Forced retirement declared unconstitutional
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: TRY TO FIND THE BEST PLACE
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Canada's pilot spend more time in court than flying....! Question of priority I guess!
What's next, ...jet lag are torture? No more night flying?
No wonder why AC is in the red!
Is it a retro decision, what about those guys who already retired, can they come back...full training? Where in the list?.......Gosh! another mess in sight with the fabulous world of AC pilot.
What's next, ...jet lag are torture? No more night flying?
No wonder why AC is in the red!
Is it a retro decision, what about those guys who already retired, can they come back...full training? Where in the list?.......Gosh! another mess in sight with the fabulous world of AC pilot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The scope of this decision will be very wide. It is not just Air Canada employees, or even just those in aviation, who have had their right to work and earn a living at their chosen occupation protected. As this decision stems from the Canadian constitution, which all the provinces are party to and subject to, it should benefit workers in all occupations, not just those that are federally regulated.
Well done Raymond Hall and the Fly Past 60 group!
Well done Raymond Hall and the Fly Past 60 group!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done??? I don't think so and neither does ACPA.
All this means is that we will have OAPs flying for longer leaving little or no room for the next 20 years for anyone to get into the airlines or for those already in the chance to move into the left seat!
Air Canada Pilots Respond to Tribunal Decision on Age of Retirement
TORONTO - The Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) received a decision today from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which would have the effect of denying Air Canada's pilots the right to negotiate a fixed age of retirement with their employer.
"We are disappointed with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision to deny Air Canada's pilots the right to negotiate a fixed age of retirement", said ACPA President Captain Andy Wilson.
"The Association has a duty to represent the wishes of the majority of the pilots and we will exercise the legal avenues available to us to ensure that their interests are protected. We are reviewing the details of the decision with our legal representatives to determine the long-term impact on our members and their collective agreement and our options for responding. We will have a more comprehensive statement upon the completion of our study", said Captain Wilson.The retirement age provided for in ACPA's collective agreement has been in place since the 1950s. Air Canada pilots recently voted by a 3 to 1 margin to uphold the current retirement age of 60.
Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) is the largest professional pilot group in Canada, representing the more than 3,000 pilots who operate Air Canada's mainline fleet.
TORONTO - The Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) received a decision today from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which would have the effect of denying Air Canada's pilots the right to negotiate a fixed age of retirement with their employer.
"We are disappointed with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision to deny Air Canada's pilots the right to negotiate a fixed age of retirement", said ACPA President Captain Andy Wilson.
"The Association has a duty to represent the wishes of the majority of the pilots and we will exercise the legal avenues available to us to ensure that their interests are protected. We are reviewing the details of the decision with our legal representatives to determine the long-term impact on our members and their collective agreement and our options for responding. We will have a more comprehensive statement upon the completion of our study", said Captain Wilson.The retirement age provided for in ACPA's collective agreement has been in place since the 1950s. Air Canada pilots recently voted by a 3 to 1 margin to uphold the current retirement age of 60.
Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) is the largest professional pilot group in Canada, representing the more than 3,000 pilots who operate Air Canada's mainline fleet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some people seem to ignore that this decision does not force all pilots to keep flying after age 60. It merely ensures that those who want to continue because they like it or, more likely, need to continue to earn an income at their chosen occupation are permitted to do so. They are still subject to passing a medical every six months, along with appropriate competency checks. Those who want to retire at 60 are still free to do so. Indeed all pilots are free to retire earlier than age 60 if they wish.
The very basis of a civilised society is that the rights of one person who is part of a minority are as important as the rights of one person who is part of a majority. This is enshrined in the American constitution. Those who support the absolute right of the majority to impose their will upon others are supporting the law of the jungle - might is right, gang law! They support gang rape, because it is wanted by the majority; they support swarms of teenage thugs mugging an old age pensioner in the shopping mall, because that is wanted by the majority. Civilised people recognise that this sort of behaviour and supposed right of a majority is not acceptable, either in violent criminal cases such as those mentioned or in civil matters such as people having the right to earn a living at their chosen occupation. It is selfish and uncivilised to impose one's personal views and restrictions upon others, particularly if those doing the imposing are motivated by greed or their own self interest. They should learn to compete on merit in the labour market. Such restrictions as forced retirement, cartels and unions are the refuge of the less willing and less ethical who are prepared to go through life at someone else's expense rather than compete on their own efforts and merits.
