A pilot’s quest to remain at the top

[clunckdriver]

Royal, Unions less relevant? I sugest you take a few moments to have a chat with some of the pilots flying for a certain short haul outfit out of Ontario, you might, after listning to them , come to the conclusion that in some cases unions are needed more now than ever before! I think it was Nixon who said, "Bad unions are always a response to bad managment". Mind you he also said" Im not a crook!"

[engfireleft]

Maybe it's not too late

Yes it's too late. While some proactive compromise implemented twenty years ago and modified as time went on would have certainly made the transition easier, it would not in any way have stopped the demise of mandatory retirement or even slowed it down. Air Canada pilots are not driving the program here and although our ego's don't like to admit it we are not effecting any change that society hasn't already done years ago.

The only thing our refusal to adapt our thinking along with society has done is delayed the inevitable for our pilot group. Since we live and work in Canada we are subject to its laws and mandatory retirement would have ended at Air Canada even if no Air Canada pilot challenged it. But now that change is all the more traumatic thanks to our singular and continuing lack of vision.

[Phil340]

I believe at one time we had a clause in the contract for retirement at 57 and no penalty. It was hardly used and traded for something that was eventually lost in CCAA. Maybe someone more knowledgable could correct me on this.

[royalterrace]

clunkdriver

Here's another one for you...Companies get the unions they deserve.

Let's face it. Unions have had their day. The pendulum swung too far to the left and now it's payback time. Union contracts all over North America have been immolated. Ask the CAW. Ask ACPA.

The only unions making any gains are the government unions. They are still on the gravy train but only because of their unique situation. That is , WE get to pay their outsizes pensions and juicy pay packets because our politicians are giving away OUR money to avoid nasty situations that might affect their re-election.

There are scores of pilots in North America who are severely underpaid but that is the result of problems much more complicated than non-unionisation.

[clunckdriver]

Royal, you wont get any argument from me on the subject of Government employees being on a gravy train. Here is a good example, to correct a problem with my hands which I inherited from my Irish father I recently went under the knife to get the problem fixed {One hand at a time mind you} After he was done with the sharp things the surgeon asked me when I was flying next, rather sheepishly I said "Is five AM tomorow too early?" On hearing this he burst out laughing and stated, "The last silly servant I did this procedure on recieved a month of on FULL PAY!" Yes, in the case of Silly Servants its gone way too far, but with of many of the upstart airlines the employees do need a strong union, not just for pay but to stop the bullying and presure tactics so common in the industry. they seem to have a gift for selecting the very worst type into management positions.{And yes, we did fly the next day with no problems , mind you I did blame one of my "thumpers" on the hand!}

[J.O.]

That's a very broad brush you're painting with there clunk. I could tell some doozies about line pilots, F/As, engineers, crew schedulers and even managers who milked the system. Thing is, in every case, they were a small minority among their peers.

[nolimitholdem]

I really have no dog in this fight , but I guess I pipe up because I am so strongly against "other forces" determining ones destiny. I'm a strong believer in making ones own decisions and standing by them and reaping the rewards or consequences.

I believe this is both the strength and flaw in your position. At first blush, it all sounds very grand and noble, "determining ones destiny" and whatnot. But did not every pilot at Air Canada "make their own decisions" to join based on the conditions offered to them? Did not until very recently, those conditions include mandatory retirement at age 60?

So who exactly is not "standing by their decision"? Seems like Top Gun in the paper there, doesn't like the consequences of his decision to accept the AC terms of employment he accepted, lo those 39 years earlier. It's not hard to see why the public isn't buying his bull****. He could at least have TRIED not to come across as so self-serving.

I'm pretty sure this is why pilots making wages less than this clown's pension have fought against these "other forces" you mention.

[royalterrace]

NLH

One of the arguments brought up again and again is the " you knew what the deal was , now live with it". While keeping ones word is admirable , I don't think it quite so simple. I'm sure there have been a lot of things in contracts of 40 , 30 , 20 years ago that have changed due to the changes in laws of the land over that period of time. This looks like it will be another one of them.

The problem all comes down to money (as it always does). I can't imagine that anyone would not want to have control over their own retirement age. Some want to go early. Some want to fly till they die. It's of EVERYONES benefit to be able to decide due to their own circumstances. I fully agree that some will have windfall gains and others upward progression will be delayed. Therin , lies the crux of the matter.

There are things that can be done to mitigate the damage done to those lower on the totem pole but it will require the co-operation of those higher up. It will take a lot of compromise on both sides and will tear your current contract (and way of airline life) to shreads. I believe this has a lot to do with ACPA's steadfast determination to fight this at all costs. People generally hate any change , let alone the change required to make this thing equitable.

