SOME AGE 60 HISTORY

[777longhaul]

TYPE OUT THE ENTIRE link as shown.

Some minor history of age 60 in Canada, at Air Canada


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6a ... %2C4028935

[Doug Moore]

Got this message when I clicked on the high-lighted link:

"404. That’s an error.
The requested URL /newspapers?id=6a was not found on this server. That’s all we know."

When I copy and add the un-highlighted "... %2C4028935" to your link I get sent to a page with links to what looks like every newspaper in the world.

[777longhaul]

Hi Doug

Go back and try the link now, it is working, finger trouble from me.

If not working for you, go to the following on this forum:

Please go to the posting, Happy Birthday your Fired, *bottom of page 3) a few post down and go to the bottom of the post, the link will take you into a newspaper article on AC and some info on CALPA and the age 60 issue. The link works there its at the bottom of the page.

thanks

[Doug Moore]

Works great now ... oddly enough, I have a photocopy of that newspaper article somewhere in my files. Most pilots don't realize that the fight against mandatory retirement at age 60 has been going on for decades. Young pilots dream of retirement and can't comprehend the thought that just maybe there are some pilots who aren't so anxious to follow that (retirement) dream.

Cheers,

[Rockie]

You see, that's what I don't understand. Pretty much every pilot I know got into this gig because they love flying airplanes, and while I'm the first to admit it eventually becomes a job...it's a pretty damn good job. It's also the job we've all worked toward our whole early career. So it's more than a little puzzling to me that once people get here flying airplanes is something to be avoided and retiring from it as early as possible becomes the objective.

[fish4life]

Is there anyway of doing a cognitive ability test as a mandatory retirement / medical req' instead? Has this been looked into? Some guys at 60 are a lot less "with it" than others that are 80 so maybe some people have to retire at 55 and others 75.

[TrailerParkBoy]

JAA Medical....just saying!

[Rockie]

Nobody would have any objection to more stringent medical and competency tests I'm sure, I know I wouldn't. But be careful what you wish for, don't assume only pilots 60 and over would fail them - it could be you. Wouldn't it be ironic if a measure you hoped would eliminate guys over 60 forced you out of your job at 45?

[Dockjock]

You just summarized this entire issue; it's not about choice or what's right or fair or just, it's about crafting an argument. It's no coincidence that the pilot leading this whole thing is a lawyer. A group with that view- that they wanted to work longer- has crafted an argument using a rights claim as its tent pole. Without irony, they lump themselves in with gay rights, women's rights, race and religious rights, as if aging- something everybody does- has caused them (and them only) to be discriminated against. The core of rights issues to me are ones where somebody is harmed due to an attribute that they have no control over- skin colour, gender etc. Choosing an employer is a crapshoot, and we all just pick the one we think offers the best overall package for career progression and thus earnings. Air Canada had been at or near the top of that pile for a few decades now. It's just a bit, I don't even know the word, hubris? It takes a lot of hubris to complain that ones rights have been taken unjustly after playing for the top team for 30 years...
I guess I can accept that age discrimination is illegal, and should be. And now it's changed. I just don't think you're all owed any more than you already got. It's an argument but it's obvious at the core that this is just one groups wishes winning over another. Nothing to do with rights. If "retirement age" was the primary criteria for all y'all's career choices why aren't there more applications at companies that don't "discriminate." Or don't have pensions at all, for that matter. See, you're all completely full of crap and everyone knows it. Human nature I guess, I just hope the courts are smart enough to see that the rights issue is now settled. The big win is in the bag. Now the ONLY thing you're arguing about is that the win came too late to cash in. Pardon me while I roll my eyes so far back in my head I can barely stand up.

[eep...2 Green]

.

[Rockie]

I guess I can accept that age discrimination is illegal, and should be.

I offer my honestly respectful congratulations sir...that is a breakthrough that many of your peers still have yet to reach.

[Dockjock]

No so fast Rockie. I'd hardly call retirement, or any policy that applies equally to everybody (aging) discriminatory. So sorry.

Real age discrimination like, "no new hires over age 30," would be terrible. "Everyone retires at 60 after in many cases 35+ yrs on the job, here's your awesome pension and free travel for life,"....hardly. If that's discrimination, and I guess now it officially is, then surely it's the least, lowest, smallest possible type measurable.

[Norwegianwood]

If that's discrimination, and I guess now it officially is, then surely it's the least, lowest, smallest possible type measurable.

Like a near miss................ not an accident, catastrophic! alas still a near miss.

Just like discrimination

NW

[altiplano]

They should make it 35 YOS and gone - doesn't matter how old you are. Everyone can check out with 25 years+ if they choose to go early.

