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.

We're eating our seed corn, fellows.

Just an example of the larger picture, at least here in the U.S. The Baby Boomers got the fat of the land, the riches piled up and hoarded by the Greatest Generation. They blew through it all and now want to exit the stage by maxing out the credit cards.

A few are different - speaking of Sully, he's the chairman of the Young Eagles program at EAA - but the vast majority, from the leadership of ALPA on down, are burning the furniture to stay warm....

Some rather short memories here! The retirement age was 65, not 55, not 60. Some companies like BA and CX had a retirement age of 55 but that was more pension related than anything else.

By an arbitrary declaration it became 60 sometime in the late seventies, very early eighties, that was in the USA and UK and many other countries chose to follow suit. I don't think fly 'till you die is a good idea but reverting to the original age of 65 seems like a very fair decision and good luck to all those who benefited from the arbitrary change that knocked five years of our career and gave you a jump start, a jump start that so many now seem to take for granted.

As stated in a previous post I went to a wake yesterday for one of our fellow pilots,very well attended, lots of good stories and company. This subject of course was a hot topic after a few nogins, the tack most of the conversation took was interesting to say the least, so rather than do my normal stunt of drinking/talking too much I decided to clam up, stay dry and listen and bring what I picked up back to this forum, I do so without comment on the various positions taken. (1) The overall consensus was that this is simply a cash grab by some, and a totally stupid legal exersize by the author of this case.{2} Many seemed to remember signing a contract to the effect that they would bail out at aged sixty, damned if I can remember that far back!{3}Most just cant get their heads around why doesnt the person involved understand that retirment at sixty opens so many door for a new life? (the pilot we were remembering certainly understood this, what a life he led!) (4) To try to seperate the safety arguments from the legal stuff is just" plain stupid"(quote) and this issue has no buisiness in the field of human rights, evryone who joined AC knew the contract from day one.(5) If the individual wants to keep flying, the insurance companies are begging for experienced drivers to fly corporate, survey ect(I am an example of this, turned down two more gigs last month, very happy and well rewarded where I am thanks) There were many derogetory remards made about the personality of the author of this action and that he was ,quote"a pain in the arse to work with" some sugested that the excursion of the end in the DC9 has affected him, (their words, not mine, just the messenger!) This will place AC in such a position with claims from the "tag alongs" that the very survival of the company will be in doubt. Lastley the feeling was it will in fact reduce the quality of life in retirment, and if the author wants to keep working stick to his law practice and that he would have been well advised to spend less time involved in law and more time reading the AOM when he flew the line. So thats it, not my words, just reporting back from the retiree bunch, I think I will try this listning and staying sober at the next function, gives one a whole new perspective!

I shall not be responding to the ad hominem posts above, save to suggest the following. Despite the aspersions cast upon my motivation, I assisted in moving this legal issue forward by starting with a fundamental premise. Namely:


Premise: Age discrimination is illegal.

As difficult as it may be for some to get their minds around this fundamental legal reality, the reality is not going to change. Hence, one must adapt. The following corollaries flow from the premise.

Corollaries:

1. No amount of resources thrown at fighting the battle to either deny or to reverse the laws of the land will be successful in the long term. Hence, the change must be accommodated, sooner or later. Attempting to fight the inevitable will have very significant adverse consequences for the pilots, both in terms of the financial costs and in terms of the organizational cost, and a time when the industry is placing many other significant pressures on the resources;

2. It does not matter who blew the whistle. If it wasn’t blown by one person, it would have been blown by the next or the next. Attempting to continue an illegal practice is futile, especially when both the Association and the employer are on the wrong side of a huge and growing public policy issue;

3. Attacking the messenger and/or imputing nefarious motivations to the messenger, especially in the absence of any factual basis for those allegations, detracts from the resolution of the issue itself and lowers the credibility of those attacking;

4. Any legislative change necessarily implies a reordering of resources, especially over the short term, with some persons obviously benefitting and some obviously negatively impacted. This is one of the factors that the legislature must take into consideration when promulgating any law that changes the order of things. Nevertheless, the legislature cannot allow the potentially adverse consequences of legislative changes to prevent the evolution of the change, as that would mean that no change and no new laws would ever be possible, because there will always be someone who will be adversely affected by a change in the law.

5. Given the intractable nature of the legislative change, the key determinant of how successful individuals and organizations will be in moving forward is the speed and the degree to which they can anticipate, accommodate and manage the change—namely can they maximize the benefits while offsetting the most adverse consequences to those most adversely affected?

The age 60 rule, as well as many other factors related to our work relationship at Air Canada was never inscribed in stone. There was no “contract” when most of us were hired wherein we “agreed” to retire at age 60. In fact, before 1978 there was no Canadian Human Rights Act.

