Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
A fair question Understated, and I have a feeling that the day is coming soon when ACPA must accept that mandatory retirement is a thing of the past. But one must also ask if any other union has had a group of its own members dining on the fruit from the poisonous tree (i.e. advancing as others retired at 60), only to complain that the fruit was poisonous when it came their turn to step away from the table. That, IMHO, is what is leaving so many people with a bad feeling about this issue. I understand that it may be irrelevant to the legal discussions, but it's completely relevant to the human beings that are being affected by it going forward.
It wouldn't matter if they were the most popular pilots in the company, whomever chose to take on this fight first was destined to be faced with the bad feelings that are now occurring.
It wouldn't matter if they were the most popular pilots in the company, whomever chose to take on this fight first was destined to be faced with the bad feelings that are now occurring.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But one must also ask if any other union has had a group of its own members dining on the fruit from the poisonous tree (i.e. advancing as others retired at 60), only to complain that the fruit was poisonous when it came their turn to step away from the table.
Other unions in this country also have dealt with the same issue (ACPA is not the centre of the universe afterall) and they too have seniority systems.
Please explain why it is OK for ACPA, and ACPA alone to ignore their legal obligations?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.O.
Good question. Why the court action now.
This has been attempted in the 70's, 80' and 90's. There were different USA rules, ICAO RULES etc. The cost to do this is enourmous. The court time, legal time, personal time etc is not possible on a small group bases.
Remember, Transport Canada has NO maximum, age restriction on a pilots licence. That was done a couple of decades ago.
The current V/K issue has been going since 2003-2005. It is not something new.
There are many pilots who are on the silent list for this issue. That is to say, they are not vocal to the acpa types that are bent on fighting this issue. Many pilots need to go longer to get a better pension, assuming there is a pension to get in the future. The pensions, are under funded, both the AC pilots pension, and the CAI pilots pension. If....there is a change to the contract, to allow pilots to go past the mandatory 60, then the pension plans will be in better shape, due to less initial draw down on them. The indexing was stolen out of the plan, by the courts after ac went bankrupt. However, senior management still has all their benefits and indexing in the management fund. Nice eh.
There are not thousands of pilots trying to get this issue changed. So the impact is not massive. It does affect progression, no doubt, but it is not on a large scale. The pilots at ac, have taken many pay cuts, reduced hours, etc etc, to avoid layoffs of the junior pilots. That is a good thing, and the right thing to do. It saves them and it save the company money in reductions, and training etc. It also, allows the co to ramp up quickly when times improve.
I know of several pilots, who are hoping that this issue changes, to allow a pilot to fly past 60. They are in their mid 50's, and they want to work longer to obtain max pension. There are many varied reasons why a pilot might want to work longer, and to force him/her to retire at 60 is not right. If the anti 60 group want to retire at 60, fine, make the option to retire at 60, an option. They can still go if they want to. They wont though. This whole refusal by acpa is to get rid of as many senior pilots as possible, and then as the younger pilots approach 60, they will insist that the law be changed. Nothing surprising about that, it is just the way life is. Look at the age, and seniority, of the acpa structure. It is all about choices. So, now the courts will decide this, and the opportunity, that acpa had, to mitigate this issue, will be out of their hands, and into the mindset of the judges. Sad, that the line pilots are not given real life information by acpa.
Good question. Why the court action now.
This has been attempted in the 70's, 80' and 90's. There were different USA rules, ICAO RULES etc. The cost to do this is enourmous. The court time, legal time, personal time etc is not possible on a small group bases.
Remember, Transport Canada has NO maximum, age restriction on a pilots licence. That was done a couple of decades ago.
The current V/K issue has been going since 2003-2005. It is not something new.
There are many pilots who are on the silent list for this issue. That is to say, they are not vocal to the acpa types that are bent on fighting this issue. Many pilots need to go longer to get a better pension, assuming there is a pension to get in the future. The pensions, are under funded, both the AC pilots pension, and the CAI pilots pension. If....there is a change to the contract, to allow pilots to go past the mandatory 60, then the pension plans will be in better shape, due to less initial draw down on them. The indexing was stolen out of the plan, by the courts after ac went bankrupt. However, senior management still has all their benefits and indexing in the management fund. Nice eh.
There are not thousands of pilots trying to get this issue changed. So the impact is not massive. It does affect progression, no doubt, but it is not on a large scale. The pilots at ac, have taken many pay cuts, reduced hours, etc etc, to avoid layoffs of the junior pilots. That is a good thing, and the right thing to do. It saves them and it save the company money in reductions, and training etc. It also, allows the co to ramp up quickly when times improve.
