Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually no, I always felt that thirty years in one company was more than enough, in fact if it were not for our home grown kids and a bunch of Foster Kids I would have pulled the plug much earlier, when I did quit we had a charter OC and a bunch of FTUs, since sold. Nowadays a split between charity flying{Cancer cases for the most part} and normall short haul corporate flying using the aircraft as a training tool to give kids real life IFR multi PIC, and they get paid for it. Just renewed my IFR, this may be the last time, the kid flying with me is more than able to take over as soon as we can convince the insurance company that she has enough time.Oh, and by the way we dont wear any bloody uniforms, that I dont miss one jot! Also dont ever have to deal with airport security, now thats a real plus!
Good Afternoon Understated:
Is that you Buck???
Anyhow it appears you and over/under might be "shilling" for Ray767 who is banned from the web site and I have brought up the reasons why he was banned for your edification.
Post 437
Post 438 from Vic777
Quote: Scared?
I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around.
Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those dificulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions.
Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind.
And thus with Raymond.
Regards
Rob
Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off.
Please kick me off ... as I don't want to be able to read or post anything here ....
Post 439 Moderator to Vic777
Nah, simply stop visiting you posturing ninny.
Rpob
Is that you Buck???
Anyhow it appears you and over/under might be "shilling" for Ray767 who is banned from the web site and I have brought up the reasons why he was banned for your edification.
Post 437
Scared?
I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around.
Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those dificulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions.
Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind.
And thus with Raymond.
Regards Rob
Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off.
Post 438 from Vic777
Quote: Scared?
I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around.
Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those dificulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions.
Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind.
And thus with Raymond.
Regards
Rob
Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off.
Please kick me off ... as I don't want to be able to read or post anything here ....
Post 439 Moderator to Vic777
Nah, simply stop visiting you posturing ninny.
Rpob
Last edited by a330pilotcanada; 16th Nov 2010 at 23:00. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by a330pilotcanada
Anyhow it appears you and over/under might be "shilling" for Ray767 who is banned from the web site and I have brought up the reasons why he was banned for your edification.
Don't give up the witch hunt. I know that he is out there somewhere, because he sends a couple hundred of us regular factual updates that, as you can see from my posts, give us a solid understanding of what is happening, outside of the ACPA cocoon.
Pray tell, the name a330pilotcanada is a shill for whom?
Good Evening Understated:
No it was not a history lesson but a reminder that a moderator such as in the employ of PPRuNe based on their years of experience acknowledged this thread for what it is, an exercise in self aggrandizement.
Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to. I will not pass on some of the comments from the European side as this would only inflame positions that have been already been stated.
As far as a witch hunt not in the least bit interested as I have moved on. This deliberation will be decided by the senior jurists of the Supreme Court of Canada who are the legal intelligentsia of our country. No doubt which way the decision goes this will be debated long past our communal best before dates.
A.C.P.A. cocoon? I can remember the time when C.A.L.P.A. was derided in the same fashion yet there are others who wish to return to that canard.
With regards to a shill I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.
No it was not a history lesson but a reminder that a moderator such as in the employ of PPRuNe based on their years of experience acknowledged this thread for what it is, an exercise in self aggrandizement.
Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to. I will not pass on some of the comments from the European side as this would only inflame positions that have been already been stated.
As far as a witch hunt not in the least bit interested as I have moved on. This deliberation will be decided by the senior jurists of the Supreme Court of Canada who are the legal intelligentsia of our country. No doubt which way the decision goes this will be debated long past our communal best before dates.
A.C.P.A. cocoon? I can remember the time when C.A.L.P.A. was derided in the same fashion yet there are others who wish to return to that canard.
With regards to a shill I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Evening Understated:
No it was not a history lesson but a reminder that a moderator such as in the employ of PPRuNe based on their years of experience acknowledged this thread for what it is, an exercise in self aggrandizement.
Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to. I will not pass on some of the comments from the European side as this would only inflame positions that have been already been stated.
As far as a witch hunt not in the least bit interested as I have moved on. This deliberation will be decided by the senior jurists of the Supreme Court of Canada who are the legal intelligentsia of our country. No doubt which way the decision goes this will be debated long past our communal best before dates.
A.C.P.A. cocoon? I can remember the time when C.A.L.P.A. was derided in the same fashion yet there are others who wish to return to that canard.
With regards to a shill I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.
No it was not a history lesson but a reminder that a moderator such as in the employ of PPRuNe based on their years of experience acknowledged this thread for what it is, an exercise in self aggrandizement.
Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to. I will not pass on some of the comments from the European side as this would only inflame positions that have been already been stated.
As far as a witch hunt not in the least bit interested as I have moved on. This deliberation will be decided by the senior jurists of the Supreme Court of Canada who are the legal intelligentsia of our country. No doubt which way the decision goes this will be debated long past our communal best before dates.
