No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision

[yycflyguy]

Obviously years over 35 do nothing unless those years affect the FAE calculation (see above).

... and yet, that's the demographic that has decided to stay. 35+ years of service and still going!

[pigboat]

Gents,

We are fast approaching an era where very few pilots, if any, will ever reach 35 years of service. Many will not reach 25 years service in the future.( much smaller pension) The best 5 years of earnings are very important to pension calculations and there is a very big difference in cash payout between a full 35 year pension and a 25 year payout regardless of the best 5 years of pay calculation. Few will ever see a 35 year career that was fairly common in the past. Hiring ages have increased significantly this last decade. A 22 year old new hire is a very rare case anymore.

The career continues to change radically. Pensions are under constant attack by the Company.

[AirMail]

I dunno pigboat, a lot of 20 something youngn's at Encore and Jazz that'll be at perspective mainlines soon. In 30 some years retirement will be 70. So easy for them to get 40 yos.

[pigboat]

I dunno pigboat, a lot of 20 something youngn's at Encore and Jazz that'll be at perspective mainlines soon. In 30 some years retirement will be 70. So easy for them to get 40 yos.

Yes there will be many younger pilots joining AC in the next few years. The problem is that they will not be in the Defined Benefit plan. They are part of a matching contribution plan. It is a terrible plan with very LOW matching contributions that will produce a very poor pension unless MAJOR improvements are made or brought back into a DB plan.

The Company is very resistant to the DB plan or making significant improvements to the matching contribution.

New hires face a BIG challenge in pension benefits! It will be an enormous challenge for the Union to rectify.

[Raymond Hall]

Could you give us your best Guess as to when they will render a decision? A few days, months or impossible to predict.

Some applications are decided within a couple of weeks after the panel members are provided the files. Others take up to 90 days. Our Ottawa agent tells me that the average is between four to six weeks. We are now about two weeks in, so we should get some word soon.

The way the parties are advised is that they all receive a communication from the Registrar's office, usually not more than a couple of days before the decision is released, advising that the decision will be released on X date at 9:00 AM Eastern time. Then, on that date, and at that time, the decision appears on the SCC web site.

The SCC rarely, if ever, gives reasons for its decision to grant leave or to not grant leave.

[Fanblade]

Stay tuned. My financial advisor is reevaluating my ability to retire at 60. Looks like widebody captain has been put off until 58-59 ish. My pension reduction hit is accordingly.

I would take a closer look at the math. You will probably take a bigger hit if you leave with just 30 years of earned entitlement in the plan calculated at WB Capt earnings

For me? I was counting on 30ish years calculated with FAE of a WB captain. Now it will be a narrow body CA. It is a substantial enough hit that I will likely need to work longer unless I decide to downsize my retirement plans. I'm not alone. Lots have been hired in their 30's.

Not looking for sympathy. God knows that won't happen here. Just pointing out that negative impact is taking place for many many individuals. A lot of people were hoping Raymond was right. That the new average age of retirement would fall around age 62. That hope has faded to reality. With it the expected pension incomes at at 60.

[Rockie]

Just pointing out that negative impact is taking place for many many individuals.

The "negative impact" is a matter of perception. Many, many individuals see the elimination of age discrimination and the ability to work in their chosen profession longer as a positive impact. Especially our pilots thrown under the bus with the DC plan who will have to work longer.

Why do so many pilots count down the days until their retirement? Is the job really that distasteful and onerous?

[Fanblade]

Why do so many pilots count down the days until their retirement? Is the job really that distasteful and onerous?

I think 40 years is enough. Enough hotel rooms. Enough dealing with security. Enough eating poorly. Enough sims. Enough red eyes. Enough 4am wake ups on the east coast. Enough holidays away from family. Enough jet lag. Enough days feeling like crap on days off recovering from fatigue. Enough medicals. Enough seeing the same destinations over and over.


I can completely see why the poster above reacted the way he or she did. On line I hear many people lament their coming decision.

Which one do they sacrifice? Retirement income or retirement time?

A decision compounded by pre retirement income stagnation.

So yeah. I can completely understand frustration being expressed as reality starts to settle in. People feel as if something of value has been taken from them. In fact something has. And each individual has to decide for themselves what they value more. Retirement time or retirement income.