I know of several pilots, who are hoping that this issue changes, to allow a pilot to fly past 60. They are in their mid 50's, and they want to work longer to obtain max pension. There are many varied reasons why a pilot might want to work longer, and to force him/her to retire at 60 is not right. If the anti 60 group want to retire at 60, fine, make the option to retire at 60, an option. They can still go if they want to. They wont though. This whole refusal by acpa is to get rid of as many senior pilots as possible, and then as the younger pilots approach 60, they will insist that the law be changed. Nothing surprising about that, it is just the way life is. Look at the age, and seniority, of the acpa structure. It is all about choices. So, now the courts will decide this, and the opportunity, that acpa had, to mitigate this issue, will be out of their hands, and into the mindset of the judges. Sad, that the line pilots are not given real life information by acpa.
Last edited by 777longhaul; 26th Nov 2010 at 02:29. Reason: updates
777;
Thanks for a very reasoned and thoughtful response. I should say, if it's not clear, that I am not a pilot at AC so I don't have a specific axe to grind. In fact, I honestly see and can sympathize with both sides of the argument. It's also quite likely that my financial situation will mean that my career will need to go past 60, so it would be hypocritical to come down hard on the side of mandatory retirement at that, or any other age specifically.
Obviously it would have been better if an amicable solution could have been reached, but having been somewhat of a monkey in the middle in the union / company ebb and flow in the past, I can see how it became polarized. The tipping point for me was when the V & K case included a demand for punitive compensation. They lost some of my sympathy right then and there.
Have a good weekend!
Thanks for a very reasoned and thoughtful response. I should say, if it's not clear, that I am not a pilot at AC so I don't have a specific axe to grind. In fact, I honestly see and can sympathize with both sides of the argument. It's also quite likely that my financial situation will mean that my career will need to go past 60, so it would be hypocritical to come down hard on the side of mandatory retirement at that, or any other age specifically.
Obviously it would have been better if an amicable solution could have been reached, but having been somewhat of a monkey in the middle in the union / company ebb and flow in the past, I can see how it became polarized. The tipping point for me was when the V & K case included a demand for punitive compensation. They lost some of my sympathy right then and there.
Have a good weekend!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J.O. and others
If....you want other POV's, (points of view) please have a look at the other active forum on this topic. Click the link below.
Scroll down to AIRLINES and then AIR CANADA
Also the Fly Past 60 (FP 60) website:
Thanks
AVCANADA • Index page
FlyPast60 Index Page
If....you want other POV's, (points of view) please have a look at the other active forum on this topic. Click the link below.
Scroll down to AIRLINES and then AIR CANADA
Also the Fly Past 60 (FP 60) website:
Thanks
AVCANADA • Index page
FlyPast60 Index Page
Last edited by 777longhaul; 27th Nov 2010 at 00:06. Reason: updates
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Censorship Is Alive and Well
AvCanada moderators did it again. Good discussion re the Federal Court hearing. Almost no slander. Nothing very contentious. Then, ZAP! Nothing. The whole thread is deleted.
Update: See below. The thread has been reinstated. Thanks to them.
Update: See below. The thread has been reinstated. Thanks to them.
Last edited by Understated; 27th Nov 2010 at 18:55.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not meant to be a thread hijack but, the above post compels me to ask if everyone is aware of the Obama Administration's attempts to put controls on the Internet? The Days of Freedom of speech are coming to an end. Obviously the Internet is censured in China, will controls and regulation and censorship become the norm in every jurisdiction? A major threat to Obama's control of "thought" by the MSM is the free speech emanating from the internet. It is about to be silenced. It's one thing when moderators control the discussion on a private forum but when the Government censures the Internet, Freedom is curtailed.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The House of Commons this morning unanimously passed Second Reading of Bill C-481, the bill that will repeal the mandatory retirement exemption under Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Bill was supported by all parties, including the government. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, in debate, stated that the government, with two qualifications, unequivocally supports passage of the Bill. The qualifications are to be dealt with in Committee, via amendment.
From here the Bill goes to a Parliamentary Committee for review and amendment. The two amendments contemplated are as follows. The first one is a transition provision that will allow a short time period, likely six months, from the date of the enactment of the legislation until the date that the legislation comes into force. The second one has to do with the Canadian military.
When the law takes effect, likely in the summer of 2011, the repeal of the mandatory retirement provision will affect approximately 12,000 organizations in the federal sector that employ over 840,000 employees in the transportation, telecommunications and finance industries.
Parliamentary Committee hearings are being scheduled for mid-January.
