Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[yycflyguy]

There is absolutely no way, forgetaboutit, way that that the previously retired will be allowed to return with BFOR already established

You missed a pretty big chunk of something:

[429] At the end of it all, my opinion is that Air Canada has not met the burden of proving that it
will suffer undue hardship with the elimination of the age 60 retirement rule. Accordingly, it
cannot rely on the BFOR defence under s. 15(1)(a) of the CHRA.

...preceded by 45 pages of the reasons why, SCC tests included. Next up is the continuance on the Charter issue, check it out on the Federal Court website.

Thank you Justice Accumulous. How long have you been on the SCC bench?

[Rockie]

There is absolutely no way, forgetaboutit, way that that the previously retired will be allowed to return with BFOR already established.

Why does this misconception persist?

The BFOR issue went against V&K in a decision considered in less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee, and that failed to include any testimony except the company's. BFOR (age 60) was obliterated in the next 78 cases in an exhaustively considered and documented ruling. It beats me how facts like that can just be ignored.

[Lost in Saigon]

I've only been here for a year.....................

.....................Thank you for completely slowing down our career progression too.

Most of us hired in the last 10-15 years, will never have 35 years of service, or be able to hold B777 Captain at age 60. ACPA doesn't do a very good job of explaining these things, and all new-hires should take a look at the following questions:

- Do you understand that the pension was designed for your best 5 years and 35 years of service ?

- How many years of service will you have at age 60? (Layoff, and Leave of Absence, don't count in years of service)

- Will you be able to have 5 years of B777 Captain time age 60?

- Do you understand that for each year less than 35, your pension takes a significant reduction?

- Have you run the ACPA pension estimator to see what your pension would be at age 60?

- Have you run the ACPA pension estimator with your age back-dated 5 years to see what your pension would be if you retired at age 65?
(don't forget to bump up your best 5 years $ amount for the more senior equipment you will be flying)

[What_the?]

"Do you understand".... Mmmm... I'm a little sLoW and I don't understand a lot of things, especially when you ask that so many times... Do you understand? Or is it do youuu understand? I'm having too much fun for this early in the morning.

What I do understand is that the amount of greed, and the malice to screw over the company, an in-turn the group of people here who "might" still have a job to go to for the next 20 years, is plainly and painfully evident. It comes down to getting a nice big payout. It's convenient to use the human rights issue.... and I believe that the new group of pilots, which I should add should be forming a majority soon, should launch a lawsuit of their own, using "human rights" and discrimination as being an issue. I, like many other people on-the-line, find it perplexing as to why the rules in place were perfectly acceptable when it meant ensuring the career progression of a number of individuals on this forum, and then... wait for it... It's a human rights issue.

If you want to fly, there are countless jobs around the world. I can't understand why the minority of individuals who want to fly until they can no longer walk, has to force this down our own throats. As a pilot group we should be able to decide what the retirement age at the company is. Have a vote on it... sing a song about it... I don't understand... woops... I mean I don't know... come up with something creative.

If you're coming back for those great meals on board and the excellent inflight service... try one of the fine establishments by the airport.... mmmm.... the food far exceeds any expectations.... and the service... ah yes the service.

Okay... must get going now and do my 5 legs for the day for just under $40,000 a year. I, and many of my colleagues, can look forward to this for a while. Thank you... and thank you... for upholding all these human rights.... and looking out for our pilot group as a whole.

Greed out....

[Lost in Saigon]

Hey, I am just trying to help you. I was in the same position as you 11 years ago. No one bothered explaining it to me back then, and it took quite awhile before I figured out I will never have the big pension that I thought came with the job.

I will not make Wide Body Captian with Air Canada because of my age. Will you?

[Rockie]

Air Canada pilots are going to have the facts of life explained to them and it won't be by the union. Most of them still think the BFOR issue was settled once and for all in ACPA's favour, or if mandatory retirement does disappear they can place some other limits on pay/position based on age.

The lack of knowledge and understanding is dismal.

[vic777]

Would it make sense then for ACPA to include wording in your upcoming contract to address the situation? No one above age 60 can occupy the left seat of any AC aircraft? Would that address it from the other direction?

Wouldn't make any sense whipline, that concept is illegal. Get with the program.

[vic777]

Okay... must get going now and do my 5 legs for the day for just under $40,000 a year. I, and many of my colleagues, can look forward to this for a while. Thank you... and thank you... for upholding all these human rights.... and looking out for our pilot group as a whole.

It's what ACPA negotiated isn't it? The Company thinks you will do it for less. Of course ACPA could have leveraged the windfall gains from FlyPast60 and got you something but, the ACPA elite was thinking of themselves first.

[4hrstovegas]

I will not make Wide Body Captian with Air Canada because of my age. Will you?

Not anymore, thanks to the greed of some people already sitting there... all of whom got a lift up from their less self-centred predecessors. If even one new hire gets furloughed (on top of being inevitably held down on the ladder), these people should rot in hell.

