Disability Benefits For Pilots Over Age 60

[Bede]

Ray, you may see this as an extension of Charter rights, I see it as an attempt at further transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations. The practical results of all of this is that younger generations will be left worse off at the expense of baby-boomers, all under the guise of the "rights" of the older generation.

I see that you're still litigating cases, long since lost. Are you at all worried about having Costs ordered against you personally? I'm just an outside, somewhat uninformed observed, but from my vantage point, I see a pretty blurry line between Counsel and litigant. It seems that you have a pretty big interest (perhaps emotionally if not monetary) in flogging this dead hose. Just my $0.02.

[Raymond Hall]

"...from my vantage point, I see a pretty blurry line between Counsel and litigant. It seems that you have a pretty big interest (perhaps emotionally if not monetary) in flogging this dead ho[r]se. "

You just proved my point. No matter what I say about the substance of the issue, the response is invariably an attack on my motivation. Nice view of the ocean. Too bad there is such a haze in the sky... Don't turn around and see the lava flowing down the mountain behind you.

No offence intended. But the blurry line that you refer to is not between Counsel and litigant. It is between your filtered perception and reality. Try giving some serious thought to the issue. Your world is about to change, once again, and it has nothing to do with me.

[Rockie]

How much more time should the 55 year olds sitting in the Airbus who had the prospect of a long early fully funded retirement taken from them by Ray Hall be expected to "do".

As much as they want up until age 65. Kinda the point.

Altiplano.

I'm heartened to see you actually thinking of practical solutions rather than dismissing it out of hand which will get us exactly as far as it did with the age 60 issue...nowhere. Some discussion as to how this will work is obviously necessary.

Ray, you may see this as an extension of Charter rights, I see it as an attempt at further transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations.

That's why you don't "see" the train about to run you down just like the last time.

[Raymond Hall]

Here is the Globe & Mail article that I referred to above:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busines ... tional-by/

[Old fella]

How much more time should the 55 year olds sitting in the Airbus who had the prospect of a long early fully funded retirement taken from them by Ray Hall be expected to "do".

As much as they want up until age 65. Kinda the point.

Altiplano.

I'm heartened to see you actually thinking of practical solutions rather than dismissing it out of hand which will get us exactly as far as it did with the age 60 issue...nowhere. Some discussion as to how this will work is obviously necessary.

Ray, you may see this as an extension of Charter rights, I see it as an attempt at further transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations.

That's why you don't "see" the train about to run you down just like the last time.

Air Canada as good as it may be,is certainly hard to figure out. First , healthy and highly trained qualified pilots had a drop dead best before date handed to them when they reached the fine age of sixty yrs old . That was sensiblely designated to the dustbin and now there are issues trying to get medical benefits. In my 35 yrs industry/ Transport/ Nav Can years, plenty of over 60-65 even some went into their 70’s worked and all got their medical benefits and whatever else was due them. I worked with a good many of them and never issues on why they were there, nobody really cared.

[confusedalot]

Ray, you may see this as an extension of Charter rights, I see it as an attempt at further transferring wealth from younger generations to older generations. The practical results of all of this is that younger generations will be left worse off at the expense of baby-boomers, all under the guise of the "rights" of the older generation.

I see that you're still litigating cases, long since lost. Are you at all worried about having Costs ordered against you personally? I'm just an outside, somewhat uninformed observed, but from my vantage point, I see a pretty blurry line between Counsel and litigant. It seems that you have a pretty big interest (perhaps emotionally if not monetary) in flogging this dead hose. Just my $0.02.

yeah....riiight.....I'd love to see you talking when you will be older. Pretty sure you will defending the old over the young at that time and place.

Used to be young, had nothing, whatever paltry savings and advantages I had are only due to my past efforts. Never got any handouts. Pay levels and conditions were much lower. And I am the reason that the young making well over 100K are hard done by???
What?

looks like history lessons have become a tad weak since my time.

[Sinister]

Isn't this discussion really simply about change? Recognizing it, and then either embracing it or fighting it? It would seem to me that those who have chosen to fight the social changes with respect to historical age restrictions have succeeded temporarily, but only in the short term. Doesn't strategy involve more than recognizing change? Namely, embracing change and getting ahead of the curve?