Since retirement income is inextricably linked to the quality of retirement time? Id say yeah. Some people will feel they are being forced to work longer.

So I get the frustration. I think the big difference here is perspective. How much value people are putting on retirement time. If you don't value retirement time you don't want to stop working. If you place a high value on retirement time you don't want changes made that will delay or degrade retirement. Unfortunately changes like these don't take place in a vacuum. Some win. Some lose. Your sence of winning or losing comes from where you place value.

Brick head has a sence of loss. You have a sence of gain. Your both right.

Perhaps it's time to start being a little more respectful of the loss others have been dealt?

[duranium]

Perhaps it's time to start being a little more respectful of the loss others have been dealt?

Does the word '' others '' used here include all of your confreres that your group cast out on the proverbial iceflow from 2005 till the repeal of mandatory retirement by the Parliament of Canada. ?

[Doug Moore]

Which one do they sacrifice? Retirement income or retirement time? ... So I get the frustration. I think the big difference here is perspective.

Hi Fanblade,

From my perspective (having been force-retired) ... the big difference is ... everyone now has a choice, and that's not a bad thing. Pre FP60, there was no choice, the clock rolled past 60 and you were punted, willing or not. By the way, for a number of us force-retired guys, retirement income (based on Final Average Earnings) was sacrificed long ago at the alter of mergers. Mergers created the conditions that caused a number of pilots to retire from the right seat with well in excess of 25 years service. Wide-body captaincy? Gone at the stroke of a pen. So it was not all wine and roses for your predecessors who, faced with mandatory retirement at age 60, also had to lament and work with what fate had dealt them.

Frustrations? There will always be frustrations. As you so succinctly put it, if one values income over retirement then one continues to work and if one values retirement over income then one retires. The AC pilot of today has that choice and I see that as a good thing.

Fly safe,

Doug

[Rockie]

Why do so many pilots count down the days until their retirement? Is the job really that distasteful and onerous?

Perhaps it's time to start being a little more respectful of the loss others have been dealt?

Seriously Fanblade?

[Old fella]

Mr Fanblade....

If I may add to your, what I would consider, a reasoned opinion is an item of age. What I mean by that as we get older (I am 65), our days are more precious. Let’s be reasonable as guys my age, it isn’t a rate of climb, tis a rate of descent into the six foot hole that is steering us in the face. I am sure you, like me know of many who didn’t see the fruits of a retirement due to serious illness and subsequent death or worse still a sudden death. They worked 30-40 yrs. dealing with the shit-string good/bad of life, finally time comes by to drop it all and live quietly- and then bang they are checked out of life permantely. That what’s on the minds of old goats like me who are still kicking, other stuff is irrelevant.

[Fanblade]

Frustrations? There will always be frustrations. As you so succinctly put it, if one values income over retirement then one continues to work and if one values retirement over income then one retires. The AC pilot of today has that choice and I see that as a good thing.

Fly safe,

Doug

Doug,

Choice is a good thing usually. In this instance you are choosing to ignore the fact that the choices listed above can come at the expence of others retirement income or retirement time.


That choice only increases the frustration in those who value retirement time.

Is that a good choice your making? Does it help the situation? By acting in such a way were you part of the solution a decade or more ago? Or part of the problem?

Refusing to see this issue from the other guys perspective is why this was never resolved in a timely manor. Why it took a law change and over a decade of litigation.

Those comments are not directed just at you Doug. Your just one of the few I think might actually do some contemplation on it.

I'm going to duck out of the line of fire now. Once again I found myself lured in by Rockies caustic remarks. I told myself I wouldn't do that. It's like banging your head against the wall.

Cheers everyone. You too Rockie.

[Rockie]

Once again I found myself lured in by Rockies caustic remarks.

Sorry, I get a little testy at being accused of disrespectful behavior to others. It might surprise you Fanblade that I was one of the people delayed in their career progression and am fully aware of the effect this change had. I just look at the big picture.

[Doug Moore]

Doug,

Choice is a good thing usually. In this instance you are choosing to ignore the fact that the choices listed above can come at the expence of others retirement income or retirement time.


