Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Don't worry, this ship is unsinkable."
Passengers aboard the RMS Titanic - April 14th, 1912
"This overwhelming support certainly strengthens our hand in the ongoing legal battle to protect our negotiated age of retirement and pension. Once all the legal proceedings have run their course, we believe our position will be upheld."
ACPA - 2009-2010
The water is lapping at our heels yet ACPA still spouts the same tripe despite losses already incurred and the glaringly obvious manner that mandatory age based retirement is regarded by Canadian society and our legal system. Amazingly many of our members are still willing to believe them.
Passengers aboard the RMS Titanic - April 14th, 1912
"This overwhelming support certainly strengthens our hand in the ongoing legal battle to protect our negotiated age of retirement and pension. Once all the legal proceedings have run their course, we believe our position will be upheld."
ACPA - 2009-2010
The water is lapping at our heels yet ACPA still spouts the same tripe despite losses already incurred and the glaringly obvious manner that mandatory age based retirement is regarded by Canadian society and our legal system. Amazingly many of our members are still willing to believe them.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many reasons a/all/some pilots want/need/desire to go past 60. This is one, of the many reasons, that ALL pilots want to be aware of.
This age 60 issue, could really bite you in the ass, if there are further/continuing losses in the world economy. Have a good look at both the pilot plans, (ac/cai) they are holding but just. Consider, that a very large portion of YOUR pension, comes from company everyday revenue. It is not set aside, so a pilot WANTS to be able, to have the option, of working longer if she/he decides to. It is just common sense.
Pension plan release statement for JAN 2010.
To illustrate the significant impact of these economic factors on pension plans:
��
A 1% increase in our pension plan assets means our solvency deficit decreases by $100 million.
��
If the long-term interest rate used to calculate pension plan liabilities increases by 0.25%, our solvency deficit decreases by $340 million.
��
Conversely, if that same interest rate decreases by 0.25%, our solvency deficit increases by $340 million.
Highlights of the January 1, 2010 Valuations
On June 30, 2010, Air Canada filed its actuarial valuations as at January 1, 2010 with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for all its defined benefit Canadian registered pension plans. These valuations determine the financial position of the plans at January 1, 2010 and the company’s 2010 contributions. The final results of the valuations summarized below are in line with previous estimates disclosed in the company’s financial reports and other various company communications.
2 On June 30, 2010, Air Canada filed its actuarial valuations as at January 1, 2010 with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for all its defined benefit Canadian registered pension plans. These valuations determine the financial position of the plans at January 1, 2010 and the company’s 2010 contributions. The final results of the valuations summarized below are in line with previous estimates disclosed in the company’s financial reports and other various company communications.
1) Solvency Basis
The results, on a solvency basis (which assumes the plan’s termination) for all pension plans can be summarized as follows:
The results, on a solvency basis (which assumes the plan’s termination) for all pension plans can be summarized as follows:
Jan.1,2010
Jan.1,2009
Jan.1,2008
Jan.1,2008
Jan.1,2007
Jan.1,2006
Jan.1,2005
Jan.1,2006
Jan.1,2005
Assets
$10,053M
$9,228M
$10,961M
$11,360M
$10,092M
$9,118M
$9,228M
$10,961M
$11,360M
$10,092M
$9,118M
Liabilities
$12,781M
$12,063M
$12,129M
$11,902M
$11,747M
$10,534M
$12,063M
$12,129M
$11,902M
$11,747M
$10,534M
Deficit
$2,728M
$2,835M
$1,168M
$542M
$1,655M
$1,416M
$2,835M
$1,168M
$542M
$1,655M
$1,416M
Solvency ratio (assets/liabilities)
78.7%
76.5%
90.4%
95.4%
85.9%
86.6%
76.5%
90.4%
95.4%
85.9%
86.6%
Valuation interest rate
4.5%
4.85%
4.5%
4.6%
4.5%
5.25%
4.85%
4.5%
4.6%
4.5%
5.25%
Rate of return on assets in year
12.6%
-15.3%
-0.5%
13.6%
13.8%
9.8%
-15.3%
-0.5%
13.6%
13.8%
9.8%
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
This entire information can be found on Aeronet under Pensions.