The best advice to those who want to force people to retire is "Practice what you preach!" Please retire and get out of the way of those of us who intend to continue earning a living.
The very basis of a civilised society is that the rights of one person who is part of a minority are as important as the rights of one person who is part of a majority. This is enshrined in the American constitution. Those who support the absolute right of the majority to impose their will upon others are supporting the law of the jungle - might is right, gang law! They support gang rape, because it is wanted by the majority; they support swarms of teenage thugs mugging an old age pensioner in the shopping mall, because that is wanted by the majority. Civilised people recognise that this sort of behaviour and supposed right of a majority is not acceptable, either in violent criminal cases such as those mentioned or in civil matters such as people having the right to earn a living at their chosen occupation. It is selfish and uncivilised to impose one's personal views and restrictions upon others, particularly if those doing the imposing are motivated by greed or their own self interest. They should learn to compete on merit in the labour market. Such restrictions as forced retirement, cartels and unions are the refuge of the less willing and less ethical who are prepared to go through life at someone else's expense rather than compete on their own efforts and merits.
The best advice to those who want to force people to retire is "Practice what you preach!" Please retire and get out of the way of those of us who intend to continue earning a living.
Last edited by Carrier; 1st Sep 2009 at 18:45. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is enshrined in the American constitution. Those who support the absolute right of the majority to impose their will upon others are supporting the law of the jungle - might is right, gang law! They support gang rape, because it is wanted by the majority; they support swarms of teenage thugs mugging an old age pensioner in the shopping mall, because that is wanted by the majority. Civilised people recognise that this sort of behaviour and supposed right of a majority is not acceptable, either in violent criminal cases such as those mentioned or in civil matters such as people having the right to earn a living at their chosen occupation
- The American constitution has nothing to do with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal court that ruled on this matter.
- Interesting how you make the analogy of gang rape to selfish pilots who want to continue flying past 60
- These pilots reaped the rewards of having every pilot senior to them retire at age 60 so their careers could advance and now when it is their turn to step aside it is deemed discriminatory.
- Now that it is deemed discriminatory, what happens to the pilot who retired 4 years ago? Is it fair to bring him back, spend thousands on his recurrent training to fly for additional 10 months?
I hope this is tied up in litigation for many many many years because this ruling is absolute
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the sun sets on the glory days, those who reaped the most, want what little scraps are left. Sitting left seat on a triple or 340, while those junior to them see their retirement plans delayed due to the loss of pension from the smaller paycheck. Glorious work Ray. Were you still looking for some monetary contributions for the election campaign? Good luck with that. Better keep your day job.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This ruling might not be a good idea. 
I'm not with AC, nor am I an ACPA member, but it seems to me that age discrimination is one thing but when you put it openly on the table in specific terms for a unanimous number of your union colleagues to vote in favour of, then, when "you live by the union sword, you die by the union sword". (I should think)
So spare us the tears.
Even when the number of over 60s is but a handfull. Remember, majority rule?
ACPA may kick you out at 60 but our constitution guarantees that you can work till you can no longer hold a medical.
Now, all you over 60s, off you go. Apply to CanJet, West Jet, Sunwing or Transat. Let us know how the "age thing" works out for you. Especially the part where the Canadian Constitution looks out for your being over 60 at a time when we have a serious pilot shortage and these carriers are using foreign pilots right here in our own back yard to shore up their rosters.
Now there's a cause ACPA could take up. Like ALPA knocking them on the chops over their NHL JETZ operation. Wouldn't that be a more interesting battle for some of us CANADIAN pilots to witness?
Nah! Ain't gonna happen.
...just trying to think out of the box.
Willie
I'm not with AC, nor am I an ACPA member, but it seems to me that age discrimination is one thing but when you put it openly on the table in specific terms for a unanimous number of your union colleagues to vote in favour of, then, when "you live by the union sword, you die by the union sword". (I should think)
So spare us the tears.
