Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting post indeed!
Why are you guys interested to work past 60? Don't you have some great pension going on? Why would you want to delay your pension and work at the same company? Makes more sense to take the door and double dip.
Also, wouldn't you be negatively affecting the hard fought for seniority that you yourselve's have enjoyed for many years? And thereby negatively affecting all those that come after you? These are also issues that cannot be ignored.
I tend to agree with Pitot. The door is the way.
Yes of course you have a right to work past 60, but thats not the whole story is it. Because of the above issues...including competency... You may NOT have a right to work past 60 as a commander at AC. However I hear Home Depot is hiring.
I for one do not want to be a passenger with a Captain who is over 60.
Perhaps the answer...to meet half way... is to allow it, but only in the RHS.
Orange
Why are you guys interested to work past 60? Don't you have some great pension going on? Why would you want to delay your pension and work at the same company? Makes more sense to take the door and double dip.
Also, wouldn't you be negatively affecting the hard fought for seniority that you yourselve's have enjoyed for many years? And thereby negatively affecting all those that come after you? These are also issues that cannot be ignored.
I tend to agree with Pitot. The door is the way.
Yes of course you have a right to work past 60, but thats not the whole story is it. Because of the above issues...including competency... You may NOT have a right to work past 60 as a commander at AC. However I hear Home Depot is hiring.
I for one do not want to be a passenger with a Captain who is over 60.
Perhaps the answer...to meet half way... is to allow it, but only in the RHS.
Orange
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one do not want to be a passenger with a Captain who is over 60.
Lets see, let me think for a moment...yeh now I have it, Bob Hoover was still doing his routine at airshows well into his eighties so that means he was incompetent for over twenty years and unsafe to fly with?
The truth is being a pilot only requires average intelligence and average motor skills.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does it (sic)effect me? Because my family is in Canada, and thus daily flights, let alone other destinations would make it much, much easier to plan time at home. 500 seats 3x per week each way nearly sold out, you do the math. Gee, why doesn't AC offer direct flights to Dxb?
Is that you, Dick?(credit to GK)
Is that you, Dick?(credit to GK)
Why are you guys interested to work past 60? Don't you have some great pension going on? Why would you want to delay your pension and work at the same company? Makes more sense to take the door and double dip.
Contrary to impressions some people not only like flying for a living, but like doing it for Air Canada.
There are a hundred other reasons why someone would want to continue working past 60, none of which are subject to anyone's approval but their own. It is not for you, me or anybody else to pass judgement on why someone chooses to stay. It is none of our business.
Age discrimination is not permitted anywhere in Canada. Mandatory retirement has been deemed discriminatory in every jurisdiction within Canada. Deriding a few people for standing up for their right to not be discriminated against is ignoring a fundamental reality in this country in favour of petty retribution against those same people. To me it's childish and unbecoming a group thought by the public to be clear headed professionals.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age Discrimination toward my son
My son Tommy is eight and wants to drive my car. I think he's too young, but I can't prove it. He drives better than me on Mario Cart. I'm waiting for the summons from the Human Rights Tribunal.
Beware those whose unassailable position on a subject are co-located with their position of maximum self interest.
Beware those whose unassailable position on a subject are co-located with their position of maximum self interest.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screw your buddies ???
Hello Raymond767:
I applaud your efforts, both past and present, to rectify what seems to be a blatant contravention of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Freedoms etc. etc.
As is mentioned by a previous poster, discriminating based on age (or for that matter, on any criteria other than capability) is not something we need to address to know it's wrong.
The problem lies with - what to do now that we have identified the problem and made it right?
Unfortunately, what has also been previously posted is correct in that you and all other retirees have acceded to the lofty position of command based on those ahead of you who were on the seniority list retiring in a timely manner (age 60), as was the norm until now.
So what to do with those caught in the middle ... ie: those who joined AC with their future progression based on age 60 retirement and who now find that their advancement expectations are being sabotaged by people such as yourself.
This smacks of the old adage "changing the rules of the ball game in the 7th inning" ...... something that is equally as blatantly wrong as the original sin of retirement based on age.
