Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the latest communique:
Pilots Support Retirement at Age 60: Poll
Aug. 10, 2010, 10:29 a.m. EDT
TORONTO, ONTARIO, Aug 10, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union.
The survey of more than 1,800 pilots showed that 82 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or even younger.
"These survey results demonstrate without question that Air Canada pilots overwhelmingly support the freely negotiated age of retirement in their collective agreement," said Captain Paul Strachan, President of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA). "The results confirm what our members have repeatedly shown in successive rounds of collective bargaining. They want us to preserve retirement at age 60 with a secure pension that allows them to enjoy the benefits of their years of work performed on behalf of our airline and our passengers."
The results come from an on line survey of 1,860 Air Canada pilots conducted June 7 - 23 by The Wilson Center for Public Research, Inc. In the survey, which included almost 60 per cent of all Air Canada pilots, respondents were asked whether they would like a retirement age of 60 years, greater than 60 or less than 60.
Pilots were strongly united on the issue, with 78 per cent supporting retirement at age 60 and a further four per cent wanting to retire at a younger age. Even among senior pilots over the age of 50, more than 63 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or earlier, outnumbering those wanting to work past 60 years by more than a two-to-one margin in that sub-group. Only 13 per cent of pilots wanted a retirement age greater than 60 years.
Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the pilots' contract and pension plan, which are negotiated with Air Canada by ACPA and ratified by its member pilots in a democratic vote each time their collective agreement is renewed.
The negotiated age of retirement is also the subject of an upcoming Federal Court judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decision. In August 2009, the CHRT asserted that a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) cannot be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That section of the human rights law says that a practice is not discriminatory if an individual's employment is terminated because he or she has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions.
ACPA asked the Federal Court to review the CHRT decision, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process.
The Federal Court will hear the case November 22 - 25 in Ottawa.
"We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights."
The Federal Court's decision could potentially have an impact on the wages and benefits of the Air Canada pilots and thousands of other federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement.
Full press release here...
Aug. 10, 2010, 10:29 a.m. EDT
TORONTO, ONTARIO, Aug 10, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union.
The survey of more than 1,800 pilots showed that 82 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or even younger.
"These survey results demonstrate without question that Air Canada pilots overwhelmingly support the freely negotiated age of retirement in their collective agreement," said Captain Paul Strachan, President of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA). "The results confirm what our members have repeatedly shown in successive rounds of collective bargaining. They want us to preserve retirement at age 60 with a secure pension that allows them to enjoy the benefits of their years of work performed on behalf of our airline and our passengers."
The results come from an on line survey of 1,860 Air Canada pilots conducted June 7 - 23 by The Wilson Center for Public Research, Inc. In the survey, which included almost 60 per cent of all Air Canada pilots, respondents were asked whether they would like a retirement age of 60 years, greater than 60 or less than 60.
Pilots were strongly united on the issue, with 78 per cent supporting retirement at age 60 and a further four per cent wanting to retire at a younger age. Even among senior pilots over the age of 50, more than 63 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or earlier, outnumbering those wanting to work past 60 years by more than a two-to-one margin in that sub-group. Only 13 per cent of pilots wanted a retirement age greater than 60 years.
Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the pilots' contract and pension plan, which are negotiated with Air Canada by ACPA and ratified by its member pilots in a democratic vote each time their collective agreement is renewed.
The negotiated age of retirement is also the subject of an upcoming Federal Court judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decision. In August 2009, the CHRT asserted that a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) cannot be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That section of the human rights law says that a practice is not discriminatory if an individual's employment is terminated because he or she has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions.
ACPA asked the Federal Court to review the CHRT decision, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process.
The Federal Court will hear the case November 22 - 25 in Ottawa.
"We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights."
The Federal Court's decision could potentially have an impact on the wages and benefits of the Air Canada pilots and thousands of other federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement.
