AOA funding of UK retirement age appeal

[bobrun]

Everyone I spoke to actually would like the option to work past 55, even junior officers. However few are selfish enough to propose that junior officers should pay the bill of RA65 while the more seniors only gain from it. A fair deal for all is achievable and affordable yet management don't want to hear about it. Blame the company, not the junior officers if you can't work past 55 at present; they are the ones not agreeing to increase the RA.

[Goonybird]

Here's how it played out in the Canadian courts for a couple of AC pilots who felt they were forced to retire at 60.

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/fi...17august07.pdf

FlyPast60 Web Update Page -- Fly Past 60 Coalition Recent Events

Here is an eloquent way to retire, copied from another forum, please read.


"I joined AC over 34 years ago, (best decision I ever made), under the expectation that I would be leaving at 60 and so did everyone else on the seniority list behind me. I planned for it and I am more than happy to get out of the way of those who also planned on my/our retirement at 60.... I've been at it for 40 years last June and, as the saying goes, "...and now for something completely different!".

If 65 is what is wanted by the pilots (and therefore the Association) or an employer, then bring it to the table and deal with the issues raised by this decision.

If I might be permitted a bit of leeway and bandwidth...Two months to go. Fran asked me what I was going to do on Day One. I said I'd probably go out to the button of 26L and watch airplanes land and takeoff like I was doing in 1957, perhaps just to write the last page. There'll be no castor oil and belching smoke from the Pratts or the smooth drone of Merlins or the crackle of the Trans-Canada's connies starting and taxiing out for London, England from the south terminal. We can't wander onto the ramp (Harrisson Airways and the Aero Club of BC were favourites) and have one of the guys loading the airplane take a small kid to see the cockpit of what were Canadian Pacific's and TCA's brand new DC8s anymore. The DC8 simulator my brother and I built in 1961 is long gone (though some of the instruments made out of plywood are still in the FDA batcave). The high school had a bandsaw and you could cut curves with it, so making stringers was fun designing and putting together - because of my brother, even the lights and radios worked and we found something called the Radio-Telephone Operator's Handbook so we could learn how they did it, (my brother, now an electrical engineer, stuck a bobby-pin in an outlet and found his life's career in a flash of inspiration.. )

Anyway, some thoughts on Fran's question. We all have a Day One - it's the very last first day. I sure don't feel like on "old fart", so I think there's a lot in being able to fly to a later age but see comments above)...in fact, some kid with an "N" nearly piled into me from behind the other day when I had to stop quickly for a car coming out of a parking lot that he couldn't see. He laid on the horn, shook his fist, swore and yelled that I drove like a...like a...a...a fffifty-year old!!

I thanked him warmly and carried on... "

Don Hudson

[AnAmusedReader]

anything from mr thyrd?

Iceman reasonably asked that he

wanted to see if the man himself would reply.

I don't think there has been a reply. Maybe because of the following.

My contract says that officers who decline a command course will not be eligible for command bypass pay. That makes me want to know if someone who wants the contract enforced (retire at 55) is happy to sit on a base, decline a command course and take bypass pay.

Isn't that a breach of conttract?

Also that person would be a hyprocrite would he not?

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Firstly it is not desperation that drives my postings on this forum; the desperation comes from those who continue to argue that we all signed to 55 and that it, end of story, game over, disregard all else. Despite all of changing laws and social attitudes to discrimination in the world, it counts for nothing. Are we in a moral and legal vacuum in CX?. Does the expectation of our FO’s and SO’s negate all of that? The company even has a brand new found mission statement that says we are a socially responsible company, 27 contracts and differing age retirements makes the statement a little hollow; however I believe they are striving toward that goal. It is the total disregard for the basic principle of equal opportunity that the junior membership is displaying by not being prepared to acknowledge or compromise on that draws continuing comment. It is the denial to acknowledge that even in our own company we do not all have equal opportunity to retire at a unified age. It is the denial to accept the inevitable and get the best out of it that drives comment. It is frustration that the younger members are going to get outsmarted and their selfishness may cause them to lose a great deal more than BPP that causes me to post. Egalitarianism? very wide off the mark and missing the arguments.

