminatory. Federally, legislation removing the exemption that ACPA is basing their argument on has been introduced and is working its way through parliament. While it's true another election could kill it just like it has in the past, it will pass eventually.

In the meantime the CHRT has ruled that it is not a valid exemption in this case which is entirely within their purview. The CHRT has ruled, and ACPA and Air Canada must comply even while they pursue whatever legal avenues they like. Failure to comply while that is going on makes the damages they will be subject to worse by the month.

You would have to be willfully blind to not see which way this fight has already ended. Stalling tactics won't work because a ruling has been made and we must comply. Not doing so is breaking the law. Eventually people with a brain are going to realize the stupid futility of continuing this fight and stop.


Please explain how this will benefit every pilot in the country. The way I see things this will delay everyones advancement in the company by at least 2-4 yrs. That means 2-4 yrs longer at lower pay, worse schedules, perhaps even layoffs.


This has been explained many times already, and I don't think explaining it to you yet again will make any difference. Your assumptions on the negative effects are speculative at best, fostered in part by ACPA's ridiculous financial impact study that is so transparently biased they should be embarrassed they tabled it. Your assertion that new hires won't be bothered by their inability to get a full pension is equally absurd. Talk to me in 20 years.

[MackTheKnife]

Spoken like a true senior pilot.... Believe me there is a much bigger percentage of pilots who are against this than you seem to believe.



The % of pilots against this is irrelevant as the rule of law will be the governing factor. Live in your make believe world as long as you want but it won't change anything, except maybe flare up your brewing ulcer. Let me take a stab here. Your probably one of those on the OAC forum who are still fighting the long lost seniority battle?


What I said was anyone coming back will fly with senior F/O's who have a much greater grasp of the situation and will therefore make the initial transition period easier.

I'll make you a deal. Get AC & ACPA to iron clad GUARANTEE the viability of the pension plan AND regain the indexation ACPA pissed away and I GUARANTEE, you will never here another peep from me (and probably a lot of others.)

?

MTK

[Raymond767]

All through these proceedings your group has claimed that the junior pilots would not be negatively effected. I believe your original propoganda stated that the delay in advancement would only be 3-4 months. Now you are openly stating that "the impact on junior pilots is a given" What has changed?

What changed? Nothing, except your misinterpretation of my previous posts. Show me where I have stated that the junior pilots will not be negatively affected. On the contrary, since 2006 I have been strongly suggesting that the Association owed a duty to all of their members to negotiate a benefit for those who will be adversely affected. I have repeatedly stated that the change is not "fair." I have also repeatedly stated that it cannot be avoided, so those adversely affected should be protected by creating a positive incentive for senior pilots to want to leave early (for example, a reduction in the penalty for leaving early).

Earlier posts have mentioned several pilots that brought this same case before the courts in the past. Did you openly support them then? Did you bring all your legal expertise to the table and fight for them as hard as you are fighting now? Or did you just sit in the background and watch it unfold?

How could I have supported them in the 1990's if I didn't find out their complaints until I became involved in 2006, once I did some legal research? And how could I have supported them at that point in time, even if I did know about their Complaints, when the Charter jurisprudence wasn't as clear as it is now with respect to Section 15(1) [equality rights]? I was the first person to ever file a Charter challenge to Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and I did that largely as a result of the changing interpretation of Section 1 of the Charter. But I wasn't the last one to file a challenge, and after the JR in November, it will likely all be moot anyway.

And what the heck difference does it make whether I supported them, anyway? Can you not get it through your head that my role here is irrelevant to the issue that you are facing--namely, the issue that you refuse to acknowledge? The change is upon us, and you and the rest of the pilots who are fighting this change are causing yourselves serious damage as a result of your short-sightedness and denial.

Maybe a special assessment for damages will finally get you to focus your mind on that issue. But likely only after you have drawn and quartered the messengers, of course.

[engfireleft]

ACPA still does not get it. This is a direct quote from their most recent mailing on pensions:

"If you are planning on retiring at the normal and mandatory age of retirement of 60,"

They still cannot acknowledge that they have lost the fight, and they still perpetuate this myth that forced retirement at age 60 is both mandatory and normal. It's like the ruling last August never happened in their world. They have shut down any reciprocal discussion on this issue on their forum, and their supporters have successfully done the same on Avcanada.

This policy of denial and suppression of dissenting opinion is hurting us all and has got to stop.

[cloudcity]

Others may have better information, but it's a couple of weeks until the VK remedy order is issued and maybe somebody knows the time line for the general cease and desist which would affect the entire operation, but for those currently retiring on a monthly basis they will apparently still technically need to file their complaint with the HRC - they have 12 months from the date of their forced retirement to file. After that it will not be accepted. But the sooner you file with the HRC the sooner the files are grouped and forwarded to the Tribunal. The FlyPast60 website likely has the information for that process. There are about 70 pilots finished hearings already from back in January, the VK verdict was issued way back the middle of last year, something like another 40 in the process of being referred from the HRC to the Tribunal and another number in the process of filing?? Something like 140 altogether at this point and rising. So for those wishing to continue their employment like every other pilot in North America, for now you apparently need to file. The VK remedy has been promised for June 1, that's less than 2 weeks away now, and the results of the hearings for the next 70 could be issued anytime now.

[ac482]

"The saving grace is that most who come back will be flying with senior F/O's in the company who in my experience are a very enjoyable and stable bunch of pilots to work with."

You must be kidding right?
Those senior F/O 's would be Captain's or more senior F/O's. Shows how you guys really have your heads up your behinds.
Bunch of champions.

[MackTheKnife]

Shows how you guys really have your heads up your behinds.
Bunch of champions.



"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." -Einstein

[ac482]

"Shows how you guys really have your heads up your behinds"-Me
"Bunch of champions"-also Me

[Raymond767]

As Hervé Villechaize (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Herv%C3%A9_Villechaize) often said in his role as "Tattoo" on the TV Series Fantasy Island, ""Ze plane, Ze plane (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Ze_plane!_Ze_plane!)!"

How about dealing with the issues, rather than with the attacking the parties? We already have a fairly good exposé of the positions of the parties.

What about the issue itself? What happens next?

Ze plane!

[engfireleft]

Shows how you guys really have your heads up your behinds.



1. The people fighting this seem oblivious to how contemporary Canadian society views mandatory retirement.

2. The people fighting this seem oblivious to how provincial, territorial and soon federal governments view mandatory retirement.

3. The people fighting this seem oblivious to how the CHRT views mandatory retirement.

4. The people fighting this are conducting themselves as if the ruling last August never occurred.



I don't think the people fighting this should be accusing anybody of having their head up their ass.

[767-300ER]

Hey Ray

I understand the Senators have mandatory retirement age of 75 in Canada. I don't know if there is a BFOR to force them to retire....maybe we could add them to the CHRC's caseload???

I am certain that their human rights and dignity are being trampled upon:http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

[O360A1A]

References are made to the Senate retirement age of 75.

If the posters referencing the 75 limit for Senators are suggesting that 75 is the normal retirement age in the Federal Sector, perhaps there is room for negotiation with the Fly Past 60 group.

There have been limits of 75 for some judges as well, but these are being eliminated in recent years.

[engfireleft]

If the posters referencing the 75 limit for Senators are suggesting that 75 is the normal retirement age in the Federal Sector, perhaps there is room for negotiation with the Fly Past 60 group.



Then that just becomes another case of a group negotiating away individual rights, only at a different age. Once it reached the CHRT challenge stage any chance of an accommodation disappeared. The next step for ACPA and Air Canada once they open their eyes and see the reality will be making a BFOR case for 65.

If they were smart they would have been doing that from the get go knowing they didn't have a chance of winning age 60.

