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

WOW..... If ever there was a generalization that one wins first prize.

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.

wait for it.....

I think you're getting your tirades mixed up. We were talking about mandatory retirement in Canada, not EK's plans for world domination.

The pension was designed to max out after 35 years service because when it was conceived the average age of a new hire was around 25 years old. For many years now the average age of a new hire has been 34. That means the pension for them and anybody else hired in the foreseeable future will not be nearly as good as was intended. They will figure that out eventually and be quite happy someone else earned them the right to stay a little longer and improve their retirement if they so choose.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:ok:

Sour grapes that has no place in this issue. It certainly shouldn't dictate our response to it which is what ACPA has done. It's irresponsible.

Maxing out the pension already requires staying beyond 60. How many times do we have to be told the average age of new hires is 34? Do the math.

Clunkdrivers posts are editorial llfestyle comments that might pertain to him, but not to everyone. He is being judgemental over people with different priorities than him which is not appropriate. It's none of his business.

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.

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.

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 .

I don't doubt this for the most part which is why I say most people fighting it now will change their attitude when they approach 60. Human nature.

555orange

First of all the law already has changed. Second....

Oh never mind.

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!

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.

I wouldn't say that. I am one of many people who are no where near retirement but can plainly see which way this was going to go from day one. Many people like me also agree that forcing someone to leave their job simply because they had a birthday is wrong. But they are the silent factor here because whenever they try and put forward their viewpoint they are shouted down. Or, as has been happening on the ACPA website and others (you know who you are) their point of view has been consistently and repeatedly deleted from the forum altogether so no one gets to read it.

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.

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.

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:ok:

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.

A few pilots attempted to do so then. None were successful. One took the appeal of the refusal of the Commission to refer his case to the Tribunal to the Supreme Court of Canada; he lost. Why? Two reasons, both based on the legislation.

First, the substantive portion of the legislative exemption, namely Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That allows for mandatory retirement provided that it is done at “the normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work.” In the 1980’s, age 60 was the normal age of retirement. So no cases were referred to the Tribunal—they all failed on the merits at the administrative stage. So there was no point in me or anyone else complaining—the Commission simply would not accept the complaints.

Of course, that all changed after 2000, with the normal age in the industry moving off age 60. Hence, the Commission allowed the complaints, and referred them to the Tribunal for adjudication.

In the Thwaites case (hearing completed in January, 2010, decision not yet rendered) we presented substantive evidence that Air Canada pilots account for less than 40% of the pilots in the industry, hence the normal age of retirement (50% plus 1) is no longer age 60. Air Canada’s mandatory retirement, we suggest, no longer meets the statutory requirements.

Second, the interpretations of the Charter re the mandatory retirement exemption, have been changing. With the changing demographics, with changing public policy with respect to mandatory retirement, with the improvement in health and fitness, combined with the job shortages at the intake stage of the labour market, the factors that the Supreme Court of Canada considered in their seminal cases in the early 1990’s are being re-evaluated by the Courts.

The Federal Court, in its review of the original Vilven-Kelly decision, had trouble with the idea that the statute permitted discrimination provided that the discrimination is applied to everybody. The judge suggested that the remedy to that statutory interpretation problem lies in the Charter, specifically Section 1, and she struck down the provision under Section 15(1) (the equality provisions) as being contrary to the Charter.

Regarding bringing the matter up at CALPA or ACPA, we already know the result of that option. Other pilot unions facing the same issue decided to remain neutral, or even to finance both sides of the dispute. Not so ACPA. It chose to use the dues of those opposed to mandatory retirement to pay for the legal fight against themselves. How could a union, taking such a position, treat the minority fairly, in view of the outright conflict of interest that it put it self in?

Does that make the violation of the law any less a violation?

So your point then goes again to the issue of fairness, which is separate from the reality that you are facing—namely the reality that you are supporting a union position that is attempting solve the solution by denial and obfuscation.
Last night I observed the PBS interview of Bill Clinton. Some of his words hit home on our issue.

He said the following:

“Change is totally disorienting to people if it threatens their employment, their social status, or their sense of political empowerment. … You can scream, “Stop the world, I want to get off,” and look for ways to make it simple again. .. What I think we have to do is get back in the future business, and I don’t think there is any option cause I don’t think you can get off the world. Denial is not a strategy. It never works—ever!”

