Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Many years ago there was a movie called " The greatest show on earth " it was about a group of circus people and in the movie was a train wreck that was so spectacular I have yet to see anything top it.

Until I started reading this stuff by you Air Canada guys.

[Left Coaster]

I encourage you to extend your thought process beyond your own immediate self-interest and instant gratification of moving up a number on the seniority list....

Wow...what a change in the industry that would be...Pilots (or CC or Engineers) actually giving a crap about the numbers below them...experience tells us that it's ALL about the seniority list...and where one sits on that list. How many lawsuits have there been proving the very fact that the higher on the list, the better...hence the current bun fight in Canada!

[777longhaul]

There is NO CURRENT IVR VOTE POLL showing that 80% of ALL ac pilots favor fighting the age 60 issue(s). THAT is a lie.

If you really believe that bs, from acpa, why dont you man up, and show us the certified results?

THE LAST IVR VOTE WAS IN 2006. LESS than 50% of the pilots voted to fight the issues. The age 60 IVR vote that was used in the current news release by acpa.

The vote was taken in 2006. Not 2010. The rules, were different then.

For those of you, who like to see that 80% of the pilots supported the mandatory retirement of 60. Do the math, less than 50% of the ac pilots supported the age 60 issue.

IVR # 72
May 8 2006

Certified, Audited results:

3083 eligible voters

1840 voted

1382 yes

0458 no

so only 1382 of 3082 voted yes. LESS than 1/2 the members voted to fight this. acpa is not, representing its members.

A new poll, which acpa would never do, would show even less yes votes.

The world has changed, and so should acpa,ac, and the individuals who only see the world in the rearview mirror.

If....acpa, wanted to, they could have another IVR vote, They dont want to, as they clearly know that less than 1/2 of the pilots wanted to fight this issue. And that was way back in 2006. All the rules have changed.

The special interest group(s) that are running acpa, and ran acpa in the past, are closed to any type of change, except the specific ones that they are after.

Have any of you seen a briefing from the Age 60 Committee in recent times?

Has acpa clearly told any of you what they think is going to happen?

[breguet]

You forgot there was a WAWCON that was completed recently (if ot mistaken) where pilots show what they want to be negotiated for the next contract. May be, it was there that the 80% came from.

As it is a way for the MEC to find out where the pilots put their priorities for negotiations, results of the WAWCON are not published.

[777longhaul]

The acpa mec posted their wawcon numbers. See acpa mec bulletin #27 on the acpa site, dated July 01 2010.

Your suggestion does not even suggest acpa has the correct data. Please...look at the numbers, of those who responed to the entire surrvey, and the total number of pilots who could have responded. This is to the entire survey, not just the age 60 issue(s).

This is from the acpa bulletin sent out to all the pilots.

MEC Newsletter #27
July 1, 2010

Fellow Pilots:
I will provide just a very brief report in this holiday week.
WAWCON
Thank you once again for providing your input through the WAWCON survey. The Wilson Center, which
conducted the survey and is in the process of analyzing the results, reports that a total of 1,880 pilots
completed the survey, for a participation rate of 58 per cent. This is a good turnout, as the Wilson Center has
been getting closer to 50 per cent participation in surveys of pilots at other companies. They also report that
the demographics of our sample are very good, with strong participation from all ranks and bases.
Once complete, the Wilson Center’s analysis will be reported through our WAWCON Committee and the
results will be used by our Negotiating Committee to create our bargaining strategy and priorities as we move

forward over the summer

end++++++++++++

It would serve all those who are opposed to the age 60 issue, to get real, honest information from acpa, and from their Age 60 Committee. When you get it, please, post it here, so we can all see the light of day.

Of the 58 percent who bothered to reply, only 80% of them were in favor of fighting the age 60 issue. So, 80% of 58% (of the total pilots) is the actual number, that expressed as personal desire to continue the fight, at the risk of loosing WAWCON gains, what a joke. This is less numbers, than the IVR vote in May of 2006. acpa, is screwing you over, and using your dues to do it with, does that not cause any of you to be concerned that you are not getting proper representation, and that the majority of the pilots do not want to trade bargining power, for the age 60 issue.

