Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End

[clunckdriver]

So, over under, what effect on the viability of AC do you think such cash awards would have on the future of AC? Not to mention the pensions of those already retired! If the airline simply closes up shop, or morphes into another company, {Have you by chance noticed what Jaz will be flying soon?} then it will I fear be a rather hollow victory for the "Fly till you die" group. Im not on any side here, just be carefull what you wish for, lest you get it all.

[Idle Thrust]

You got it Clunk - it's nothing but a cash-grab. And if it bankrupts the company?
Puts a whole new meaning on the ME TOO generation.

[OverUnder]

Originally Posted by clunckdriver

[W]hat effect on the viability of AC do you think such cash awards would have on the future of AC?

Compared to the fuel hedge fiasco of a couple of years ago, these damage awards will be a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Some mitigating factors: first, Air Canada has taken the position that ACPA is jointly liable. 50/50.

Second, some of those who will be entitled to return will have significantly mitigated their potential damages. Indeed, some are making more money, so their wage damage award will be zero. The special compensation awards will remain intact, but may vary, depending of the facts of the pilot cases, versus the CNR cases.

Third, Air Canada's own evidence before the Tribunal is that it saves $40,000 per pilot in immediate cash flow outlay for every course delayed one year. At 10 courses triggered for each pilot electing to delay retirement one year, that is almost a half million dollars in reduced negative cash flow, per pilot, times X pilots per year. Assume that as many as 20 of the 125 or so eligible to retire at age 60 elect to stay, that translates to approximately $9 million in immediate cash flow savings.

[OverUnder]

Originally Posted by Idle Thrust

[I]t's nothing but a cash-grab. And if it bankrupts the company?

Stop and ask yourself, why the damages? Air Canada itself stated at the hearings that after August, 2009, it was on the hook for over $10,000 per month, per pilot complainant, for not ending its policy that was ruled illegal.

So, before you start with the doomsday scenarios, blaming only those who would have preferred to remain employed, causing no damages whatsoever, ask yourself who is responsible for an admitted illegal action that was, at least for the last year, flagrant and consciously committed by a legally savvy employer.

One of the reasons that damages are awarded is to put the persons back into the position that they would have been, had they not been subjected to the illegal action. But another, very valid purpose, is to send a clear message to the offending party that if you don't stop violating the law, you will be held accountable in damages. That is an impact that Air Canada has obviously considered, then discarded, deciding to take the hit, for reasons that only it knows.

[clunckdriver]

Over under, my wife and I ran what was most likely the most stable/profitable outfit in GA in Canada, sold to customers and staff, let me explain the only system that works, each week you take in more penies than you put out, all else in nonsense! You can project all the saving you want under any system you want, if you get hit with coins going the wrong way you are done! Simplistic? you bet! but it worked. I think such complex financial discusions should be left to Wall Street, niether they or most pilots have a record of being financial wizards.{ Of to see the bean counters today, might even get the Pulitzer prize for fiction!}

[OverUnder]

Originally Posted by clunkdriver

let me explain the only system that works, each week you take in more penies than you put out, all else in nonsense!

Maybe you were in the fortunate position of being able to make your capital purchases (aircraft) for cash, and not having to spread your decision making out over several business quarters. Air Canada is obviously not able to do that, and it needs to work with a budget that meets projected cash inflows with projected cash outflows. Same principle, longer time frame.

The projected cash outflow of taking 10 pilots out of productivity, in sequence, for over two months each, to retrain them, is not something that is foreign to this airline. It has been doing it for 60 years, and can predict with a high degree of accuracy, the cash flow impact resulting for the next four business quarters from a simple strategic change, such as not forcing removal of pilots who are happy to stay.

[engfireleft]

This is nothing for Air Canada. How much did they pay for the nice blue paint job and to have Celine Dion sing a song during CCAA? Air Canada can't really afford it, but they blow millions anyway for worse things than this. And it wasn't that long ago they felt flush enough to give $2 BILLION dollars in cash away. This is a fart in a hurricane.

But the company may actually see this as an investment because ACPA definitely cannot afford it. ACPA is not a public company already billions in debt, and we have limited means of raising money. Plus look at the division this has caused in our membership. I can't really see a downside in this for the company no matter what it costs them.

I think Air Canada played ACPA like a Stradivari violin on this issue.

[cloudcity]

I think Air Canada played ACPA like a Stradivari violin on this issue.

The concept of individual rights, set the stage for this because the legal system is designed to protect individual rights, and it does that very well.

