Mandatory retirement at 60

[JohnReid]

I have heard rumors that mandatory retirement of airline pilots at age 60 is being contested here in Canada.Is this true?

[Intruder]

AFAIK, that law doesn't exist in Canada...

[JohnReid]

Then why are Air Canada pilots forced to retire at age 60?

[clevlandHD]

It is in their contract.

[McDoo the Irish Navigator]

There is no law requiring pilots to retire at age 60 in Canada. Up until last year, no one could Captain a transport category aircraft in US airspace beyond age 60. This made it impractical to have pilots over 60 employed next door here in Canada. That FAA rule no longer exists.
The ACPA has negotiated an age 60 retirement for its members. It too is likely a throwback; to when the average 60 year old was unfit to fly. Not so today.
Will they continue with this old school notion, who knows?

[Carrier]

Quote: "The ACPA has negotiated an age 60 retirement for its members."

Are there any lawyers out there who would care to comment on the legality of the above? My understanding of common law is that it is not possible to contract for something that is illegal. If the country has made age related mandatory retirement illegal and backed that up with parallel legislation forbidding discrimination on the grounds of age then how can such a "contract" stand up? If that principle is correct then any AC pilot who wants to continue after age 60 can give both the union and the company the one finger salute.

[J.O.]

There is nothing stopping you from agreeing to something in a collective agreement that is more restrictive than the law, providing that it was collectively bargained in good faith, and not done under duress. All members of ACPA, young and old, were duly represented by their union during negotiations, and a majority of them voted to accept the conditions. There was no discrimination involved.

[CD]

Here is the info on the former Air Canada pilots situation:

Fly Past 60

[Carrier]

J.O. and CD: Thanks for the comments. This could be an interesting situation in the making.

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by J.O.

There is nothing stopping you from agreeing to something in a collective agreement that is more restrictive than the law, providing that it was collectively bargained in good faith, and not done under duress. All members of ACPA, young and old, were duly represented by their union during negotiations, and a majority of them voted to accept the conditions. There was no discrimination involved.

You are partially right, but you can't vote age, sexual, or race discrimination into your contract.

Unfortunately there is age dissemination going on here. The Canadian Human Rights tribunal is set to hear an appeal of a previous decision which decided that 2 complainants were not discriminated against because, at the time of their retirement, the ICAO normal retirement was 60.

Since then, the ICAO age has moved to 65. But even if the decision is upheld, there are a lot of other pilots who have retired, or will retire, after ICAO went to 65, who are waiting to have their complaints heard. (they are waiting for the results of the current appeal)

In my opinion, the main argument for appeal is that the tribunal erred in looking outside Canada for a Comparative group for "Normal Retirement". It is called the CANADIAN Human Rights Tribunal for a reason: To protect the rights of Canadians living and working in Canada.

In Canada, every airline has either, a mandatory retirement age of 65, or no retirement age at all. You can't argue that the other airlines don't compare because they are not "Legacy" carriers like Air Canada. The fact is all the other carriers do the same type of flying as Air Canada. Some do Domestic only, some do International, and most do a little of everything. There really is no difference. There are many pilots at Air Canada that will reach age 60 after flying most if not all of their careers flying only domestically. (little or no Overseas)

Pay, pension, and benefits have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It is a basic question of human rights.

I enjoy my job immensely and can not imagine how tough it will be when someone tells me one day I can no longer do my chosen profession because I had a birthday roll by.

Implementing age 65 at Air Canada will cause lots of logistical problems but I believe it is coming sooner than later.

[J.O.]

This is just an opinion, but to me your argument for discrimination doesn't wash. You would be asking the court to rule that those who wrote the agreement at the time should have known that the ICAO standard would change, and should have written the agreement to allow for that eventuality. To prove discrimination, you must prove that the victim of the discrimination had no say in the matter, and that the discriminator used a position of power over them that affected them negatively. As the age limit was bargained by two agreeing parties in good faith, that will be a very difficult thing to prove, seeing that those who are claiming discrimination today were either employees of Air Canada at the time of the original agreement, or they joined the company knowing where the boundaries lay at the time, and thus were all parties to that original agreement. Just like there is no mandatory retirement age of 65 yrs today in Canada, there was no mandatory retirement age of 60 yrs for pilots in Canada when ACPA and Air Canada agreed to it. They could have continued to fly, avoiding those places that restricted access to those under 60 (or 65 today). Both sides chose not to do that. The only case you might have for discrimination would be against those countries like the USA who continue to set a finite limit. But seeing as you're not a US citizen, I highly doubt you'd even get a day in court. If you want the age changed, then you should be lobbying your union to change it in the next negotiations.