How do you people sleep at night? I'm sure you'll walk the corridors with your heads high... make sure you do, so you can see the faces of the people you've trampled on. Yes, it will be disgust you see in your coworkers' eyes.

[Rockie]

You guys are so busy hating the senior pilots you're not even aware of what's going on around you. Here are the facts whether you like them or not:

1. Age discrimination is against the law.

2. Mandatory retirement based on normal age of retirement will within a few weeks be against the law.

3. Continuing to pursue age related working conditions in order to limit those over 60, 50, or 40 (pick an age) is age discriminatory and therefore against the law.

4. Air Canada failed to achieve a BFOR of age 60, and if you give it a second's thought you would understand why.

Hate the senior pilots all you want, but sooner or later you will all have to OBEY THE LAW. A child could not only understand this very, very simple concept better than our pilot group can, but they would be a lot more mature about it too.

[yycflyguy]

You guys are so busy hating the senior pilots you're not even aware of what's going on around you. Here are the facts whether you like them or not:

1. Age discrimination is against the law.

2. Mandatory retirement based on normal age of retirement will within a few weeks be against the law.

3. Continuing to pursue age related working conditions in order to limit those over 60, 50, or 40 (pick an age) is age discriminatory and therefore against the law.

4. Air Canada failed to achieve a BFOR of age 60, and if you give it a second's thought you would understand why.

Hate the senior pilots all you want, but sooner or later you will all have to OBEY THE LAW. A child could not only understand this very, very simple concept better than our pilot group can, but they would be a lot more mature about it too.

Rockie,

At some point the rights of the whole has to be weighed vs the ageism. At some point the argument of upholding the rights of a few loses value when the group as a whole suffers.

It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

You will be eating and drinking by yourself. The flights to FRA will be very quiet. You may get phone calls in the middle of the night and probably ride the crew cab by yourself. Is that discrimination based on age? No, its avoiding assholes; legislate that.

[Rockie]

At some point the rights of the whole has to be weighed vs the ageism. At some point the argument of upholding the rights of a few loses value when the group as a whole suffers.

It is not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

Please enlighten me then.

Where is our legal "right" to upward seniority movement guaranteed, and where in Canadian law does it supercede individual human rights?

BTW every pilot including you is protected from age discrimination, not just a few...everybody. You just choose to ignore that fact.

[4hrstovegas]

... and all of you can keep pretending that you gave a sh!t about "human rights" before you could profit from this. Who do you think you're fooling? You took from your seniors, and now your robbing your juniors. Calling any of this anything other than pure, selfish greed is the only hyprocrisy here. Your legacy will taking by 60 what will now take us 5 more years to achieve. You haven't helped anybody but yourselves, not matter how many times you tell yourselves otherwise. That's a fact YOU choose to ignore.

[Rockie]

... and all of you can keep pretending that you gave a sh!t about "human rights" before you could profit from this. Who do you think you're fooling? You took from your seniors, and now your robbing your juniors. Calling any of this anything other than pure, selfish greed is the only hyprocrisy here. Your legacy will taking by 60 what will now take us 5 more years to achieve. You haven't helped anybody but yourselves, not matter how many times you tell yourselves otherwise. That's a fact YOU choose to ignore.

There's that greed word again. I'm not close to retirement and I don't harbour any ill will toward pilots senior to me who wish to work beyond 60 (and you would be very surprised at how many of them there are) nor do I think they owe me anything.

What's your excuse?

[whipline]

Obviously I poked a hornets nest.

Mac I see you edited your post to avoid my response. You can also relax on the cog test, I don't work at AC and never will. The pension would be to small. (joke)

Instead of working longer wouldn't it make more sense to attempt to get max pension sooner? Make max pension based on years of service instead of your best 5yrs?

If this fly past 60 isn't for greed why would you have a problem going to the right seat? Your still working. Your sharing your experience with the new hires. Your helping the company with certain scheduling issues. What's the problem?

I think it's pretty hard to prove the fly past 60 argument when the playing field has been cleary defined for decades.

[Understated]

It looks like I may have been a little presumptuous when I suggested that the sense of desperation was flowing into a sense of despondency. We haven't seen this level of animosity since just after the Tribunal Charter decision in favour of Vilven was released in August, 2009.

Just curious. Are those who are so against abolishing mandatory retirement blaming the Fly Past 60 crowd for what the government has decided to do, namely repeal the mandatory retirement exemption? That would seem to me to be not only misdirected but would give them much more credit than they actually deserve, given that the federal jurisdiction was simply the last in all of the fourteen Provinces, Territories and dominion to repeal the exemption. What does what the federal government is doing have to do with Air Canada pilots? Nothing, most likley. It is a cultural change whose time had obviously come.