[Rockie]

Doesn't strategy involve more than recognizing change? Namely, embracing change and getting ahead of the curve?

Yes, it does.

[Sinister]

From my reading of the Ontario decision, both the employer School Board and the Ontario government failed to persuade the Tribunal that it is not affordable to make these benefits available to the school teacher. Here is what the Tribunal said:

"[289] Absent a cogent rebuttal of the actuarial evidence led by the OHRC to show that the “carve out” provision is necessary to maintain the viability of workplace benefit plans, I find that the respondent Board and the AG have not discharged their onus to demonstrably justify this infringement under s. 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society."

Hence, the Ontario Tribunal decided the case in favour of the complainant.

So here is my question. How does that evidence differ with respect to what Air Canada does with its pilots? Can Air Canada and ACPA show that the cost of providing disability insurance to its pilots from age 60 to 65 is so high that a similar Charter challenge in its case would lead to a different outcome, especially, if the above reference is correct, after it announced a $125 million windfall due to ending pilot mandatory retirement? In other words, is the writing not now on the wall? To use the analogy above, the canary just took its last breath.

One further thought. From how I read the Ontario decision, the outcome is not about personalities and its not about what a majority of the players may want. It's only about what the law dictates. So, disparaging the messengers only detracts from dealing with the real issue, which, sooner rather than later, is likely to be front and center.

[Observer]

Air Canada, in its 2013 Annual Report posted a $125 million gain that it directly attributed to the pilot collective agreement reduction in training costs as a result of the repeal of mandatory retirement in 2012. My plaintiff appeal was then, and still is now, interpreted by you and your peers as a selfish attempt to personally benefit, resulting almost consistently in attacks against me for sounding the alarm. And the financial gain to the union was given 100% to the employer. You got nothing for it. Nothing.

Slight correction, Ray.

The $127 million gain had nothing to do with training costs. Not to say that Air Canada won't see some savings in the training department, but the gain you refer to was booked because of pension plan accounting. It was an upfront recognition by the accountants and actuaries that the DB plan would be saving money, a little bit every year over the next 60 years (until all the DB plan members are dead). The present value (December, 2012) of these savings, based on revised retirement projections attributed to this change in legislation, was estimated to be $127M. A total guess by the number crunchers, but there you have it.

But to your point, whether it was attributed to training or pension savings, ACPA got absolutely nothing for this.

From the 2013 Annual Report:

"In 2012, as a result of changes to retirement age in the collective agreement between Air Canada and the Air Canada Pilots
Association, which were not subject to regulatory approval, the Corporation recorded a credit of $127 in Benefit plan
amendments."

[Raymond Hall]

The $127 million gain had nothing to do with training costs. Not to say that Air Canada won't see some savings in the training department, but the gain you refer to was booked because of pension plan accounting. It was an upfront recognition by the accountants and actuaries that the DB plan would be saving money, a little bit every year over the next 60 years (until all the DB plan members are dead). The present value (December, 2012) of these savings, based on revised retirement projections attributed to this change in legislation, was estimated to be $127M. A total guess by the number crunchers, but there you have it.

But to your point, whether it was attributed to training or pension savings, ACPA got absolutely nothing for this.

Thank you. I stand corrected. Now think of the implications of this fact. No accounting for reduced training costs. In our Thwaites hearing, Air Canada witnesses estimated the average cost of a pilot training course at $40,000. How many courses were avoided as a result over the five years from December 2012 to December 2017 as many pilots remained in their senior positions instead of opting for retirement? Hundreds per year, every year! Every B-777 Captain that retires generates up to ten additional courses, given the number of positions down-seniority affected.

So add to the $127 million in pension benefit savings for which the union received no credit or apportionment, the millions and millions of dollars that Air Canada realized from reduced pilot training!

['97 Tercel]

It is between your filtered perception and reality

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone on here has a "filtered perception".

[confusedalot]

The $127 million gain had nothing to do with training costs. Not to say that Air Canada won't see some savings in the training department, but the gain you refer to was booked because of pension plan accounting. It was an upfront recognition by the accountants and actuaries that the DB plan would be saving money, a little bit every year over the next 60 years (until all the DB plan members are dead). The present value (December, 2012) of these savings, based on revised retirement projections attributed to this change in legislation, was estimated to be $127M. A total guess by the number crunchers, but there you have it.