This is for the ac pension plans, all 10 of them.
The solvency ratio varies by plan. The following table compares the solvency results of the January 1, 2010 valuation with the January 1, 2009 results for all plans:
This entire information can be found on Aeronet under Pensions.
This is for the ac pension plans, all 10 of them.
A solvency ratio lower than 100% (78.7% as of January 1, 2010) means that if the plans terminated on that date the assets would not have been sufficient to cover the full value of the benefits promised to plan members.
The solvency ratio varies by plan. The following table compares the solvency results of the January 1, 2010 valuation with the January 1, 2009 results for all plans:
At January 1, 2010
At January 1, 2009
Plan
Solvency Ratio
Solvency Surplus (Deficit) ($M)
Solvency Ratio
Solvency Surplus (Deficit) ($M)
Solvency Surplus (Deficit) ($M)
Solvency Ratio
Solvency Surplus (Deficit) ($M)
Main
78%
$(1,473)
76%
$(1,536)
$(1,473)
76%
$(1,536)
Pilots
80%
$(419)
78%
$(437)
$(419)
78%
$(437)
Executives
74%
$(12)
74%
$(12)
$(12)
74%
$(12)
CAIL IAMAW
78%
$(214)
75%
$(224)
$(214)
75%
$(224)
CAIL CUPE
77%
$(146)
74%
$(152)
$(146)
74%
$(152)
CAIL CAW
76%
$(140)
74%
$(144)
$(140)
74%
$(144)
CAIL CALDA
75%
$(5)
76%
$(5)
$(5)
76%
$(5)
CAIL Pilots
78%
$(283)
76%
$(290)
$(283)
76%
$(290)
CAIL Management
89%
$(35)
89%
$(34)
$(35)
89%
$(34)
CAIL Executives
94%
$(0.6)
96%
$(0.4)
$(0.6)
96%
$(0.4)
Total
79%
$(2,728)
76%
$(2,835)
$(2,728)
76%
$(2,835)
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: CYYZ
Age: 78
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recently there have been decisions affecting the case law regarding mandatory retirement under the Canada Labour Code. Some interesting reading is:
· from a search of the Federal Court & the Federal Court of AppealVilven v. Air Canada 2009 FC 367 Date: April 9, 2009 http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc367/2009fc367.html]
·from a search of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; 8/28/2009 Vilven v. Air Canada HTML PDF
·from a third source; 2009-09-25 CKY-TV v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 816, 2009 MBQB 252 (CanLII)
· from a search of the Federal Court & the Federal Court of AppealVilven v. Air Canada 2009 FC 367 Date: April 9, 2009 http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc367/2009fc367.html]
·from a search of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; 8/28/2009 Vilven v. Air Canada HTML PDF
·from a third source; 2009-09-25 CKY-TV v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 816, 2009 MBQB 252 (CanLII)
Last edited by R.Barry; 5th Sep 2010 at 19:15. Reason: clean fonts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the vast majority of AC pilots believe that the health of the pension plan is important but it would appear that the MEC does not share that concern.
IMO, in their effort [MEC] to make the continuation of flying so unattractive past 60, one would no longer contribute to the pension plan but in actual fact, would start receiving his pension along with a top up from the company to equal what one would have made if he was under the age of 60.
Interesting for a couple of reasons: First, AC stated at the Tribunal that it would be inconceivable that it would allow a pilot to collect their pension and still fly for the company. Secondly, ACPA's internal documentation showed that it would be beneficial to the pension plan if pilots worked past 60 and continued to contribute to the plan....Imagine that.
This would not be good for the plan and I find it hard to believe that the majority of pilots would view this as an acceptable solution to addressing the option of allowing pilots to fly past 60.
IMO, in their effort [MEC] to make the continuation of flying so unattractive past 60, one would no longer contribute to the pension plan but in actual fact, would start receiving his pension along with a top up from the company to equal what one would have made if he was under the age of 60.
Interesting for a couple of reasons: First, AC stated at the Tribunal that it would be inconceivable that it would allow a pilot to collect their pension and still fly for the company. Secondly, ACPA's internal documentation showed that it would be beneficial to the pension plan if pilots worked past 60 and continued to contribute to the plan....Imagine that.
