Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flexable
Don't blame the government for what you are trying to do...
Your assumption about delayed career advancement is not only unreasonably speculative in its numbers, but it ignores the fact that the law of Parliament supersedes the law of the collective agreement. One cannot contract out of human rights legislation, and sooner or later, regardless of who the parties are assisting the change, the change will take place, with or without your concurrence. The only issue is how much of your own money and effort you will waste attempting to delay or stop the inevitable.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kanada Eh!
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''the law of Parliament supersedes the law of the collective agreement''
So Ray, where were you in the last 25-30 years or so not fighting this injustice...Only because you were moving up the list thanks to those ''force retirement'' was not a reason to ignore the law of the land.
So Ray, where were you in the last 25-30 years or so not fighting this injustice...Only because you were moving up the list thanks to those ''force retirement'' was not a reason to ignore the law of the land.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the best argument you have for keeping forced retirement at age 60?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexable... Don't hold your breath waiting for Raymond767 to answer. The question of why he wasn't fighting for this when others were appealing it years ago has already been asked. Still no answer... I wouldn't waste your time on here.. Summer is much to short to spend it inside on a PC....
Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....
Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: A Pacific 'island'
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO...
...a lot of the naysayers' arguments on this topic might've once held merit.
But in November of 2006 the world – the ICAO world anyway – changed. As we all know, the new (max) age of an international PIC then became 64.
Before that - in AC's world anyway - desiring to "fly past 60 as PIC" was problematic. Geography plays a huge part in the Great White North and, like it or not, we're influenced by our neighbours - both to the south and in the rest of the world. For a wannabe (over-60) AC commander to ONLY fly in domestic airspace would've - at the least - presented a scheduling challenge...
Today, staying past 60 is a given in most of the world. The majority of the world's airlines have dealt with it. They've moved on. Yet the AC Pilots' Association executive continues to fight to maintain the old status quo - and some members blame it on greed. Greed it is all right; but it's greed for advancement that's been blinded by a failure to recognize the current state of the industry.
As well, the ACPA approach to this issue has been exacerbated by a shortsighted view of the possibilities, a failure to grasp possible opportunities and - a woeful lack of planning for what is an eventuality.
From my seat out on the floe,
mic
But in November of 2006 the world – the ICAO world anyway – changed. As we all know, the new (max) age of an international PIC then became 64.
Before that - in AC's world anyway - desiring to "fly past 60 as PIC" was problematic. Geography plays a huge part in the Great White North and, like it or not, we're influenced by our neighbours - both to the south and in the rest of the world. For a wannabe (over-60) AC commander to ONLY fly in domestic airspace would've - at the least - presented a scheduling challenge...
Today, staying past 60 is a given in most of the world. The majority of the world's airlines have dealt with it. They've moved on. Yet the AC Pilots' Association executive continues to fight to maintain the old status quo - and some members blame it on greed. Greed it is all right; but it's greed for advancement that's been blinded by a failure to recognize the current state of the industry.
As well, the ACPA approach to this issue has been exacerbated by a shortsighted view of the possibilities, a failure to grasp possible opportunities and - a woeful lack of planning for what is an eventuality.
From my seat out on the floe,
mic
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flexable... Don't hold your breath waiting for Raymond767 to answer. The question of why he wasn't fighting for this when others were appealing it years ago has already been asked. Still no answer... I wouldn't waste your time on here.. Summer is much to short to spend it inside on a PC....
Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....
Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....
If you're going to point fingers you should save it for yourself because while you were distracted laying blame you haven't insisted ACPA deal with this realistically, and it will cost every one of us a lot of money.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No decision, yet.
The Tribunal Chair, prior to concluding the V-K hearing in April, suggested that he would try to render his decision by June 1st. In fact, given the number of legal issues to be decided, it could still be some time before that decision is actually ready to be released.
We are also waiting for the liability decision in the earlier case (70 pilots, non-Charter issues only). That hearing concluded in January. Both outstanding decisions could be rendered at the same time.
Tribunal practice, as mandated by the Federal Court, is to have all decisions rendered within four months of the close of the hearing.