The only fair way out would be to simply state a new rule:
As of today, all new hires will have the option to retire at whatever age their medical or licensing ceases to be effective. Anyone who is presently in the system or now retired and out of the system .... tough titties ! You joined under a particular set of circumstances .... and you will retire based on that set of circumstances. End of story.
If this doesn't suit the "work 'til you die" crowd, then maybe the pro "retire at age 60" group should band together and sue for an estoppal order. After all, age 60 was agreed to by the union and the company ... and has been the standard for the better part of the last 60 years. Why break with tradition now?
Submitted for your consideration .... although I already know what the answer will be.
I applaud your efforts, both past and present, to rectify what seems to be a blatant contravention of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Freedoms etc. etc.
As is mentioned by a previous poster, discriminating based on age (or for that matter, on any criteria other than capability) is not something we need to address to know it's wrong.
The problem lies with - what to do now that we have identified the problem and made it right?
Unfortunately, what has also been previously posted is correct in that you and all other retirees have acceded to the lofty position of command based on those ahead of you who were on the seniority list retiring in a timely manner (age 60), as was the norm until now.
So what to do with those caught in the middle ... ie: those who joined AC with their future progression based on age 60 retirement and who now find that their advancement expectations are being sabotaged by people such as yourself.
This smacks of the old adage "changing the rules of the ball game in the 7th inning" ...... something that is equally as blatantly wrong as the original sin of retirement based on age.
The only fair way out would be to simply state a new rule:
As of today, all new hires will have the option to retire at whatever age their medical or licensing ceases to be effective. Anyone who is presently in the system or now retired and out of the system .... tough titties ! You joined under a particular set of circumstances .... and you will retire based on that set of circumstances. End of story.
If this doesn't suit the "work 'til you die" crowd, then maybe the pro "retire at age 60" group should band together and sue for an estoppal order. After all, age 60 was agreed to by the union and the company ... and has been the standard for the better part of the last 60 years. Why break with tradition now?
Submitted for your consideration .... although I already know what the answer will be.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Late Great Planet Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Age 60
"Seniority rights are seniority rights."
There is no such thing as 'seniority' apart from the collective agreement which the "Flytillyadie" group have chosen to challenge.
Yet, when they return they will want to be protected by the same system they have chosen to challenge.
There is no such thing as 'seniority' apart from the collective agreement which the "Flytillyadie" group have chosen to challenge.
Yet, when they return they will want to be protected by the same system they have chosen to challenge.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget the collective agreement. The contract now violates Canada's discrimination laws and it was only a matter of time before someone pointed that out. It might even have been you when your turn came.
The law in this country has changed. Air Canada pilots think it doesn't apply to them and that our collective agreement supercedes Canadian law. They are dead wrong.
On this issue ACPA has committed the mother of all Gross Navigational Errors despite countless billboard sized direction signs staring them in the face. Even after being told point blank last August they were going the wrong way they insist on staying the course and making the situation even worse.
The law in this country has changed. Air Canada pilots think it doesn't apply to them and that our collective agreement supercedes Canadian law. They are dead wrong.
On this issue ACPA has committed the mother of all Gross Navigational Errors despite countless billboard sized direction signs staring them in the face. Even after being told point blank last August they were going the wrong way they insist on staying the course and making the situation even worse.
Last edited by engfireleft; 8th May 2010 at 16:40.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engfireleft of course you are right . Does not negate the fact that they knew the terms of the contract when they were hired fought Ross Stevenson loved the contract until they got to the top of the hill . Not one of these folks said a word about discrimination though the 70's 80' or 90's just discovered it in 2005. . There was a time when retiring at 60 was a perk can you still retire at 60 yes for the time being . Soon to max out on pension staying beyond 60 will be reqiured. The major good coming out of this is the pension will be in better shape for those that live long enough to collect reread Clunckdrivers post
Last edited by ea340; 9th May 2010 at 22:43.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does not negate the fact that they knew the terms of the contract when they were hired fought Ross Stevenson loved the contract until they got to the top of the hill . The view from the top is outstanding . Not one of these folks said a word about discrimination though the 70's 80' or 90's just discovered it in 2005. Will they win yes will thay be welcomed back no
There was a time when retiring at 60 was a perk can you still retire at 60 yes for the time being . Soon to max out on pension staying beyond 60 will be reqiured.