This would not be good for the plan and I find it hard to believe that the majority of pilots would view this as an acceptable solution to addressing the option of allowing pilots to fly past 60.
Last edited by rick3333331; 1st Sep 2010 at 16:01.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“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 vote counts for exactly jack in the legal system.”
Hi Cloudcity.
I like your analogy about the bus, however I think your particular take on it is incorrect.
First off, I would like to say that I believe in a democracy, votes DO count. It just depends what your voting on right? We vote on a lot of stuff don’t we? However, obviouly there are certain restrictions to voting. And age apparently is one restriction, but NOT in all cases. So yes, you could vote a certain group to the back of the bus, depending on the situation.
BUT… you still have to get on and off the bus at certain places. This would be a more accurate analogy. The Bus company has a route, and when that route is terminated, even though the bus drives on, you have to get off, and that is NOT discrimination. Maybe the route is incorrect, or maybe it can be extended, but that will not be one passenger’s decision alone for obvious reasons.
Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore.
Hi Cloudcity.
I like your analogy about the bus, however I think your particular take on it is incorrect.
First off, I would like to say that I believe in a democracy, votes DO count. It just depends what your voting on right? We vote on a lot of stuff don’t we? However, obviouly there are certain restrictions to voting. And age apparently is one restriction, but NOT in all cases. So yes, you could vote a certain group to the back of the bus, depending on the situation.
BUT… you still have to get on and off the bus at certain places. This would be a more accurate analogy. The Bus company has a route, and when that route is terminated, even though the bus drives on, you have to get off, and that is NOT discrimination. Maybe the route is incorrect, or maybe it can be extended, but that will not be one passenger’s decision alone for obvious reasons.
Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 555orange
Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore.
Don't you know that a few weeks ago Air Canada made a written offer of reinstatement of employment to George Vilven? Don't you also know that yesterday was his 67th birthday? Did you know that that offer of reinstatement makes no mention whatsoever of any eventual required date of termination of employment based on age?
Don't you know that Air Canada currently terminates the employment of every employee in the company, other than pilots, at age 65? So that when the wording is finalized on the either his return to work agreement or the Tribunal order reinstating him, he will be the oldest employee at Air Canada, with no requirement to stop flying at any specific date?
Last edited by OverUnder; 1st Sep 2010 at 23:53.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, I would like to say that I believe in a democracy, votes DO count. It just depends what your voting on right? We vote on a lot of stuff don’t we? However, obviouly there are certain restrictions to voting. And age apparently is one restriction, but NOT in all cases. So yes, you could vote a certain group to the back of the bus, depending on the situation.
BUT… you still have to get on and off the bus at certain places. This would be a more accurate analogy. The Bus company has a route, and when that route is terminated, even though the bus drives on, you have to get off, and that is NOT discrimination. Maybe the route is incorrect, or maybe it can be extended, but that will not be one passenger’s decision alone for obvious reasons.
Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore
BUT… you still have to get on and off the bus at certain places. This would be a more accurate analogy. The Bus company has a route, and when that route is terminated, even though the bus drives on, you have to get off, and that is NOT discrimination. Maybe the route is incorrect, or maybe it can be extended, but that will not be one passenger’s decision alone for obvious reasons.
Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore
It is shocking how woefully uninformed many of our pilots are. It is to a large extend because our union has deliberately kept the information from the membership, but that doesn't excuse individual pilots from digging for the information themselves. I did it, so can anybody else.
Very early on in the process of educating myself on this issue I realized that the union's attempts to stop the elimination of mandatory retirement would fail. From the outset their attempts to stop it have been a collossal, pointless squandering of money and pilot solidarity. Every day I've watched them not doing what they should have been doing all along, and will end up doing eventually anyway, and that's finding a way to implement this with the minimum negative impact on those still wishing to retire at 60.
Through their silence the MEC has allowed to thrive the ridiculous opinions out there that everyone will have to work past 60, and that everyone's career will stagnate for years. Whether through true ignorance of the law or the overwhelming influence of hate and spite, the MEC has at every turn attempted to punish those that dare to stay beyond 60 and perpetuate age discrimination through other means.