Even when the number of over 60s is but a handfull. Remember, majority rule?
ACPA may kick you out at 60 but our constitution guarantees that you can work till you can no longer hold a medical.
Now, all you over 60s, off you go. Apply to CanJet, West Jet, Sunwing or Transat. Let us know how the "age thing" works out for you. Especially the part where the Canadian Constitution looks out for your being over 60 at a time when we have a serious pilot shortage and these carriers are using foreign pilots right here in our own back yard to shore up their rosters.
Now there's a cause ACPA could take up. Like ALPA knocking them on the chops over their NHL JETZ operation. Wouldn't that be a more interesting battle for some of us CANADIAN pilots to witness?
Nah! Ain't gonna happen.
...just trying to think out of the box.
Willie
A couple of points.
- The American constitution has nothing to do with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal court that ruled on this matter.
- Interesting how you make the analogy of gang rape to selfish pilots who want to continue flying past 60
- These pilots reaped the rewards of having every pilot senior to them retire at age 60 so their careers could advance and now when it is their turn to step aside it is deemed discriminatory.
- The American constitution has nothing to do with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal court that ruled on this matter.
- Interesting how you make the analogy of gang rape to selfish pilots who want to continue flying past 60
- These pilots reaped the rewards of having every pilot senior to them retire at age 60 so their careers could advance and now when it is their turn to step aside it is deemed discriminatory.
Given the age of these retirees, it is likely they are from the ONLY generation to get hired into Air Canada straight out of flight school and have had the easiest and highest lifetime earning career of any pilots in Canada that have/will ever exist. What is the motivation here? Money? They didn't make enough over their 35 year airline career when the pay was much better than it is now? If it isn't about the money, if it's about the flying, go get a corporate job or do something useful at the local flight school. You know, give something back.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not with AC, nor am I an ACPA member, but it seems to me that age discrimination is one thing but when you put it openly on the table in specific terms for a unanimous number of your union colleagues to vote in favour of, then, when "you live by the union sword, you die by the union sword". (I should think)
So spare us the tears.
Even when the number of over 60s is but a handfull. Remember, majority rule?
ACPA may kick you out at 60 but our constitution guarantees that you can work till you can no longer hold a medical.
Now, all you over 60s, off you go. Apply to CanJet, West Jet, Sunwing or Transat. Let us know how the "age thing" works out for you. Especially the part where the Canadian Constitution looks out for your being over 60 at a time when we have a serious pilot shortage and these carriers are using foreign pilots right here in our own back yard to shore up their rosters.
Now there's a cause ACPA could take up. Like ALPA knocking them on the chops over their NHL JETZ operation. Wouldn't that be a more interesting battle for some of us CANADIAN pilots to witness
So spare us the tears.
Even when the number of over 60s is but a handfull. Remember, majority rule?
ACPA may kick you out at 60 but our constitution guarantees that you can work till you can no longer hold a medical.
Now, all you over 60s, off you go. Apply to CanJet, West Jet, Sunwing or Transat. Let us know how the "age thing" works out for you. Especially the part where the Canadian Constitution looks out for your being over 60 at a time when we have a serious pilot shortage and these carriers are using foreign pilots right here in our own back yard to shore up their rosters.
Now there's a cause ACPA could take up. Like ALPA knocking them on the chops over their NHL JETZ operation. Wouldn't that be a more interesting battle for some of us CANADIAN pilots to witness
Obviously you are not part of Air Canada or ACPA as only Air Canada Pilots are members of its union... hence AirCanadaPilotsAssociation = ACPA
The union voted for support of the Age 60 rule. The company supported age 60. It was the CHRT that determined it to contravene the Canadian Charter of Human Rights.
Where is this pilot shortage you speak of? The only shortage I see is the shortage of qualified, experienced pilots willing to work for sub-par conditions and pay. Low to medium time guys are a dime a dozen.
Air Canada was allowed a waiver to provide services point to point within the United States as allowed under the Bush Administration and grew its Jetz Charter with a reputation for being the best service for sports teams/musicians etc. The wheels are in motion to regain a waiver as this would really complicate the travel plans for all 6 Canadian NHL teams, 3 US NHL teams plus 2 NBA teams.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “The only shortage I see is the shortage of qualified, experienced pilots willing to work for sub-par conditions and pay. Low to medium time guys are a dime a dozen.”
