Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End

[engfireleft]

I'm not in that group, yet I can see the benefits. How is that possible? By what data do you confidently predict an individuals best five years will not still occur before they are 60 under the new conditions, and still be able to retire with the same benefit? It's just a bad guess that fits nicely into preconcieved and poorly considered opinions. Nobody knows for sure until it happens.

Besides, it's irrelevant to the current conditions. The ruling has been made and we will at some point have to get down to the business of complying with it. The longer that takes the worse off the pilot group will be.

The union has been studiously avoiding any mention of the current state of affairs or the inevitable conclusion now only a few weeks away. When the penny does drop who are we going to blame? The agents of inevitable change? The organization who fought the useless fight and refused to tell the truth to the membership? Or will it be ourselves for living in such selfish and short-sighted denial?

Whatever the answer is, it will have no bearing on the CHRT ruling or the direction we will have to go in the near future. It will only effect our attitudes.

[Raymond767]

J.O.:

If this case were truly and legitimately about age discrimination instead of just a cash grab, there would have been many more than two people signing up to take on this fight. Of that you can be sure.

In fact, there are almost 150 Air Canada pilots who have filed complaints with the Commission, since 2006, with about five new complaints being filed every month.

No one is arguing the fact that Canadian law prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. What is being argued is:

1. whether the tribunal should be allowed to throw out a mutually agreed and collectively bargained working condition;

The Tribunal not only has the jurisdiction but the duty to do so, when the provision offends the law, as it does. In fact, it has already ruled that the provision violates the Act. The Chairman stated that the pilots will be reinstated. A good portion of the hearing this week dealt with the terms of that reinstatement. Neither the airline nor the Association opposed the reinstatement.

1. the fact that these retirees frequently benefited from the mutually agreed retirement age when it came to progression up the seniority list and the requisite benefits that came with;

Please read my post above regarding the impact of changes in the law;

1. neither of these gentlemen faced discrimination on the basis of age when they were hired by Air Canada, nor when they were moving up the seniority ladder as their elders retired;

Absolutely not correct, in this case. First Officer Vilven received a letter from the Chairman of the Pilot Selection Board at Air Canada in 1974 stating that he was too old to be hired, and that he should therefore consider other options. He was hired 12 years later, after some other pilots took their case of age discrimination to the Tribunal, forcing Air Canada to abandon is maximum age of hiring restriction.

1. neither of these gentlemen has suggested that those who went before them at 60 were discriminated against and that those individuals who retired after the adoption of the Human Rights Act should therefore receive compensation prior to seeing anything themselves;

The statute governs this, as well. Under its provisions, one cannot file a complaint until one’s rights are violated. Protesting would have had no impact. The fact that these were the first two pilots to file complaints should not affect the determination of whether their claims have merit.

1. they were members of a collective body (the union) that agreed that retirement at age 60 was mutually beneficial to the employees and their employer.

Please read my post above regarding the impact of changes in the law. Unions are not entitled to bargain away one’s rights under the statute. Regardless of whether there was an agreement or not, the collective agreement is subservient to the law of Parliament. If parties could “contract out” of the human rights law, the law would have no validity.

I must say that invoking Machiavelli in this argument is interesting. Unfortunately the altruism you are attempting to convey just doesn't wash when one knows the particulars of the case. If this case had been presented solely on its merits and without hypocrisy, you wouldn't be seeing much of an argument. But because the truth is far less noble, you are seeing a backlash from the vast majority of those who will ultimately be affected negatively.

To what particulars and what hypocrisy are you referring? In what way was this case not presented on its merits? The pleadings are all public, the hearing was public, and the positions taken by all the parties were all public. Suggesting that there is a hidden, less noble agenda is not only unfair, but irrelevant. The real issue here is not the motivation of those supporting the change, but the fact that the change is coming, with or in spite of the Association’s position on the issue.

[Feather #3]

It's like deja vu reading this.

We went through the same stuff in Australia as the retirement age went from 55-57-58-60 and then ICAO lifted the international command age to 65.

Embrace the change and get on with it!