A.C.P.A. cocoon? I can remember the time when C.A.L.P.A. was derided in the same fashion yet there are others who wish to return to that canard.
With regards to a shill I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by a330pilotcanada
Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to.
"They got to their positions, not because of any particular anointment – but simply because others left in front of them when it was their time to move into the next phase of their lives."
The ones with the tunnel vision are not those who wish to continue working. No. The ones with the tunnel vision are the ones who cannot see that the law that permitted mandatory retirement in Canada is no longer sustainable and that "staying longer in a job" is not something that a union or an employer continues to have any control over, period.
It is their vision of never changing, of fighting the inevitable, of maintaining the status quo, that is causing the damage here, not the vision of those who choose to extend their professional work life.
Originally Posted by a330pilotcanada
I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.
Last edited by Understated; 17th Nov 2010 at 05:29.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in a plane
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown with many of you who want to come back and keep flying at AC.
Unlike many pilots in the states you have a pension and you are the worst of the baby boomers. You do not want to leave the profession in a better state than when you found it. You are the worst of the ME generation . Listening to your arguments reminds me of discrimination from the gay community from the fifties. Except most of you had a 30 plus career and have a pension better than half the pilots salaries still working.
You are from the me generation and feel your wants needs trump all others. You are the reason this industry is in the state it's in after selling your young members down the river for years with the standard line let's protect the widebody working conditions because someday you will be senior.
You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man.
Unlike many pilots in the states you have a pension and you are the worst of the baby boomers. You do not want to leave the profession in a better state than when you found it. You are the worst of the ME generation . Listening to your arguments reminds me of discrimination from the gay community from the fifties. Except most of you had a 30 plus career and have a pension better than half the pilots salaries still working.
You are from the me generation and feel your wants needs trump all others. You are the reason this industry is in the state it's in after selling your young members down the river for years with the standard line let's protect the widebody working conditions because someday you will be senior.
You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...the law that permitted mandatory retirement in Canada is no longer sustainable..."
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. What happens if they decide that it is permissible for a group of employees to collectively and democratically decide they wish to retire at a specific age, like 62, or 55, or 60, or whatever?
Are there any other parts of the collective agreement that could be construed to be discriminatory to identifiable groups?
Perhaps those in the AC "Pay Group" have been unfairly discriminated against? Oh, wait a minute...ahhh, I see...that's not quite the same thing; those are conditions that the pilot group AS A WHOLE have agreed upon, like scheduling rules, GDIP, vacation allotment, pay rates, etc. etc.
Not AT ALL like Age 60 Retirement....hmmm
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. What happens if they decide that it is permissible for a group of employees to collectively and democratically decide they wish to retire at a specific age, like 62, or 55, or 60, or whatever?
Are there any other parts of the collective agreement that could be construed to be discriminatory to identifiable groups?
Perhaps those in the AC "Pay Group" have been unfairly discriminated against? Oh, wait a minute...ahhh, I see...that's not quite the same thing; those are conditions that the pilot group AS A WHOLE have agreed upon, like scheduling rules, GDIP, vacation allotment, pay rates, etc. etc.
Not AT ALL like Age 60 Retirement....hmmm
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man.
Take it to the HRC, or to the House of Commons, stand there and say just exactly what you're saying here and listen carefully to the answers.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. What happens if they decide that it is permissible for a group of employees to collectively and democratically decide they wish to retire at a specific age, like 62, or 55, or 60, or whatever?
What is not permissible now is for a group of employees to collectively decide when someone must retire. That is an infringement on individual human rights in Canada. Can you not see the difference?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 75
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote picture: "I have flown with many of you who want to come back and keep flying at AC.
Unlike many pilots in the states you have a pension and you are the worst of the baby boomers. You do not want to leave the profession in a better state than when you found it. You are the worst of the ME generation . Listening to your arguments reminds me of discrimination from the gay community from the fifties. Except most of you had a 30 plus career and have a pension better than half the pilots salaries still working.
You are from the me generation and feel your wants needs trump all others. You are the reason this industry is in the state it's in after selling your young members down the river for years with the standard line let's protect the widebody working conditions because someday you will be senior.
You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man."
To this reader, it is apparent that anger is feeding your own greed to the extent that you are unable to disagree without yourself being disagreeable, which in turn tends to make your entire position on the issue of mandatory retirement irrelevant and immaterial.
Unlike many pilots in the states you have a pension and you are the worst of the baby boomers. You do not want to leave the profession in a better state than when you found it. You are the worst of the ME generation . Listening to your arguments reminds me of discrimination from the gay community from the fifties. Except most of you had a 30 plus career and have a pension better than half the pilots salaries still working.