A considerable number of vocal first officers have a vested interest in continuing the status quo in collecting as many $$$$$$$ for as long as possible. To be a bank teller and collect the manager’s wage would be a fantasy too good to believe in other professions. The original intent of BPP was not to promote a culture of a free ride.

.
It is not a red herring who is getting BPP, it is the driver and motivator to the appalling motion and it will also be fundamental to a resolution of a fair RA65 deal. Those getting the BPP or anticipating it are the thrust behind the motion.

Further more it is a disgraceful concept that newly joining crew members who have RA65 in their contracts will be able to vote on this issue, as they could deny long serving pilots the same opportunity on RA as they enjoy. It appears elements of the membership thinks denying the funding will enhance their ability to hold onto BPP or shorten promotion time if you do not get BPP in the case of new joiners. This motion does not have a shred of democracy associated with it nothing could be further than the truth.

I have been laboriously promoting a negotiated settlement for the entire membership and freely acknowledge there will be some short term pain for some long term gain. Given that there is a certain amount of inevitability the RA65 will be implemented now or in the near future it would be a logical move to attempt to achieve the most amount of payback as possible.

The pay increments and salary would be a good place to start, after all would you rather the cash goes to those who are actually by passed or it to be given to those NOT truly affected. A defined benefit retirement scheme has never been more essential than over the last year, and also the end to the divisive A and B pay rates simply has to be sorted. The DEC crewing of the freighter is costing the FO’s years longer waiting for those commands, to lock them back up into the seniority list is essential and would offset some of the effects of RA65. These are worthy causes to strive for in a settlement and would have the support of the entire membership.


However to continue to defend the morally indefensible and continue paying those sitting on a beach in Brisbane and all over the world, who are refusing to move to HKG for their command, yet banking Captains wages whilst voluntarily remaining an FO whose seniority number does not entitle them to a Captains slot, is going to end in grief sooner or later.

I
The proposers of this motion have clearly misidentified whom to pick a fight with, it is not their senior fellow aviators, the proposers have no Plan B should the company impose a choice as they did in 94, 99, and 2001.The company have done their homework on what you will do if presented a choice, you have clearly told them you will take RA65. The sweeteners will not be there if the company imposes a choice. Unresolved issues will remain.

By going ahead with the motion against the express wishes of the GC the plotters have demonstrated they are amateurs in planning strategy, undermined the GC’s well thought out strategy of a multi pronged approach. The plotters have severely underestimated the wrath of their peers they attempt to abandon, and they risk ending up with nothing.

The GC have recommended not to support the petition, be guided accordingly don’t jump off the cliff following a mob who cannot think for the overall benefit of all members and who are getting a free ride to Captains Pay and want it to continue forever and ever..

As the more reasoned posters have said let the AOA and the company sorts this out properly. The new GMA should welcome the opportunity to set thing right after years of mismanagement. Well said Raven

[tiger321]

I'll start out by saying that Charlie is a gentleman and I know that all this fuss is not what he was after.

With all the finger pointing and bashing going on here - has anybody stopped to think about the chances of this court case actually winning? As I understand it, the original case was unceremoniously thrown out. Surprise, surprise, the lawyers think there is a good chance of success on appeal. Have you ever met a lawyer that didn't think you had a great case?

I reckon there is every chance of this appeal being thrown out again. I'm sure the previous "lady" judge didn't just ignore the facts as has been claimed.

I have no doubts that age 65 will eventually come into effect. But that is only going to happen when the company wants it. When that happens hopefully everyone will sit down together and formulate a plan that works for everyone.

