Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
 

On Thursday the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal concluded its remedy hearing into the age discrimination cases brought by two pilots in 2003 and 2005 respectively, First Officer George Vilven and Captain Neil Kelly.

Although the Tribunal Chair reserved his decision (he suggested that he will try to complete the decision by June 1st) the issue of reinstatement was dealt with completely, save for the issue of the seniority accrual of the two pilots during their absence due to termination of employment, contrary to the age discrimination provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Chair elected to resolve the seniority question prior to issuing the Order of reinstatement. However, neither Air Canada nor the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) opposed the issuance of the Order of reinstatement.

Air Canada and ACPA both argued that the pilots' seniority should be discounted (i.e. not accrue) from the date of their wrongful termination until the date of their reinstatement. Both pilots argued that their reinstatement should be made with the seniority that they would have had, had their wrongful termination not occurred.

Air Canada did agree that once the pilots were ordered reinstated, they then could use their assigned seniority to bid a position assignment and that they would be provided a training course at the first available opportunity. Both pilots conceded that because of ICAO restrictions on pilots-in-command over age 65, they would be restricted to bidding positions as First Officers. Captain Kelly is now 65, and First Officer Vilven will be 67 in August, 2010.

The other issues in the hearing, all hotly contested, such as compensation for lost wages, mitigation of damages, reimbursement of expenses and damages for pain and suffering will be decided by the Tribunal in the coming decision.

The original decision on liability, rendered in August, 2009 by the Tribunal, has been set down for judicial review by the Federal Court in November, 2010. Notwithstanding, reinstatement will take place with the release of the Tribunal Order in the coming month. The Court challenge brings into question the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the mandatory retirement exemption under the Canadian Human Rights Act. An endorsement of the Tribunal's decision that the exemption violates the Charter would then strike down mandatory retirement in all of the federal jurisdiction to which the law applies--namely industries of transportation, banking and telecommunication.

This Tribunal development marks a landmark change in the affairs of Air Canada's Flight Operations policy. Not since the mid-1980's, after Air Canada lost a Human Rights Tribunal decision banning age limitations on pilot hiring has there been such a monumental change imposed upon the airline by a human rights quasi-judicial body.

Lucky Canadians.
I fly with F/O's that are 70+. Flying airplanes is not a job for old people, I should get their salary as well because I do most of their work.

TC could just take away everyone's multi license as they hit 60...
Then this time they won't make the mistake and let someone clearly incapable of handling a multi end up smashed in pieces against a building.

Define 'old' ?

I've just lost my Class 1 Med, not because I'm 'old' per se - no age limit in NZ - but because of course age has created the condition that now precludes my holding a Class 1 on medical grounds, not 'social' ones.

If one can't complete the required workload, that is a different issue.

Flying airplanes are perfectly fine for older people, but for me, if I do ever end up still flying til I'm old. When I hit 60, I'm going to walk into TC, give them my license, and end it there. Been there done that. Don't need to start slipping up or thinking that since I've flown for 40 years, I won't ever make mistakes anymore. If I want to fly, I'll go up with an instructor or a friend. But I don't want to die flying.

MidgetBoy .......

I felt exactly the same, and although I walked away I didn't actually hand in my licence, so when a few years later someone gave me a ride in the club 172 ........... it all started again !!

I don't regret it - yet.

'Define Old'
Hard thing to do but what's needed is an 'age' and that's it, everyone goes.
62, 65 whatever. Fly 'til you die IMO is unacceptable. There's an old boy network going as well. It's hard to fail someone you've known for years, but Sim instructors, Check Pilots, Line guys, find it pretty hard to do the deed and all the associated paperwork and nasty meetings, better to leave it to someone else.

Come on, lads, we've all got to step down sometime. Otherwise we wouldn't have time on our hands to keep pontificating on PPRuNe.....

I've just had a letter from the Senior Aeromedical Adviser, CAA, informing me that I am assessed "temporarily unfit" under the provisions of the Air Navigation Order. And am invited to assemble all the reports and details, at my own expense of course, to revalidate. After 27 years of flying, at the age of 77, one rather expects to get that letter eventually.

You've all heard the one about the aged Captain, returning to the LH seat after a visit to the bog, murmuring "Now what did I come in here for?....."

This is not an area where one can generalise, it has to be on a case by case basis that includes both a competency check and a medical.

The competency check can be carried out by the employer but must be witnessed by an independent and qualified representative of the licensing authority who has the final say, no 'old pals' act there.

I am still fit enough to fly safely, I know people several years younger than me who are not, there can be no situation of 'one case fits all'.

Havnt ever done a check ride with any of "the old boys club", they had the smarts to fly the line and leave this stuff to the junior types who became checkers/trainers as anything was better than the ****ty blocks they could hold! In two months I have to do a ride on our 421/Citation both for I/R renewal and insurance coverage, I can assure you the checker does no favours, in fact I doubt if I will have set eyes on him/her before, so forget the crap about the "old boys club", he/she has a job to do and no doubt will do it in a totally profesional manner, and I will have to fly the aircraft in the same way.I think its up to the individual to know when to pull the pin, if he/she doesnt then the system should do it, as for staying on at my previous airline job beyond sixty, I wouldnt get out of bed for most of the pay scales I see these days, not to mention having a P2F sitting next to me! On a broader view, we in Canada are an ageing population, its becoming a huge social problem, this along with pension fund shortfalls has changed the whole retirment picture, its time to have a whole new look at retirment ,as for some of my group who tried to stay on, if they hadnt bought so many houses for women they hate their decision making process might have been a bit different!