G'day

[ChuckB777]

Fly if you Qualify

It ain't "Fly 'til you Die," it's "Fly if you Qualify" (and want to). Have carefully checked the Constitution here in the United States... nowhere does it say "except for airline revenue pilots" when listing rights and freedoms. Qantas has never had a fatal accident in their domestic system and has no age limit... experience is an added safety enhancement (ask the FAA, January 30, 2007). They should be paying experienced pilots a bonus to stay on. The pipeline of motivated aviators is empty. Would you want your child to pursue a career that starts out at $16,000 a year with mountains of training debt? Mine builds Boeings... doesn't fly them. U.S. Congress is trying to rule you must have 1500 hours (ATP) to fly a commuter... just did not say where they are going to find them. Hours mean nothing. Overseas they are putting 200 hour pilots in the right seat of long haul and not allowing them to fly, but they are building hours! One F/O had zero landings after 500 hours! Another had three. Why do you think ICAO invented the Multi-crew pilot license; empty pipeline. Boeing can't sell planes without crews, so they train them off the street. Zero hours going in, 12 real landings coming out over a year later, good to go in the right seat (but not quaified or licensed to rent a single pilot plane and fly). It's gonna get ugly, and it is not the experienced pilots that are the problem. Hooray for the Canadians for sticking it out all these years to win their case. Wish they had done it years ago.

[stampee]

I doubt the intent of most responding to this thread is to attack the messenger. Those against the age 60 change at AC are simply calling it the way they see it. Boring everyone with lengthy legal jargon to support your case goes no where in this forum.

This entire country has gone over the top, human rights tribunals, Canada labour board etc. what a joke, they are all nothing more then a heavily influenced, political Kangaroo court. Everyone has some gripe or complaint to play, whether it is age, race, disability, native or what ever. The people involved in this application have lost all sense of moral responsibility to their fellow pilots and are nothing more then a pack of thieves. The only people that will benefit from this change are themselves at the expense of others.

Lets not forget Air Canada pilots still enjoy the benefits of lucrative full pension plan on retirement at age 60. Other airlines without pension benefits or those lost to chapter 11 filings in the US are a different story. The major issue for most is how the age 60 issue relates specifically to Air Canada pilots and it's collective agreement that his been in place for many years.

It is very interesting you have chosen to take on this fight Raymond when you have just retired near the top of the seniority list at age 60. Why has no one started this fight when they were my age, 35? I have been discussing the issue with some of my First Officers who are hoping to join AC when (if) they begin hiring again. Should you be succesful in achieving what you hope, they can kiss their chances goodbye of ever working for this company, at least for the next five years. Real nice. It is obvious by your reputation while working for this company you have only ever cared about yourself. Embrace the change you say, sorry not with you guys!

[MidgetBoy]

Do the old ruler grab test to check their reflexes. If they're slow, can em.

Older pilots should understand it, especially ones retiring right around now. They were on good enough contracts where it doesn't matter if they quit at 60 or even 55. They need to realize the situation our economy is in today..

I just changed my job prospect towards working for NavCanada as an ATC instead of a pilot. It sucks really, I don't have my dream job, but at least the pay (assuming I get the job), MAY one day help me buy a home in Vancouver, though I highly doubt that seeing the ridiculous housing market.

[clunckdriver]

I think its time to look at recent history in regards to Air Canada pilots who have in the past run for Federal Office using the union/position/and the media, including the internet to pave their way to election , during my time at AC there were four, all used the same methodology, {1} Pick a cause which will grab the attention of those in the public who think in terms of slogans{ie" Im going to shut down all night flying at Vancouver airport "} this fellow, whose politics were somewhere to the left of Chaiman Mao was elected, another picked on a law and order ticket, somewhere to the right of Ronald Reagan, two were not elected, so Ray, call me a cynic if you will but with your bursting on this pilot webb site I see the same pattern/methods being used as those who went before emerging, tell us now, the real objective of your eloquent rant could it just be you have designs on Ottawa? The fact that all four, like youself had a far from event free history at the airline I think, in spite of the many derogatory remarks made about you at a recent gathering, should simply be put down to coincidence, anything else is to me totally out of line. So Ray, there we have it, is Ottawa actually your master plan?