Full press release here...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proof positive of what the MEC thinks is important.........not a wage increase, not indexed pensions...nothing in the WAWCOM survey seems that important........Just how to do it too the older pilots.........Be careful what you wish for...........................What a joke this mec is !!!!!!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Wine is proven to be good for you. Given the right question, pilots might vote to have red wine served with every hot crew meal. It could be voted on, passed, and published. What are the chances it would happen?
Given the average age of the pilot group, a vote to terminate everyone over 57 might pass. How about everyone with 35 years of service?
You cannot put something illegal in a contract, no matter how much certain people would like to.
Taking a survey does not change the rules. This nonsense is worthy of South Africa prior to Mandela, or the ravings of Robert Mugabe!
Given the average age of the pilot group, a vote to terminate everyone over 57 might pass. How about everyone with 35 years of service?
You cannot put something illegal in a contract, no matter how much certain people would like to.
Taking a survey does not change the rules. This nonsense is worthy of South Africa prior to Mandela, or the ravings of Robert Mugabe!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union.
Why are they wasting theirs and everybody elses time with this?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The poll showed that 82 percent of 60 percent polled or less than half of the pilots had a preference to retire before 60, so the overwhelming majority is actually statistically a minority?
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:11.
Good Evening Engine Fire Left:
If I may ask you a rhetorical type of question and with out using a "hot button" example so I will use a vanilla type of question so as not to offend the sensibilities here.
As you have succinctly demonstrated your passion here let us say you have lost a ruling at the C.H.R.T. and constitutionally what are your options? You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So that being said how about every one take a very deep breath and wait for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada after November 25 of this year.
Personally I have no interest one way or the other but there is nothing you or others can do until this is decided. As this process is started just let it run its course and in due time I am sure you will be able to comment on which ever way the decision goes. Oh by the way that is your right as a citizen of our country.....
In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved.
If I may ask you a rhetorical type of question and with out using a "hot button" example so I will use a vanilla type of question so as not to offend the sensibilities here.
As you have succinctly demonstrated your passion here let us say you have lost a ruling at the C.H.R.T. and constitutionally what are your options? You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So that being said how about every one take a very deep breath and wait for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada after November 25 of this year.
Personally I have no interest one way or the other but there is nothing you or others can do until this is decided. As this process is started just let it run its course and in due time I am sure you will be able to comment on which ever way the decision goes. Oh by the way that is your right as a citizen of our country.....
In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:14.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a330pilotcanada
If this were a simple legal dispute with little in the way of potential damage I would agree with you that everybody should just chill out and wait until the end gamut has played out. But this is any simple legal dispute.
This entire country has eliminated, or is in the process of eliminating age based mandatory retirement on the grounds of discrimination. Aside from that, ACPA's original argument that age 60 is the "normal" age of retirement has been proven false even if that provision wasn't being eliminated. ICAO has gone to 65 for airline pilots along with the rest of the world removing that rationale from ACPA's meagre toolbox. ACPA's only other remaining arguement about the will of the membership and what has been agreed to in the contract has been addressed more times than I can count. Our contract cannot violate Canadian law even if 100% of the pilots think it should...end of story.
This is not rocket science.
One year ago ACPA and Air Canada were told in explicit terms by the CHRT (whose official mandate is to decide these matters) that forcing pilots to retire is discriminatory. If everything was frozen in place until ACPA exhausted every last possible measure in attempt to turn back the tide I might also agree with you to patiently wait it out. But that's not happening either. ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law.
This statement I take minor offence to and have trouble understanding. Just what do you think we are doing by getting involved in this issue? One of the main reasons I am so passionate about this is my absolute belief that a union should responsibly represent the best interests of its membership. ACPA has acted beyond foolish from the very start of this issue, and I am convinced they do so because of their own selfish desire to move up the ladder as quickly as possible. I agree with others that these delaying tactics are designed to move as many people out the door as possible before they are forced to desist. They don't seem to care about the liability they are forcing on us in the meantime.