A few of the posters above are deperate to rush through something yesterday so that they can "unselflishly" (as they have explained!??!!) continue. I would be very surprised if that happens. A good and fair deal for everybody is going to take a long time to hammer out.

Flame away.

[Loopdeloop]

I know for a fact that the proposer of the motion is not in receipt of BPP so hopefully we can put that malicious rumour to bed here and now.

With the likelihood that the company will soon stop offering extensions, it is ironic that the best way of him achieving BPP is for the appeal to succeed and for us to win the follow-on case to retain BPP for captains working beyond 55 despite their new found right to work to 65.

I still say that the question of who receives BPP is a red herring. We can deal with that question separately and it has no bearing on the title of this thread. The fact is that this case will be heard whether the AOA pays for it or not - the figures being bandied about on this thread are vastly inflated and Charlie could probably afford to pay for it himself but in reality wouldn't have to even if the AOA won't pay as there are enough rich donors to the cause!

The only thing to come out of this motion is the pitching of one pilot group against another so I would urge the proposer to withdraw the motion on the following grounds:
1. The cost is not significant - The AOA can afford it.
2. The appeal will be heard anyway whether we pay for it or not.
3. The proposal will drive a wedge between many members of the union.

[SFGDOG]

CJG,

sorry to shoot you down old boy but I can gaurantee you that nobody with a seniority number of 1004 is getting BPP. You would need to be about a 100 further down the list. If I am wrong then someone owes me some dosh.

[happy nightflyer]

There are clearly some very strong feelings on either side of this debate. I can understand why the majority are not in favour of their money being spent in this way but no one has yet successfully argued why AOA funds should be used for this appeal. Indeed Loopdeloop says the appellant has enough wealthy backers to fund his fees without the AOA getting involved at all – so why did they?


Whether the appeal is won or lost the only people affected will be those who are on a UK base who wish to work beyond 55 and stay on their base. The outcome will not affect either way anybody else’s chances of achieving NRA 65 so the majority are funding an appeal which affects a minority. Even if the appeal is won the final outcome for those affected is unclear. The company is not likely to offer NRA 65 on present terms and conditions. They may well offer COS 2008 to all on the UK base thus complying with the judgement but where does this place those unwilling to sign COS 08? They would have been offered employment to age 65 as required but would then have turned the offer down thus voluntarily choosing to cease employment when their existing contracts expire at age 55. This is about retirement age and not contract law. I would suggest that any legal action brought in order to force the company to offer a new contract to age 65 with existing T & C’s would be a very expensive and futile exercise.


How does such a scenario help the remainder of the workforce – it doesn’t. This is a UK appeal and the result irrelevant elsewhere. Thus those who believe a successful appeal will affect anyone other than UK based pilots are dreaming.

So please can someone explain why the GC got involved in the first place?

[Fly747]

Illegal

The reason the AoA should be involved is because age discrimination is illegal in UK. I would expect the AoA to support any minority of members wherever they are if they have a valid arguement. The AoA cannot chose what laws it does or doesn't like.

[Humber10]

13 pages of guys crapping on here.... Do you really think you will make a difference here on this site? Have any of you actually written to the AOA and made your point? I'm guessing from what's been said here, you all have???

Good luck to us all, either way, sounds like half of either junior or senior are screwed.

My last gripe, to the guys that say 'relax, you can work an extra 10 years' are you serious? I have never had any plan to work past 55 in this company and joined this company so I could retire earlier at say 50 from cx. Even though I'm on z scale, this is still possible, I dont understand how a super B or A scale can not have enough money to retire at 55. Dont you atleat have one house paid off and a super fund? We are not rock stars or bankers, if you wanted to retire with millions, then you are in the wrong industry.

It is a very bad asumption to assume that junior guys want to sit in the can for an extra 10 years. If you want to, then there are plenty of other oppurtunities out there for you.

Job well done on the Hudson yesterday!

[Numero Crunchero]

some facts

Sorry to interject some facts into the argument, but here goes.