The Tribunal Chair, prior to concluding the V-K hearing in April, suggested that he would try to render his decision by June 1st. In fact, given the number of legal issues to be decided, it could still be some time before that decision is actually ready to be released.
We are also waiting for the liability decision in the earlier case (70 pilots, non-Charter issues only). That hearing concluded in January. Both outstanding decisions could be rendered at the same time.
Tribunal practice, as mandated by the Federal Court, is to have all decisions rendered within four months of the close of the hearing.
Last edited by Raymond767; 2nd Jun 2010 at 15:02.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray767,
Seeing the HRC is ruling on a discrimination case, by what manner does the HRC override pension statutes? How does a person who is retired and collecting a pension from the same company they are being returned to, by your assertion, collect both a pension and a wage. Pension law does not allow that to occur.
So, how does a pilot unretire?
Is the pension placed on hold?
Does the reinstated pilot get to acquire more pensionable service or is the service frozen? ...assuming they do not have 35 year of service.
I could likely ask about 40 more questions that are not simple nor unimportant. The HRC does not have the right to override the laws of Parliment as you have stated many times. The Pension Act is a enacted by Parliment but totally unrelated to the Human Rights Act.
I would assume the Chairman is trying to reconcile this and other issues of conflict that may not be clearly addressed. That being said I go back to the beginning, just by what means does the HRC override other Acts of Parliment and specifically the Pension Act which is closely related to Tax Laws?
Seeing the HRC is ruling on a discrimination case, by what manner does the HRC override pension statutes? How does a person who is retired and collecting a pension from the same company they are being returned to, by your assertion, collect both a pension and a wage. Pension law does not allow that to occur.
So, how does a pilot unretire?
Is the pension placed on hold?
Does the reinstated pilot get to acquire more pensionable service or is the service frozen? ...assuming they do not have 35 year of service.
I could likely ask about 40 more questions that are not simple nor unimportant. The HRC does not have the right to override the laws of Parliment as you have stated many times. The Pension Act is a enacted by Parliment but totally unrelated to the Human Rights Act.
I would assume the Chairman is trying to reconcile this and other issues of conflict that may not be clearly addressed. That being said I go back to the beginning, just by what means does the HRC override other Acts of Parliment and specifically the Pension Act which is closely related to Tax Laws?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are correct. The Tribunal does not have the authority to override Acts of Parliament, such as the Pension Act. But it doesn't have to, in these cases.
A great deal of the testimony in the recently completed remedy hearing dealt with what the actuaries call "unwinding" of the pension plan. Unwinding is simply repayment of pension proceeds, then deduction of pension payments that would normally have been made in the course of the employment that was denied. The net effect is to put the person back into the position that he or she would have been, absent the wrongful termination of employment.
Once the pilot is back on the payroll, then the pension deductions would resume normally, to the date at which the individual acquires 35 years of service, where contributions cease. The pilot does not receive both a pension and a wage--only a wage. When he or she eventually retires, the pension would then be paid on the basis of the factors accrued as of the date of retirement.
A great deal of the testimony in the recently completed remedy hearing dealt with what the actuaries call "unwinding" of the pension plan. Unwinding is simply repayment of pension proceeds, then deduction of pension payments that would normally have been made in the course of the employment that was denied. The net effect is to put the person back into the position that he or she would have been, absent the wrongful termination of employment.
Once the pilot is back on the payroll, then the pension deductions would resume normally, to the date at which the individual acquires 35 years of service, where contributions cease. The pilot does not receive both a pension and a wage--only a wage. When he or she eventually retires, the pension would then be paid on the basis of the factors accrued as of the date of retirement.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: YYZ
Age: 73
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO most of the fly till you die crowd were hoping for a payout! Look at the pain and suffering amount that was filed. I've also heard about phone calls being made to those who were about to retire. It seems this was a good stage for someones political ambitions and some folks were told of $$$ to back his quest. These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple! If fly till you die is forced on ACPA I bet we will see some changes to the pension in the next contract.