Our tolerance and outright support of this as a pilot group makes us all look very bad.
Good Evening Over Under:
In one of Ray767's posts (since banned by PPRUNE moderators) which sadly has been deleted he used the term "over under" in his narrative.
Your personal profile at that time for your first posts just showed your age as being 28 and now it shows you reside on the "left coast".
You have a writing style that is well beyond your chronological age which suggests a very extensive legal background. Can you tell us a little more about your background? Are you a lawyer? Are you a pilot?
I really hope that this is not RAY767 using this as a back door approach so he use PPRUNE as his personal soap box on this subject.
Personally I would have hoped that the moderators would have melted silver into bullets shot this beast and driven a wooden stake through its heart.
Mid November will come soon enough so everyone take a deep breath and wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
If one reads some of the posts it paints the profesional airline pilot in Canada in poor light.
In one of Ray767's posts (since banned by PPRUNE moderators) which sadly has been deleted he used the term "over under" in his narrative.
Your personal profile at that time for your first posts just showed your age as being 28 and now it shows you reside on the "left coast".
You have a writing style that is well beyond your chronological age which suggests a very extensive legal background. Can you tell us a little more about your background? Are you a lawyer? Are you a pilot?
I really hope that this is not RAY767 using this as a back door approach so he use PPRUNE as his personal soap box on this subject.
Personally I would have hoped that the moderators would have melted silver into bullets shot this beast and driven a wooden stake through its heart.
Mid November will come soon enough so everyone take a deep breath and wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
If one reads some of the posts it paints the profesional airline pilot in Canada in poor light.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it does..................You should actually do some research on what the SCC has to say on this issue.....In the early 1990's, two CP pilots took their complaint all the way to the SCC...One of the interesting facts was that although their MEC did not agree with extending the retirement age of their pilots...they decided to let the Court make the judgement call......as did the pilots association of Qantas and Air New Zealand. Of course, not our MEC.
The two CP pilots lost their complaint. In a number of ways their complaint was quite different from ours but it had many common arguments..........Sorry but you will have to do the reading of the case to understand the nuances. Their union's[CALPA stood down] position was quite different when comparing their position with ours. In this case there were two dissenting opinions. Now for the possible bad news for you.....the dissenting opinion was written by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada....The Right Honorable Beverly McLachlin.
Now for a personal point of view.........In all my research, i have found that although the vast majority of the pilots unions throughout the western world did not agree with extending the age of retirement .....none were litigious. The Jazz pilots actually were very proactive.
The two CP pilots lost their complaint. In a number of ways their complaint was quite different from ours but it had many common arguments..........Sorry but you will have to do the reading of the case to understand the nuances. Their union's[CALPA stood down] position was quite different when comparing their position with ours. In this case there were two dissenting opinions. Now for the possible bad news for you.....the dissenting opinion was written by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada....The Right Honorable Beverly McLachlin.
Now for a personal point of view.........In all my research, i have found that although the vast majority of the pilots unions throughout the western world did not agree with extending the age of retirement .....none were litigious. The Jazz pilots actually were very proactive.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a330pilotcanada says ...
I really hope that this is not RAY767 using this as a back door approach so he use PPRuNe as his personal soap box on this subject.
I really hope that this is not RAY767 using this as a back door approach so he use PPRuNe as his personal soap box on this subject.
a330pilotcanada says ...
Mid November will come soon enough so everyone take a deep breath and wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Mid November will come soon enough so everyone take a deep breath and wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys.
I am informed. I am simply stating that its not over until november, and I don't believe that the court will deem this case discrimination as the tribunal did. Its my opinion...
I am aware of Vilven and Kelly, I was suprised about it, but I think its political. To placate the issue until the decision is finally made. Then a framework to move forward can be made.
Im open minded about increasing the retirement age. Im just asking some of the hard questions that none of you can seemingly answer. Like what the difference between discrimination at 60 as opposed to 65? And what about the obvious problem about letting a guy fly until the doctor says no? No 2 doctors are the same. Etc Etc. As I said already, if this happens the way you guys say it will, it will be chaos...and all you guys seem to come up with is that..."thats not our problem". Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me, nor do I believe it will with the rest of the country. Those problems need to be addressed.