Clunckdrivers post
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so dumb brandman. Nothing wrong with aspirations. Its just that sometimes there's a time to have new ones. We all have to close the page on chapters in our lives and let others carry the torch. Of course there is nothing wrong with working past 60. Discrimination is not the issue because retirement at 60 is a normal function. Not abnormal. I don't think it will fly in court. Your fight is with the company and company policy. Of course maybe you will have to change the rules to allow it with the gov't first. But just because the law will be changed doesn't mean the company will change or the employee group (if its a union) will allow it. Personally, I don't know why you wouldn't embrace a new challenge instead. Try something new! Good luck with your fight.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raymond 747
It would seem that you have a point regarding age discrimination and the age 60 retirement thing. However, you did make it to the top (or fairly close) of the pile based on the age 60 retirement of your predecessors.
It would seem blatantly unfair to change the rules of the ball game in the 7th inning (how's that for an analogy) by now allowing those who wish to, to retire at any age, as determined by their medical or performance standard deteriorating.
Those who joined the system expecting career progression similar to what you enjoyed will now not be able to do that ... and for the most part, they are pension prisoners and can't go somewhere else to start over.
It would seem that the only fair thing to do now is stipulate that anyone joining the company from this date forward can retire whenever but those already here are stuck with the status quo. Barring that ... I would be seriously looking at an estoppal order to prevent anyone senior to me from degrading my progression in the system by their staying longer than age 60.
It would seem that you have a point regarding age discrimination and the age 60 retirement thing. However, you did make it to the top (or fairly close) of the pile based on the age 60 retirement of your predecessors.
It would seem blatantly unfair to change the rules of the ball game in the 7th inning (how's that for an analogy) by now allowing those who wish to, to retire at any age, as determined by their medical or performance standard deteriorating.
Those who joined the system expecting career progression similar to what you enjoyed will now not be able to do that ... and for the most part, they are pension prisoners and can't go somewhere else to start over.
It would seem that the only fair thing to do now is stipulate that anyone joining the company from this date forward can retire whenever but those already here are stuck with the status quo. Barring that ... I would be seriously looking at an estoppal order to prevent anyone senior to me from degrading my progression in the system by their staying longer than age 60.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engfireleft one mans sour grapes is another mans hypocrisy . Everyone of the guys on the present fly past 60 list would have fought this 10 years ago .The law is the law and we will go to 65 .
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone of the guys on the present fly past 60 list would have fought this 10 years ago .The law is the law and we will go to 65 .
But just because the law will be changed doesn't mean the company will change or the employee group (if its a union) will allow it.
First of all the law already has changed. Second....
Oh never mind.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 74
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EA340: Everyone of the guys on the present fly past 60 list would have fought this 10 years ago.
-----------------------------------
Completely incorrect. I am on the list, and I can categorically state that I would not have fought this ten years ago. Why? As of ten years ago I had already spent two years appointed to one of the provincial Human Rights Commissions and I had already been practising law for over ten years. Which would have led me then to arrive at the same conclusion that I arrived at four years ago, when George Vilven asked me to become involved.
Namely, as EngineFireLeft has succinctly stated on this thread, and as I emphatically stated on the ACPA Forum in 2006 and many, many times since, fighting the change is futile. You cannot fight the law of Parliament, when you are armed only with the law of contract, especially given the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights law.
The fight that we should have been engaged in, the fight that it is now too late to be engaged in, is the fight to get some benefit from the impending change, specifically to avoid the worst consequences for those most vulnerable to the impending inevitable change--namely, the junior pilots.
Consider this: four years ago, had Air Canada and ACPA simply offered Air Canada pilots the ability to continue working to age 65 only, as many other Canadian airlines did, most of the Complainants would likely have been satisfifed and would have either withdrawn their Complaints or not filed them in the first place. Evidence put before the Tribunal indicates that the vast majority of pilots want to continue only one or two years beyond age 60.
But now look at where Air Canada and ACPA are, legally speaking. Aside from the issue of liability for damages (a whole separate issue) the Tribunal ruled that the entire exemption clause for mandatory retirement in the statute is of no force and effect. Result: there is no age restriction whatsoever. Transport Canada rules apply, which means pilots can continue to work so long as they pass their professional and medical competency requirements. So now you are going to have pilots staying beyond age 65, which makes the situation even worse for the junior pilots.