The proposer is about 120 numbers behind the newest 777/330 CN. As cyril has pointed out, about 43 of the 55 BPP recipients are 'unsuitable' and so they are senior to the most junior CN.

The Proposer is not on BPP - at 2009 expansion rates it will be many many years before he gets it. If things go back to normal next year then it will be about 2-3 years before he is eligible for BPP.

Many opposers to the the appeal are current CNs - so no they are not all 'self serving' FOs who want $$$$$$.

The gains to be made by pilots working beyond 55 on current terms are far far greater than any BPP that might be received by the FOs whose commands are delayed as a consequence.

The GC is not some omnipotent being. It did not decide with all knowing power and knowledge to fund the appeal. It argued it back and forth and voted, and the majority were for funding the appeal.


Don't make this personal. Play the ball not the man. CM and ST are good guys who happen to disagree on an issue.

[bonajet]

Out of idle curiosity Humber 10, how old are you? Just so I can get an idea of how far in the future you are talking about when you state that you'll be retired by 50.

[Liam Gallagher]

Fly747, Cyril, Raven and others

have stated that RA55 is in breach UK Law. To their mind this is a given fact and the rest of their argument flows from there.

A bit of googling reveals the cornerstone legislation in the UK is The Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006. I understand that this is the legalisation that Charlie was barred from using because he operates a foreign registered aircraft.

Given that this Regulation is EU based it must be seen as the current Authority on UK, if not EU, Age discrimination. Google also revealed a review of the Regulation by an Employment Partner at Freshfields (a major UK Law firm) and I quote

"An employer may be able to defend both direct and indirect discrimination claims if it can show the discrimination is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". A "legitimate aim" must correspond with a real need of an employer and could include business efficiency..... If a "legitimate aim" can be achieve by a less discriminatory method, it should be used.... It will not be acceptable to discriminate because it is more expensive not to..."

So it would seem you can discriminate on age, so long as you are trying to achieve a legitimate aim. Given that we are promoted on a seniority system (it says here ho ho) the company will say that to ensure business efficiency it needs the continued promotion of the junior ranks. To achieve this it needs to continously retire at the top and that it has no other means of achieving this legitimate aim. This is in all the COS99 Pilots' contracts; Charlie achieved his command by this method and guys junior to him are also relying on this method.

No apology for bringing reasoned debate into the thread....

[Kitsune]

But once again Liam, if I enter into a contract that has a definitive end point i.e. 55, come to the end of the contract, and then accept a second contract with different terms is this discrimination on age......?

The age discrimination law is about someone being paid less for the same job solely due to their age, NOT someone coming to the end of one contract and then reapplying and accepting a new one on reduced terms.

In both administrations, EU and UK, if the case is won, then it will mean a seismic shift of law, that allows the governments to regulate the employment contracts of foreign registered aircraft..... which opens a whole new can of worms.

[BusyB]

55 was only in the contract because it was the max retirement age when the contract was written.

[Liam Gallagher]

Kitsune

Footballers often finish a contract and then sign with the same club on a new contract on reduced terms. However, if you remain on the same contract and get a pay cut solely because you are 55, that would appear to be (highly) discriminatory; however is this what Charlie is challenging?

I thought he was saying that the fact he has to retire at 55, when he is perfectly capable of doing the job, is age discrimination. I restate, the point of my post was to challenge those on here saying RA55 is discriminatory and indefensible and then use that "fact" to launch into all sorts of tangental arguments. The company can and no doubt will mount a robust Defence. Whether that Defence will prevail, can only be determined by someone committing a lot of time and cash to what I suspect will be a lengthy legal battle through, I suspect, the entire UK legal system.

Should the company prevail, they will then further argue that they were lawful in retiring Charlie at 55, but then offered him a further (different) contract on different terms (ie lower). I suppose that is why we call them extendees (amongst other names), the company refers to them as retirees.