Please let us have definitions of the above. It would help to see some hard numbers and qualifications mentioned. What does the industry regard as:
1. a qualified, experienced pilot
2. a medium time pilot
3. a low time pilot
The shortage of a year ago has indeed vanished but remember how quickly demand for pilots became hot two and a half years ago. The supply of pilots is relatively inflexible in economic terms. It will take only a small upturn in the economy plus increased drilling and exploration to increase the demand for pilots. It is encouraging that more jobs have been advertised in the last few months.
Please let us have definitions of the above. It would help to see some hard numbers and qualifications mentioned. What does the industry regard as:
1. a qualified, experienced pilot
2. a medium time pilot
3. a low time pilot
The shortage of a year ago has indeed vanished but remember how quickly demand for pilots became hot two and a half years ago. The supply of pilots is relatively inflexible in economic terms. It will take only a small upturn in the economy plus increased drilling and exploration to increase the demand for pilots. It is encouraging that more jobs have been advertised in the last few months.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yycflyguy
Tongue-in-cheek aside, this whole ACPA age discrimination thing presents a fairly serious conflict with not only the Charter but the CARs, as there is no mandatory retirement age for Canadian pilots. Aren't Air Canada pilots Canadian pilots?
Seriously though, I think ACPA should be hooped over this issue. In a country that's suppose to protect its citizens from age discrimination it should mean that any union that writes into its' collective agreement a clause that tries to circumvent the legitimate laws of the land, should not be allowed to do so.
I'd say the courts got it right and ACPA should remove this arbitrary age discrimination clause from their agreement. Personal opinion.
I'd just add that this kind of B.S. is merely another lump of sh*t on the pile of sh*t that is the present state of the so-called piloting profession. ACPA, as a professional pilot group should know that. Should understand that. Should, without court battles, be able to recognize it for what it is. However, as we all know, it's about command and money. How shamefully selfish. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
And not to single out the pilot group, but Air Canada management should have also refused to sign an agreement with any of its unions trying to pass off any age limitation in their collective agreements.
Let's see what the 49 year old ACPA members say in about 10 years.
JETZ violated the Can-US agreement. This isn't likely to be settled any time soon.
To another point, the only thing standing between a real and/or an imagined pilot shortage is the unpredictability of the world wide economy and its impact on pilot numbers. The industry is on borrowed time and could see a major calamity (as in airline failures, not just LCC failures).
One thing's for sure, we know how many pilots there are in the world. We know how many will retire AND when (to the day, thanks to union contracts). We also know the numbers aren't pretty and those numbers clearly indicate the airline industry faces a serious shortage. If the industry wasn't concerned, we wouldn't have the now famous MPL fast track to the flight deck. The only thing keeping the industry from falling off the edge is airline economic failures. As the various companies fail, experienced pilots land on the open market. Once that surplus is dried up. WE'RE F***ED!!
That TOO isn't news, it is, however, the reality.
Keep smilin' (especially those of you who are 35 or younger)
Willie
Tongue-in-cheek aside, this whole ACPA age discrimination thing presents a fairly serious conflict with not only the Charter but the CARs, as there is no mandatory retirement age for Canadian pilots. Aren't Air Canada pilots Canadian pilots?
Seriously though, I think ACPA should be hooped over this issue. In a country that's suppose to protect its citizens from age discrimination it should mean that any union that writes into its' collective agreement a clause that tries to circumvent the legitimate laws of the land, should not be allowed to do so.
I'd say the courts got it right and ACPA should remove this arbitrary age discrimination clause from their agreement. Personal opinion.
I'd just add that this kind of B.S. is merely another lump of sh*t on the pile of sh*t that is the present state of the so-called piloting profession. ACPA, as a professional pilot group should know that. Should understand that. Should, without court battles, be able to recognize it for what it is. However, as we all know, it's about command and money. How shamefully selfish. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
And not to single out the pilot group, but Air Canada management should have also refused to sign an agreement with any of its unions trying to pass off any age limitation in their collective agreements.