Hired at 20? Lucky you, you got to #1 and you're out at 55 with full pension. Hired at 30 and stayed til 65? Lucky you, you got to #1 too, full pension. Hired at 35? Not as lucky, but you still reached a high percentile on the list and are able to check out at 60 with 25YOS or maybe you choose or stay?

The way some senior senior guys on the list are being allowed to park at the top after the change over, clogging it up meanwhile pushing 40 YOS and almost making a joke of it is BS. I heard one 777 cpt comment that he wasn't leaving until so and so one # below him did because he wasn't giving up his # to him. Hardyfuckinghar, isn't that cute. It isn't a joke for the rest of us trying to improve our seats and climb out from under the mountain we find ourselves under. So last fifteen as a WB skipper and a 150k+ pension you can step into tomorrow? Go away.

[Dockjock]

If that's discrimination, and I guess now it officially is, then surely it's the least, lowest, smallest possible type measurable.

Like a near miss................ not an accident, catastrophic! alas still a near miss.

Just like discrimination

NW

I'd like to think, hope, that there is a little more nuance to this particular case particularly since it is so obvious that the part you claimed to be fighting for- the rights issue- was won and the victory passed with a whimper. Now that the money phase is at hand the sound of 200 greedy pigs rubbing their hands together is getting a little bit beyond irritating.

[Morry Bund]

The core of rights issues to me are ones where somebody is harmed due to an attribute that they have no control over- skin colour, gender etc. Choosing an employer is a crapshoot, and we all just pick the one we think offers the best overall package for career progression and thus earnings. Air Canada had been at or near the top of that pile for a few decades now. It's just a bit, I don't even know the word, hubris? It takes a lot of hubris to complain that ones rights have been taken unjustly after playing for the top team for 30 years...

If that was all that the issue about, you might have an argument. But it is not. As the remaining contributions to this forum clearly demonstrate, the validity of the age 60 termination provision has not only been tenuous from the outset, its legality has never been absolute, even at Air Canada. The only way that it was effected after the enactment of the human rights statute that prohibits discrimination on several different human rights grounds, including age, is that the legality of the provision was conditional. Conditional. Comprendez?

It was legal so long as the normal age of retirement was 60. And there was a continuing onus on the employer to demonstrate that any termination of employment was in compliance with the law. That meant that in terminating any pilots on the basis of the provision, prior to the repeal of the exemption, Air Canada had to demonstrate that age 60 was the normal age of retirement for pilots in the Canadian airline industry. Demonstrate it, not assume it.

So the issue is not just about complaining about one’s rights, after working one’s way to the top of the heap, as you put it. When the most current challenges started in 2003 (there were several other challenges in the 80’s and 90’s), the issue was about forcing Air Canada to demonstrate that its termination were in compliance with the conditional exemption. If there was no challenge, they could have just kept on doing what they were doing, with impunity, even though the actions were in violation of the law.

It had to start somewhere, and the fact that the person who put some organizational effort into the original pilot complaint(s), organized the necessary structure to formalize the process and to garner the resources to challenge both Air Canada, with its highly paid outside legal team, and the union, with its superior legal counsel, is indicative not of personal volition, but of smarts. No one pilot could have done this alone, given the financial challenge. Ask your ACPA rep how much this has cost so far, in terms of legal fees. Double that for Air Canada’s legal expenses. Then ask yourself how the coalition has managed to stick with this over the eight years of litigation. The obvious answer is that this has to do with much, much more than simple personal interest in financial gain. Although you may not agree with the suggestion, there is a lot of principle holding this group together, not just from the organizers, but from all the members of the coalition as well.

Underlying it all is the fundamental belief that from at least 2005 onward the terminations were in violation of the conditional exemption in the statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age. And with the decision of the federal court this past January, that belief is supported in law.

[Understated]

Now that the money phase is at hand the sound of 200 greedy pigs rubbing their hands together is getting a little bit beyond irritating.

Demeaning slander is uncalled for. It seriously detracts from the substance of your submissions and diminishes your otherwise professional stature, sir. None of our group has ever made any personal attacks against any those whose view differs from ours, although we obviously could have. We have always treated everyone, even our harshest critics, with respect. I would simply ask that you pay us the same consideration.

[Ah_yeah]

Prior to the US rule change, were foreign carriers flying into the US with one or both pilots overs 60 ?
I know Jazz guys went over 60 but were they held out of American destinations?

[Rockie]

Not just US destinations, US airspace. The same now applies to age 65 in the US and most other countries due to the ICAO limit. It's likely now a viable BFOR argument for forced retirement at 65 for Air Canada.

[Inverted2]

You guys have an awesome pension. Why the heck would you want to work past 65? It's great for the pension plan yes, but you don't live forever. I don't know of many airline pilots living well into their 70's or 80's.