To anyone thinking the company will not mount a robust Defence. Imagine the cost to the company of losing this one. Compensation to every UK (possibly EU) pilot they have retired at 55. Those who can get a medical will come back in rank and seniority (time to command...demotion?). Back-pay to all those on reduced terms, including P-Fund. The plan to get rid of A-scale moves to the right 10 years. I note in the Age Discrimination Regulations that employers have to provide medical coverage to all employees (this cannot be declined on cost). I would guess this would also apply to loss of licence and death in service insurance. I bet the premium on loss of licence of 60 year old+ pilot (if you could get it) would be greater than the individual's annual salary..... I would also bet that should the company lose this one the Intracx Notice would have the "Unhappy Tony Face".... followed immediately by a Notice to the Stock Exchange of a profit's warning!

The point you make in your final paragraph is valid, however I am sure any Judgment would only apply to those in Charlie's circumstances (ie House of Lord's ruling saying he's a UK employee afforded protection of UK Employment Law, save for this clumsly worded sub-sectioned) . I don't see Air India pilot's arriving at LHR and successfully claiming Age Discrimination.... but nonetheless a can of worms as you say....

[CYRILJGROOVE]

Sfdog

nobody with a seniority number of 1004 is getting BPP. You would need to be about a 100 further down the list. If I am wrong then someone owes me some dosh.

The BPP is so convoluted and its interpretation of BPP by the company is so flawed it is almost impossible to unravel. Facts are the most junior passenger B744 captain in HKG has a seniority number of around 913. In the next 100 seniority numbers, approx 10 are already captains as they have taken “early commands” jumping the seniority list if you like, arguably there are no provisions in our contract to do so, without a FACA. There are some 55 pilots on extension according to figures floating around.

If seniority was followed allocating commands and according to the COS and those who decline a command are excluded along with those that failed the course, you would presume BPP would be payable to seniority number 978. That is 913 +55 +10. Presently many FO’s in the mid 700+ seniority range a getting the BPP and it is not being paid to those who are effectively next in line for the command.

As there is no freighter agreement because the company cancelled it unilaterally (in order to prop it up with pax captains before Oasis) most would agree that those holding a freighter command past seniority number 913 of which on the B744 alone there appears to be no less than 60 names a bunch even having phantom seniority numbers of 99950. All of the freighter Captains over 55 with seniority numbers 1-913 also would generate BPP according to the COS. There is probably 100 or so freighter captains that should generate BPP and that would nominally put approx seniority number 1078 in the BPP entitlement according to the current COS. The numbers have not even considered the Classic . Additionally the SO’s prior to 08 have BPP entitlements. Obviously this is why the AOA are taking the company to task in the Labour Tribunal for breach of contract and the cash amounts may be significant. SFDOG may get BPP and under the current COS would be entitled to it provided he had not declined a command.

Basically the entire system is an absolute complete mess when you have people (DEC’s )holding commands with seniority numbers of 2500+, folks being paid as captains with no intention of doing a course and others in the mid range queue jumping and taking so called early commands. I understand the frustration of the junior members not able to hold a command, however what most do not understand is that has been happening here in CX for the last 20 years and the company mostly resorts to half baked and poorly thought out solutions such as COSP94 and COS 99, ASL etc. I know CX have not a clue what to do if layoffs were needed; they have created a monster with no systematic process of last in first off. The B744 check and training system would collapse if all those over 55 were let go. Maybe the company is being mischievous in paying BPP in the manner it is at the moment to generate discontent, who knows?

BPP is a very valuable and potentially extremely expensive deterrent in the COS and it has some very real currency when seeking a resolution to RA65 there is no doubt about that but it may be of little value if CX acts in the manner it always has in the past when the bulk of newer pilots were not in the company. If the majority of those seeking to derail a complete solution, by not supporting Charlie are anticipating BPP for the long term then I would suggest they are misguided. It is a bit like holding on to a share to long and it becomes worthless, you wish you sold it when it had some value. There is some inevitability that RA will come in a some point, and BPP will be inextricably linked to a solution one way or another.