BTW the pension doesn't have the same appeal to the newer generation of pilots as it did to those in the past. Most that were hired recently have rrsp's and other investment vehicles. The pension is a more like a bonus. IMHO
BTW the pension doesn't have the same appeal to the newer generation of pilots as it did to those in the past. Most that were hired recently have rrsp's and other investment vehicles. The pension is a more like a bonus. IMHO
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple!
BTW the pension doesn't have the same appeal to the newer generation of pilots as it did to those in the past. Most that were hired recently have rrsp's and other investment vehicles. The pension is a more like a bonus. IMHO
As those pilots get closer to collecting that pension you can be assured their attitude will change.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"IMHO most of the fly till you die crowd were hoping for a payout! Look at the pain and suffering amount that was filed. I've also heard about phone calls being made to those who were about to retire. It seems this was a good stage for someones political ambitions and some folks were told of $$$ to back his quest. These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple! If fly till you die is forced on ACPA I bet we will see some changes to the pension in the next contract."
These discrimination complaints are hinged on wrongful dismissal. If you filed a discrimination complaint in this case that's the first thing you would see. All filings are done on the basis that employment has been unlawfully terminated and the issue is reinstatement. In the case of those not yet retired, is the issue not about retaining employment?
These discrimination complaints are hinged on wrongful dismissal. If you filed a discrimination complaint in this case that's the first thing you would see. All filings are done on the basis that employment has been unlawfully terminated and the issue is reinstatement. In the case of those not yet retired, is the issue not about retaining employment?
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:02.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pension Pension Pension
It might actually only be the Air Canada pilots that really get what is at stake here and fully understand.
Pension earnings are not only based on your years of service, but also on your "best Years" of earnings.
So really, you are not increasing your pension at all by going longer (for the junior pilots), you will HAVE to work longer just to make it to that big paycheque. It is all about career earning potential. For the pilots at the top, it means more time at the trough, for the junior guys, it means catching up, working longer, just to get to the same pension they WOULD have gotten, had they advanced into the higher paying positions sooner, ie. at 56 years of age.
Ray and his supporters are doing a great job at staying on message. It will be good for you too.... just not the case, the ONLY group that will truly benefit from this are the guys at the top. Full Stop. Nothing short sighted about that, again, career earnings are what matters. Not to speak of the quality of life and the perk to go at 60 (for the group, collectivly).
The detriment to the group as a whole, in order to enable windfall gains for a few, is just not acceptable.
For some really enlightening insight on how the canadian HRC/HRT racket works, please read Ezra Levants book: Shake down.
BTW: What was wrong with the first ruling, the one that stated that your final responsibility is to retire gracefully after having benefited from the ones retirering before you???
This is long from over....... no, I am not just wishing......
Joseph Keisinger
It might actually only be the Air Canada pilots that really get what is at stake here and fully understand.
Pension earnings are not only based on your years of service, but also on your "best Years" of earnings.
So really, you are not increasing your pension at all by going longer (for the junior pilots), you will HAVE to work longer just to make it to that big paycheque. It is all about career earning potential. For the pilots at the top, it means more time at the trough, for the junior guys, it means catching up, working longer, just to get to the same pension they WOULD have gotten, had they advanced into the higher paying positions sooner, ie. at 56 years of age.
Ray and his supporters are doing a great job at staying on message. It will be good for you too.... just not the case, the ONLY group that will truly benefit from this are the guys at the top. Full Stop. Nothing short sighted about that, again, career earnings are what matters. Not to speak of the quality of life and the perk to go at 60 (for the group, collectivly).
The detriment to the group as a whole, in order to enable windfall gains for a few, is just not acceptable.
For some really enlightening insight on how the canadian HRC/HRT racket works, please read Ezra Levants book: Shake down.
BTW: What was wrong with the first ruling, the one that stated that your final responsibility is to retire gracefully after having benefited from the ones retirering before you???
This is long from over....... no, I am not just wishing......
Joseph Keisinger
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So really, you are not increasing your pension at all by going longer (for the junior pilots),
What was wrong with the first ruling, the one that stated that your final responsibility is to retire gracefully after having benefited from the ones retirering before you???