AC is doing exacatly what they planned, they have the pilots fighing each other, so that they will blow off contract gains, to get some pie in the sky result, that the laws of the land will shoot down very soon.

Over a decade of downhill sliding due to seniority fighting, pension fighing, and now the age 60 issue. Ever wonder why ac is so against the age 60 issue??? It will save them money if it was changed. They know they have lost, yet they spoon feed acpa and the pilots in general. What a loss for ALL the pilots.

[Itsaliving66]

I can tell you with certainty however that ACPA has not yet done a single realistic thing to minimize the impact.


How about taking it to the Federal Court. The best way to "minimize" it is to stop it...Now go ahead and chime in what a pounding you're going to deliver because it's "the law".
You should go back and read AC's response to V+K damage claims. Does that sound like a party that wants FP60 ? Do you think CR just fell of the turnip truck or what ? Me thinks he has spent a little more time lawyering than your counsel not to mention AC's firm. Go ahead and blame ACPA if it makes you feel better. If you truly are an active AC pilot why not just enjoy what you have man...sheesh.

[engfireleft]

How about taking it to the Federal Court. The best way to "minimize" it is to stop it...

Right, like I said: ACPA has not yet done a single realistic thing to minimize the impact.

ACPA has decided on their own to fight this change in apparent obliviousness to Canadian law and Canadian values on age based mandatory retirement. It defies explanation why they think Air Canada pilots live in isolation to the rest of the country according to their own standard. They continue to ignore the ruling last August as if they expect the whole country to slap their heads and come around to their way of thinking, discriminating against an increasing number of pilots making the situation worse every single month.

These are decisions made by the union. Who do you think should be held responsible?


August 28th.

Congratulations. For exactly one year ACPA has knowingly discriminated against every single one of their pilots who turned 60. We should all be proud.

[Rubberbiscuit]

"August 28th.

Congratulations. For exactly one year ACPA has knowingly discriminated against every single one of their pilots who turned 60. We should all be proud."

Are you suggesting that not a single pilot that retired in the last year from AC wanted to throw in the towel at 60? Are they all filing complaints against the CHRT?

[555orange]

Im not against higher retirement ages... but I personally don't believe this is discrimination, and I believe the CHRT is wrong to say it is. I believe there is a strong possibility that the surpeme court will rule against the CHRT. You guys say "its been decided". ..but really its not, not until the Supreme Court rules on it.


The thing is, freedom and order don't always agree. You have to have order and a system for the masses. Some may like it and some may not. That is the way it is. You cannot say retirement age for a group is dicrimination any more than you can say drinking at 18 is discrimination. You can't just say you can retire when you want or when the doc says you can't work anymore because obviously that would create chaos in a system designed to be fair and have order.

Since we are all staying healthier for longer, maybe there is a case to increase the retirement, but then the group as a whole would have to agree on it I think, and then the company would have to agree to it as well.

I have been told that because of my opinion, I "don't have adequate legal knowlege". Well I don't think you need to be a lawyer to see the logic here. I believe discrimination by definition is when one is treated different than the group for whatever reason. And thats not the case here. I don't believe the CHRT is considering all aspects of this issue specifically related to this group, and I believe the Supreme Court will flush that out.

[engfireleft]

Congratulations. For exactly one year ACPA has knowingly discriminated against every single one of their pilots who turned 60. We should all be proud."

Are you suggesting that not a single pilot that retired in the last year from AC wanted to throw in the towel at 60? Are they all filing complaints against the CHRT?

Not at all. I'm saying not a single one of them was asked, because their opinion on whether or not they wanted to retire does not matter to ACPA or Air Canada. They were forced from their job because of their age despite the ruling one year ago that doing so is discriminatory.

Most if not all of them have filed a complaint for that reason. If asked I'm sure most of them would have retired as planned...but they weren't asked.

[cloudcity]

Since we are all staying healthier for longer, maybe there is a case to increase the retirement, but then the group as a whole would have to agree on it I think, and then the company would have to agree to it as well.

You have the right to retire whenever you want and you do not have the right to decide when anybody else will retire? You've missed a huge amount of jurisprudence, past and present? V-K have already been offered reinstatement.