As a result, there was no restriction on discrimination in hiring with respect to sex (no female pilots), sexual orientation, age, height, or race. Air Canada was owned by the government, so its financial viability was not in question. Half of the regulations related to our employment did not exist prior to 1980. Is it possible to count the number of similar changes to our regulatory and work environment that have taken place over the last several decades--changes over which we have had no control? So why is this legal change any different?

Regardless, the Canadian Human Rights Act now exists. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms now exists. It is a fact that those statutory and constitutional enactments legally supersede any collective agreement provision that either exists or that was implied to exist when we were hired. And those laws are determinative of this issue.

So we shall change. How soon and how effectively we adapt to the change will speak more about ourselves than will any court or Tribunal.

Why should we have to retire before we either want, or have to, because we are no longer able. Here in the UK, a large proportion, if not the majoeity of people joining aviation over recent years is P2F. I would say the average age is early twenties. After mam and dad have paid for the training and type rating, they go straight into the right seat of a modern jet. Where i work it is not uncomon to see captains in their mid twenties. these guys and gals can expect 40 years of jet command time, and salary. In comparison, a large proportion of older captains came up through the old traditional route. This used to be called the self improver route. they would have worked their way up through PPL, CPL, air taxi, F/O on something small, gradualy getting bigger and eventually, if they are lucky, a jet command. Often on the way there would be a couple of redundancies, maybe a family to bring up, and for some, a divorce to live through. So these Captains with lots of experience of flying and life, but probably not too much put by and little or no pension, should retire just to get out of the way to let more P2F into their jobs. I think not!
I think as long as you want, and are able, you should be allowed to keep flying. there will still be plenty of time for the youngsters to get lots of flying in before they too reach an age and time in life when they see the other side of the story.

Ballsout, if P2F ever comes to Canada I will be greeting them with a baseball bat, Im pretty certain it breaks our labour code as well to add to broken legs, maybe Ray could direct his efforts towards preventing such crap from ever getting a foothold in Canada, it would certainly be a more popular cause than his present rant.as an end note, to all the Brits e mailing me with offers of paying for their own training, forget it! I pay my F/Os during their training, now theres a novel idea!

clunckdriver,

hahahahaha

I left Canada because of P2F!!!!!

Too many pilots with a ParkerPen logbook, working for free to get on type, paying for a type rating etc etc. And lets not start talking about flying in Quebec or for the government if you are a White Anglo Saxon (Male) Protestant!!!! And the people running the small airlines?! How many times did I hear.......'Ive got a stack of resumes this high on my desk who want your job, if you dont like it you can **** off' Well thank you very much I did, and I havent looked back.

I didnt think life in AC could get any more bitter! Well, throw some over 60's into the mix!

Aileron, yes there has been a lot of P51 time out there, however if you ever apply to me for a seat and I dont know you from way back I will break every privacy law in the country to check up on your background, flight times and anything else that may be needed, watched a good outfit bend two aircraft because they didnt do this. There is a new outfit in Canada doing very well and making the headlines all the time with how great they are, they would do well to check the background of some of their CHECK PILOTS before it bites them, more employers need to bite the bullet and do some REAL background checks on potential employees, another project for Ray!Where TC is on this I cant tell you, I know of severall cases when enforcement tried to go ahead with action but were prevented by those higher up the food chain, go figure!

Your premise is wrong.

Age discrimination is indeed legal. It is allowed in the U.S. under the Constitution and the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is allowed in laws if the discriminating governmental entity has a rational basis for their law. It is allowed in hiring if there is a safety rationale. From Wiki:

Whether a job comes under the safety exception or not is debatable, but there is no doubt that age discrimination has been and will continue to be legal in the U.S., subject to applicable restrictions.

Absolutely not the case in the U.S.

Most folks at my company were hired in their mid-thirties to mid-forties.

Those hired within the last 8 years or so are looking at 12 years minimum to any left seat.

For the last ~250 pilots or so, they can expect 10 years just to get off the 727 panel.

Huck:

For the sake of simplicity, the premise was stated in relation to the issue before the Tribunal, namely age discrimination in relation to mandatory retirement. I don't need to explain that the law supports putting age restrictions on firefighters, the military, judges etc. or that the Canadian law prohibiting discrimination permits restrictions on minimum ages for licences. We know that.

Both Air Canada and ACPA attempted to bring the pilots' cases within the framework of bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) before the Tribunal. Both failed. Air Canada will be giving it another shot before the Federal Court in November, trying to persuade the Court that the Tribunal erred on their BFOR argument which was based not on the pilots' competency, but on the ability of the airline to operate its flights given the ICAO restrictions with respect to the Over-Under Rule: they said they can't do it, despite the fact that every other airline in the world that has to do it hasn't complained about it.