My personal opinion here, but I think you guys are wasting your money fighting this as discrimination. What makes this any different than limiting a drivers or pilot to have a license at 18, or an ability to attend a bar at 21? I could drive a car just fine at 16 just like you argue you can continue to fly past 60.

Im not saying its good or bad to go either way. Im just calling it as I see it. Each case has its own merits... retire 60, or 65. But I don't see much of a benefit for 65 where a good pension is involved. It really looks more like a case of not being able to let go. Making the transition to retirement is tough for some that really embrace their work, and perhaps love flying as much as I do. I can understand it, but it doesn't mean its a legal right or a discrimination. Its just the way it is, insofar to manage a group of employees. A general retirement that must be applied fairly to everyone. Maybe we can change it, but we have to look at how we can do it and minimize the negative affect on other demographics. Perhaps we should look at other factors. How it affects the finances of the company or how it might reduce the opportunities for young hopefulls wanting to join. Maybe its possible, but just not practical for everyone. If it benefits a smaller group to a lesser extent, then maybe its not the right thing to do.

Hmm why does our pilots association waste our valuable resources fighting battles we cannot win? We have quite a long track record of doing so. I remember one of our VP’s saying 'a good contract is one in which no one is happy'. Let’s get all the parties together and compromise. Probably half of the pilots that wish to continue only do so because they don’t like being told they have to retire. After a few years they happily retire on their own terms. Those that try to go full term only enrich the pension plan with their premature deaths in which case we all benefit. So it a rest and move on, its going to happen regardless of the venting on this forum.

Ray 767 when you win the case will the Fly Past 60 group support forcing Air Canada to include all retired pilots not just this narrow group in a return to work order. I guess what I'am saying is forget the legal answer will this group continue the fight to allow any retired Air Canada pilot the right to return to work and would you lead the fight. My problem with this whole exercise is the top of the hill syndrome if some want back all should be allowed back . You are aware no doubt of several sim instructors some in their 70's who could return to work with just line indoc. As for other pilots making attemps to stay past 60 is it a fair statement to say they had little or no support and fought the battle alone.

These misconceptions are part of the problem with having no few effective means to communicate among ourselves. Thankfully, for the most part, the conversation here on this Forum is candid and open, so that misconceptions like that can be laid to rest.

Fact 1: Those who haven’t asserted or protected their rights under the statute by filing a Complaint within the one-year limit allowed by the Act have no recourse to regain their employment as a result of any alleged violation of their rights.

Fact 2: There is nothing in the actions of our group that supports any proposition that anyone should be forced to be employed beyond age 60. We have asserted only that it is improper, under the Act, to involuntarily terminate the employment of pilots on the basis of age. It should be a matter of choice for the pilots, whether they wish to stay employed or accept their pension and terminate their employment.

Fact 3: We have supported the Commission’s request for an Order requiring Air Canada to cease and desist from involuntarily terminating the employment of pilots, based on age. That is one of the issues that will be decided by Tribunal in its decision that is expected to be rendered on or before June 1st. If the Order is granted, Air Canada will be required to inquire of each individual, prior to termination, whether he or she plans to terminate his or her employment at that age, or continue working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ea340

As for other pilots making attempts to stay past 60 is it a fair statement to say they had little or no support and fought the battle alone [?]

---

This has been a David vs. Goliath battle from the outset. Air Canada must have spent over $1 million on legal fees, plus a huge additional amount of money on internal expenses to cover the hidden costs of its managers supporting the unwinnable case (their internal lawyers (on salary, not fees) and their senior managers (on salary) were constantly tied up in the hearings; their senior flight ops managers had to act as witnesses and provide technical support to their legal staff).

ACPA’s legal fees on this issue are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Again, those fees do not include the hidden internal costs of supporting the action. For example, ACPA has had one of its labour relations staff attend each of the hearings (salary) and has had to spend countless hours internally for its Committee members and the MEC to deal with the litigation.

On the Complainants’ part, how could one pilot be expected to fight this ground-changing battle alone? Notwithstanding the propositions of some external writers (such as Ezra Levant) that the burden of fighting an human rights case before the Tribunal largely lies on the Respondents, not the Complainants, the fact is that no pilot on a pension the size of G.V.’s pension (nowhere close to the maximum) could have single-handedly afforded to finance this litigation against these titans.