I posted the update to our situation at Air Canada for the purpose of letting everyone know that the legal process slowly is coming to a close, in favour of change.

The subject of age limitations has two components in our context. The first one, competency, is not in issue, due to the fact that the government authorities regulate the subject through their requirements for periodical and continuous demonstration of professional and medical competence. The Government of Canada is on record with ICAO as opposing the age 65 limitation because it offends our Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibition on discrimination on the basis of age. Canada abandoned the maximum limit on age for airline pilot licensing shortly after the Charter provisions came into effect in 1985.

The legal (and relevant) issue flows from the second component, the ability of an employer and a union to “contract out” of the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, vis-à-vis mandatory retirement. The Tribunal last August ruled that provision of the collective agreement of no force and effect, and now is in the process of issuing an Order of reinstatement to the two individuals who brought the action to the Tribunal.

At the moment, there are almost 150 similar complaints in the queue before the Tribunal. In addition, in this proceeding, the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the administrative body responsible for looking after the public interest) that is a party to the proceeding before the Tribunal, is seeking a cease and desist Order against Air Canada to prohibit it from continuing to involuntarily terminate the employment of pilots on the basis of age.

So as much as we could continue debating the age “competency” issues in this thread, the key change here is the evolving legal aspect of age 60 in international aviation.

Australia has never had a "legal" retirement age for pilots. Before the 1989 Pilots Strike (or dispute - or a rose by any other name you want to call it) the pilots union in collusion with the airlines dictated the age 60 forced retirement.
That was later over-turned and now there is no age limit. Recently a 68 year old former captain has just been employed as a F/O. Best of luck to him, too.

Ahhh yes... ex crusty old Commanders become "armchair" commanders in the RHS. Nothing more irritating I can tell you. Didn't find the answer to that one in CRM.

All the while some young guy/gal with kids at home gets to wait some more for a job.....

Ah yes Huck, the old "entitlement" whine, having just read the obesity figures for your part of the planet, belive me the old timers will be needed to keep things going, none of which has any bearing on a Canadian legal decision, but its my pet gripe as Im tired of fairly young pilots coming to me for a job that have allowed themselves to become total slobs! Now I feel better!

Right on JO! Let me see now, been gone twelve years now, retired at the top of the heap, hey I just won the jackpot! The truth is Ive stayed in the air since leaving AC and make more money, and have a better life style than flying for any major, it reminds me of the mind set of those who took demotions to stay in the RCAF, not willing to leave the womb after being so comfortable for years, time to move on folks. Of to a wake this PM for another one who wont be collecting any more from the pension he paid for over many years, "what a pity wisdom is wasted on the old, and youth on the young!"

Hey Clunk,
It's not so much their physical condition as what's going on between their ears. Physicals don't test that.
They might seem quite lucid during the day but at 0400 they're non compos mentis.

Greed - 100% of the reason, cloaked in "human rights". I wondered how long it would take for this farce to make it onto PPRUNE.

At a staff Christmas dinner in Dec 2009 I sat with my wife's boss....the bosses' husband told me he knew a recently retired AC pilot...the topic of age 60 came up...the husband told me that the retired AC pilot joined the "fly til we die" group....but he had no intention of flying again...joined just because he figured that some magical money tree would pay him some money for violating his "rights".

I have no problem with Air Canada pilots retiring at 65 or whatever...for any pilot hired after 01 May 2010...the problem comes into how we deal with guys already on the property or who have already retired...

Since the two poor souls (who's rights have been disrespected) advanced their entire careers because the pilots senior to them retired at 60...how about we do this Ray?

They can come back to a place where they were 5 years before they turned 60???? and while we are at it, everyone else who was forced to retire at 60 should be given the same opportunity....

Where do you think this money is going to come from Ray????

It going to come from your fellow pilots...thanks so much for the ultimate demonstration of screwing your buddies for your personal gain...

This is disgusting.

For those of you not directly affected by this change at Air Canada, may I apologize on behalf of my former associates who apparently cannot understand that the laws of Parliament supercede the laws of the collective agreement, that this change cannot be avoided, and that they have a fundamental choice about how to deal with it.

Instead of embracing the unavoidable change and working to minimize, through negotiation, the obvious adverse consequences to those most adversely affected, they choose to discard their otherwise reasoned professionalism and degenerate this discussion into ad hominem attacks, while still pursuing their futile fight against the inevitable.

The entire aviation world has re-examined the age 60 restrictions, the Parliament of Canada has outlawed the use of age-based criteria for employment, and these individuals focus exclusively on slaying the messenger.

Can't wait to get back in the flight deck with them!

Raymond767,

How can you be so sure the age 60 will end at Air Canada do you already have a crystal ball to see the future?

The whole issue from my perspective has nothing to do with human rights. The collective agreement with this particular company was established long before we joined the company, everyone knew the the date of retirement was age 60 when joining. If the issue of change was being brought forward by pilots in their 30's or 40's I could see a point.

This issue has everything to do with selfishness and greed and nothing else. No one is forcing these pilots to retire at 60, only from Air Canada. I am currently flying as a B767 Captain in Asia, for one reason among others is I do not have to deal with individuals like you in my daily routine. There are enough jobs over here for everyone retiring at 60, come on over. Good luck in your quest. Lets at least try to leave something for the younger guys in this profession! The rest has already been taken.