So, then, why is everyone so pee'd off at these pilots? Because they simply happened to be a little ahead of the curve in attempting to move the airline and union in a direction that they were going to be forced to go anyway?

[4hrstovegas]

My excuse? Simple. I want by 60 what it will now take me to 65 to earn, because I want a LIFE (I actually like my family, and they like me). I want to hear at least ONE of these selfish pr!<ks say, "we won't let this cost a single junior pilot their job." And I'd LOVE to stop hearing this "greater good" bull, because all this is going to do is to deny everybody in their footsteps the right to the same career path to 60 that they have enjoyed. I have a lot of respect for our senior pilot's experience, too. But I have no respect for those that plan on hanging around to work 9 days a month for a top-end salary pretending that they're representing some greater cause.

[Rockie]

I want by 60 what it will now take me to 65 to earn, because I want a LIFE (I actually like my family, and they like me)

Sounds awfully self-serving don't you think? You're also making some rather pessimistic assumptions that aren't supported by the expert evidence given at the various hearings. Plus what makes you think this will deprive you and your family of a life?

I want to hear at least ONE of these selfish pr!<ks say, "we won't let this cost a single junior pilot their job."

There are no guarantees in life so even if somebody told you that it wouldn't mean anything, and you're likely bright enough to know that or you wouldn't be flying airplanes.

because all this is going to do is to deny everybody in their footsteps the right to the same career path to 60 that they have enjoyed.

People keep talking about this "right" as if it actually exists. Where is it?

But I have no respect for those that plan on hanging around to work 9 days a month for a top-end salary pretending that they're representing some greater cause.

This is something the pilots can actually do something about once they pull their heads out of their asses. Instead of STILL fighting this utterly useless, wasteful and divisive battle to stop what can't be stopped, Air Canada pilots are going to have to change their working condition to accommodate it if they think it's necessary. Bear in mind that doesn't mean age discrimination by alternate means like some are stupidly suggesting because that will go absolutely nowhere. It means waiting to see what actual impact the end of mandatory retirement has and modifying the contract accordingly and intelligently to accommodate the change.

But here's what won't work...whining about how unfair it is when you really have no clue because you can't see past the next equipment bid.

[4hrstovegas]

Sounds awfully self-serving don't you think? You're also making some rather pessimistic assumptions that aren't supported by the expert evidence given at the various hearings. Plus what makes you think this will deprive you and your family of a life?

What expert evidence? What expert has said that this won't affect future payroll decisions, given the (as you say) large number of pilots this will allow to linger? And by life, I mean that time spent on Earth not working to afford being on Earth.

There are no guarantees in life so even if somebody told you that it wouldn't mean anything

There are no guarantees, so it's pointless to show at least the SEMBLANCE of integrity?? Now, that's a comment on this group if there ever was one.

People keep talking about this "right" as if it actually exists. Where is it?

You seem to want everything spelled out... I can't believe I'm humouring this childishness. OK, substitute "right" for "opportunity".

Air Canada pilots are going to have to change their working condition to accommodate it if they think it's necessary.

LOL, this is the most laughable point to me. I'm SURE the senior ranks would help vote to change the contract so that they work more for less. That's clearly the sort of propensity that's been displayed by this self-serving movement. And please, just stop using the temporally convenient reference to "law" and "rights" to describe gluttony. It makes me want to vomit.

whining about how unfair it is

The irony is too thick. Pot, kettle, black, you know how it goes.

[Rockie]

What expert evidence? What expert has said that this won't affect future payroll decisions,

I didn't say an expert said this won't effect future payroll decisions, I said expert testimony indicates it won't be near as bad as you and many including the union say it will. And now I know you haven't even bothered to read any of the rulings. Start with Vilven and Kelly and you'll see what I mean.

There are no guarantees, so it's pointless to show at least the SEMBLANCE of integrity??

You think showing integrity is promising you something they can't guarantee? That's what politicians do.

You seem to want everything spelled out... I can't believe I'm humouring this childishness. OK, substitute "right" for "opportunity".

Ok, opportunity is a much better word. Much different than "right" which is mistakingly used all the time. It's very important to make that distinction because when we talk about "rights" in this issue the only one that actually exists is the right to not be discriminated against. You might think that distinction is childish but the government, CHRT, CHRC and Federal Courts don't.

LOL, this is the most laughable point to me. I'm SURE the senior ranks would help vote to change the contract so that they work more for less. That's clearly the sort of propensity that's been displayed by this self-serving movement

Are you saying you can't get enough people to support changing the contract to accommodate the end of mandatory retirement to make it more equitable?

The irony is too thick. Pot, kettle, black, you know how it goes.

I will be as adversely effected by this change as you. Perhaps more so. I am not whining about it. If you were advocating proactive initiatives to deal realistically with this change that's been inevitable for years instead of pointlessly fighting it and bitching about how unfair it is then we might have something in common. As it is we don't.