So, the premise of my fundamental involvement is that age discrimination is illegal. The sooner we get on with our professional lives, taking into consideration the consequences of that fact and making the necessary adjustments, instead of trying to make the water flow uphill and instead of cursing the dark, the better off we shall all be.

Huck said....................
"Age discrimination is indeed legal. It is allowed in the U.S. under the Constitution and the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is allowed in laws if the discriminating governmental entity has a rational basis for their law."


Perhaps you should read some of the responses. Most of them relate to the Canadian situation where age discrimination is in fact illegal by statute.
The decisions passed down by the U.S.Supreme Court are without a doubt well thought out but as yet are not valid in the strip of land between the Great Lakes and the North Pole. Maybe one day.



"

Have just been walking around the back forty, checking on the crops, this is the time on my own that I tend to think about things in generall, so whilst checking on the new seeding I had one of my rare briliant ideas, if as Ray says Parliment is the ultimate authority on such matters and as they are an elected democratic body, then surely the wishes of the majority of Air Canada pilots should be the ultimate decision makers in this case, they, and nobody else are affected by this, What do you say Ray, or are we going to hear another legal decision which will bind many thousand pilots to your restricted view of the universe? or let them hold a system wide binding vote as to their choice, not some body urged on by Ray to tell them what their choice is! Other working groups could do the same in their own fields, or are the Rays of the world going to dictate to the majority?Or does REAL democracy not fit into your world? And please, much as I find your legal mumbo jumbo interesting just answer the question in "pilot talk", Thanks!

Should Air Canada pilots also be permitted to exclude women by majority vote? How about visible minorities? Gays? If the majority of us thought sexual harrassment was OK does that take priority over Canadian Law?

Really Clunk. This is the law we're talking about here...not some club where we can exclude demographics that we don't like simply because they had a birthday.

That's a pilot answer by the way. Think of it as Air Canada pilots deciding they don't like a particular air regulation so they decide they aren't going to follow it. This is Canadian law, and individuals or groups within don't get to decide whether or not it applies to them. It does.

Enginefireleft, dont reduce this discusion to the level of absurdity, its not allowed in debating clubs and serves no purpose here, niether adds to the level of debate or moves anything in the right {constructive} direction, as a member of a minority that the Master Race tried to make into bars of soap I find you arguments totally without merit and a reminder of times past. we are not talking about gays/ ethnic groups or others, its about a group of employees having a say in their own future, no more no less.

"its about a group of employees having a say in their own future, no more no less."

I agree completely. Who except ACPA and Air Canada are trying to deny anyone that?

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has determined last August that forcing pilots out at age 60 is age discrimination as is their mandate. Ray didn't decide it, the complainants didn't decide it, ACPA didn't decide it or Air Canada either. Both sides stated their case to the federal body legally constituted to decide these matters and and the decision has been made.

I'm sorry you can't see the parallels between age discrimination and all the other forms, but the CHRT and the laws of Canada do.

Fire left, there will be no "forcing out" if the majority of AC pilots, through the collective bargining process decide that the majority wish to retire at sixty, this is the right of any group/union to decide their own fate, and the decision is made by the majority, the day that faceless buracrats from whatever government branch can impose their will on free unions then we are indeed going down the road that started in the mid thirties in Europe, go this route at your own peril, history has a nasty habit of punishing those who ignore its lessons.{end of sermon, opens can of cider!}

This is about individual rights and protection against discrimination. If you think that's the opening stages of a return to Naziism I guess that's your opinion. I can't quite see it myself.

"But because the truth is far less noble, you are seeing a backlash from the vast majority of those who will ultimately be affected negatively."

No. Ultimately we will all be effected positively because all of us will ultimately be 59.9 years old. When that day comes you will have the option of retiring (as you always have had and will have) or continuing to work.

Why can't the vast majority see that?

Because we understand the difference between 5 more years of captain pay and 5 more years of whatever pay we're at currently.

And we understand the time value of money.

And we understand the health effects of working five more years in the long-haul industry. You WILL die sooner than if you went out at 60.

And there's a pretty good chance we will NOT have the chance to go out at 60, not with full benefits. The B fund will be next - the IRS here in the states hasn't quite figured out that we don't really need a bridge between retirement age and Social Security any more.

In the history of the airline business, there is a select group - the group that was in the left seats when the flag dropped and we went to 65. That group got 5 more years of captain pay. Those that came before didn't get it - those that came after won't either. One's perspective on this issue, I've found, is strongly influenced over whether one was in that select group or not....