At the end of the day only a minority of crew receive BPP and the greater numbers do not see it however quite rightly the AOA is robustly defending the minority, something the leadership are happy to do for a minority at the other end of the spectrum, but some members do not support. This thread has a list of very worrying comments which would have you believe that some of our members actually actively support age discrimination to further their own goals.

As I said earlier, a defined benefit retirement scheme, pay rates, and all of the freighter jobs to those on our list in order, the old A Vs B scales are all issues worth resolving once and for all. Support the AOA and seek a complete and fair deal for all, do not support the petition.

Liam

I don't see Air India pilot's arriving at LHR and successfully claiming Age Discrimination....

But liam Charlie is employed in the UK and pays taxes there, The AI pilots are mostly employed in India and presumably all have the same opportunity of a unified retirement age throughout their company….and agreed it is convoluted and who knows the flow on effects, best to cut a legal deal one would presume,

FAC6

It's been said many times, when these guys joined CX they KNEW they had to retire at 55 with nice A Scale provident funds. Some say there has been a shift in society where the norm and RA is now 65... what rubbish, there has been no shift. The only change is that most of those saying it are now 54

OMG, misguided, misinformed missed the point, think this bloke would miss most things

Yokebearer

We accept RA65 without bypass pay BUT all extendees go on B scale

Sounds like you would be a top negotiator……….for the company!!

Loop

The only thing to come out of this motion is the pitching of one pilot group against another so I would urge the proposer to withdraw the motion on the following grounds:
1. The cost is not significant - The AOA can afford it.
2. The appeal will be heard anyway whether we pay for it or not.
3. The proposal will drive a wedge between many members of the union

Agree agree agree

Jumpseat

I would bet my house, pension, future lottery win , that anyone of the peeps backing the anti RA65 lobby or refusing to back Charlies, case would not, repeat not, refuse a change to their contract including RA65 after all the the pre 1993 employees have departed

.

Your correct jumpseat, and the company knows it as well, add my house to the bet!

[yokebearer]

Well Cyril - you make a lot of sense but like most don't offer any solutions.

I guess all there is for us and the AOA to do is the American way - Sue sue sue and then sue some more till there is a new deal??

If the AOA is pursuing age 65 and SO bypass in court then hopefully it is a matter of time before FO bypass goes to court too.

[nike]

Not sure how shagging your cousin will fix the situ, there yoke.

Air eNZed boys said they've got a 70 yr pilot, and few over 65.

If the retirement age thing goes down the discrimination/human rights road, then how can there be a retirement age at all?

Hold medical = hold job.

Is a "Retirement Age" a thing of the past?

[Loopdeloop]

Cyril. BPP is being paid iaw the CoS, with the exception that it's not being paid for freighter extendees. Currently this means that it's being paid up to about 10 numbers below the most junior captain. ie 923. The argument for who deserves it is irrelevant as the CoS is quite clear that cat A,B & C F/Os receive it, whereas cat D F/Os do not. As I've said before "who should decide who deserves BPP - The Company?"
The only slightly grey area is whether "decline a command" includes "decline to move to Hkg" which is an argument for another day. This part of the CoS is open to interpretation and in fact the interpretation of it was changed by KJP last year. This is a separate issue and something that the membership could vote on and ask the GC to agree an interpretation with the company. If we were to do it iaw with "custom and practice" then the many years of not paying it to those waiting on a base would probably prevail.

I'd also like to clarify that my quoted comments are only directed at this recent proposal not to fund. The AOA have said they will fund it and I think it's immoral to withdraw funding now. KJP did the same last year in promising A scale to A scale extendees then withdrawing it - do we really want to sink to his level?

Let's pay for this case but make sure any further decisions with relation to RA are voted on.