555orange

Please don't take this as an insult because it's not meant to be, but based on a previous post your understanding of the hierarchy of law vs. labour contracts is wanting and I would encourage you to read this entire thread again to see how things lie. Also, forcing Air Canada pilots to retire at age 60 has already been ruled discriminatory last August by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. So no, it's not a waste of time or money. What is a waste of time, money and pilot solidarity is continuing a divisive fight that was lost 9 months ago.

Ray 767 forget the legal answer will the Fly Past 60 group support the return of already retired pilots in any meaningful way your short answer appears to be no . As for the folks who fought this battle before you will you agree no one supported them including any of the the Fly Past 60 group is that correct. . If the Fly Past 60 group does decide to support the all ready retired group I will take my hat off to the group .

EA340: You obviously haven't digested my previous posts. In a nutshell, why should I or anyone else waste valuable time or resources taking on a cause that has absolutely zero chance of succeeding, given that the action is now statute-barred by reason of timeliness?

What I have been suggesting here is that people should deal with facts, not with fantasy or with what is not an option.

Similarly, despite the tendency to overlay the issues with all sorts of irrelevant emotional distractions, such as anyone's purported motivation, we need to address the one issue that is before us, namely integrating the necessary changes into our workplace.

ea340
It strikes me also, that you don't seem to comprehend Ray's very clear simple answer to your question. The FlyPast60 group has chosen a specific fight, who cares what you think the terms of engagement should be?

Ok- rant switch- ON
I personally do not have a problem with those who want to work past 60. I plan on retiring at 60 and enjoying the fruits of my labor. I get miffed though when people attempt to change the rules mid-game and think they can tell ME I now have to work past 60 in order to recieve a pension.
If those who are challenging the very the age 60 contract that gave them many years of personal gain in pay and equipment are ok with "grand-fathering" the age of retirement changes to become effective when AC starts hiring again then I applaud them - anything else just seems to reek of greed.
Rant switch - OFF

Here is my rant....

When I "signed on" we were paid for training and got full credit for deadhead. Things change as I am sure you know.

One thing that won't change is your right to retire at age 60. No one is trying to change that. They just want the choice to work past 60 if they want to.

You might argue that if your career is temporarily stagnated you will be forced to work past 60 to make up the difference. Well guess what... Everyone's career is being stagnated by all the cuts YOU voted in. Oh yeah tell me again how it wasn't you who voted YES to all those concessions. It was always the other guy who gave away our contract and our profession.

I welcome the right to chose when I retire. It's looking more, and more, like we will all need a few extra years.

Well, since no one is trying to tell YOU that you now have to work past 60 to recieve a pension...what are you getting miffed at?

This is what happens when the union doesn't explain things to the membership, and the membership doesn't bother to learn it themselves before flying off the handle.

Left Eng - you're not talking about the same agreement you benefited from all these years from are you?

L in S - You have no idea how I voted. I am not anymore impressed with the degradation of our profession than you are. I agree that when the next round of negots begin we need to take a firmer stance and regain some of those items lost such as full credit DHs and training for example.
I digress slightly, what is important to me is that when I choose to retire at 60 (feel free to retire at 70 or even 80 if you like!) any annuity I would be entitled to will not degraded as a result of the fallout from the tribunal/appeals court decisions. :=

Good Morning from wet and dreary CDG

There seems be a under current that if the age 60 plus goes through, is one that in the next contract pensions will be addressed in a prejudicial manner to reflect growing anger with career stagnation by junior pilots affected by same.

Some how the quote attributed to the Duke of Welligton after the Battle of Waterloo seems relevent " there is nothing as sad as battle field lost as a battle field won".

It would seem that Ray 767 is not concentrating on the next round and has acquired target lock on present battle. So that being said Ray 767 do not wish to hard for something as you just might get it.

In the writers humble opinion yes fight for the change but make it for the next up lift of new hires at Air Canada to decide if they want to go past 60 to make your argument be other than intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt

Back to the cafe au lait...........:)

Do you mean the contract in constant retrenchment featuring throwing 320 pilots under the bus and the creation of second class Air Canada pilots with the Pay Group? Do you mean that one? Then yes, I guess that's what I'm talking about.

Contracts change all the time and NO ONE at Air Canada can take the high road with this "you knew what you were signing on for" rubbish, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue anyway. You do know that Canadian Law supercedes our contract don't you? You do know that this is not an Air Canada issue don't you?