But to your point, whether it was attributed to training or pension savings, ACPA got absolutely nothing for this.

Thank you. I stand corrected. Now think of the implications of this fact. No accounting for reduced training costs. In our Thwaites hearing, Air Canada witnesses estimated the average cost of a pilot training course at $40,000. How many courses were avoided as a result over the five years from December 2012 to December 2017 as many pilots remained in their senior positions instead of opting for retirement? Hundreds per year, every year! Every B-777 Captain that retires generates up to ten additional courses, given the number of positions down-seniority affected.

So add to the $127 million in pension benefit savings for which the union received no credit or apportionment, the millions and millions of dollars that Air Canada realized from reduced pilot training!

Out of sheer curiosity, I plunked around the internet as to HOW big red miraculously got through billions of debt and billions of pension deficit. Lots of info out there but none will address the actual dollars and cents of how this was done.

Two things;

CCAA was a court ordered arrangement where the creditors had the gun to their head and were somewhat coerced into accepting a percentage of their debt, what 10, 20, 30, 40%, instead of getting 0% in the case of bankruptcy.

The pension deficit thing............at the time of all of the negative press around how the pension fund was a couple of billion in debt, nobody thought to illustrate that the pension fund was worth something like 12-16 billion. It's not like they had no money, they had a 7% deficit or something along those lines.

Bottom line, we're talking billions. A mere 127 million of pilot training savings makes zero difference in the big scheme of things.

[Rockie]

The point being made Confused is that the company got every cent of it. That’s because despite years of trying to convince the pilots to keep their eye on the ball they insisted on continuing a useless fight they had already lost from the opening bell.

We deserved what we got...nothing.

[Doug Moore]

We deserved what we got...nothing.

But the force-retired pilots didn't deserve what they got: active resistance from the union into which they paid dues for decades, and sanctimonious abuse from members who couldn't, or wouldn't consider the upside benefits of FP60.

[Rockie]

100% agree.

[Sinister]

But the force-retired pilots didn't deserve what they got: active resistance from the union into which they paid dues for decades, and sanctimonious abuse from members who couldn't, or wouldn't consider the upside benefits of FP60.

I know that this thread is not about the previous decisions of the courts, but I must say that one thing still bothers me about those fights. I attended one of those hearings before I retired, to watch my own union's legal counsel fight against my rights both as a member of the union, and as a citizen of the country, wrongly assuming that I was protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against laws permitting discrimination on the basis of age. The legal fees for the union's fight came out of my union dues, as well as out of the dues of others who similarly opposed mandatory retirement and who could see the long-term futility of the fight.

The only reasonable conclusion that I can derive from that process is that it wasn't about mandatory retirement at all. Those who fought it did so to get me and my peers off the seniority list so that they could benefit from the impending change. And benefit they did.

Am I bitter? No. But I lost a lot of respect for the legal system that allowed this to happen. I also have little respect for many of my former fellow pilots, especially the ones on the committee that represented the union in this issue, who apparently are now continuing to enjoy the continued career that they denied me, ostensibly on principle. Principle that they conveniently abandoned when it came their turn to do what they previously opposed on behalf of their constituency.

['97 Tercel]

We deserved what we got...nothing.

But the force-retired pilots didn't deserve what they got: active resistance from the union into which they paid dues for decades, and sanctimonious abuse from members who couldn't, or wouldn't consider the upside benefits of FP60.

Well I guess one can't argue with that..

[confusedalot]

Still some holdouts incapable of recognizing age discrimination even when it’s laid out on a platter before their faces for years now. In the words of the almighty Donald...sad.

But that doesn’t explain the desire to deny sick benefits to your co-workers. You guys have a mile wide mean streak that just won’t go away.

You spend way too much time on the forum trolling for trouble for someone who is suppose to be "enjoying retirement"........

Its ironic that you would use the phrase..." a mile wide mean streak that just won't go away".......you kill me.

Been a while since I've been here. This month is the 10th anniversary of my being retired. Don't know where the time goes but it seems to go faster and faster the older I get! The job wasn't my life but even today, every time an airplane flies overhead I still look up - just as I did when I was a 10 year-old kid. I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that even 10 years later, I still miss the people I worked with and the many great layovers where, before the days of daily frequency, those 4 and 5 day layovers in places like Rome, Lisbon, Amsterdam and Sydney, were like mini-vacations. Many great memories.