[Huck]

Have carefully checked the Constitution here in the United States... nowhere does it say "except for airline revenue pilots" when listing rights and freedoms.

Age is not a protected class. Age limits are legal, provided they meet the criteria set up by the Supreme Court. Rights are not unlimited.

I can't join the military at my age, there's an age limit on running for president and being a firefighter and lots of other things. When Hollywood casts a love story about college kids they can turn down a seventy-year-old actor. Nothing magical about age - not legally, anyway.

[engfireleft]

What a myopic, petty, shortsighted bunch of crybabies we are.

All I'm hearing are attacks against the character of those standing up for their rights, and yours if you give it two seconds thought. In your zeal to punish them the pilot group wants to impose even more age discriminatory measures denying bidding rights and pension benefits to anyone over 60. How stupid can we be?

Sooner or later everybody is going to have to look up the meaning of "age discrimination" and apply it to our situation. The CHRT has already told us to, so quit , act like mature grownups and get on with it.

[ea340]

And then there was Ross Stevenson of course that was then this is now. All those who supported Ross put up your hand . As I remember no one did hey if he stayed it would have slowed down many careers over the last 30 years

[clunckdriver]

EA340, for what its worth, if Ross {who I knew very well} had won his case he would in fact have died "on duty" maybe he would have wanted it this way, which brings up the pilot mortality figures, of the twenty five who joined on my intake, eight us us are still breathing above ground, make what you will of this in the context of "human rights", for myself I intend to banckrupt the pension plan! Flying tomorow, but its OK, my F/O is twenty four, her heart shouldnt stop pumping half way through the flight. For the folks demanding to stay at the "old firm", get a bloody life!Track me if you wish, CG KOZ.

[Commander Taco]

What a myopic, petty, shortsighted bunch of crybabies we are.

I have to say, enginefireleft, that the only crybabies I have seen are the ones who feel they need to stay past sixty - I've heard: "but I got cleaned out in a divorce", "lost a ton of money in the markets" (this particular genius tried to corner the market in beanie-babies!!), "joined the airline a bit later and didn't get promoted until I was fifty-one" (conveniently ignoring the fact that he had deliberately bypassed his first promotion opportunity on the DC9), "had my children a bit later in life and have university tuition bills to pay". And then there are of course what I call the ego boys: four gold stripes and a widebody airplane make them a somebody. After listening to all these crybaby stories over the last few years, I am left with one thought: What makes your crybaby story any more important than anyone else's?

No, enginefireleft, there isn't any crying from the FTYD opponents, just a well-developed feeling that it is somehow latently unfair for an individual to make it to the top of the pyramid, solely by virtue of the fact that hundreds retired gracefully ahead of him, only to have this same individual start (usually in his last few years before age 60) crying that his civil rights are being trampled on.

The attempts of Ray and his followers to intellectualize a position which is essentially one of unmitigated greed and ego is nauseating.

Taco

[ac482]

For anyone interested, and unfortunately Raymond not many are, Raymond has brought his thoughts to this forum because he has been rejected from a few others.

Raymond, if i may call you by your first name.
Human rights aside (if you call them that). Is the governance of Canada and an association such as ACPA not funded on the basis of democracy? You should know this better than anyone. Is it "democratic" for a select few to force judgement upon an entire workplace?
Your political agenda is very anti-democratic (border-line socialistic).
You seem to enjoy antagonizing the junior ranks to get emotional reactions and i urge everyone to be very careful at what they write as he does not answer questions, rather deflects them as a true lawyer would . Your legal jargon does not impress me or others and comments you've made such as "can't wait to fly with them" are rather childish and quite foolish.

[bugg smasher]

Romper Room

The rest of the civilized world has gone sixty-five, don't really see why AC should be any different. With improving health care, I don't doubt we'll see seventy in the next few decades.

But seriously my Northern friends, all the rattle-tossing going on in this thread really makes me wish I too, could suckle at the teet of a government flying club, safe and secure, oinking contentedly.

Not a happy place to be when a bankruptcy court vaporizes decades of pension contributions, tends to put a whole new Zen on the possibility of working another five years.