[O360A1A]

I was poking fun at the deniers amongst us! As they are horrified at the concept of pilots over 60, I was going for apoplexy at the concept of pilots age 75.

[engfireleft]

Apoplexy...perfect. :ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Using age as a defining factor in the ability of any pilot to fly competently and safely is a poor indicator for the simple reason everyone ages at a different rate.

My benchmark for flying ability in the later years of ones life is Bob Hoover who was still doing his routine at airshows in his early eighties.

How many of you keeners are able to fly as good as Bob Hoover did in his eighties?

[Raymond767]

Another sign of the times:

Sarkozy follows Europe in raising retirement age - Europe, World - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sarkozy-follows-europe-in-raising-retirement-age-1983938.html)

Sarkozy follows Europe in raising retirement age.

The French, who have the youngest retirement age (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sarkozy-follows-europe-in-raising-retirement-age-1983938.html)in Europe, will soon have to work longer to qualify for a full state pension. As unions called a nationwide strike to defend pension rights today, the government said that France could no longer afford the retirement age of 60 – for both men and women – which has existed since 1982.

[broompusher]

So can someone who is currently flying for Air Canada clarify for me then, are the 'fly past 60' pilots going to remain on active duty?

[MackTheKnife]

Air Canada & ACPA are still forcing people to retire until the decision comes down shortly. Apparently $35,000 per day in damages is an irrelevant amount to them. :ugh:

[Raymond767]

Here is a short summary of the status of pilots and/or complainants. Essentially, there are five separate categories, or groups of pilots in issue.

The first category is comprised of George Vilven and Neil Kelly only. Their remedy hearing has been completed; neither Air Canada nor ACPA has opposed their reinstatement, so that reinstatement will therefore be ordered on the release of the Tribunal decision, on or about June 1st.

The second group is the 70 pilots who completed their remedy hearing before the Tribunal in January. The decision on the liability is pending and should be released within the next month. Absent an agreement by Air Canada to have any or all of them to return to work through a settlement of all or part of their complaints, assuming that the decision is rendered in their favour, they will then be scheduled for a remedy hearing by the Tribunal. It will be some time after that that Air Canada will be ordered to reinstate those who wish to return to work.

The third group is all those pilots who have filed complaints before the Commission, but whose cases have either not yet been referred to the Tribunal, or are pending before the Tribunal. There are approximately 80 pilots in that category, growing weekly.

The fourth category is those whose involuntary termination of employment is pending, due to their forthcoming 60th birthdays. They may or may not be able to continue working, depending on how Air Canada responds to the above to pending decisions, once the decisions are released.

The last category is those whose involuntary termination of employment would occur more than 90 days after the release of the V-K decision, assuming that the decision includes a cease order. The Commission has asked for an order forcing Air Canada to cease and desist from involuntarily terminating the employment of pilots, based on age, but all parties have agreed to a 90 delay in the effective date of implementation of that order, if granted, in order to allow Air Canada to make the necessary arrangements to accommodate those changes, including changes in the PBS system to accommodate scheduling of over-age 60 pilots on international flights while meeting the crewing requirements of the ICAO Over-Under rule.

Pilots who have not filed a complaint within 12 months of the date of their termination of employment normally do not have any right, under the CHRA, to file a claim, so the list will be, for all intents and purposes, closed to anyone who was forced-retired more than one year prior to the forthcoming cease order.

[Flexable]

In Europe workers are down in the streets trying to stop their governement from changing (increasing) the normal age of retirements.

Here in Canada we have a group of (selfish) individual who are trying to change (increase) the (normal age of retirement with a good pension) for their own benefits and doing that at the expenses of the younger pilots.

What is wrong with this crowd...:ugh:

[Raymond767]

"Trying to change the age of retirement" or "Suggesting that pilots wake up to the reality of the law that governs them and deal with that law to their advantage before it is too late"? Which one is it?

We are not trying to change the age of retirement. Parliament already did that. The consequences are in your hands.

[Flexable]

Do not blame the Governement for what your are trying to do.
The law was change many years ago but it had not affected the AC pilots normal retirement pension. (those complainants benefited from the non application of the law as it did not delay their own career progression).

Some think that retiring with a pension of $100,000 to 132,000 per year is not enough...and want to keep working for a difference net (after tax) in the range of $20,000 to $50,000 per year.

By stoping/delaying career progression by 5 to 10 years it does affect the whole system all the way down.

[Lost in Saigon]

Those hired in their 20's can get the maximum pension benefit. That was the norm many years ago. In the last 10 years, most are hired in their 30's and 40's, and will NEVER get the maximum pension benefit.

The Junior pilots have been brainwashed by ACPA into thinking they don't want to work past 60. That is because no one has sat down with them to calculate their pension payout with only 15-25 years of service at retirement.

[cloudcity]

Pointed out elsewhere there are about 2800 AC pilots who will not even come remotely close to realizing their max pension earnings at age 60 based on the extremely high average hiring age.

[Raymond767]

Don't blame the government for what you are trying to do...

Blame the government for what we are trying to do? What we are trying to do is to bring you from the 1950's into the 21st Century. Evidently we are attempting to do that in the face of your unwillingness to consider the adverse consequences to you of your own resistence to change to meet the reality of the law, including your unwillingess to adapt your own contract to minimize the most obvious adverse consequences of that law.

Your assumption about delayed career advancement is not only unreasonably speculative in its numbers, but it ignores the fact that the law of Parliament supersedes the law of the collective agreement. One cannot contract out of human rights legislation, and sooner or later, regardless of who the parties are assisting the change, the change will take place, with or without your concurrence. The only issue is how much of your own money and effort you will waste attempting to delay or stop the inevitable.

[Flexable]

''the law of Parliament supersedes the law of the collective agreement''

So Ray, where were you in the last 25-30 years or so not fighting this injustice...Only because you were moving up the list thanks to those ''force retirement'' was not a reason to ignore the law of the land.

[Lost in Saigon]

So Ray, where were you in the last 25-30 years or so not fighting this injustice...Only because you were moving up the list thanks to those ''force retirement'' was not a reason to ignore the law of the land.

Is that the best argument you have for keeping forced retirement at age 60?

[rick3333331]

And you could not have filed a complaint unless you had been forced to retire....You had to wait.

Please study up on the issues.

[bcflyer]

Flexable... Don't hold your breath waiting for Raymond767 to answer. The question of why he wasn't fighting for this when others were appealing it years ago has already been asked. Still no answer... I wouldn't waste your time on here.. Summer is much to short to spend it inside on a PC....

Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....

[bluemic]

...a lot of the naysayers' arguments on this topic might've once held merit.

But in November of 2006 the world – the ICAO world anyway – changed. As we all know, the new (max) age of an international PIC then became 64.

Before that - in AC's world anyway - desiring to "fly past 60 as PIC" was problematic. Geography plays a huge part in the Great White North and, like it or not, we're influenced by our neighbours - both to the south and in the rest of the world. For a wannabe (over-60) AC commander to ONLY fly in domestic airspace would've - at the least - presented a scheduling challenge...

Today, staying past 60 is a given in most of the world. The majority of the world's airlines have dealt with it. They've moved on. Yet the AC Pilots' Association executive continues to fight to maintain the old status quo - and some members blame it on greed. Greed it is all right; but it's greed for advancement that's been blinded by a failure to recognize the current state of the industry.

As well, the ACPA approach to this issue has been exacerbated by a shortsighted view of the possibilities, a failure to grasp possible opportunities and - a woeful lack of planning for what is an eventuality.

From my seat out on the floe,

mic

[engfireleft]

Flexable... Don't hold your breath waiting for Raymond767 to answer. The question of why he wasn't fighting for this when others were appealing it years ago has already been asked. Still no answer... I wouldn't waste your time on here.. Summer is much to short to spend it inside on a PC....

Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....


Canadian Law has finally caught up with Air Canada pilots, but you and many of your cohorts still insist on throwing rocks which has absolutely no effect on anything. You might as well go yell at the tree in your back yard.

If you're going to point fingers you should save it for yourself because while you were distracted laying blame you haven't insisted ACPA deal with this realistically, and it will cost every one of us a lot of money.

[Raymond767]

No decision, yet.

The Tribunal Chair, prior to concluding the V-K hearing in April, suggested that he would try to render his decision by June 1st. In fact, given the number of legal issues to be decided, it could still be some time before that decision is actually ready to be released.

We are also waiting for the liability decision in the earlier case (70 pilots, non-Charter issues only). That hearing concluded in January. Both outstanding decisions could be rendered at the same time.

Tribunal practice, as mandated by the Federal Court, is to have all decisions rendered within four months of the close of the hearing.

[gasbag1]

Ray767,

Seeing the HRC is ruling on a discrimination case, by what manner does the HRC override pension statutes? How does a person who is retired and collecting a pension from the same company they are being returned to, by your assertion, collect both a pension and a wage. Pension law does not allow that to occur.

So, how does a pilot unretire?
Is the pension placed on hold?
Does the reinstated pilot get to acquire more pensionable service or is the service frozen? ...assuming they do not have 35 year of service.

I could likely ask about 40 more questions that are not simple nor unimportant. The HRC does not have the right to override the laws of Parliment as you have stated many times. The Pension Act is a enacted by Parliment but totally unrelated to the Human Rights Act.

I would assume the Chairman is trying to reconcile this and other issues of conflict that may not be clearly addressed. That being said I go back to the beginning, just by what means does the HRC override other Acts of Parliment and specifically the Pension Act which is closely related to Tax Laws?

[Raymond767]

You are correct. The Tribunal does not have the authority to override Acts of Parliament, such as the Pension Act. But it doesn't have to, in these cases.

A great deal of the testimony in the recently completed remedy hearing dealt with what the actuaries call "unwinding" of the pension plan. Unwinding is simply repayment of pension proceeds, then deduction of pension payments that would normally have been made in the course of the employment that was denied. The net effect is to put the person back into the position that he or she would have been, absent the wrongful termination of employment.

Once the pilot is back on the payroll, then the pension deductions would resume normally, to the date at which the individual acquires 35 years of service, where contributions cease. The pilot does not receive both a pension and a wage--only a wage. When he or she eventually retires, the pension would then be paid on the basis of the factors accrued as of the date of retirement.

[type777rated]

IMHO most of the fly till you die crowd were hoping for a payout! Look at the pain and suffering amount that was filed. I've also heard about phone calls being made to those who were about to retire. It seems this was a good stage for someones political ambitions and some folks were told of $$$ to back his quest. These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple! If fly till you die is forced on ACPA I bet we will see some changes to the pension in the next contract.

BTW the pension doesn't have the same appeal to the newer generation of pilots as it did to those in the past. Most that were hired recently have rrsp's and other investment vehicles. The pension is a more like a bonus. IMHO:eek:

[engfireleft]

These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple!

That's possible for an undetermined number of them, but so what? That doesn't effect the underlying principle of discrimination, and if someone gets a settlement because they were discriminated against long after the company and ACPA were told they were discriminating then who do you think bears the responsibility?


BTW the pension doesn't have the same appeal to the newer generation of pilots as it did to those in the past. Most that were hired recently have rrsp's and other investment vehicles. The pension is a more like a bonus. IMHOhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif


You're right in a sense. Judging by the number of "Maximum 60" stickers out there and the vociferous objection to respecting human rights among newer pilots, it is obvious they aren't thinking about their pension. If they were they would realize they are fighting to decrease the size of the one they will get.

As those pilots get closer to collecting that pension you can be assured their attitude will change.

[cloudcity]

"IMHO most of the fly till you die crowd were hoping for a payout! Look at the pain and suffering amount that was filed. I've also heard about phone calls being made to those who were about to retire. It seems this was a good stage for someones political ambitions and some folks were told of $$$ to back his quest. These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple! If fly till you die is forced on ACPA I bet we will see some changes to the pension in the next contract."

These discrimination complaints are hinged on wrongful dismissal. If you filed a discrimination complaint in this case that's the first thing you would see. All filings are done on the basis that employment has been unlawfully terminated and the issue is reinstatement. In the case of those not yet retired, is the issue not about retaining employment?

[12435]

Pension Pension Pension

It might actually only be the Air Canada pilots that really get what is at stake here and fully understand.

Pension earnings are not only based on your years of service, but also on your "best Years" of earnings.

So really, you are not increasing your pension at all by going longer (for the junior pilots), you will HAVE to work longer just to make it to that big paycheque. It is all about career earning potential. For the pilots at the top, it means more time at the trough, for the junior guys, it means catching up, working longer, just to get to the same pension they WOULD have gotten, had they advanced into the higher paying positions sooner, ie. at 56 years of age.

Ray and his supporters are doing a great job at staying on message. It will be good for you too.... just not the case, the ONLY group that will truly benefit from this are the guys at the top. Full Stop. Nothing short sighted about that, again, career earnings are what matters. Not to speak of the quality of life and the perk to go at 60 (for the group, collectivly).

The detriment to the group as a whole, in order to enable windfall gains for a few, is just not acceptable.

For some really enlightening insight on how the canadian HRC/HRT racket works, please read Ezra Levants book: Shake down.

BTW: What was wrong with the first ruling, the one that stated that your final responsibility is to retire gracefully after having benefited from the ones retirering before you???

This is long from over....... no, I am not just wishing......

Joseph Keisinger

[engfireleft]

So really, you are not increasing your pension at all by going longer (for the junior pilots),


Patently false, as is the assumption that every pilot will have their career stalled by 5 years.


What was wrong with the first ruling, the one that stated that your final responsibility is to retire gracefully after having benefited from the ones retirering before you???


That rule (which didn't say that in the first place) has been deemed ILLEGAL.


This is long from over....... no, I am not just wishing......



Except for remaining details, forcing Air Canada and ACPA to comply and determining damages it is.

[Raymond767]

Ray and his supporters are doing a great job at staying on message.

Joseph: Thank you for showing the courage to sign your post with your name. I believe that that can only encourage honest, frank discussion.

May I support your observation above. We are on message, because it is extremely important for us to communicate a valuable message. Essentially, as I have posted above, we have only one message. Namely, that this isn't about fairness--it is about reality. The law is real.

Age discrimination in Canada is illegal. The mandatory retirement exemption under the CHRA no longer is applicable. ACPA and all of its pilots must deal with that fact to the benefit of all. Denial is not a strategy. Filibustering on side issues, such as the alleged motivation of those prosecuting this case or advocating a legally irrelevant issue such as how unfair the law may be only detracts from the attention necessary to deal with the real issue of making the required adjustments in such a way that minimizes the amount of damage that is done to those most vulnerable, namely the junior pilots.

[12435]

Enginefireleft, Patently false, eh?

Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.

On a status quo bid (no increase in total number of positions/jobs) ONE individual allowed to remain past their contractual date of retirement will hold back (theoretically) 12 other pilots from moving up. That one person is affecting a lot of other people.

In other words, if your progression to the better paying jobs is only based on attrition, (no growth, and there hasn't been any in a looong time)and people would get to stay past 60, there are no places for folks to move up into. So YES, ABSOLUTELY, your career earnings and therefore pension will be reduced/suffer, compared to how things are now, or better yet, how they have been for you all along, as you moved up through the ranks.