From here the Bill goes to a Parliamentary Committee for review and amendment. The two amendments contemplated are as follows. The first one is a transition provision that will allow a short time period, likely six months, from the date of the enactment of the legislation until the date that the legislation comes into force. The second one has to do with the Canadian military.
When the law takes effect, likely in the summer of 2011, the repeal of the mandatory retirement provision will affect approximately 12,000 organizations in the federal sector that employ over 840,000 employees in the transportation, telecommunications and finance industries.
Parliamentary Committee hearings are being scheduled for mid-January.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's pretend for a few minutes that no Air Canada pilots were challenging mandatory retirement or ever will.
What we are left with are the other employee groups at Air Canada filing their own complaints that ACPA has no control over. We are left with the approximately 840,000 other federally regulated employees in thousands of organizations, many of whom have filed or will file their own complaints into the indefinitely foreseeable future, which ACPA also has no control over. We have pensions under extreme pressure in this country because of greatly increased lifespans and a growing elderly demographic that must be supported by fewer workers. We have mandatory retirement already abolished in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada. And we have a federal government well along the process of doing the same with the unanimous support of every single Member of Parliament regardless of their political affiliation.
Hmmm.
Since no Air Canada pilots are challenging mandatory retirement in this fictitious world there is no one in our group for the others to hate and spend all their time and energy vilifying. So what would they be doing then?
One would hope they would look at the situation going on outside their little realm and recognize that things are about to change and they had better f*****g well prepare for it. However I'm not so sure that would be happening even in this fantasy world because afterall, we are Air Canada pilots and we don't have to do what the rest of Canada is doing.
But alas, there are Air Canada pilots challenging mandatory retirement which does give us someone to hate and vilify. So we are spending all our time, energy and vast quantities of money fighting those dirty bastards we despise so much, and pretending instead that it is the rest of it that isn't happening.
Great job!
What we are left with are the other employee groups at Air Canada filing their own complaints that ACPA has no control over. We are left with the approximately 840,000 other federally regulated employees in thousands of organizations, many of whom have filed or will file their own complaints into the indefinitely foreseeable future, which ACPA also has no control over. We have pensions under extreme pressure in this country because of greatly increased lifespans and a growing elderly demographic that must be supported by fewer workers. We have mandatory retirement already abolished in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada. And we have a federal government well along the process of doing the same with the unanimous support of every single Member of Parliament regardless of their political affiliation.
Hmmm.
Since no Air Canada pilots are challenging mandatory retirement in this fictitious world there is no one in our group for the others to hate and spend all their time and energy vilifying. So what would they be doing then?
One would hope they would look at the situation going on outside their little realm and recognize that things are about to change and they had better f*****g well prepare for it. However I'm not so sure that would be happening even in this fantasy world because afterall, we are Air Canada pilots and we don't have to do what the rest of Canada is doing.
But alas, there are Air Canada pilots challenging mandatory retirement which does give us someone to hate and vilify. So we are spending all our time, energy and vast quantities of money fighting those dirty bastards we despise so much, and pretending instead that it is the rest of it that isn't happening.
Great job!
Last edited by engfireleft; 8th Dec 2010 at 16:56.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Quebec, Canada
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How ironic....In France they went on strike because the Government is increasing the retirement age. Most of French citizen are against it.
Furthermore, fresh graduates are jobless or working as cleaners or other no qualification jobs and even then they have a hard time to find one.
What about all those pilots waiting for openings that will not come soon? And those pilots are almost working for nothing. Oh yea, I forgot about that absurd "you have to pay your dues" coming from the simple minded greedy who are coming back with a full pension...
Furthermore, fresh graduates are jobless or working as cleaners or other no qualification jobs and even then they have a hard time to find one.
What about all those pilots waiting for openings that will not come soon? And those pilots are almost working for nothing. Oh yea, I forgot about that absurd "you have to pay your dues" coming from the simple minded greedy who are coming back with a full pension...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you please tell me Breguet, how your post and the thousands of identical ones from like-minded individuals are helping Air Canada pilots prepare for the change that is happening, and would have happened if the flypast60 group never existed in the first place?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How so?
I think the question of what ACPA would do if this wasn't challenged by Air Canada pilots is very relevant. Everybody seems to want to blame those pilots who issued this challenge, but nobody including ACPA has stopped for a minute to think that this would be happening anyway. That was the point of my previous post and is why our current strategy makes absolutely no sense. If Air Canada pilots were not challenging this I would hope ACPA would look at the situation and prepare for the coming change as their responsibility as our representatives would dictate. But that's not what they're doing now is it?