I am informed. I am simply stating that its not over until november, and I don't believe that the court will deem this case discrimination as the tribunal did. Its my opinion...
I am aware of Vilven and Kelly, I was suprised about it, but I think its political. To placate the issue until the decision is finally made. Then a framework to move forward can be made.
Im open minded about increasing the retirement age. Im just asking some of the hard questions that none of you can seemingly answer. Like what the difference between discrimination at 60 as opposed to 65? And what about the obvious problem about letting a guy fly until the doctor says no? No 2 doctors are the same. Etc Etc. As I said already, if this happens the way you guys say it will, it will be chaos...and all you guys seem to come up with is that..."thats not our problem". Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me, nor do I believe it will with the rest of the country. Those problems need to be addressed.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captains, can fly upto 65 years of age is an ICAO rule, as agreed to by over 800 airlines.
After 65, it is agreed that you can fly as a non Captain. A pilot, would be in the status of: F/O, S/O, relief pilot, cruise pilot, what ever each company wants to define it as. You seem unsure of this ICAO rule, which, if you were an active airline pilot, versed in this issue, you would answer your own question.
After 65, it is agreed that you can fly as a non Captain. A pilot, would be in the status of: F/O, S/O, relief pilot, cruise pilot, what ever each company wants to define it as. You seem unsure of this ICAO rule, which, if you were an active airline pilot, versed in this issue, you would answer your own question.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi 777. I am well versed in this issue. And I am well aware of what the ICAO "LIMIT" is. And its just that... the upper limit.
So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?
Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.
Cheers.
So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?
Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.
Cheers.
Last edited by 555orange; 2nd Sep 2010 at 10:34.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?
Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.
Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.
For your own clarification, the CHRT views any arbitrary age based mandatory retirement as discriminatory. ICAO and many countries have set 65 as the upper limit to be a Captain which is not the same thing, and the CHRT has no jurisdiction over ICAO or any of the signature countries except Canada anyway.
The CHRT will agree to a set age of retirement if the argument can be successfully made for a Bonafide Operational Requirement (BFOR). ACPA tried that with age 60 and failed miserably (and completely predictably) because of what the rest of the world outside of Air Canada is doing. As I've said many times before, when they finally pull their head out of their ass ACPA and Air Canada will get around to doing the same thing with age 65 standing a much better chance of success in my opinion.
Last edited by engfireleft; 2nd Sep 2010 at 14:23.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi 777. I am well versed in this issue. And I am well aware of what the ICAO "LIMIT" is. And its just that... the upper limit.
So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?
Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.
So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?
Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.
Vilven and Kelly are both over 65 now and have been offered employment at Air Canada. The ICAO rule does not mean pilots over 65 must retire. Pilots over 65 can still fly but not as Captains. The ICAO age 65 limit only applies to Captains. F/O's can be over 65 as long as the "over/under" rule is met. Even so, Canadian Human Rights actually have very little to do with ICAO or any other foreign body.
The CRHT can force Air Canada to raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 if it decides that 65 is the "Normal" retirement age in Canada. But they seemed to have gone one step farther to say that there will be NO max retirement age in Canada. (just as TC says there is no max age to hold an ATPL in Canada) If Air Canada only operated flights to other countries that have no max age, there would be no need at all for the ICAO rule.
The ICAO rule is just an arbitrary age rule designed to placate to certain countries which have it as law that the pilot-in-command can not fly over age 60. The "over/under" rule forces these countries to allow over 60 pilots into their airspace. Countries that have an age 65 law, like to USA, the ICAO rule allows pilots over 65 to operate, but not as Captains.
Standby for further changes because there are already some who want ICAO to raise to age from 65 to 70: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...al-pilots.html
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Post of the Month goes to EngineFire Left:
" Through their silence the MEC has allowed to thrive the ridiculous opinions out there that everyone will have to work past 60, and that everyone's career will stagnate for years. Whether through true ignorance of the law or the overwhelming influence of hate and spite, the MEC has at every turn attempted to punish those that dare to stay beyond 60 and perpetuate age discrimination through other means."