[ac482]

Ac Should Not Go To 65 Because Its Pilots Do Not Want To Go To 65. I Really Thought The Pilots Were The Ones That Mattered In This Case. Very Simple.

[clunckdriver]

Bug Smasher,{Ah memories of the Beech 18!} Government flying club? Your a bit behind the times old chap, Canada has followed the American privitization god, ie "its not a vital part of our national infrastructure, its only for the big cities and the shareholders , the hell with small town Canada, they can do with a piston twin flown by two kids making $20,000 a year". Air Canada was privitized many moons ago, we are well down the road in the "race to the bottom".using the American comuters as a model.

[Huck]

U.S. as a model? God help you.....

[bugg smasher]

My apologies clunck, a belated welcome then, to the dark side...

[engfireleft]

Ac Should Not Go To 65 Because Its Pilots Do Not Want To Go To 65. I Really Thought The Pilots Were The Ones That Mattered In This Case. Very Simple.

Pilots won't have to go to 65 if they don't want to just as before. No one is making them stay, and no one is changing the pension so they have to continue working. The only thing that's changing is the ability to force someone out at age 60. In this country that is age discrimination which is illegal. Majority wishes, negotiated contracts, compensation schemes and a misguided attachment to how things used to be do not grant permission to break the law in Canada. Air Canada pilots are in for a rough time until they wrap their brains around that fact.

No, enginefireleft, there isn't any crying from the FTYD opponents, just a well-developed feeling that it is somehow latently unfair for an individual to make it to the top of the pyramid, solely by virtue of the fact that hundreds retired gracefully ahead of him, only to have this same individual start (usually in his last few years before age 60) crying that his civil rights are being trampled on.

Yes Taco, I know what's causing all the angst over this issue and I completely agree it's anger over a few people walking away with a perceived windfall. So what? These laws will be with us for decades to come and will provide you, me and everybody else with the option when we reach age 60 instead of forcing us out. In the larger picture it is protecting every single one of us against a form of discrimination which cannot be imposed upon us by majority opinion, just like every other form of discrimination. Viewed in the larger context the anger against those few who stood up for their rights (and yours whether you see it now or not) is small minded and petty. In time all but the most narrow minded will see this as inevitable and right.

for myself I intend to banckrupt the pension plan! Flying tomorow, but its OK, my F/O is twenty four, her heart shouldnt stop pumping half way through the flight. For the folks demanding to stay at the "old firm", get a bloody life!Track me if you wish, CG KOZ.

Man...where to start. You would be happy bankrupting the pension? Thanks Clunk, but I would rather it be around for me and everyone that follows. You should also follow your own advice to get a bloody life because it sounds to me like you're still working.

[clunckdriver]

Fire left, If you consider teaching deserving kids to fly a twin and getting valid real life multi time, so they can get a good flying job, to be work, then we will have to disagree, and by the way they get paid a living wage whilst doing same instead of paying the dual rate for the aircraft which in the case of a 421 can be as high as $1500 per hour, its called "giving somthing back", I realise this concept in the "Me Me " age we live in may be hard for some to grasp, also flying "Hope Air and Angel Flight" can hardly be considered work! Nor can flying a little airplane upside down once a week be clasified as "work", nor landing in a lake to drown some worms be considered "work", nor can be helping Air Cadets come under the heading of "work", but its obvious that we are on the other end of the teter toter when it comes to this stuff! A little story before I go, just had a beer with a 380 F/O who turned up twenty years ago at our outfit , with his single mum, he having quit in grade nine and was only one step ahead of the police, he now makes more money than any AC /WJ pilot and in turn is "giving back". As for bankrupting the pension, I can only hope I can live as long as my parents, come from stock with a history of longevity,{mind you they most likely lived a far more healthy life stlye!} Now watch as I keel over during my medical today! May you have as much fun in your future a my wife and I do in our dotage, the view from the outside looking in at the airlines doesnt seem nearly as much fun as it once was, and I doubt that regardless of the merits of this discussion that the atmosphere within the ranks of AC will improve as a result of this dispute, Regards Clunck.