As the pro 60 posters have repeatedly said " this should have been done internally years ago" because the alternative is having it rammed down your throat by the government anyway and that's usually a disaster for everyone.

Anyway , I hope the matter can be resolved in such a way that those who want to continue working , can , without unduly affecting their co-workers too negatively.

[engfireleft]

I believe this is both the strength and flaw in your position. At first blush, it all sounds very grand and noble, "determining ones destiny" and whatnot. But did not every pilot at Air Canada "make their own decisions" to join based on the conditions offered to them? Did not until very recently, those conditions include mandatory retirement at age 60?

I was never asked if I agreed to retire at age 60. I was never asked to sign anything forfeiting my human rights.

Are you suggesting that by agreeing to work here we have no right to ask for changes to our contract? Are you saying that if we disagree with anything in our contract we are duty bound to vote it down or give up any right to try and change it in the next one?

That argument is often used by people trying to paint the FP60 group as unethical. But they conveniently forget the hundreds of other aspects to the working conditions they try to change all the time with no apparent ethical conflict. In otherwords it is complete self-serving hypocritical bull****.

[clevlandHD]

eng fire left, you just put the finger on it: others try to bring change (through the collective aggrement/negots) while the FP60 group tries to IMPOSE change (through court). Fly beyond 60 should only be addressed in conjonction with the next contract. Full stop.

[Lost in Saigon]

The FP60 group did try to negotiate change many years ago. Can you guess what happened?

I am sure they would have been happy with an age 65 retirement age. But because they were FORCED to go to the CHRT, it now looks like we will have to accept NO maximum mandatory retirement age.

Good planning on ACPA's part.

[engfireleft]

Fly beyond 60 should only be addressed in conjonction with the next contract. Full stop.

Human rights are a matter of law. Addressing it within our contract wouldn't change that fact, but our pilots weren't willing to do that anyway so the law caught up with us. That's our fault.

[Jet Jockey A4]

I would like to add something to this debate if I may.

I think one should be able to retire at age of 65 if one meets all the standards (medical, flying abilities, etc).

It is discrimination to force someone out of a job at 60 years old.

As for the younger pilots saying it is greed to stay on and not allow them to move up the ladder, I say... In due time! Yes it will take some of them a bit longer to get onto the equipment they really want to fly. Yes it will take a bit longer to perhaps hold the left seat. Yes it will take them a bit longer before they retire (if they choose to do so). But in the end if they do retire at age 65, they will have also contributed an extra 5 years to the pension fund.

Lastly, this week the Quebec government (and I'm sure others will follow) in a new budget said they would start penalizing people who retire before the age of 65 and that is reason enough to allow pilots to fly until 65.

Excerpt from the budget...

"Something also had to be done about pensions, given the impending avalanche of babyboomer retirees and the fact that at current contribution rates the provincial pension plan was facing bankruptcy by 2040. The budget's imposition of a 0.15-per-cent annual contribution increase for the six coming years is hardly crippling, amounting to just short of $170 a year by the time the hike is fully implemented for people earning $40,000 a year.

Also commendable is the measure to discourage early retirement by penalizing those who opt to retire before age 65 and rewarding those who work longer. The early-retirement penalty will be raised to 0.6 per cent monthly from 0.5 per cent, and the bonus for those who keep working until age 70 is raised from 0.5 per cent to 0.7 per cent. And starting next year, workers over 65 can get a tax credit of up to $1,504 a year."

[clevlandHD]

Jet Jockey, notice that the changes will be implemented over 6 years! There is a contract at AC and 1 clause should not be changed overnight (to serve a few while being detrimental to many). The change should be implemented over a period of time and other aspects of the contract changed with it. This is too massive to be dealt on its own. I work at another outfit where there is no discrimination on pay based on the size of the jet we fly... and we had no issue to raise the retirement from 60 to 65.

[Jet Jockey A4]

clevlandHD,

I believe the increases are to be made over a 6 year period starting now but the penalties will start right away for anyone retiring before 60. However without the actual wording of the budget this is speculation.

I'm also in favour of companies like yours (and mine) that pay the same salary regardless of equipment type.

Perhaps you are correct and the age 65 rule could be introduced over a period of time. Maybe it would ease the pain for both groups.

[engfireleft]

Jet Jockey, notice that the changes will be implemented over 6 years! There is a contract at AC and 1 clause should not be changed overnight (to serve a few while being detrimental to many). The change should be implemented over a period of time and other aspects of the contract changed with it.