[OverUnder]

Originally Posted by 555orange

Well I don't think you need to be a lawyer to see the logic here. I believe discrimination by definition is when one is treated different than the group for whatever reason. And thats not the case here.

I don't think you have to be a lawyer to see the logic here, either. But you do need to understand the context of what affects you. You are dealing here not just with the collective agreement, but with the collective agreement in the context of the laws of Canada.

I don't think that you are correct in saying that discrimination, by definition, is when one is treated differently from the group. In fact, that was the problem that the federal court judge had with the mandatory retirement exemption under the Act. She opined that it didn't make any sense that although age discrimination is prohibited by the Act, it is OK to discriminate on the basis of age provided that you discriminate against everybody, and she suggested that the solution to that legislative failing lies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why she said the mandatory retirement exemption provision violates Section 15 of the Charter. That is why Vilven and Kelly are going back to work.

And just a reminder, it was the Federal Court, not the Tribunal, that made that determination.

Discrimination occurs when you base your decision on one of the enumerated prohibited grounds of discrimination that are specfied in the Act (of which "age" is one) as Air Canada and ACPA have done. Race, sex, and religion are other enumerated prohibited grounds of discrimination specified in the Act.

Nevertheless, the "group" in consideration here is not solely the "group" of Air Canada pilots. Otherwise the law would have no effect--any "group" could do whatever it pleases and avoid the intent of the law. Absent the mandatory retirement exemption applicable to "individuals doing similar work," the group in question is the set of employees in the federal jurisdiction.

Even if the exemption were valid, the "group" would still not be made up of only Air Canada pilots--it would be made up of all pilots in the "comparator group," which includes other airline pilots in Canada (and will be identified by the Tribunal in the pending Thwaites decision, the hearing of which finished in January).

The point simply is that Air Canada pilots are not exempt from the law that affects everyone else in the federal jurisdiction, as much as they continue to delude themselves into thinking that they are something special.

And again, it is appalling to me that the Association that has a duty to inform you about the law while spending your money to fight the law, has done nothing to dispel your misunderstandings of the law, choosing instead to lead you blindly into the future, spending huge amounts of your money in litigation, pandering to your lack of legal knowledge with patronizing phrases like, "defending the contract," and "we believe the allegations have no merit."

[555orange]

Hi Cloudcity. I don't want to decide when you want to retire, in fact I think that maybe we should change the rules. Im just saying that to me, it seems no one individually is forcing anyone to retire. There is a system in place that does that. To be fair to a group, there has to be a compromise of freedoms and order. So if we decided to go to 65, then eveyrone must retire at 65. If you decided even then you don't want too, then its not discrimination, thats just what the system was decided to be, by whoever is in oversight of that system, and hopefully through a vote of the members backed up by the company. You have a right to say its discrimination and disagree with it, but that doesn't make it so. How many measures in society do we have that are influenced by age? Lots. From drinking, driving, when you can start school, when you can start flying, etc etc etc. Its not discrimination. But to me thats not to say we don't look at it and adjust it from time to time. If retirement was age discrimination, then what would stop someone from saying the duty limits are discrimination from when you want to fly?

About the groups, I agree that I think Transport Canada being the oversight over the industry would establishing solid clear rules establishing a max age etc, but then the AC pilots and AC as a sub-group will decide what they will want COLLECTIVELY to do within that limitation for their own operation. But I don't think this can be grouped into a pilots across canada fighting age 60, or lets go even further...pilots worldwide.

Cheers guys.

[cloudcity]

Im just saying that to me, it seems no one individually is forcing anyone to retire. There is a system in place that does that.

That system is illegal? - read the decisions.

To be fair to a group, there has to be a compromise of freedoms and order. So if we decided to go to 65, then eveyrone must retire at 65.

You to decide that?

If you decided even then you don't want too, then its not discrimination, thats just what the system was decided to be, by whoever is in oversight of that system, and hopefully through a vote of the members backed up by the company.

You can't vote anybody to the back of the bus any more than you can vote a black guy to the back of the bus or a girl to the back of the bus or anybody for that matter.

You have a right to say its discrimination and disagree with it, but that doesn't make it so

That's correct, it's the law that says it's discrimination.