You are from the me generation and feel your wants needs trump all others. You are the reason this industry is in the state it's in after selling your young members down the river for years with the standard line let's protect the widebody working conditions because someday you will be senior.
You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man."
To this reader, it is apparent that anger is feeding your own greed to the extent that you are unable to disagree without yourself being disagreeable, which in turn tends to make your entire position on the issue of mandatory retirement irrelevant and immaterial.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by picture
You are not an old lady on a bus. Just an old greedy man
Sir: In the organization where I work, we have developed incentives to keep our most experienced personnel from leaving their employment with us. We value their experience and their continued contribution to the welfare of the entire corporate entity. We consider ourselves enrichened by their continued contribution.
What is it about your employment circumstances that would lead you to take such umbrage at those of your peers who would express a desire to continue to contribute to your employer's objectives? Is their exercise of their desire and legal right, in the context of the existing legislation, to continue their employment beyond what has traditionally been considered a "best before" date, so worthy of your rebuke?
Last edited by Mechanic787; 18th Nov 2010 at 01:36.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If.....you want to read the official update(s) from the FP60 (Fly past 60) website:
FlyPast60 Web Update Page -- Fly Past 60 Coalition Recent Events
Regardless of what you want to believe, read, desire, etc, please, re read the above post from Engine Fire Left, it covers the entire story.
The BFOR (legal term) that ac/acpa failed to demonstrate during the hearings, removes the legal right to force retire someone due to age in aviation, in Canada. Thats the HRA law, period. Air Canada, is NOT the principle employer in Canada, it is well under the 50% mark, and therefore, AC can not set mandatory retirement under the HRA. They have no legal right to do so.
ACPA can not apply the BFOR argument, (they tried it in court) and it was rejected. ACPA is NOT an employer, so they can not even apply to the court for relief, under the HRA to discriminate on the age 60 issue. They have no legal right. ACPA can negoiate a retirement age with AC, and Vice/Versa, but neither can FORCE anyone to retire at age 60.
The CHRC, has told the CHRT, and the Federal Review Court, in their written submissions, for this months pending JR, that air canada failed the BFOR test. They, (ac) lost the BFOR, and they can not legally hide behind it any longer.
So, for those who are thinking like they are to only ones that have an interest that is being changed, you need to try....and see the issues, from a legal standpoint.
A response to the above posting by "Picture"
Since you called me a greedy old man, (all of us) no females on the FP60 group yet.... may I assume you would want to sit in my seat as soon as I left? That would make you just as greedy, only younger.
The difference between a greedy old man, and a greedy young man, is just plain old time, experience, and wisdom. We are all greedy, no more, no less,.....just at different ages in life.
FlyPast60 Web Update Page -- Fly Past 60 Coalition Recent Events
Regardless of what you want to believe, read, desire, etc, please, re read the above post from Engine Fire Left, it covers the entire story.
The BFOR (legal term) that ac/acpa failed to demonstrate during the hearings, removes the legal right to force retire someone due to age in aviation, in Canada. Thats the HRA law, period. Air Canada, is NOT the principle employer in Canada, it is well under the 50% mark, and therefore, AC can not set mandatory retirement under the HRA. They have no legal right to do so.
ACPA can not apply the BFOR argument, (they tried it in court) and it was rejected. ACPA is NOT an employer, so they can not even apply to the court for relief, under the HRA to discriminate on the age 60 issue. They have no legal right. ACPA can negoiate a retirement age with AC, and Vice/Versa, but neither can FORCE anyone to retire at age 60.
The CHRC, has told the CHRT, and the Federal Review Court, in their written submissions, for this months pending JR, that air canada failed the BFOR test. They, (ac) lost the BFOR, and they can not legally hide behind it any longer.
So, for those who are thinking like they are to only ones that have an interest that is being changed, you need to try....and see the issues, from a legal standpoint.
A response to the above posting by "Picture"
Since you called me a greedy old man, (all of us) no females on the FP60 group yet.... may I assume you would want to sit in my seat as soon as I left? That would make you just as greedy, only younger.
The difference between a greedy old man, and a greedy young man, is just plain old time, experience, and wisdom. We are all greedy, no more, no less,.....just at different ages in life.
Last edited by 777longhaul; 18th Nov 2010 at 02:50. Reason: updates
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir: In the organization where I work, we have developed incentives to keep our most experienced personnel from leaving their employment with us. We value their experience and their continued contribution to the welfare of the entire corporate entity. We consider ourselves enrichened by their continued contribution.
What is it about your employment circumstances that would lead you to take such umbrage at those of your peers who would express a desire to continue to contribute to your employer's objectives? Is their exercise of their desire and legal right, in the context of the existing legislation, to continue their employment beyond what has traditionally been considered a "best before" date, so worthy of your rebuke?