This latest press release from them is a classic example of how inane their position is. No reputable polling firm on the planet would interpret one limited question on the WAWCON survey as a mandate to continue down this disastrous course. Furthermore, 100% of the pilots could support discrimination and it would change nothing. This is a matter of law and our opinion, no matter how unanimously anachronistic it may be, does not matter. They should know that.
I think this is a case of the MEC beginning to realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is an unstoppable freight train. This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan.
Regarding your statement above, we are doing union work by trying to get things back to reality.
If this were a simple legal dispute with little in the way of potential damage I would agree with you that everybody should just chill out and wait until the end gamut has played out. But this is any simple legal dispute.
This entire country has eliminated, or is in the process of eliminating age based mandatory retirement on the grounds of discrimination. Aside from that, ACPA's original argument that age 60 is the "normal" age of retirement has been proven false even if that provision wasn't being eliminated. ICAO has gone to 65 for airline pilots along with the rest of the world removing that rationale from ACPA's meagre toolbox. ACPA's only other remaining arguement about the will of the membership and what has been agreed to in the contract has been addressed more times than I can count. Our contract cannot violate Canadian law even if 100% of the pilots think it should...end of story.
This is not rocket science.
One year ago ACPA and Air Canada were told in explicit terms by the CHRT (whose official mandate is to decide these matters) that forcing pilots to retire is discriminatory. If everything was frozen in place until ACPA exhausted every last possible measure in attempt to turn back the tide I might also agree with you to patiently wait it out. But that's not happening either. ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law.
In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved
This latest press release from them is a classic example of how inane their position is. No reputable polling firm on the planet would interpret one limited question on the WAWCON survey as a mandate to continue down this disastrous course. Furthermore, 100% of the pilots could support discrimination and it would change nothing. This is a matter of law and our opinion, no matter how unanimously anachronistic it may be, does not matter. They should know that.
I think this is a case of the MEC beginning to realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is an unstoppable freight train. This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan.
Regarding your statement above, we are doing union work by trying to get things back to reality.
Last edited by engfireleft; 11th Aug 2010 at 14:59.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enginefireleft says ....
The clock is indeed ticking ... "Cha-ching Cha-ching"
Are there any outs? What can ACPA do at this late date to reduce or eliminate the liabilities? Is staying the course to the inevitable costly end in hope of a miracle the only viable battle plan? Maybe asking the FlyPast60 group for some kind of immediate settlement would be the way to go. The ACPA officials might actually gain prestige with this tactic, and disassociate themselves from AC.
ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law.
This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any outs? What can ACPA do at this late date to reduce or eliminate the liabilities? Is staying the course to the inevitable costly end in hope of a miracle the only viable battle plan? Maybe asking the FlyPast60 group for some kind of immediate settlement would be the way to go. The ACPA officials might actually gain prestige with this tactic, and disassociate themselves from AC.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:14.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an interesting comment on the Avcanada forum made by a moderator.
Did Mr. Hall make a statement that was libelous and Avcanada has banned him or did he quit on his own?
No, but please note that Mr. Hall will no longer be contributing to these discussions.
Did Mr. Hall make a statement that was libelous and Avcanada has banned him or did he quit on his own?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. A libelous and untrue accusation was leveled at Ray, and he advised the person who wrote it to retract the accusation. At least one of the moderators over there is hostile to eliminating mandatory retirement and has gotten away with wholesale deletions of posts advocating that position. Maybe in this instance getting rid of Ray was easier than policing the rest of the people.
Like the ACPA forum, rational discussion of this issue at AVCanada is rarely possible, and sometimes not even permitted. That's why I left and will never go back.
It is obvious that the only way this will be solved is through legal action and orders from the authorities. Even with that, ACPA is determined to continue the discriminatory practices through some other methods involving penalties to pilots over 60. Those too will have to be addressed, and are being addressed through legal mean. When ACPA and the membership finally wise up to Canadian reality version 2010 then litigation will no longer be required. But until that day ACPA and anybody else stepping over the line will get hammered over the head through legal action.
This is easy to avoid, and they bring it down on themselves.