This is long from over....... no, I am not just wishing......
Last edited by engfireleft; 12th Jun 2010 at 22:24.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 12345
Ray and his supporters are doing a great job at staying on message.
May I support your observation above. We are on message, because it is extremely important for us to communicate a valuable message. Essentially, as I have posted above, we have only one message. Namely, that this isn't about fairness--it is about reality. The law is real.
Age discrimination in Canada is illegal. The mandatory retirement exemption under the CHRA no longer is applicable. ACPA and all of its pilots must deal with that fact to the benefit of all. Denial is not a strategy. Filibustering on side issues, such as the alleged motivation of those prosecuting this case or advocating a legally irrelevant issue such as how unfair the law may be only detracts from the attention necessary to deal with the real issue of making the required adjustments in such a way that minimizes the amount of damage that is done to those most vulnerable, namely the junior pilots.
Last edited by Raymond767; 13th Jun 2010 at 03:28.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enginefireleft, Patently false, eh?
Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.
On a status quo bid (no increase in total number of positions/jobs) ONE individual allowed to remain past their contractual date of retirement will hold back (theoretically) 12 other pilots from moving up. That one person is affecting a lot of other people.
In other words, if your progression to the better paying jobs is only based on attrition, (no growth, and there hasn't been any in a looong time)and people would get to stay past 60, there are no places for folks to move up into. So YES, ABSOLUTELY, your career earnings and therefore pension will be reduced/suffer, compared to how things are now, or better yet, how they have been for you all along, as you moved up through the ranks.
Perhaps not here online, but should we meet in person, please have the balls to introduce yourself to me, so we can have a chat
Joseph
Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.
On a status quo bid (no increase in total number of positions/jobs) ONE individual allowed to remain past their contractual date of retirement will hold back (theoretically) 12 other pilots from moving up. That one person is affecting a lot of other people.
In other words, if your progression to the better paying jobs is only based on attrition, (no growth, and there hasn't been any in a looong time)and people would get to stay past 60, there are no places for folks to move up into. So YES, ABSOLUTELY, your career earnings and therefore pension will be reduced/suffer, compared to how things are now, or better yet, how they have been for you all along, as you moved up through the ranks.
Perhaps not here online, but should we meet in person, please have the balls to introduce yourself to me, so we can have a chat
Joseph
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enginefireleft, Patently false, eh?
Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.
Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.
Since most people wait until they can hold a fairly senior position, any delay could be eliminated by simply accepting the position at a lower seniority level. But of course if they don't want to do that then that's their decision and eliminating age 60 cannot be blamed. What is also false is your statement that the pension does not increase by additional years service. That is utter nonsense.
Perhaps not here online, but should we meet in person, please have the balls to introduce yourself to me, so we can have a chat
My pleasure. I have no problem expressing my opinion to anybody I meet or fly with, and you can be assured ACPA knows who I am and what my opinion is as well. Don't mistake anonymity on the internet for anonymity on this issue.
Last edited by engfireleft; 14th Jun 2010 at 12:25.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh boy, your kind of reply is exactly what made me jump into this, although I shouldn't have.
Look, real simple, you stay beyond 60 and people below you are negatively impacted, no matter what one's bidding preferences are.
What good does a few hundred bucks of pension do me, when my career earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of dollars? I don't think I'll live long enough to catch up.
So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.
I am tuning out now; you can have the last word. I've said my piece, and them' s the FACTS. Just no way around those.
Enjoy life, and your upcoming retirement
Look, real simple, you stay beyond 60 and people below you are negatively impacted, no matter what one's bidding preferences are.
What good does a few hundred bucks of pension do me, when my career earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of dollars? I don't think I'll live long enough to catch up.
So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.
I am tuning out now; you can have the last word. I've said my piece, and them' s the FACTS. Just no way around those.
Enjoy life, and your upcoming retirement
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What good does a few hundred bucks of pension do me, when my career earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of dollars? I don't think I'll live long enough to catch up.
So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.
So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.