That choice only increases the frustration in those who value retirement time.

Is that a good choice your making? Does it help the situation? By acting in such a way were you part of the solution a decade or more ago? Or part of the problem?

Refusing to see this issue from the other guys perspective is why this was never resolved in a timely manor. Why it took a law change and over a decade of litigation.

Hi Fanblade,

(Conveniently) ignoring fact developed intransigence in both camps. Both sides were part of the problem and a refusal on the part of both sides "to see this issue from the other guy's perspective" ensured that this was destined to play out the way it did. There are no clean hands here. The issue that was most difficult for me to accept was ACPA's immaturity as a union body. It had an in-house dispute, yet not only did it it refuse to acknowledge the writing on the wall (in terms of pending legislation and the manner in which all the other AC unions were responding to mandatory retirement); it took sides thereby ensuring our journey down the path to litigation (and on which you working stiffs are still travelling and paying for). In any event, this dog is dead and like you, I'm outta here!

Cheers,

[Raymond Hall]

... this dog is dead ...

I am not sure to which “dog” you refer, Doug, but “this” dog is not dead—at least not yet. Not only is the issue that is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada very real, regardless of the outcome of the Leave To Appeal decision there are over 100 other complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal whose cases are still awaiting adjudication. The wheels of justice turn slowly, indeed, but they do turn, nevertheless.

The case before the SCC may be influential, but it will not necessarily be determinative of the subsequent cases before the Tribunal.

If nothing else, this ten-year controversy has raised significant existential issues. At the core is the fundamental methodology of the formula pay and seniority system, a career-long game of musical chairs that is truly at the heart of the conflict. That system was the genus of the conflict and the division among ACPA members that resulted in the union placing itself as an adversary in court to many of its own members.

I wonder, sometimes, if we would have had the same conflict and disagreement if we were somehow to have taken the personal income progression factors out of the equation. Would the opinions on age discrimination have been so polarized? If it didn’t hit so deeply in the pocketbook, would anyone have wanted to endure such a long legal contest?

There still remain other problems with any sort of age-based criterion in employment environments. One issue that is about to bubble up to the top fairly soon is the issue of disability benefits for individuals who are approaching or beyond the “normal age of retirement.” That is because the repeal of mandatory retirement laws has not yet been matched with a change in the regulations that deal with disability benefits for individuals who choose to work beyond what is termed as the “normal age of retirement.” The result is a total denial of disability benefits for those who elect to avail themselves of the opportunity to delay their ultimate retirement. You will see cases on this issue gradually appearing in the news, not just for pilots, but for other occupations, including professions in the health care industry.

Over the course of the past few years I have often wondered what distinguishes progressive societies from regressive societies and progressive groups from regressive groups. What distinguishes intellectual growth from intellectual regression? Tolerance? Accepting others, despite their differences? Possessing a willingness to be open to change? Especially when the world around us is changing and there is ample evidence that if we are not willing to change, the change will be foisted upon us, despite our reluctance?

[Doug Moore]

Hi Raymond,

The dog to which I refer is “my” dog. As you are probably aware, I am not now and never have been one of the complainants but I have always been a sympathetic supporter of the abolishment of mandatory retirement based on age.

When it became obvious to me that ACPA leadership lacked the maturity to debate and settle this matter in-house then I foresaw the timeline (and expense and frustrations) of the legal route that was surely to follow. If we use 2003 as a start point then here we are some 14 years later! I, myself, could very well be dead before this matter has finally run its course.

I agree with your comments on formula pay, seniority system and income progression and that they are “truly at the heart of the conflict.” As they were, I would suggest, at the heart of the acrimony that consumed our merger disputes. I have always maintained that as human beings and as pilots, we share much more in common than that which sets us apart. But that never seemed to give us cause to focus on the former rather than the latter. Not even when, as you put it: “… there is ample evidence that if we are not willing to change, the change will be foisted upon us …”

In any event, you raise some questions requiring much thought and self-analysis. Is ACPA a “progressive” group or is it a “regressive” group? I suspect that it thinks of itself as progressive but it seems not to behave that way when it feels threatened.

Cheers,

[Raymond Hall]

... ACPA leadership lacked the maturity to debate and settle this matter in-house ...