Perhaps not here online, but should we meet in person, please have the balls to introduce yourself to me, so we can have a chat:}

Joseph

[engfireleft]

Enginefireleft, Patently false, eh?

Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.



Right. Now look at who's in those positions and see what they could be holding instead. The inescapable fact is most pilots choose to sit in a lower paying position. That makes the "delayed advancement" argument moot since almost everyone does it to themselves anyway.

Since most people wait until they can hold a fairly senior position, any delay could be eliminated by simply accepting the position at a lower seniority level. But of course if they don't want to do that then that's their decision and eliminating age 60 cannot be blamed. What is also false is your statement that the pension does not increase by additional years service. That is utter nonsense.

Perhaps not here online, but should we meet in person, please have the balls to introduce yourself to me, so we can have a chathttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif



My pleasure. I have no problem expressing my opinion to anybody I meet or fly with, and you can be assured ACPA knows who I am and what my opinion is as well. Don't mistake anonymity on the internet for anonymity on this issue.

[12435]

Oh boy, your kind of reply is exactly what made me jump into this, although I shouldn't have.

Look, real simple, you stay beyond 60 and people below you are negatively impacted, no matter what one's bidding preferences are.

What good does a few hundred bucks of pension do me, when my career earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of dollars? I don't think I'll live long enough to catch up.

So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.

I am tuning out now; you can have the last word. I've said my piece, and them' s the FACTS. Just no way around those.
Enjoy life, and your upcoming retirement:)

[engfireleft]

What good does a few hundred bucks of pension do me, when my career earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of dollars? I don't think I'll live long enough to catch up.

So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.


I just have one simple question. Have you ever delayed bidding a higher paying position because you didn't want to be on the bottom?

[clunckdriver]

Interesting comparison between France and Canada these days, the French are fighting mad over their governments plan to raise the retirement age back up to 62 from 60, in Canada some wish to go the other way, I gues being retired in France is a better quality of life than being retired in Winnipeg {sorry all you "Peggers" just cant help myself when it comes to takeing a dig at your home town , just kidding!}

[engfireleft]

That's because the French have a hardcore socialist sense of entitlement and expect the government to support them no matter what. Any good right winger should realize that the government can't afford it and people have to start paying their own way. Especially now that the boomers are leaving the work force and there are fewer and fewer people to generate tax revenue.

[clunckdriver]

Engine fire, the real reason is its much nicer eating and drinking in the "Cafe Rouge" on The Grande Boulavard in retirment than the White Spot in downtown Winter Peg, thats my take on it any way! Politics has nothing to do with it! {a joke, OK?}

[engfireleft]

That's true. The French also have some very nice tropical islands and the Mediterranean whereas Winnipeg is just a short drive away from Gimli.

[777longhaul]

now, thats funny!!

[clunckdriver]

Fire Left, the Grimli chamber of commerce are gunning for you! Sugest you donate five gallons of Deet to them ASAP, that should get them of your back! {Only Canadians take joy in this sort of thing, the rest of the world thinks we are nuts!}For those not Canadian, just remember, God was only joking when he created Canada!

[MackTheKnife]

Today on the ACPA forum, a junior member blasted away with a trashy personal attack against the FlyPast60 movement and (as yet) the moderators are letting a personal attack against a respected retired AC pilot stand unaltered.

Typical ACPA moderator double standard. :mad:. If a retired pilot had made the same post it would have been edited or the thread closed in a New York Minute.

[bcflyer]

I think the correct terminology would be "formerly" respected retired pilot. Any pilots thinking about coming back had best get used to it.

[clunckdriver]

As one AC F/O said to me last week, "If those guys come back and delay our promotions then Twitchel bids are going to be the norm",should be fun to watch to say the least!

[Vic777]

As one AC F/O said to me last week, "If those guys come back and delay our promotions then Twitchel bids are going to be the norm",should be fun to watch to say the least!then ... AC might have to crew the YYZ-HKG route with four 60+ guys.

[clunckdriver]

Vic777, that will be really interesting to watch, will be like a Tampa flight, "Four more wheelchairs please" I supose Geritol will replace coffee as the drink of choice!

[engfireleft]

Today on the ACPA forum, a junior member blasted away with a trashy personal attack against the FlyPast60 movement and (as yet) the moderators are letting a personal attack against a respected retired AC pilot stand unaltered.



Therein lies the problem. Although it isn't only the ACPA forum that suffers from unfairly biased moderating (AvCanada). I can only hope this junior member and all others like him remember what they said when they reach their fifties and are benefiting from the changes made by those they are vilifying now. Somehow I doubt they will though.



As one AC F/O said to me last week, "If those guys come back and delay our promotions then Twitchel bids are going to be the norm",should be fun to watch to say the least!


Forgive my ignorance, but what is a "Twitchel" bid?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Although it isn't only the ACPA forum that suffers from unfairly biased moderating (AvCanada).

Avcanada is becoming a forum for the P.C. true believers as a couple of moderators weed out anyone who has opinions or beliefs that do not meet their smell test.

The thought police will soon have only each other to talk to.

[clunckdriver]

Fire Left, A "Twitchel" bid {spelling?} Was named after a Captain Twitchell of AC who like many of us objected to flying with smokers, thus the F/Os bid a day after the Captains bids closed so they could bid around the nicotine addicts, of course it was also a way to avoid folks you just didnt want to fly with.These days of course all one has to do is to punch the persons employee number you wish to avoid into the computer and it will take care of the problem.

[engfireleft]

Thanks Clunk.

[Raymond767]

Harold Twitchell, hired by Trans-Canada Airlines in 1955 at age 20. Retired from Air Canada in 1994. When he was a First Officer, he persuaded the company and the union to stagger the (then "canned" block) bid closing dates by one day, as described above, in order to allow First Officers to surreptitiously avoid flying a whole month with specific Captains, for any reason of their own choosing.

His name thus forever identifies the process, now encapsulated in the PBS bid "Avoid Employee # XXXXX," and is ensconsced in labour relations and legal history for that reason.


Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=420&lg=_e&isruling=0)

DECISION RENDERED ON MARCH 18, 1982
T. D. 5/ 82 IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, S. C. 1976- 77, C. 33, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER of a Hearing before a Human Rights Tribunal Appointed Under Section 39 of The Canadian Human Rights Act.

BETWEEN:
PAUL S. CARSON, RAMON SANZ, WILLIAM NASH, BARRY JAMES, ARIE TALL, COMPLAINANTS,

- and

AIR CANADA, RESPONDENT.

TRIBUNAL: SIDNEY N. LEDERMAN, Q. C.

[About 10 pages from the beginning]:

The United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, in Smallwood v United Airlines Inc., supra, at p. 10 said:

"In short, there is no reliable evidence that United’s ’crew concept’ would be impaired by the sole factor of hiring Flight Officers, starting as Second Officers, over the age of 35. This alleged harm to the ’crew concept’ is a function of prior experience, not age at hire."

This kind of personality defect can be ascertained either by a proper assessment by the interviewer during the pilot selection process or alternatively through psychological testing of candidates.

The possibility of personality differences which could give rise to confrontations on the flight deck is in fact contemplated by Air Canada since it does consider and assess personality characteristics of the pilot applicant during the initial interview process. Furthermore, it is also considered the basis of the "Twitchell Bid" process whereby Air Canada first officers do not select their assignments until after the captains have chosen their assignments and they have been made known to the lower rank officers. By this process, personality conflicts can be avoided by a first officer steering clear of a captain with whom he may have some problems of compatibility.

I must conclude that there is no probative evidence to suggest that the removal of Air Canada’s age hiring policy could be a potential source of poor crew inter-action.
...

[clunckdriver]

Poor crew interaction? If the F/Os that live in my area an indication then it wont happen as they to a person seem to be planing to "Twitchell Bid" any of the over sixty group, thus there will be no interaction. So glad to be flying my little corporate aircraft away from all this!