Let's see what the 49 year old ACPA members say in about 10 years.
JETZ violated the Can-US agreement. This isn't likely to be settled any time soon.
To another point, the only thing standing between a real and/or an imagined pilot shortage is the unpredictability of the world wide economy and its impact on pilot numbers. The industry is on borrowed time and could see a major calamity (as in airline failures, not just LCC failures).
One thing's for sure, we know how many pilots there are in the world. We know how many will retire AND when (to the day, thanks to union contracts). We also know the numbers aren't pretty and those numbers clearly indicate the airline industry faces a serious shortage. If the industry wasn't concerned, we wouldn't have the now famous MPL fast track to the flight deck. The only thing keeping the industry from falling off the edge is airline economic failures. As the various companies fail, experienced pilots land on the open market. Once that surplus is dried up. WE'RE F***ED!!
That TOO isn't news, it is, however, the reality.
Keep smilin' (especially those of you who are 35 or younger)
Willie
Last edited by Willie Everlearn; 8th Sep 2009 at 22:03.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd just add that this kind of B.S. is merely another lump of sh*t on the pile of sh*t that is the present state of the so-called piloting profession. ACPA, as a professional pilot group should know that. Should understand that. Should, without court battles, be able to recognize it for what it is. However, as we all know, it's about command and money. How shamefully selfish.
Carrier: I guess I should have qualified that I meant type rated guys on aircraft over 20,000 kg with at least 1000 on type are "qualified and experienced".
You can split hairs as to what low time and medium time guys are but for me, anyone under 2000 hours TT is low time. IMHO... and yes there are exceptions to my rule of thumb for military.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just wondering...would this mean that the age 65 rule in general might now be legally challenged? Is the Command restriction at age 65 also considered age discriminatory?
Does this mean that a Captain at any of the other CAR 705 carriers can/could continue as a Captain as long as he/she is medically fit and demonstrates competence?
Can't help but wonder.......
Does this mean that a Captain at any of the other CAR 705 carriers can/could continue as a Captain as long as he/she is medically fit and demonstrates competence?
Can't help but wonder.......
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no regulatory age limit in the CARs and therefore, no "age 65" limit in Canada. However, ICAO and other states do have age limits and that would effect your ability to do international flights.
Interesting note about the medically fit designation though, as requiring two medicals a year over 40 might also be considered ageist and discriminatory, especially considering that you get "taxed" $55 twice as well...
Interesting note about the medically fit designation though, as requiring two medicals a year over 40 might also be considered ageist and discriminatory, especially considering that you get "taxed" $55 twice as well...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an addendum to my previous post...
I'm surprised the lawyers representing ACPA wrote such a discriminating clause into the pilots agreement knowing full well it was in violation of the Charter and I'm also mystified how Air Canada's Corporate lawyers missed it, or better yet, went along with it. Like, WTF???
Enough said.....
I'm surprised the lawyers representing ACPA wrote such a discriminating clause into the pilots agreement knowing full well it was in violation of the Charter and I'm also mystified how Air Canada's Corporate lawyers missed it, or better yet, went along with it. Like, WTF???
Enough said.....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: the twilight zone
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most countries have now adopted the one medical a year for pilots over 40yrs of age system. Still havn't come to a conclusion whether it's for the better or worse.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is amazing how many posters are worked up about the age extension from 60 to 65 because they are under the illusion that it will hold them back. Did they not bother to find out the reasons for the extension? Wise men find out the facts before forming their opinions; fools jump to conclusions!
Some years ago the worldwide aviation industry and ICAO established that for various reasons there would be a future long term shortage of pilots. They took two actions to try and reduce this looming problem. First, they introduced the Multi-Crew Pilot Licence. Second, they extended the age 60 limit to age 65. Two or three years ago we saw this shortage beginning to become a problem, but it has been temporarily reduced by the current economic recession.
There is still a projected future long term shortfall in pilot numbers. This in turn will have two outcomes for pilots: first, no competent and healthy pilot should be held back for long if at all because of low demand for pilots. (If he works for a poorly managed airline that is unable to compete then he will indeed suffer but that has nothing to do with age limits or forced retirement.) Second, it is likely that the current age 65 limit will be extended to age 70. This is already being considered. It is being held back by the recession, which has caused a temporary drop in demand for pilots, and to allow the extension to age 65 to show that there are no inherent problems with extending the age limit for pilots who meet the recurring competency and medical checks.