Worse for Air Canada, however, is the coming very real prospect of losing their right to terminate the employment of any employee at any age. That is precisely what will result from the Federal Court judicial review this November, should the Court uphold the Tribunal's decision. The real irony is that it was Air Canada (and ACPA) who filed the application for judicial review. Poetic justice!
-----------------------------------
Completely incorrect. I am on the list, and I can categorically state that I would not have fought this ten years ago. Why? As of ten years ago I had already spent two years appointed to one of the provincial Human Rights Commissions and I had already been practising law for over ten years. Which would have led me then to arrive at the same conclusion that I arrived at four years ago, when George Vilven asked me to become involved.
Namely, as EngineFireLeft has succinctly stated on this thread, and as I emphatically stated on the ACPA Forum in 2006 and many, many times since, fighting the change is futile. You cannot fight the law of Parliament, when you are armed only with the law of contract, especially given the quasi-constitutional nature of human rights law.
The fight that we should have been engaged in, the fight that it is now too late to be engaged in, is the fight to get some benefit from the impending change, specifically to avoid the worst consequences for those most vulnerable to the impending inevitable change--namely, the junior pilots.
Consider this: four years ago, had Air Canada and ACPA simply offered Air Canada pilots the ability to continue working to age 65 only, as many other Canadian airlines did, most of the Complainants would likely have been satisfifed and would have either withdrawn their Complaints or not filed them in the first place. Evidence put before the Tribunal indicates that the vast majority of pilots want to continue only one or two years beyond age 60.
But now look at where Air Canada and ACPA are, legally speaking. Aside from the issue of liability for damages (a whole separate issue) the Tribunal ruled that the entire exemption clause for mandatory retirement in the statute is of no force and effect. Result: there is no age restriction whatsoever. Transport Canada rules apply, which means pilots can continue to work so long as they pass their professional and medical competency requirements. So now you are going to have pilots staying beyond age 65, which makes the situation even worse for the junior pilots.
Worse for Air Canada, however, is the coming very real prospect of losing their right to terminate the employment of any employee at any age. That is precisely what will result from the Federal Court judicial review this November, should the Court uphold the Tribunal's decision. The real irony is that it was Air Canada (and ACPA) who filed the application for judicial review. Poetic justice!
Last edited by Raymond767; 8th May 2010 at 21:37.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point Ray767 so why did you not find a guy to bring a case in say 1988or 1995.Who stood up for Ross Stevenson no one of the fly past 60 group did correct me if I'am wrong including you. No one in this group brought this up at any Calpa or Acpa meeting until correct me if I'am wrong again until about 2005 or so. No one wants this to pass until its their turn to stand at the top of the hill. 65 will go through but here is little support for it on the line but the law is the law.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one wants this to pass until its their turn to stand at the top of the hill. 65 will go through but here is little support for it on the line but the law is the law.
When this issue was first put before the membership the MEC had already made up their minds that they were going to fight it. If you don't believe me then please look on the ACPA website and read the question they put to the membership for the vote. Not surprisingly it was presented to the membership from only the MEC's predetermined perspective. The membership has never heard the alternative side of the issue, and ACPA and others are quite successful at ensuring they never do.
But rest assured the tribunal and courts are hearing the other side and have made their ruling accordingly.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently complaints with the HRC have no effect until a pilot is actually forced to retire so filing a complaint beforehand is not registered. It appears that over 90 percent of all current AC pilots, well over 2500 pilots will not make the max pension unless they work past 60 because of the hugely high average hiring age and yet vast sums are going to prevent the membership from partaking in the max pension benefits via years of service. The best time for past 60 to take effect is of course when each pilot reaches 60 and is then eligible to file a complaint. Of course at each of those specific points in time, many of the pilots at less than 60 will try to prevent the pilot at 60 from realizing his right to work.