[cloudcity]

Clunkdriver wrote:

"Poor crew interaction? If the F/Os that live in my area an indication then it wont happen as they to a person seem to be planing to "Twitchell Bid" any of the over sixty group, thus there will be no interaction. So glad to be flying my little corporate aircraft away from all this!"

How do they plan to Twitchell over 200 pilots every month and why would they want to give up that many great trips.

[engfireleft]

How do they plan to Twitchell over 200 pilots every month and why would they want to give up that many great trips.


Who cares? Let them. If they have enough seniority in their equipment to make it work, it means they have enough seniority to hold a better paying position but at a lower seniority level and are actually screwing themselves out of higher pay and career advancement. The screeching about career stagnation would mean more if most of us didn't choose to do it to ourselves anyway.

Eventually they will figure out how childish they are being and realize that this is actually a good thing. Then they will quietly stop whining and bitching about it.

[clunckdriver]

Fire Left, Who cares? Well I do, it seems feelings run fairly high on this subject and the history of serious acidents due to friction/hostility between crew members at the pointy end is well documented, thus I hope that those who are upset/hostile to this situation {on both sides} have the common sense to indeed avoid flying together, again I am not taking sides, just stating the obvious. It would be nice to think that no pilot would ever let personel feelings enter the flight deck, but we all know this just aint so, back to my little corporate aircraft today away from all this stuff!

[engfireleft]

Mandatory retirement has been ruled age discrimination which is illegal in this country. It is a fact of life today and it will not simply disappear because some people don't like it. If some people object so strongly that they are incapable of maintaining a professional attitude with this new reality I respectfully suggest they should find another line of work.

You see, I agree with you that extreme personal conflict is not acceptable in the cockpit, but who do you think is going to have to adapt here? People exercising their rights or people who cannot let go of the past?

[clunckdriver]

BOTH! Damned computer wont let me reply with one word, but you should get the drift!

[engfireleft]

I don't know how you figure both need to adapt. Mandatory age related retirement is as outdated and illegal now as restricting hiring to people under a certain age used to be. If someone senior to me chooses to stay beyond 60 that is their right and their choice. They have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to vacate their seat at age 60 so that I can have it.

[clunckdriver]

Oh dear, by the tone of your reply I can see that the "Twitcell" bid might just be needed, there are no right and wrong here, just two sides of a coin, sugest BOTH sides give and take a bit to avoid both unpleasent cockpit relations, or in the worst case a smoking hole. The last pilot I flew with who was always "right", took over a hundred pax to their deaths on a clear day, new airplane, no wind, long runway, many of us saw it coming.

[MackTheKnife]

Compared to the forced marriage 7 years ago, ( now that was downright dangerous IMO ) integrating Age 60 will be a cake walk.

I have to believe the average Air Canada pilot has a functioning brain with which to think from and it doesn't take a genius to see the writing on the wall on this issue.

Sure, we have a small minority of babies who are still suckling mama who can't see the light, but even they will soon learn the teat has run dry.

Forced mandatory retirement is not only cruel and inhumane for someone who isn't ready to retire, it will soon be illegal. The majority of the world understands that fact, every legal jurisdiction in Canada understands that fact. Soon even ACPA will be forced to understand that fact. And it can't happen soon enough. It's high time this baby was put to bed once and for all.

MTK

[engfireleft]

Oh dear, by the tone of your reply I can see that the "Twitcell" bid might just be needed, there are no right and wrong here, just two sides of a coin, sugest BOTH sides give and take a bit to avoid both unpleasent cockpit relations, or in the worst case a smoking hole. The last pilot I flew with who was always "right", took over a hundred pax to their deaths on a clear day, new airplane, no wind, long runway, many of us saw it coming.


Did women have to "give a little" when they got the right to vote so the sensibilities of men didn't get too damaged? Did older new hires have to apologize to younger people when they got the right to not be discriminated against?

This is just another adaptation and evolution that pilots older than 60 do not need to apologize for. This is for younger pilots to get used to...period. Any problem in the F/D because of this is their problem to deal with or don't show up for work.

Personally, I will not be twitchel bidding because I am quite happy to fly with someone over 60.

[clunckdriver]

Mack, I stand by my previous post, and you are right about the mess that went on during the merger, I had the good fortune to be gone by then, but did observe some bloody stupid behavior in our comunity as a result of it, give and take will be required boys and girls if this stuff is not to be repeated , lets hope cool heads take charge.

[Raymond767]

http://www.flypast60.com/Documents/Enemy.jpg

[engfireleft]

We dare to call ourselves professionals. To me that means we need to act like professionals, and I hold no one to a higher standard in that regard than myself.

If a person is unable to work with someone who is black, female, Hindu, disabled...or 61 years old...then that person has no business being in the FD or calling themselves professional.

It is as simple as that.

Get over it.

[Vic777]

AC has had Pilots over Sixty years old operating flights for the last Fifty years.

[bcflyer]

Eng Left Fire, you talk about change being inevitable and then use the analogy of allowing women and older pilots in the flight deck. This is not an accurate comparison to what is happening now. All of the above had absolutely NO repercussions on the people who were ALREADY at A/C. Guys staying past 60 will. It will stagnate an already stagnant situation and could easily lead to layoffs. Some how allowing women or visible minorities to become new hires just doesn't compare.

[engfireleft]

Of course they compare. Hiring females, minorities and people older than a certain age took jobs away from young white guys thereby delaying the date they got hired at Air Canada. That sounds like career stagnation to me. And here is the big thing...forced retirement is now considered discrimination throughout Canada just like those other things and therefore illegal. Get it?

Mandatory retirement = discrimination = illegal

Do you think Air Canada pilots live in a bubble where Canadian discrimination laws do not apply?

By the way, could you currently hold a higher paying position but choose not to for lifestyle? If you do it's no big deal and you're just like the majority of Air Canada's pilots. But you can't then complain about your career being stalled can you?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

bcflyer, is it your opinion that a pilot who holds a class 1 medical and passes all recurrent flight checks should be arbitrarily forced to quit flying at age 60?

My most productive years as a full time working pilot were from age 60 to 70 and I retired because I wanted to.

Incidentally when I retired I held a current airdisplay authority in Europe and was still flying in the air show circuit in Europe.

Am I to understand that in your opinion I would not have qualified to fly for Air Canada just because I was over 60?

[KingAir]

Enginefireleft, you must have a screw loose. How can you compare discrimination against certain specific groups like race or females and a bunch of others to what your group is defending? You really think that those are same? Age 60 applies to EVERYONE! It's not targeted towards a specific group. If you want to come back so bad, why not ask to come back as an EMJ FO in the PG. Give up your seat so that somebody else can enjoy it. See how you do doing 4 legs or more a day. I'll vote yes on that! :mad:

[KingAir]

Chuck, fly if you want just not here. Those people enjoyed their current lifestyle and equipment because pilots before them were gracious enough to respect the contract and retired at 60. Why wait until you are just about to leave to fight age 60? Why didn't you start the fight sooner? Give it up and let someone else have a shot at the top. Greedy :mad:

[engfireleft]

Enginefireleft, you must have a screw loose. How can you compare discrimination against certain specific groups like race or females and a bunch of others to what your group is defending? You really think that those are same? Age 60 applies to EVERYONE! It's not targeted towards a specific group. If you want to come back so bad, why not ask to come back as an EMJ FO in the PG. Give up your seat so that somebody else can enjoy it. See how you do doing 4 legs or more a day. I'll vote yes on that!