[clunckdriver]

Over under, no we didnt have the cash to buy six brand new aircraft, but we did pay for them in five years, if you visit a certain aircraft factory and drop our name you may not pay for lunch! I find the most interesting aspect of this thread is tracking the IP location/addresses of various posters, seems we have a few split personalities here, what say you Over Under? {There is no such thing as a secure internet by the way}

[bunkhog]

Understated


Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 3


Quote:
Originally Posted by bunkhog
You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.

You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he wanted it all NOW!




Nope. I'll pay my dues. But when all of a sudden guys start saying they want to stay around into their 80's...I gotta start wondering how long I will pay dues!

Some of these poor bastards had to be oilers for 8 years. Imagine. If the Captains of the day had decided THEY wanted to stay for life...with no chance of parole...these poor guys would have been oilers for DECADES. Imagine that! They got hired with 212 hours and had to be oilers. Oh, the humanity!

So, fast forward a couple of decades, and AC is hiring 37/39/42 year olds with 9000/11000/14000 hours on the prospect that their previous oilers /now 777 Captains are winking at 60...the AGREED upon age of retirement by the majority as ratified in decades of contracts.

Well...the injustice of having to retire at retirement age. Who the heck do these young greed bastards think they are knipping at my heels, they say. I paid my dues and even though I am only in the left seat of a large Boeing product because the guys that taught me the job and tried to foster some sort of professionalism are all dead and gone now...I'm gonna fire up a law suit to stay put, they say.

So now I am a greedy self centred guy for wanting what all those bed-****ters that are trying to stay here forever got because of those that followed the contract.

That's TOO friggin rich!

[MackTheKnife]

Bunkhog wrote:

"So now I am a greedy self centred guy for wanting what all those bed-****ters that are trying to stay here forever got."

Did you forget your daily dose of Ritalin ?? Did you not read the precautions on the prescription ? "Do not stop taking this medication without consulting your doctor."

In todays world, an individual's retirement decision is complex, with many interrelated determinants, including health, family considerations, employment options, pension eligibility, health insurance, status and personal preferences .

The present system of "forcing" an individual to abandon their life long goals just because, "thats the way it's always been" belongs in the 60's which it appears where your mindset is stuck in. Around the globe, the concept of Mandatory retirement and retirement ages in general are evolving to a more progressive transition.

It's comforting to know that cooler educated minds will decide this issue instead of the nescient.

MTK

[YYZBeacher]

There's two sides to this story like every other and if 60 is the new 40 then we are all completely screwed whether in aviation or not!

Just as a matter of interest, if there are any Speedbird, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM drivers out there reading this can you give us interested Canucks a sense of your mandatory retirement age from the line (if any) and the time of entry - at say - 25 - as a junior F/O on a junior fleet to command on Short Haul and then Long Haul, if indeed it works that way at your outfit?

I've heard many comments from SLFs on the likes of the 856 or 880 etc. heading over the pond that being served by grannies in bi-focals is not the image the national carrier of Canada should be portraying - and to SOME extent before the flamers come - they have a point. But no matter the age, if good service is offered and safety isn't compromised, why would it be such a big issue? Mind you, most of them wouldn't fit in a Virgin Atlantic red uniform anyway

[MackTheKnife]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

This entire CHRT legal process is becoming a joke.

[777longhaul]

other forum

for those that are interested in facts:

Raymond is posting again, on the other forum.

[cloudcity]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

There's likely a valid reason for the delay. It appears that just about every important Canadian government agency is hard into the case including the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Attorney General's Office, the Federal Court of Canada, etc., etc.

[sleeper]

Just as a matter of interest, if there are any Speedbird, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM drivers out there reading this can you give us interested Canucks a sense of your mandatory retirement age from the line (if any) and the time of entry - at say - 25 - as a junior F/O on a junior fleet to command on Short Haul and then Long Haul, if indeed it works that way at your outfit?

For KLM:

For a full time contract, retirement age is 56 mandatory. This can be stretched to 60 if you start working 80% or 67% (both with equivalently reduced pay) at a certain time before 56.
Time to command varies greatly with the economic situation of the moment. I joined in booming times and made captain 737 after 6 years. Nowadays that takes more than 10 years.

[777longhaul]

Time to command

Well, have a look at Cathay. All seats, all types.

Have a look at their retirement age, it went up, and what they had to do to get it to go there.

[Vic777]

for those that are interested in facts:

Raymond is posting again, on the other forum.

Come on 777longhaul, tell me where ... what is the forum URL?

I want to know the facts!

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by Vic777

Come on 777longhaul, tell me where ... what is the forum URL?

I want to know the facts!

AVCANADA • View topic - CUPE (AC) Supports Those Opposing Mandatory Retirement

[Vic777]

Lost in Saigon ... thanks ... it's nice to be able to hear from an honest source ...