Remember, ACPA was formed in protest to the top-down leadership style of its predecessor, CALPA. Its constitution was conceived on the basis of a “consensus” management style—government by the members, with the individual elected representatives, including the President and the MEC Chair having virtually no direct authority whatsoever, in order that no Executive member could ever again purport to bind to Association to something like the Picher Award.

When I was Chair, my authority was limited to nothing more than calling meetings. I could suggest strategy, potential actions, and means of resolving problems, but I had no direct authority to make any decisions, and I did not have a vote, except to break a tie of the other MEC members. Every decision required an MEC conference call, at a minimum, to determine a consensus on the issue.

This type of management structure, of course, has immense negative implications for leadership of the union as a whole. Essentially, leadership is inhibited by design.

A case is point was the Vilven request for union representation on his age discrimination case. Initially the then MEC Chair told him that the union would represent him (I have a copy of that e-mail). However, after the implications of that decision became obvious, the issue went to the entire MEC, and the MEC ultimately decided to hold a referendum, sending the issue to the members to decide. We know the outcome of that process--75% to 25% in favour of supporting the employer's litigation to end his employment.

So here is my point. There is a very recent parallel in law. In 2014 the Law Society of B.C. had to wrestle with the issue of whether to grant status to Trinity Western University (TWU), given the University’s requirement that students sign a “Community Covenant” in which they pledge to maintain Biblical ideals and eschew sex outside of traditional heterosexual marriage.

The school received approval from the Law Society in April, 2014, but that triggered a revolt among the majority of lawyers in B.C., leading the Law Society to hold a referendum of all members on the issue. You can guess the result—almost identical to the result of the mandatory retirement referendum undertaken by ACPA in 2006—74% voted against granting TWU status. Consequently, the Law Society executive voted to deny TWU certification.

Then what? Judicial review, of course. And what did the Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court who heard the judicial review think of the Law Society’s action? Here is how the Vancouver Sun described it:

“In a stinging 43-page rebuke, the Chief Justice said the regulator’s Board of Directors, known as Benchers, abrogated their responsibilities after calling a referendum on TWU’s proposed law school. The benchers didn’t do their duty, infringed the school’s freedom of religion and ‘allowed the members to dictate.' ”

In legal parlance, the Benchers improperly sub-delegated the decision that they themselves were required to make, fettered their own decision-making and did not allow the opposing parties to have a fair opportunity to address the decision-maker (the members at large) before deciding the fate of the party affected.

The Chief Justice also criticized the members’ decision for the members' failure to consider, let alone balance, the petitioners’ Charter rights against the competing rights of … the community.

Sound familiar?

In the end, the Chief Justice struck down the Benchers' second decision and reinstated TWU's certification. An appeal was filed on January 5th, 2016.

Sound familiar?

[Doug Moore]

I remember & am familiar with it all. Throwing a tantrum and running away from home may make one feel good but such actions usually create more problems than they solve. I am reminded of the parent’s challenge to their kids: “If you’re tired of being hassled, then move out and pay your own way while you still know everything.” The AC pilots rallied around the cry of “grassroots” unionism, seeing only the grass without realizing that roots are what allow the grass to thrive and that if the roots are not healthy then neither will be the grass.

I’ve followed the Trinity case in the news as well. One would have thought that lawyers would be able to set aside their personal predilections and see the big picture, but sadly, no. To its credit, the Law Society saw the bigger picture and granted status to Trinity but then yielded its decision to cries for a vote from the membership. What was its thinking - that it believed that the membership would know better, or worse, that it accepted the notion that democracy and the popular vote can resolve contentious issues without prejudice? Naturally, it can’t always do so, as was recognized long ago by Benjamin Franklin, who described democracy as two wolves and a lamb taking a vote on what to have for dinner.

So yes, sadly so, all of this is very familiar, particularly for the lamb.

Cheers,

[Old fella]

Since the topic was brought up, let's call a spade a spade. Trinity Western is an anti gay lesbian law school as it closes it's ranks to those members of society based on religious dogma. Period and full stop.
I understand the decision by the Law Society of Ontario to refuse accreditation to Trinity Western was upheld by Ontario Superior Court last year.