Chuck, fly if you want just not here. Those people enjoyed their current lifestyle and equipment because pilots before them were gracious enough to respect the contract and retired at 60. Why wait until you are just about to leave to fight age 60? Why didn't you start the fight sooner? Give it up and let someone else have a shot at the top. Greedy


KIngAir

You're making some mistaken assumptions here. First of all, Chuck has never worked for Air Canada. He is simply making the point that forced retirement at age 60 is arbitrary and not associated in any way with medical fitness or competency. Second. I do work for Air Canada, but am not near retirement yet. So it's not a case of me wanting to come back.

Every pilot at Air Canada is discriminated against on their 60th birthday when they are forced to retire. It is discrimination against a group based on age which is illegal. Look it up.

[bcflyer]

Engine Left, You missed my point completely.. Please explain how hiring women (just one example) affected the pilots who were ALREADY at Air Canada? They would be new hires and would be placed BEHIND anyone ALREADY at Air Canada. People coming back or staying longer directly affects the pilots ALREADY at Air Canada. Not even close to the same. Since you seem to be concerned those poor white single guys who aren't at Air Canada yet, what exactly do you think will happen to their careers when pilots at Air Canada start staying to 65 or beyond?

As for people bidding positions for lifestyle as opposed to for money, It is each individuals CHOICE to bid what they want. Some want to be home more, some want more money. That is their CHOICE. People coming BACK to Air Canada or staying longer effectively removes or at least delays that CHOICE.

Chuck this has nothing to do with whether or not I feel someone over 60 is qualified to fly the plane. This entire thing is about greed. Pure and simple. As has been mentioned over and over, none of the compaintants said a peep about wanting to fly till they die until they reaped the full benefits of everyone in front of them leaving at 60. Now they want to deny their fellow pilots the same opportunities they had under the guise of "age discrimination" (I am well aware of the fact that they couldn't file a complaint till they retired, but I don't recall any of them supporting those that tried this ploy before them. After all, then they wouldn't have advanced to where they did would they...) If I could retire right now and make $100,000a year or more (thats the size of the pension the poor disciminated against pilots are making) I would be gone so fast it would make your head spin!!!

[bcflyer]

One last point before I head out and enjoy the sun. If mandatory retirement = age discrimination = illegal, why is it still practiced at the federal level?

[engfireleft]

One last point before I head out and enjoy the sun. If mandatory retirement = age discrimination = illegal, why is it still practiced at the federal level?


It's not. The CHRT ruled it discriminatory which is illegal in Canada. The rest of the law has yet to catch up but is in the process of doing so.

What makes your choice to delay your career more important than the choice of someone to stay beyond 60? Especially when it's their right to do so. Who's being selfish and greedy here? You think it's your right to force someone out of a job so that when you feel like it you can have their seat. Your sense of entitlement is astonishing.


If I could retire right now and make $100,000a year or more (thats the size of the pension the poor disciminated against pilots are making)


Oh really? Try telling that to the 35 year olds Air Canada has been hiring for the last many years. If you're one of them you will figure it out eventually. I'm guessing if you got hired at 35 your attitude will change when you're 59, and you will be all for extending past 60 when you see the size of your pension.

[Raymond767]

If I could retire right now and make $100,000 a year or more (thats the size of the pension the poor discriminated against pilots are making) I would be gone so fast it would make your head spin!!!

That's the essence of living in a discrimination-free world. You would exercise your discretion. That size of payment would evidently be a satisfactory solution for you. Others may simply want to continue working, regardless of their salary, no matter how large or small it is, for the same reason that many pilots in Winnipeg never bid the large equipment--they aren't after the big bucks; they simply like their work and won't change bases to chase the dollars.

Your suggestion also leads to a simple solution to accommodate the impending changes to your collective agreement--namely, create an incentive for some to leave early. The number one reason why pilots don't retire early, despite the fact that they would gladly pursue other options, is that they don't want to take a huge penalty for doing so. Absent the penalty, there would be many more early retirements and far less career stagnation for the junior pilots currently most adversely affected by the removal of the mandatory retirement restriction.

By the way, the evidence before the Tribunal was that one of the two complainants who is about to be reinstated is currently receiving an annual pension of less than 70% of the amount that you refer to above. May I apologize to you if I refer you to facts, rather than assumptions...

[O360A1A]

bcflyer says that none of the Age 60 complainants said anything prior to their retirement. Actually, quite a few of the complainants objected to the Age 60 Policy.

First, bcflyer should know that 60 did not appear in the contract till the mid eighties. CALPA opposed a mandatory retirement age till that time, and if a complainant was hired before that, they did not agree to 60 when they were hired, and their Union opposed it. At one time, 45 was the limit for Commercial pilots in Canada. Pilots hired under that limit stayed when it was eliminated; no-one thought that was wrong. Pilots hired when various medicall conditions werre career ending, and who subsequentky contracted those conditions, stayed or returned when medical standards changed; no-one saw that as wrong. One pilot returned after more than ten years off after fighting to have his condition accepted; no-one thought that was wrong.

60 was put into the Pension Agreement when one individual fought 60, won, and was reinstated. 60 was slipped into the Agreement without negotiation and nothing was gained in exchange. Few people liked the individual in question, and 60 was slipped in to prevent anyone else trying the same thing. Quite a few people supported the principle of eliminating discrimination, and spoke out against age based retirement throughout their careers. Some suggested using the pension savings of pilots staying longer to let others retire early without penalty.

Many of those same pilots suppoorted various measures to avoid layoffs of junior pilots, or provide accomodations and expenses for new-hires. In general, Senior Pilots supported Junior Pilots throughout their careers.

If greed enters this discussion, it might be laid at the feet of those who wish to perpetuate discrimination, because they consider that righting this wrong will inconvenience them personally. One strong supporter of the Age 60 policy was hired at 20, will have nearly a 40 year career even at 60, and for some reason wishes to prevent others who were older when hired from improving their pension by working till they personally want to retire.

[rick3333331]

The situation is even a little more bizzare........This pilot is one of the three excutive members of the "Age 60 Committee"....which is an MEC creation. One of the requirements of that committee is that you must support denying the pilots of AC the option of flying past 60. Again, one would think that the MEC would want to have an unbiased opinion as to what the group would want. The much touted survey in 2005 as to what direction the pilot group should take was flawed in a number of areas...The MEC declared right at the start of the survey that they supported maintaining Age 60. Hard to believe that they would do that but then again its not. You don't have to be a member of Mensa, to realize that this polling was anything but biased.The MEC was also told that some of the facts that they presented as part of their argument were out of date but no corrections.
You be the judge......Is the Age 60 Committee and the MEC unbiased ??

Much has been made of the solidarity of the Jazz pilots. FYI.... The leadership of the pilots of Jazz decided in 2002 that because some of their older pilots wished to continue flying past 60, that they would approach the company and negotiate this benefit [although the CA had not expired] The company agreed. Leadership is the key here......Once again you be the judge. Maybe that's why they have indexed pensions ?

Again, one would think that we would receive the same benefits as the Jazz pilots negotiated just recently....makes sense...but do we have the solidarity to back it up ? If not, which I think is correct....Who do we blame...the MEC or ourselves ? You be the judge !!!!!!!!!

[cloudcity]

It's often been said that negotiating should be done by negotiating professionals but there is a fear of handing the reins over to others. It's not for lack of trying but they should just stick to flying airplanes?

[Raymond767]

Today the federal Minister for Seniors announced that the federal government is planning to introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament to eliminate mandatory retirement in the federal sector.

The legislation, which will likely not become effective until early 2011, will make all of the above arguments and emotions moot, save for one--that one being the argument that I made above that no-one has yet to address, namely, the only relevant question is in how to adapt to the impending changes.