So, what do you think would have happened given everything else that's going on? Can you seriously say no other Air Canada employee group would have made their own challenge. How about any of the other 800,000+ other federally regulated employees? Would the federal government not be moving to eliminate mandatory retirement?
I think the question of what ACPA would do if this wasn't challenged by Air Canada pilots is very relevant. Everybody seems to want to blame those pilots who issued this challenge, but nobody including ACPA has stopped for a minute to think that this would be happening anyway. That was the point of my previous post and is why our current strategy makes absolutely no sense. If Air Canada pilots were not challenging this I would hope ACPA would look at the situation and prepare for the coming change as their responsibility as our representatives would dictate. But that's not what they're doing now is it?
So, what do you think would have happened given everything else that's going on? Can you seriously say no other Air Canada employee group would have made their own challenge. How about any of the other 800,000+ other federally regulated employees? Would the federal government not be moving to eliminate mandatory retirement?
Last edited by engfireleft; 14th Dec 2010 at 19:59.
CIRB Dismisses All Complaints Against Air Canada Pilots Association
OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - May 6, 2011) - The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has completely dismissed all complaints filed by 67 pilots opposed to retirement at age 60 who alleged that they had not been fairly represented by the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA).
Full article here.
CIRB Dismisses All Complaints Against Air Canada Pilots Association
Full article here.
CIRB Dismisses All Complaints Against Air Canada Pilots Association
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, read the entire ruling. Then look at the context. It was done prior to the Aug 2009 CHRT ruling, and the Feb 2011 Federal court ruling.
It is also done with the Charter as the focal point, and not the HRA. Different issues.
The spin, by acpa is very misleading.
There is a very good debate on AVCANADA.CA re this issue, and information from Raymond Hall, from the FP60 coalition.
=================
The title of the ACPA Press Release is not accurate. The Board has not dismissed all of the complaints before it. It dismissed only the complaint filed last August on behalf of originally 67 pilots, later increased to 75 pilots.
The Board has not yet ruled on the complaint filed in March of this year regarding ACPA's refusal to file a grievance on behalf of the three pilot complainants whose termination of employment was pending in April and May.
===============
rudder wrote:
Perhaps Ray or somebody in the know would care to explain why the CHRT has not provided decisions in cases where proceedings have been completed? There is no reason for the CHRT to take pause as the matter is not being dealt with at the bargaining table and the CIRB has now made its view on the representational issue quite clear. Please don't tell me that the CHRT is waiting for the new government to enact new legislation
The CHRT is a quasi-judicial body. It does not provide reasons or justifications for any delay in rendering its decisions. Nor can anyone "call up the judge" to ask why the decision has not been yet rendered. Similarly, there is no basis for any speculation whatsoever as to any purported reason for a delay in rendering the decision. It will come when it will come. The only person who truly knows why the decision has not yet been rendered is the person writing the decision.
The Tribunal is charged with the responsibility of rendering its decisions on the basis of the evidence and law before it at the hearing. Any consideration of extraneous outside matters by the Tribunal in the result would be reviewable by a court, and is therefore not likely to play a factor in the timing of the release of the decision.
====================
It is also done with the Charter as the focal point, and not the HRA. Different issues.
The spin, by acpa is very misleading.
There is a very good debate on AVCANADA.CA re this issue, and information from Raymond Hall, from the FP60 coalition.
=================
The title of the ACPA Press Release is not accurate. The Board has not dismissed all of the complaints before it. It dismissed only the complaint filed last August on behalf of originally 67 pilots, later increased to 75 pilots.
The Board has not yet ruled on the complaint filed in March of this year regarding ACPA's refusal to file a grievance on behalf of the three pilot complainants whose termination of employment was pending in April and May.
===============
rudder wrote:
Perhaps Ray or somebody in the know would care to explain why the CHRT has not provided decisions in cases where proceedings have been completed? There is no reason for the CHRT to take pause as the matter is not being dealt with at the bargaining table and the CIRB has now made its view on the representational issue quite clear. Please don't tell me that the CHRT is waiting for the new government to enact new legislation
The CHRT is a quasi-judicial body. It does not provide reasons or justifications for any delay in rendering its decisions. Nor can anyone "call up the judge" to ask why the decision has not been yet rendered. Similarly, there is no basis for any speculation whatsoever as to any purported reason for a delay in rendering the decision. It will come when it will come. The only person who truly knows why the decision has not yet been rendered is the person writing the decision.
The Tribunal is charged with the responsibility of rendering its decisions on the basis of the evidence and law before it at the hearing. Any consideration of extraneous outside matters by the Tribunal in the result would be reviewable by a court, and is therefore not likely to play a factor in the timing of the release of the decision.
====================