You're absolutely right ClevelandHD, it should have been implemented over a period of time in conjunction with other aspects of the contract. But the time to do that was twenty years ago when it was plain to see that mandatory retirement in Canada was on the way out.

We didn't do that when we should have. Since then the situation in Canada changed from "mandatory retirement on the way out", to "mandatory retirement gone", and still we have done nothing to prepare for it. We have no choice but to change now, and our unwillingness to prepare for it or even accept the reality that is now upon us is making it that much more difficult. But change we must.

[a330pilotcanada]

"they will have also contributed an extra 5 years to the pension fund"

Good Morning Jet Jockey:

With regards to your above mentioned statement maximum pension benefits are reached after accruing thirty five years of contribution to the pension plan which is has a provision for your best five years to accrue maximum M.P.U.
What would have to be considered is pay pension payments past thirty five years. Is this a contractual item? I would believe that it is and I am sure those who are more in tune with the contract and actuarial tables should comment on this.
The debate on "status pay" and "formula pay" will go on for ever as each side has it's benefits.
Some airlines that use status pay has senior people doing day time turn a round on an A-320 while the younger people are on super long haul heavy aircraft. As a personal observation the long haul kicks the crap out of you and on a personal observation seeing some of my contemporaries still in the system they look much older than their chronological age. Nevertheless, with some with the use of hair dye and Grecian grey but I digress.........
Formula pay gives weight (no pun intended) to the heavier aircraft which in your last five years as Captain to bulk up on your pension contributions so your pension pay out is higher.
The only comment I will make on pension is this it is your second most important pay cheque for the rest of your life.

[Jet Jockey A4]

"Good Morning Jet Jockey:"

And the same to you sir!

"With regards to your above mentioned statement maximum pension benefits are reached after accruing thirty five years of contribution to the pension plan which is has a provision for your best five years to accrue maximum M.P.U.
What would have to be considered is pay pension payments past thirty five years. Is this a contractual item? I would believe that it is and I am sure those who are more in tune with the contract and actuarial tables should comment on this."

I'm sure something could be worked out to include an extra 5 years of contribution in the next negociations.

"The debate on "status pay" and "formula pay" will go on for ever as each side has it's benefits.
Some airlines that use status pay has senior people doing day time turn a round on an A-320 while the younger people are on super long haul heavy aircraft. As a personal observation the long haul kicks the crap out of you and on a personal observation seeing some of my contemporaries still in the system they look much older than their chronological age. Nevertheless, with some with the use of hair dye and Grecian grey but I digress.........
Formula pay gives weight (no pun intended) to the heavier aircraft which in your last five years as Captain to bulk up on your pension contributions so your pension pay out is higher."

I will agree with you on this. Both systems have their pros and cons and I'm sure it will always be a subject of debate in the airline world. Fortunately I left the airline world in 1991 and I have been very happy in the corporate world.

The difference between the two are; the airline world gets paid to fly aircrafts (many hours per year) and the corporate world gets paid to wait (many hours per year).


"The only comment I will make on pension is this it is your second most important pay cheque for the rest of your life."

I like that comment and how true it is!

[clunckdriver]

Jet Jockey, remember what Churchill said, "They also serve who sit and wait", He must have seen corporate flying coming!

[av8tor68]

I'm sure something could be worked out to include an extra 5 years of contribution in the next negociations.

With reference to pensions … a pension is limited (within the bounds of legislation) only to what you can negotiate.

For instance, you can go beyond the AC plan’s 35 year maximum and have no restriction on the number of years of Pensionable Service; e.g., if you work 39 years and 6 months, then you are eligible for a pension based on 39 years and 6 months of service.

You can have your pension based on your best 36 months Final Average Earnings instead of the more restrictive best 60 months as is the case in the AC pilot’s plan.

You can have a pension rule wherein you can elect 100% survivor benefit for your spouse, instead of the 60% restriction in the AC pilot’s plan.

You can have a pension rule written into the plan that provides for indexation, and one that can’t be taken away from you in arbitration, as was the case with the AC pilots who lost their indexation “agreement” with the employer because it was held outside the plan text. Etc., etc.

All you need is a little imagination and resolve to make things better. You just have to want to do so. The OCP pilots negotiated the above-mentioned benefits to their pension plan more than 20 years ago, but ACPA wanted nothing to do with the OCP Pension Plan in the aftermath of AC merging CP into their operation. That fortress mentality turned out to be very telling in terms of what the future was to hold for all of us. Its position on mandatory retirement today serves to demonstrate that not much has changed within the walls of the fortress.

Pity. Things could be so much better for everyone if only for a moment they could see fit to stop boiling their oil and drop the drawbridge. Because as they are soon to discover, once you’ve run out of oil … then what?