Last edited by cloudcity; 19th Nov 2010 at 21:42.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: North America
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont worry Engfireleft you will get your chance to fly past 60 be careful about what you wish for. The first group to fly past 60 will win large the rest the law of diminishing returns sets in . There is a group who were hired late in life and 60 plus will help them to some degree no doubt but it is not the group from the 70's . Anyone from this group is looking at maybe $500,000 above pension for staying for 5 extra years . If you are hired in the 80's or later good luck flying long haul at night at 65 will not be fun trust me. Over and out
Last edited by ea340; 9th May 2010 at 22:44.
As one who has been flying since he was 17 and is now ready to depart the fix at Air Canada with over thirty years I will just add what I consider some truisms that I have seen in life.
One should never define their persona by what they wear when they go to work.
Develop a plan early in life of what you want to do with the rest of your life after you retire as you have to be more busy in retirement than your working life.
As hard it is for some to consider, yes there is a life to be enjoyed outside of flying.
There will come a time when you might be forced to leave so why not leave under ones power and dignity.
I have noticed this annoying tendency that some great people I have known over the years have not made it past 70.
Keep the same spouse, it also allows you to stay in the same house along with keeping the "toy's" intact.
For myself last year I was diagnosed with melanoma which the biopsies had shown it being fast spreading and aggressive. So after a few "slice and dices" along with the four month check ups I was absolutely amazed by when one steps up to and looks into the abyss how ones thinking is clarified in the most succinct of ways.
Our job is not the healthiest of careers not with standing being hypoxic, circadian rhythm upset, breathing that lovely recycled air, eating meals when your stomach can not handle it or just feel free to add the subject you want.......
That being said I have had a wonderful career and it is time to let someone else enjoy it.
So to Ray 767 is it intellectual curiosity that leads you into this crusade or is it an exercise in self aggrandizement to become a politician in the next federal election?
In addition, should you not expunge all the personal data such as addresses of Air Canada pilots and their birth dates that you have in your data base?
You realize that keeping people's personal information with out their knowledge or permission such as the above might raise some interesting ethical issues as a lawyer?
Also in the hearings it was reported that one of your colleagues said "that A.C.P.A. and Air Canada treated its older pilots like the Nazis treated Jews." If I misquote it was something I read very quickly but the flavour was there. I must state very emphatically that after visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the concentration camp at Dachau Germany and the exhibit on ethnic cleansing at the Imperial War Museum in London I was deeply offended by that remark and you should distance yourself from that individual and apologize to A.C.P.A. along with Air Canada.
One should never define their persona by what they wear when they go to work.
Develop a plan early in life of what you want to do with the rest of your life after you retire as you have to be more busy in retirement than your working life.
As hard it is for some to consider, yes there is a life to be enjoyed outside of flying.
There will come a time when you might be forced to leave so why not leave under ones power and dignity.
I have noticed this annoying tendency that some great people I have known over the years have not made it past 70.
Keep the same spouse, it also allows you to stay in the same house along with keeping the "toy's" intact.
For myself last year I was diagnosed with melanoma which the biopsies had shown it being fast spreading and aggressive. So after a few "slice and dices" along with the four month check ups I was absolutely amazed by when one steps up to and looks into the abyss how ones thinking is clarified in the most succinct of ways.
Our job is not the healthiest of careers not with standing being hypoxic, circadian rhythm upset, breathing that lovely recycled air, eating meals when your stomach can not handle it or just feel free to add the subject you want.......
That being said I have had a wonderful career and it is time to let someone else enjoy it.
So to Ray 767 is it intellectual curiosity that leads you into this crusade or is it an exercise in self aggrandizement to become a politician in the next federal election?
In addition, should you not expunge all the personal data such as addresses of Air Canada pilots and their birth dates that you have in your data base?
You realize that keeping people's personal information with out their knowledge or permission such as the above might raise some interesting ethical issues as a lawyer?
Also in the hearings it was reported that one of your colleagues said "that A.C.P.A. and Air Canada treated its older pilots like the Nazis treated Jews." If I misquote it was something I read very quickly but the flavour was there. I must state very emphatically that after visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the concentration camp at Dachau Germany and the exhibit on ethnic cleansing at the Imperial War Museum in London I was deeply offended by that remark and you should distance yourself from that individual and apologize to A.C.P.A. along with Air Canada.