Well, those days are long gone and the job today is not like it was 30 or 40 years ago. The title of this thread caught my attention and having read through the comments it's clear that regrettably, with regards to the senior vs junior discussions, not much has changed in the 10 years that I've been out of the system. It got me to thinking about an old joke (and maybe it still makes the rounds) about the pilot seniority system wherein it was described as being akin to a ladder with the "old" senior guys at the top, who when looking down the ladder, saw nothing but the keen smiling faces of the ambitious, younger pilots below them wanting to move up. And those smiling younger faces below, as they looked up, well all they saw were assholes. It was just a simple joke, in a time when we could laugh at ourselves, a time before political correctness and easily offended sensibilities. The thing of it all is, forums such as this has revealed that those at the top who were looking down the ladder thinking they were seeing only a younger version of themselves have come to realize that, sadly, some of those younger guys are not a younger version of themselves at all, but rather are the epitome of what the young guys profess to be looking up at - they just haven't come to realize it yet.

There was also another old saying about the seniority system: "IN time, YOUR time will come; in the meantime, DO time." What some have not come to accept, or worse, are not aware, is that doing time is the critical part of becoming knowledgeable, aware and informed. A case in point being these disability benefits. As a 30 or 40 year-old, one may see no need but as one gets older one will come to appreciate those benefits being there, and particularly so if the day comes when that benefit is needed. If one never needs it, consider it "good fortune" at having won the health lottery, and if a fellow pilot ever needs it, be happy for him or her that it is there. And in the meantime, everybody pays for it by "doing" time.

So here I am at two in the morning trying to fix a busted computer and reading this stuff while waiting for a download.

I think you've nailed it on the head. Never was in the ac system but there is alot of truth as far as attitudes, or the change in attitudes shall I say, appear to be spot on. I don't want to start a generational fight mind you, but it seems to me that I too have witnessed and lived a sea change from good guy who worked hard to the, well, you know what, based solely on age. Saw a big difference in culture when I had to change jobs from an extinct operator to a new outfit with different demographics. Expectations for quick progression are very high nowadays.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

But the force-retired pilots didn't deserve what they got: active resistance from the union into which they paid dues for decades, and sanctimonious abuse from members who couldn't, or wouldn't consider the upside benefits of FP60.

I suppose that's one point of view....the other might be that the AC pilot group didn't deserve the selfish-greediness displayed by the most senior pilots who benefited throughout their entire career of having pilots retire at 60 and then when it's their turn, they do a double-take and realize that they can sit on top of the pile for 5 more years, with zero regard to the lives or career progression of the pilots below them....or the already retired group that is going via the CHRT to get cash out of the union and company with no intention on their part of returning to the work force.

Please explain the upside of FP60? Being able to work past 60? Most people don't consider that an upside....the fact that many pilots will be forced to work many years past 60 to attain the same pension benefits they would have had(prior to the change in retirement age) doesn't seem like a benefit to most of the people I work with. In a unionized work environment where seniority controls every aspect of the worker's life, it really boggles the mind to see how a 5 year moratorium on seniority progression benefits everyone. If this happened in a school where everyone works the same schedule and gets the same holidays, and gets paid the same (Yes i know teachers have a salary grid) then the extra 5 years would have a significantly reduced impact. But that's not what we are talking about.

As for RH's or Rockies opinion that this could have all been negotiated and mitigated, I doubt it. There's no negotiation when it comes to a "right". Had ACPA and or AC negotiated a phase in of an increasing retirement age (or whatever scenario RH envisioned)....all it would have taken was one pilot to assert their "right" that the negotiated deal violated their "rights" and the whole thing would have been mired in litigation for decades.

Just to review....ACPA refusing to change until federal legislation forced the change forced several hundred pilots off the list and prevented an even worse scenario than the previous five years caused (2012-2017). Most ACPA members are happy that the union stood up to the cash/seniority grab.

So here we are 15 years later, the FP60 group have failed to win a significant legal victory (if any), through the CHRT and now we are moving on to get GDIP for the FP60 group...