Mandatory retirement based on age alone is discriminatory in this country. Wrap your minds around that. It isn't discriminatory for some people, it's discriminatory for ALL people. That means it stops...full stop. Our anachronistic 60's mindset has been living on borrowed time at Air Canada and this is way overdue.

The flypast60 group is in complete agreement with you, and Ray and others have been trying for the entire time to get the union to manage this change to ensure minimal negative effect rather than put all their effort into fighting it. Now of course the union has lost, and done nothing to minimize the fallout.

The union did this of course with the blessing of a large segment of the membership who refused to consider any other option. Ask the union (and yourself) why nobody was preparing for this day?

History
 

Lots of comment about past history on this issue; much of it appears uninformed.

At one time, Canada had a limit of 45 on flying "for hire and reward" (and no women permitted)

Pilots retiring from Air Canada in the early 70's told me they had been hired under that age 45 limit; but they flew on when the rules changed, and no-one expected them to go at the age in force when they joined.

Pilots hired when no-one could fly with various medical conditions such as monocular vision, diabetes, heart problems etc, did not leave when they got those conditions, despite the rules in place when they were hired.

There was no mention of 60 in the Contract at AC till the mid eighties; the union of the day opposed fixed retirement. 60 was slipped into the contract in response to Ross Stephenson fighting 60. 60 was not "negotiated", nothing was gained for it, and those hired prior to its appearance in the contract cannot be said to "have agreed to it when they were hired".

Various pilots did speak out about mandatory retirement prior to approaching 60. They (myself included) were discounted as "not understanding" the system. Same results as when they questioned other things like no women. Some have been consistent in questioning this issue throughout their careers. Ross Stephenson had supporters; some of whom now deny that support.

As one of the posters above points out; there are many who have supported this change, but they are shouted down if they speak out, and ACPA has lost an opportunity to manage the change to the benefit of its members.

One benefit advocated was to use pension savings from those working past 60 to allow others to go early with less or no penalty. ACPA's own committees reported to the MEC that an age change from 60 was "neutral to positive", but the MEC decided to fight rather than manage the change; further, ACPA did not educate the members before calling a vote on the issue.

ICAO looked at the numbers before changing its age recommendations. Older pilots are safer, and less likely to have a disabling medical event. Medical events causing incapacitation typically occur earlier than 60 or much later than 65; peak period for males is in the forties. ICAO recommended the change to 65, because they looked up to that age. 65 is not cast in stone, nor is the "over/under" rule. Canada has no age limit on pilots; the "over/under" rule does not apply in Canada or the U.S. Other Canadian carriers do not have Age 60 retirement; nor do they have any problem with the "over/under" rule.

Another misconception is that persons retiring early live longer. Large studies show otherwise. There is bogus information on the net about Boeing employees; that fabrication showed persons working to 65 dying at 65.2 years! Boeing itself countered with the actual numbers about its retirees. Those retiring at 55 die earlier than those who retire at 60 or 65. There is no significant difference in death rate for retirees or those who work beyond60. Shell published a similar study with similar findings.

The Tribunal and the courts will decide this issue; the decisions may not be popular with some, but the results will be real. It is generally better to manage change than to fight it; that opportunity appears to have been lost here.

0360A1A,

:ok: Please for the love of God put your post up on the ACPA forum for all to read.

MTK

It's likely not a good idea to post anything over there.

Lest anyone think that this issue affects only the pilots at Air Canada, think again. The CHRT has a number of complaints scheduled for hearings on the mandatory retirement issue, not just with Air Canada.

The first new hearing is a Tribunal hearing scheduled in June in Montreal with a different Air Canada union:

CHRT - Hearings Schedule

In addition, there is a backlog of other cases before the Tribunal on the same issue, with respect to the trucking industry.

Essentially, all the mandatory retirement cases deal with the same issue already decided by the Tribunal in the Vilven-Kelly liability hearing, namely, can the employer rely on Section 15(1)(c) of the CHRA to involuntarily terminate the employment of all persons in a particular work category?

There has been alot of talk in this thread about mandatory retirement now being illegal in Canada. As far as I know the laws have only been changed on a Provincial level. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Air Canada falls under federal law and I'm pretty sure that mandatory retirement is still legal at that level. (is there not a mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court judges for example?)