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by J.O.

This is just an opinion, but to me your argument for discrimination doesn't wash. You would be asking the court to rule that those who wrote the agreement at the time should have known that the ICAO standard would change, and should have written the agreement to allow for that eventuality. To prove discrimination, you must prove that the victim of the discrimination had no say in the matter, and that the discriminator used a position of power over them that affected them negatively. As the age limit was bargained by two agreeing parties in good faith, that will be a very difficult thing to prove, seeing that those who are claiming discrimination today were either employees of Air Canada at the time of the original agreement, or they joined the company knowing where the boundaries lay at the time, and thus were all parties to that original agreement. Just like there is no mandatory retirement age of 65 yrs today in Canada, there was no mandatory retirement age of 60 yrs for pilots in Canada when ACPA and Air Canada agreed to it. They could have continued to fly, avoiding those places that restricted access to those under 60 (or 65 today). Both sides chose not to do that. The only case you might have for discrimination would be against those countries like the USA who continue to set a finite limit. But seeing as you're not a US citizen, I highly doubt you'd even get a day in court. If you want the age changed, then you should be lobbying your union to change it in the next negotiations.

It doesn't matter what is agreed to or not agreed to. It does not even matter what the laws, rules, or customs in other jurisdictions are.

All that matters is if the Human Rights of Canadians are being violated.

This matter will only be settled by establishing the "Normal Retirement Age for Airline Pilots in Canada". Period.


If you don't think so, look at it in slightly different view.

Lets say we substitute race for age in this matter. Lets say Air Canada and ACPA put it in their contract that "NO pilots of African descent shall be employed by Air Canada." OR "No Gay pilots shall be employed by Air Canada".

Do you really think that this would be OK simply because it is agreed to in the contract?

[ea340]

Every pilot hired by AC knew the age 60 rule existed. They accepted this on the day of employment and in fact considered it a benefit. As the boomers aged and benefited from the rule there were no complaints . This issue surfaced as these same folks now at the top of the pyramid liked the view and now it was a Human Rights issue. The show stopper is always what about Ross Stevenson the guy you fought tooth and tong when he brought this up 25+ years ago and your career path was endangered . Now it is a human rights case how times have changed .

[Lost in Saigon]

Many people hired in the past 10 years were hired in their late thirties or early forties. 18-22 years of service will not get you much of a pension.

When I was hired at Air Canada, I knew that I would not want to retire at age 60. I also knew that it was only a matter of time before the retirement age would be changed.

I am frankly a little surprised that it is happening this fast. I think the catalyst was ICAO and the USA dropping age 60.

[ea340]

Do I think 65 is coming of course I do but Lost just remember your career will slow down big time . As for GIDIP dont count it on as guys medical out at 62 or 63 and exhaust GIDIP . Try and deny a 62 year pilot GIDIP old pilot and watch the lawsuits fly . On the plus side the pension will be in great shape . Good luck with your career

[barry60]

Age 60 is a number and so is 65. Why not 65 1/4 or 85? If this goes through there can be no limit. One age is no more discriminatory than another. The medical may/may not be a deciding factor. A plumber, lyer, doctor, business owner etc can retire when they feel like it. Pilots will follow the general rule. Maybe not worldwide immediately but it will come. Basically it all comes down to "human rights". Don't believe me? Look at the laws introduced by the European Union.
If a EU company has to lay off employees they suggest that laying off by seniority is unconstitutional. ie. the bottom 20% is illegal. If followed through there will be an disproportionate number of females, 20 somethings, 30 somethings, visible minorities etc. The solution is 20 % 50/40/30/20 year olds, 20% female,visible 20's, etc. What happens is that a new hire 20 year old female chinese pilot is safer than a 15 year senority employee. It isn't discrimination. It is lawyers.
The whole age thing is going the way of the DODO.

[J.O.]

If you don't think so, look at it in slightly different view.

Lets say we substitute race for age in this matter. Lets say Air Canada and ACPA put it in their contract that "NO pilots of African descent shall be employed by Air Canada." OR "No Gay pilots shall be employed by Air Canada".

Apples and oranges. That would only limit a select element of the population. The age 60 limit applies to all of the pilots affected by the contract when they reach that age, not a select few.