" Through their silence the MEC has allowed to thrive the ridiculous opinions out there that everyone will have to work past 60, and that everyone's career will stagnate for years. Whether through true ignorance of the law or the overwhelming influence of hate and spite, the MEC has at every turn attempted to punish those that dare to stay beyond 60 and perpetuate age discrimination through other means."
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im open minded about increasing the retirement age. Im just asking some of the hard questions that none of you can seemingly answer. Like what the difference between discrimination at 60 as opposed to 65? And what about the obvious problem about letting a guy fly until the doctor says no? No 2 doctors are the same.
In addition to that get on down to Transport Canada and ask them about it. They and everybody else already go past 60 unlimited in this country since way back when.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:54.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: CYYZ
Age: 78
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were a few comments earlier re ICAO "rules":
Age limit for flight crew
The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft, subject to conditions. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
In accordance with Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the amendment means that if a pilot-in-command (PIC) is 60 years of age or over but less than 65 years of age and is engaged in operations with more than one pilot, he/she cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating in airports or the airspace of any ICAO Contracting State as long as at least one other pilot is under 60 years of age. For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years. A State may impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in § 2.1.10.1 for the licenses it issues but it cannot prevent, by reason of age, an aircraft from another State operated by a PIC holding a licence issued or validated by that State, who is below the ICAO upper age limit, from operating in the airspace above its territory.
Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated. Those seeking information concerning States that may authorize pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 65 years are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities
3) Augmented crews
In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of § 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.
4) Medical Assessment
When over 60, a six-monthly medical assessment is necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical assessment for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations
Links to Civil Aviation Authorities
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
http://www.icao.int/icaonet/anx/info/annexes_booklet_en.pdf
Table of Contents of Annex 1
To meet these requirements,
Annex 1 specifies
Standards and Recommended Practices covering medical fitness , knowledge,
Age limit for flight crew
The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft, subject to conditions. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:
2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.
2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.
In accordance with Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the amendment means that if a pilot-in-command (PIC) is 60 years of age or over but less than 65 years of age and is engaged in operations with more than one pilot, he/she cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating in airports or the airspace of any ICAO Contracting State as long as at least one other pilot is under 60 years of age. For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years. A State may impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in § 2.1.10.1 for the licenses it issues but it cannot prevent, by reason of age, an aircraft from another State operated by a PIC holding a licence issued or validated by that State, who is below the ICAO upper age limit, from operating in the airspace above its territory.
Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated. Those seeking information concerning States that may authorize pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 65 years are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities
3) Augmented crews
In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of § 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.
4) Medical Assessment
When over 60, a six-monthly medical assessment is necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical assessment for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations
Links to Civil Aviation Authorities
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
http://www.icao.int/icaonet/anx/info/annexes_booklet_en.pdf
Table of Contents of Annex 1
To meet these requirements,
Annex 1 specifies
Standards and Recommended Practices covering medical fitness , knowledge,
Last edited by R.Barry; 5th Sep 2010 at 23:08. Reason: clean up fonts
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the point..............!
3) Augmented crews
In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of § 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.
One should realize that ICAO did not change the rules to accommodate pilots but did this to make the system work....The over 60/under 60 rule in the FAQ is the legal interpretation as to how this rules will be applied...notice the wording....."suggested"....As one large international airline stated after the legal interpretation of the over/under rules.............Interesting
!!! All the world's major airlines have been doing this since 2006.........And the system has not collapsed but don't let the facts get in the way......Have a nice weekend.
3) Augmented crews
In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of § 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.
One should realize that ICAO did not change the rules to accommodate pilots but did this to make the system work....The over 60/under 60 rule in the FAQ is the legal interpretation as to how this rules will be applied...notice the wording....."suggested"....As one large international airline stated after the legal interpretation of the over/under rules.............Interesting
!!! All the world's major airlines have been doing this since 2006.........And the system has not collapsed but don't let the facts get in the way......Have a nice weekend.
Last edited by rick3333331; 6th Sep 2010 at 15:57.