Note that when the extension to age 70 comes in pilots will not be forced to keep flying to age 70, just as they are not currently forced to keep flying to age 65 or were not formerly forced to keep working to age 60. Those who want to retire early are permitted to do so. Their early retirement will be welcomed by those who continue in the industry as it will increase the shortfall and help in the long term to increase pilot wages and benefits. Note also that countries with advanced human rights have no age limit for pilots. In such countries pilots may continue to fly commercially for as long as they are able to meet the recurring competency and medical checks. That is as it should be.
There are no arbitrary age limits for forced retirement in most other occupations, such as car mechanic, aircraft maintenance engineer, MP, baker, salesman, accountant, bus driver, etc., so it is impertinent to impose arbitrary forced retirement limits on pilots. Those pilots who support and have to resort to the use of such artificial barriers for their own benefit obviously lack confidence in their own capabilities and in their ability to compete in a competitive job market!
Some years ago the worldwide aviation industry and ICAO established that for various reasons there would be a future long term shortage of pilots. They took two actions to try and reduce this looming problem. First, they introduced the Multi-Crew Pilot Licence. Second, they extended the age 60 limit to age 65. Two or three years ago we saw this shortage beginning to become a problem, but it has been temporarily reduced by the current economic recession.
There is still a projected future long term shortfall in pilot numbers. This in turn will have two outcomes for pilots: first, no competent and healthy pilot should be held back for long if at all because of low demand for pilots. (If he works for a poorly managed airline that is unable to compete then he will indeed suffer but that has nothing to do with age limits or forced retirement.) Second, it is likely that the current age 65 limit will be extended to age 70. This is already being considered. It is being held back by the recession, which has caused a temporary drop in demand for pilots, and to allow the extension to age 65 to show that there are no inherent problems with extending the age limit for pilots who meet the recurring competency and medical checks.
Note that when the extension to age 70 comes in pilots will not be forced to keep flying to age 70, just as they are not currently forced to keep flying to age 65 or were not formerly forced to keep working to age 60. Those who want to retire early are permitted to do so. Their early retirement will be welcomed by those who continue in the industry as it will increase the shortfall and help in the long term to increase pilot wages and benefits. Note also that countries with advanced human rights have no age limit for pilots. In such countries pilots may continue to fly commercially for as long as they are able to meet the recurring competency and medical checks. That is as it should be.
There are no arbitrary age limits for forced retirement in most other occupations, such as car mechanic, aircraft maintenance engineer, MP, baker, salesman, accountant, bus driver, etc., so it is impertinent to impose arbitrary forced retirement limits on pilots. Those pilots who support and have to resort to the use of such artificial barriers for their own benefit obviously lack confidence in their own capabilities and in their ability to compete in a competitive job market!
Last edited by Carrier; 15th Sep 2009 at 15:00. Reason: correction
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice no one has brought up Ross Stevenson. If you have to ask who he is you have no idea how long this debate has been going on . Calpa which included AC CP etc fought Ross to the end .Interesting the same folks who fought Ross are on the other side of the fence now. Once upon a time it was a perk to retire at 60 .Then as now it is all about seniority and money and has nothing to do with human rights. Having said that age 65 is here no use in Acpa fighting it anymore.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrier, do you want to know what is behind the reason for the extension? Greed...nothing but pure greed. Those guys had the benefit of having those in front of them retire at 60 so that they may get their shot at the top position and now they wait until just before they retire to sue ACPA and AC because they are being forced? Come on! What happened to the last 30 years they were employed by the airline?? It's just greed. Greed.
Everybody but those at the top are totally pissed off at this ruling. We will fight this tooth and nail. Retiring at 60 should be seen as a perk. Greedy bastards.
Everybody but those at the top are totally pissed off at this ruling. We will fight this tooth and nail. Retiring at 60 should be seen as a perk. Greedy bastards.
Last edited by KingAir; 16th Sep 2009 at 11:06.