Like the ACPA forum, rational discussion of this issue at AVCanada is rarely possible, and sometimes not even permitted. That's why I left and will never go back.
It is obvious that the only way this will be solved is through legal action and orders from the authorities. Even with that, ACPA is determined to continue the discriminatory practices through some other methods involving penalties to pilots over 60. Those too will have to be addressed, and are being addressed through legal mean. When ACPA and the membership finally wise up to Canadian reality version 2010 then litigation will no longer be required. But until that day ACPA and anybody else stepping over the line will get hammered over the head through legal action.
This is easy to avoid, and they bring it down on themselves.
Last edited by engfireleft; 11th Aug 2010 at 20:17.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloudcity,
Re post #428
I urge you use care with your choice of interpretation of the statistical data represented by the ACPA release. Please review statistical sample sizes and their meaning prior to passing blanket statements about the validity of data gathered and the size of the sample group. While the statement should have included the sampling error (+/- N%), the sample size seems rather adequate to reflect the union members sentiments.
While my statistics textbooks are enjoying their retirement next to my calculus texts, I see no need to further elaborate on the mathematical methodologies required for collecting and interpreting such data.
Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility.
Respectfully,
On Glideslope
Re post #428
I urge you use care with your choice of interpretation of the statistical data represented by the ACPA release. Please review statistical sample sizes and their meaning prior to passing blanket statements about the validity of data gathered and the size of the sample group. While the statement should have included the sampling error (+/- N%), the sample size seems rather adequate to reflect the union members sentiments.
While my statistics textbooks are enjoying their retirement next to my calculus texts, I see no need to further elaborate on the mathematical methodologies required for collecting and interpreting such data.
Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility.
Respectfully,
On Glideslope
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed. Long may it continue because this is it, the last forum where this can be discussed. When the final rulings have been handed down the need for an open arena to discuss what comes next is absolutely essential.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility.
Point well taken. My Stats texts are also under a layer of dust in a cardboard box and maybe you've had time to analyse the entire survey and you've perhaps seen the .05 or whatever level of certification of that according to currently accepted statistical standards, but the overall point was that discrimination can't be voted away. And it's all about minorities in the first place, the smallest minority being 1. The Human Rights Act and will protect that 1 individual and they already have. The majority-minority stance is only posturing for whatever reason. They're saying some of us don't want to go past 60 so therefore we do not intend to allow anybody to do that?
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:15.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Calgary
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the "thought police" at AvCanada banned him.
The moderators there are well known for lacking any intestinal fortitude when the subject makes THEM feel uncomfortable.
Thankfully this forum is more enlightened.
The moderators there are well known for lacking any intestinal fortitude when the subject makes THEM feel uncomfortable.
Thankfully this forum is more enlightened.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are having a bit of a "Meltdown" right now over at the AvCanada Air Canada forum.
People repeatedly ask why Raymond hall has been banned, or speculate why, and the posts keep getting deleted or the threads get locked.
Even just commenting on the apparent censorship gets your post deleted.
AVCANADA • View forum - Air Canada
People repeatedly ask why Raymond hall has been banned, or speculate why, and the posts keep getting deleted or the threads get locked.
Even just commenting on the apparent censorship gets your post deleted.
AVCANADA • View forum - Air Canada
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a word of thanks is due to Danny and his moderators for allowing free speech to continue here.
Avcanada used to be a place where one could intelligently discuss these matters without being penalized by those who have taken over control of content.
I personally had no problems with posting "ALL " the facts surrounding my legal battle with TCCA over the past years, for that I must thank Joe the owner of the forum.
I never posted anything that I could not back up with irrefutable documentation and that protected Avcanada from being harassed for what I said.
I am dismayed at how few of my colleagues in aviation understand the meaning of rule of law.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are having a bit of a "Meltdown" right now over at the AvCanada Air Canada forum.
It is not only the Air Canada forum that is affected, it is any forum where anyone has an opinion or thought that does not pass their thought police.
Maybe the Canadian forum here at Pprune will pick up some of Avcanadas rejects?