I have been making the same argument since mid-2006. Very, very few have paid me the respect of addressing that argument, with the vast majority instead choosing to make personal attacks against me and against all those who clearly saw the writing on the wall, while steadfastly denying the futility of their own actions in fighting the inevitable.

Governments banning mandatory retirement generally tend to give about six months lead time from enactment to effective date of the legislation, in order to allow organizations to accommodate the legislative changes. So that means that the effective date of the ban on mandatory retirement will likely arrive at about the same time that the Federal Court releases its decision on the judicial review scheduled for late November.

Nevertheless, the coming Tribunal decisions will still be applicable to all of those who have filed complaints over the course of the last four years, leading to the reinstatement of many previously mandatorily retired pilots.

The Canadian Press report of the Minister's statement can be viewed at the following locations:

Federal policy changes in the works for seniors are no coincidence | Sympatico.ca News (http://news.sympatico.ca/canada/federal_policy_changes_in_the_works_for_seniors_are_no_coinc idence/84b5670b)

dailygleaner.com - Mandatory retirement may be gone | By HEATHER SCOFFIELD - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada (http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/rss/article/1131117)

[engfireleft]

I overheard a conversation last night that the union is still planning on denying pension benefits to anyone who chooses to stay beyond 60. In their mind this is not discriminatory, merely an incentive to leave early as if it was an early retirement package.

Our own representatives are attempting to give away pension benefits that previous pilots fought hard to aquire and every single pilot now receives regardless of age.

I will file the lawsuit myself.

[Raymond767]

The various options that ACPA may be considering, versus the various options that may be legally and practically available to ACPA in response to the impending legislative and judicially-imposed changes are likely to be quite different, notwithstanding what some members believe.

First, ACPA cannot make unilateral changes. All contractual changes must be negotiated with the employer, then approved by the membership. Those are two big hurdles, in and of themselves.

Second, there are legislative restrictions on the options available that will apply to both the union and the employer. The employer would likely be very reluctant to enter into any arrangement that would appear to substitute one form of prohibited discrimination for another, no matter how it is disguised.

Despite what some may believe, the entire purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act is to prevent discrimination on any of the enumerated grounds, such as age discrimination. The Act has various sanctions and remedies for violations.

One would hope, especially following the release of the pending decisions and following the announcement today by the government of the intention to banish age discrimination from the workplace, that the parties might have had enough of litigation aimed at either denying reality or at delaying the inevitable.

[clunckdriver]

Question for those on both sides. Is it not discrimination that someone like myself cant come back {Lets make it clear, Im not interested} Why is it that if this goes through, that those who didnt know about this {includes me} or were not informed should be diiscrimated against. Qualifications? ATPL, at this time chief pilot for a corporation, 72 years young, 30,000hrs plus, no violations/prangs, first class medical, one reason Im asking is that I just met one of the folks who wants to go back, has allowed all his type ratings and medical to lapse along with his IFR, {also has a life style to give the PR department nightmares, but thats niether here nor there} Are the employers expected to pick up the cost of folks like this re writing their ATPLs? IFR renewall costs? medicals? In my case as a corporate pilot I pick up the tab on all of this stuff and claim it back from the Feds.Again, not taking sides on this, but certainly interested. Regards, Clunck.

[clunckdriver]

Ray 767, a few points, "apply for job at different company", A lot easier said than done, most companies have a pecking order or list, a new pilot would be at the bottom in most cases, very few DEC positions these days. in my case I own the company and am contracted to a corporation to provide air service, my advice, go this route.To someone not a laywer its strange that Lois Reil gets a pardon and one cant have laws made retroactive, but having sat on a few juries of late Im convinced the present crop of laywers are only interested in winning, not whats just or right or moral.On another note, we just had another celibration for one of our number who passed on, before some try to come back they might want to check on thier ancestors mortality ages, some of us are not lasting much after sixty! But on the other hand only the good die young, see you in another twenty years! Regards, Clunck.

[engfireleft]

Im convinced the present crop of laywers are only interested in winning, not whats just or right or moral.


I will modify that a bit and say that the lawyers for ACPA are telling them exactly what they want to hear...which is that they are right and they have a case. Of course they are not telling the truth and are only padding their own ledger with future income with the invevitable legal work to come as a result.

It is not the lawyer's fault of course, it is ours for pursuing a futile and self indulgent course of action despite unmistakeable indications otherwise. Even after a ruling by the body responsible, our union continues to pretend Canadian law doesn't apply to us. We are going to pay a very high price for that...and I hope the membership who continues to support the union in this remembers this when the bill comes due. No doubt they will blame the people who warned them of the consequences though for their own stupidity. (sorry, I know that's a harsh term, but how else do you explains a wanton disregard for reality?)

ACPA is on a course of self destruction. Our pilot group will eventually join with a larger group for our own self preservation, but I shudder to think of the depths we will have to sink to before the membership makes that happen.

[clunckdriver]

When a pilot joins most airlines he/she is expected to have a current ATPL/Radio Lic/Medical/ Class one IFR,{ valid}/Security clearence/clean police file. In the normal course of things all costs involved are paid by the applicant, I hope folks dont expect cash short companies to pay for all this stuff, as said before in the corporate world most of us keep our ratings current at our own cost,{with the exception of some type ratings} and claim it on our taxes, those fly over sixty folks who have let their ratings lapse better get going on renewing such things, will be fun to watch the results.

[MackTheKnife]

Clunk,

These pilots are not newbies off the street so I don't see your comparison. If they had not been illegally forced into retirement against their free will in the first place, ratings and endorsements wouldn't be an issue. How can it possibly be the claiments fault they lost competency?

As I see it, both Air canada and ACPA are responsible for covering all the costs of returning the approximately 150 legal claiments to their previous competency status. This is especially so after the ruling of Aug 2009 since from that time forward Air Canada and ACPA have been giving the finger to the entire group knowing full well this case would end against them eventually.


MTK

[Johnny767]

Cousin Raymond (since we share the same last name)

I find it impossible to believe, anyone is coming back. Where is the line in the sand; if you've retired in the last 40 years, and you are currently between the age of 60 and 100...come on back baby.

Where ya been, we've missed you?

How on earth is that even plausable? I think most agree, times change. However, along with those changes there must be a date-in-time that you implement those changes.

Moving forward, not retroactively, as we witnessed in the States.

[Johnny767]

No, I wasn't being facetious. I'm simply in the camp, 'that I don't believe it will happen' and 'it is far from over.'

I'm the last guy that should debate this, as I openly admit to not paying much attention. Short of looking at this, with some common (...not so common) sense.

If you joined the club of 150 petitioners you can come back, if you didn't, you are out of luck?

How can that be fair?

Doesn't sound to me like that would be a decision from any Judicial Body.

[Lost in Saigon]

If you joined the club of 150 petitioners you can come back, if you didn't, you are out of luck?

How can that be fair?

Doesn't sound to me like that would be a decision from any Judicial Body.


Every month there are some Air Canada pilots who are forced to retire at the end of the month in which they turn 60. I just flew with a 767 Captain who has until the end of this month. He does not want to leave and has joined the Fly Past 60 group.

Vilven and Kelly won their case almost one year ago. I believe it is quite possible that every pilot who has retired since then, and has filed a case, will either return, or receive some form of financial compensation.

THAT is what is fair in my opinion.

[cloudcity]

Here's the rules:

Pilots can apply to the HRC for reinstatement once the act of discrimination has taken place - i.e., the day they are forced out the door - that would be the first day of the month following the month in which the 60th birthday takes place.

Some have started the application process at the point where their names have been removed from the bidding process as per equipment bidding which is a number of months before the forced retirement.

The question keeps coming up over and over and over again. Why were you not complaining about this 10 years ago. The simple answer is that you can't, with regard to HRC procedure, until the act of discrimination actually occurs.