What is it about your employment circumstances that would lead you to take such umbrage at those of your peers who would express a desire to continue to contribute to your employer's objectives? Is their exercise of their desire and legal right, in the context of the existing legislation, to continue their employment beyond what has traditionally been considered a "best before" date, so worthy of your rebuke?
by your own words, this is not your issue...your lack of understanding of this issue at Air Canada is apparent - unless of course you are not who you say you are (and for someone who is not involved in this, you seem to be posting a lot on PPrune and AVCanada about this)
lots of professions, work well beyond 60 or 65 or 70....
a colleague of my father's, still works full time as a lawyer at 82....good for him....but that's apples and oranges to the Air Canada pilot situation.
maybe you can explain to us, from your workplace, how people are compensated, derive their work, their work schedules, and their vacations???
Most pilots can't jump from company to company and sell their work experience to another company, certainly not in unionized workplaces or even non-unionized workplaces that employee seniority lists.
If your work-place is based on a seniority driven work environment, then maybe the junior members aren't quite as happy with the idea of old codgers sticking around as you think
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 767-300ER posting above
It is his issue. This case, will affect all aspects of retirement in Canada, not just little old air canada. This issue, is the test case for all other companies in Canada. It is huge, and it is being monitored by a very wide range of corporations, lawyers, and other interested parties in Canada.
I like your call sign, the 767-300ER is a great airplane.
It is his issue. This case, will affect all aspects of retirement in Canada, not just little old air canada. This issue, is the test case for all other companies in Canada. It is huge, and it is being monitored by a very wide range of corporations, lawyers, and other interested parties in Canada.
I like your call sign, the 767-300ER is a great airplane.
Last edited by 777longhaul; 18th Nov 2010 at 02:48. Reason: updates
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 767-300ER
...maybe the junior members aren't quite as happy with the idea of old codgers sticking around as you think...
Au revoir.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: all over
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enginefireleft,
Pardon my ignorance here... as I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering. Just interested in the issue.
Would it not be chaos to allow people to retire as pilots at any age THEY wish? There are obvious problems with this? Or is this just about establishing a higher age limit?
Pardon my ignorance here... as I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering. Just interested in the issue.
Would it not be chaos to allow people to retire as pilots at any age THEY wish? There are obvious problems with this? Or is this just about establishing a higher age limit?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Canoli Driver
I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enginefireleft,
Pardon my ignorance here... as I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering. Just interested in the issue.
Would it not be chaos to allow people to retire as pilots at any age THEY wish? There are obvious problems with this? Or is this just about establishing a higher age limit?
Pardon my ignorance here... as I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering. Just interested in the issue.
Would it not be chaos to allow people to retire as pilots at any age THEY wish? There are obvious problems with this? Or is this just about establishing a higher age limit?
In answer to your first question, no, it would not be chaos to allow pilots to retire at any age they wish. There is a caveat that goes along with that though that dictates the pilot must be capable of doing their job both from a physical health and competency aspect. Pilots the world over work beyond age 60, and it is only creating chaos at Air Canada because the company, union and many of the pilots are making it that way.
The problems you allude to in your second question relate only to the health and competency issue as a pilot grows older. Many people at Air Canada would have you believe there are unknown and unacceptable risks with allowing pilots to fly over the age of 60. That argument might have a little bit of credibility if not for the fact everybody else in the world goes to 65 and it hasn't been a problem. You see, we at Air Canada in both the management and pilot side think that if Air Canada doesn't do it, or the idea didn't originate from Air Canada then it must be bad.
The CHRT is only concerned with the human rights aspect of this, and they will not by themselves put in place an upper limit on pilot age. It is up to the operator to make the case for an upper limit but so far Air Canada has completely failed to do so because they are arguing for age 60, and that is just not supportable or realistic today. Eventually they will wise up to what is supportable, but so far they show no indication of thinking that far.
For your third question, no, this isn't just about establishing a higher age limit. For the people challenging the age 60 rule it is about not being forced to retire against their will. To them it is an age discriminatory practice to be told to leave their job at the arbitrary age of 60. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agrees, so does every province in Canada and soon the Federal Government as well. Air Canada and ACPA maintain it is their right as a group to discriminate against an individual as long as it is voted on by a simple majority. That kind of intractable thinking is what's causing the chaos now because it is in direct conflict with contemporary Canadian standards and law. We are caught up in the minutia of a single case spending very large amounts of money defending a practice that has been rendered obsolete and illegal in all but one remaining (and disappearing) bastion in Canada. In doing so Air Canada and ACPA pilots are failing to see the overall reality.