About the groups, I agree that I think Transport Canada being the oversight over the industry would establishing solid clear rules establishing a max age etc,

Correct again. There is no age limit at Transport Canada. They've already established that.

but then the AC pilots and AC as a sub-group will decide what they will want COLLECTIVELY to do within that limitation for their own operation.

Won't that will be decided by the Tribunal?

[CD]

It can be difficult to try and compare Canada to other states as our laws (current and future) are different from theirs. For example, in the US, there is an age limitation (which used to be 60 but was amended to become 65 in accordance with the ICAO SARPs). Their requirement doesn't specifically impose mandatory retirement but does restrict the kind of work that a pilot can perform once they turn 65 to conform with those ICAO SARPs.

Here is the present FAA limitation from 14 CFR 61.3(j):

(j) Age limitation for certain operations

(1) Age limitation. No person who holds a pilot certificate issued under this part may serve as a pilot on a civil airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has reached his or her 65th birthday:

(i) Scheduled international air services carrying passengers in turbojet-powered airplanes;

(ii) Scheduled international air services carrying passengers in airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than nine passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat;

(iii) Nonscheduled international air transportation for compensation or hire in airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 30 passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or

(iv) Scheduled international air services, or nonscheduled international air transportation for compensation or hire, in airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

(2) Age Pairing Requirement. No person who has attained the age of 60 but who has not attained the age of 65 may serve as a pilot in command in any of the operations described in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section unless there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

(3) Definitions.

(i) "International air service," as used in this paragraph (j), means scheduled air service performed in airplanes for the public transport of passengers, mail, or cargo, in which the service passes through the airspace over the territory of more than one country.

(ii) "International air transportation," as used in this paragraph (j), means air transportation performed in airplanes for the public transport of passengers, mail, or cargo, in which the service passes through the airspace over the territory of more than one country.

Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations

The thread "Age 70 for international pilots?" has more discussion on the global aspects up in Rumours and News.

[OverUnder]

Originally Posted by CD

It's a real hard uphill learning process for your association but they will no doubt push it right to the point where they're just stopped in their tracks by all the appropriate remedial measures that the legal system has at its disposal, at which point there will in all likeihood be one great big fit with a lot of flailing of arms and other appendages and then the dust will settle on the whole sordid mess.

My prediction is that when implications of losing the legal battle (on its several fronts) are ultimately spelled out to the pilots in the form of the final remedy imposed (reinstatement, cease and desist order, and monetary damages to almost 150 pilots) as well as other sanctions, not to mention the legal fees expended, the pilots will turn on their own Association the same way they have turned on their fellow pilots for asserting their legal rights, blaming their own elected and appointed representatives for the financial and legal disaster.

[engfireleft]

The union is of course responsible for what's coming along with every member who supported them because they either couldn't think this thing through properly on their own, or were content to let the union do their thinking for them. But the union has been constantly hammering the message they are only carrying out the wishes of the members, nevermind the fact the MEC decided to fight it before ever asking the members. So when the s**t hits the fan I think the union will point the finger right back at the members, and since nobody likes to think they are responsible they will continue to blame it on the same people they are now.

[MackTheKnife]

To highlight the importance of this subject, as of this morning this thread has had 44,723 hits on this site alone. If one could somehow add up the hits from all the other threads from all the Canadian based web sites over the years I would venture a wild guess that it is probably the hottest subject ever to hit the Aviation web.

Yet for some reason ACPA in their infinite wisdom,( or fear) felt the subject was only important enough to warrant a one liner type question in their latest Wawcon survey rather than have a separate vote /poll to truly gage the sentiment of the pilots.

What am I missing here?

Is the MEC really that far out to lunch ?

MTK

[cloudcity]

To highlight the importance of this subject, as of this morning this thread has had 44,723 hits on this site alone. If one could somehow add up the hits from all the other threads from all the Canadian based web sites over the years I would venture a wild guess that it is probably the hottest subject ever to hit the Aviation web.

It's because the rest of the planet dropped mandatory retirement age eons ago. Jazz in 2002, WestJet and the rest?

[OverUnder]

There likely would have been far more than 44,723 hits by now, had they not punted the only protagonist who was able to provide accurate, timely information about the substance of the ongoing legal proceedings.