Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!!!!!!!
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 !!!!!!!!!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
dailygleaner.com - Mandatory retirement may be gone | By HEATHER SCOFFIELD - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
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
dailygleaner.com - Mandatory retirement may be gone | By HEATHER SCOFFIELD - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
Last edited by Raymond767; 12th Jul 2010 at 16:42.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Raymond767; 12th Jul 2010 at 23:13.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im convinced the present crop of laywers are only interested in winning, not whats just or right or moral.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Hell I have been retired for going on five years and still keep my pilot medical valid.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by Johnny767; 14th Jul 2010 at 13:31.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.