Consult the HRC for that procedure and for all your documents. One call and they will mail or fax everything to you. It's a very simple straightforward process, takes a few hours of your time, and costs nothing to apply, other than for any fees you might incur for faxing documents, etc.

From the date of forced retirement you have one year to apply for reinstatement. After that 1 year has lapsed you are deemed to have accepted forced retirement and are no longer eligible to apply for reinstatement.

[clunckdriver]

Mac, none of my group in the corporate flying world are "Newbies", my point is that if a pilot, knowing that he is to return, is either too cheap/stupid/lazy/stuborn to renew his class one medical, then I for one sure as hell dont want him back, nor should anyone other than himself foot the bill, the same applies to his I/R, Haz Mat certification and all the other bits of paper one needs these days, and if the pilot is too damn cheap to rent a light aircraft once a month to stay current then his job interest must be zero. By the way, its all a tax write of so the real cost is not worth bothering about.Reminds me of that great line from a fellow pilot,"How cheap is he? so cheap even the other pilots noticed" No, they have not lost their medicals ect because they were retired, they lost it because they have chosen not to renew it.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Your pilots medical after retirement is a very good means of keeping track of your general health.

Hell I have been retired for going on five years and still keep my pilot medical valid.

[Johnny767]

Cloudcity:

Thanks for the explanation. Being in the 'can't get out fast enough' crowd personnally, I suspect the large majority of petitioners are only looking for a "Lotto Win."

And have no real desire to come back.

Although personally opposed to the whole idea, I am reminded of the Human Rights compaint that put an end to age restriction on new-hires.

Anyone that got hired past the age of 26 (or so) can be thankful to those complaintants.

I wonder how many of those types, are bitching about this?

[Lost in Saigon]

Although personally opposed to the whole idea, I am reminded of the Human Rights complaint that put an end to age restriction on new-hires.

Anyone that got hired past the age of 26 (or so) can be thankful to those complainants.

I wonder how many of those types, are bitching about this?


Johnny767, what age were you hired at? How many years of service will you have at age 60?

Those hired in their 30's and 40's are the ones that need to work past 60 in order to have a decent pension.

And Johnny, I blame YOU for this change in our careers. Back in the 60's, 70's and early 80's, there were no "feeder" or "regional" airlines.

Back then you would get hired at Air Canada in your 20's. Work 35 years and retire with a good pension.

Why in the world did CALPA ever allow the farming out of traditional Air Canada flying? Remember DC-9's flying to places like Timmins, Northbay, etc?

Because the CAPLA membership caved to demands to give up all this flying, we now have pilots working 10 years in the "minors" at crappy pay and crappy working conditions, (like no pension) and then going to Air Canada at 35 years old.

It is no wonder that these guys want to work past 60 to try and get what YOU are going to get.

So yes, I blame you and anyone else hired in the 60's, 70's and early 80's, for allowing this situation to develop.

[Johnny767]

Lost in Saigon:

Interesting that you have this need to cast blame. I trust you are actively volunteering your time to ACPA or the College of Professional Pilots, in the interest of improving the Profession. Taking from your personal (family) time, for the better interest of your fellow Pilots.

Or, do you prefer to sit around and chuck rocks at those that came before you?

Just like today, watching Jazz bring in the 757, what are you going to do about it? How do you suggest we stop it?

Considering you weren't there, in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The representatives of the day, did what they thought was right. Just as the volunteers are doing today.

Nobody foresaw Regional Airlines taking over the domestic network.

[Lost in Saigon]

The way we stop this nonsense is to vote NO.

I have voted no to every concession since being hired at Air Canada in 2000. The last vote only passed with 55% so I hope we are making some progress. I try to educate all those who will listen. But it is strange that they always say " I voted NO too". Who voted YES then?

The JAZZ 757 deal may be out of our hands for now due to the wording of the CPA. I think eventually JAZZ is going to piss off Air Canada to the point where they will cancel the whole deal.

I don't blame you personally, it is the ACPA mentality to always vote for what the MEC recommends. It is time for this to stop. Pilots are not stupid people. They don't need to be told how to vote.

Now back to the topic.....

As usual, Air Canada pilots are being told how bad age 65 is for them without knowing all the facts. The fact is most Air Canada pilots today will not reach 35 years of service at age 60, and most will benefit from going past age 60. But only if they want to.

[Johnny767]

I must have missed the clause, in the new-hire contract in 2000
that stated; "even though you...chose...to join the Big Airline at age 40, we guarantee you 35 years of service."

Conversely, I do remember it being in "Black and White" in the Collective Agreement; "Mandatory Retirement at age 60," in 2000.

I am comfortable that ACPA is using my dues, to fight - the good fight.

Cheers

[rick3333331]

Hi Johnny 767,

Have you read the CA recently...lots of things have changed...Our pension is in deficit and is no longer indexed..When you retired these things might become a little more important.

Using your logic..... "I suspect the large majority of petitioners are only looking for a "Lotto Win." And have no real desire to come back."

"Although personally opposed to the whole idea, I am reminded of the Human Rights complaint that put an end to age restriction on new-hires.
Anyone that got hired past the age of 26 (or so) can be thankful to those complainants. I wonder how many of those types, are bitching about this?'

...........Since very few will come back....what is the problem then ?? And the ones that do stay will mostly likely be junior. And as to your last point...I was hired over the age of 27...and every day i am thankful for the opportunity that these gentlemen gave me.....PS I believe that everyone on our course was over the age of 27...and all are thankful. Hope you have your 35 years Johnny...Cheers.




"

[clunckdriver]

Been retired 12 years, when was our pension indexed? {There have been adjustments, but indexed, no} I must have missed somthing in the fine print! Most of my group were a bit older when hired {no hiring for 12 years up till then if memory serves me right} most of us bought time back, myself included, dont know if you can still do this, but if you can its well worth the few bucks.

[cloudcity]

"Conversely, I do remember it being in "Black and White" in the Collective Agreement; "Mandatory Retirement at age 60," in 2000."

and,

"I am comfortable that ACPA is using my dues, to fight - the good fight."

WELL, everybody also remembers the hiring age getting changed by the courts, along with the vision rules, the height rules, the sex stuff and all that. Nothing is static. Now the retirement age has also been ruled discriminatory and we await the Tribunal Order on that one.

[taildragger2004]

Yes I retired with 25,000hrs plus at 60. I sincerely miss those days but it was time to hang it up. Many young kids now who are trying to get a flying job don't have the opportunities we had. Eight companies in a career was enough. Lets give them a break and wish them success. To give back to aviation what we received would be to let the young eagles soar. To continue flying commercially at the end of ones career, is leaving a young pilot on the bread line.......

[engfireleft]

Unfortunately the helmet fire appears to have bit into the oxygen lines. What does ACPA do now??


They cease all communications with the membership on this issue (done), and hope that when the **** hits the fan nobody remembers it was them who manipulated the membership into supporting them on this absurd and destructive course of action.

[lowstandard]

If you wanted to fly past 60, why not just come to EK? You would never have to worry about your pension because you wouldnt make it past 65 with our rostering!

Maybe they could arrange an AC/EK swap. Old guys for new routes, EK takes AC's old guys and gets a few more routes out west.

OK, 2 problems solved! I should be a manager of something.

[clunckdriver]

Lowstandard , no doubt you are headed for the corner office with your management skills! I would sugest you send your CV to some of our outfits who pay Captains less tha a bus driver, wth you background in the Sandbox you will fit right in. If things pick up around the world it will be interesting to watch the mass bail outs take place, in the meantime just keep your sense of humor and post more funnies!

[Lost in Saigon]

What's up with the ACPA forum? It's been down for about 3 days now.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/_1-9.jpg