Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[Rockie]

This is what I find most disappointing:

Stephen Harper is in the process of reducing critical OAS for fixed income seniors who will desperately need it. At the same time with Harper's help CEO's across Canada including Calin Rovinescu are taking pensions away from employees thereby activating a two pronged poverty time bomb set to go off in about 30 years. The fact that none of these people taking pensions away are themselves hurting for money, and all enjoy an exceedingly generous fully indexed pension on top of that is particularly despicable.

Make no mistake, CR is coming for your pension next.

Despite all that, you people are fixated on your hate for pilots who believe in the same basic human rights the rest of the country does, and who actually had little (if anything) to do with changing the law that given the above was both necessary and childishly easy to predict. Get on with the job of adapting, and if you're looking for someplace to point your guns at least point them in the right direction.

[Spruce]

Mig 29- Amazing post, you hit every righteous nail right on the head.

Rockie- You keep typing, but you don't listen. If you and your 'specific age group' had been fighting for a new set of rules for new hires to sign up for, you could have been considered classy. This has been a sports game where one team is winning 6-1 (compensation scale difference), and that winning team is whining to change the rules IN THE MIDDLE of the game to NOTHING but their own advantage. This has been nothing classier than you sending a meal back at a restaurant after you've eaten it... while staring at starving people in line.

Now once you think you may have 'won', you want to point your finger for blame in directions other than yourself.

[Rockie]

Rockie- You keep typing, but you don't listen. If you and your 'specific age group' had been fighting for a new set of rules for new hires to sign up for, you could have been considered classy.

Classy? What does the presence or not of "class" have to do with it?

This is reality. Failure to acknowledge reality and act accordingly results in exactly what happened to us, we got crushed by the law having done nothing to prepare for it. Your aim is off just like it has been all along with our group. It isn't them who wants your pension.

BTW, if you want to discuss "class" how would you rate a group that promotes age discrimination in direct opposition to the rest of Canadian Society?

[Spruce]

This is reality. Failure to acknowledge reality results in exactly what happened to us, we got crushed by the law.

You say that as if your group hasn't had anything to do with this change, and now try and make yourself out to be a victim?

BTW, if you want to discuss "class" how would you rate a group that promotes age discrimination in direct opposition to the rest of Canadian Society?

Isn't that convenient for you to hide behind now.

Unreal.

[Rockie]

You say that as if your group hasn't had anything to do with this change, and now try and make yourself out to be a victim?

I'll repeat this for the 90th time, I am not part of the FP60 group. I am likely junior to you, or at the least not very much senior and a long way from retirement. I am also a realist. The law would have changed as I've said even if Air Canada didn't exist because it might surprise you to know Air Canada is not the centre of the Canadian universe. There are over 800,000 federally regulated employees who have a right to not be discriminated against because of their age. There are also about 17 million provincially regulated employees who already have protection from age based mandatory retirement. Against that do you really think Air Canada matters?

Isn't that convenient for you to hide behind now.

I didn't raise the irrelevant issue of class, you did. I'm merely asking your opinion since you brought it up, and you didn't answer the question.

[Mig29]

I'll repeat this for the 90th time, I am not part of the FP60 group. I am likely junior to you, or at the least not very much senior and a long way from retirement. I am also a realist. The law would have changed as I've said even if Air Canada didn't exist because it might surprise you to know Air Canada is not the centre of the Canadian universe. There are over 800,000 federally regulated employees who have a right to not be discriminated against because of their age. There are also about 17 million provincially regulated employees who already have protection from age based mandatory retirement. Against that do you really think Air Canada matters?

Who cares about them Rocky!!??? I care for my OWN profession, and I was glad AC was one of the few places you COULD retire with a hefty pension and still enjoy descent promotions/advancements there at 60! Not 65 or 75 tomorrow...I don't care if the city bus drivers or some illiterate government clerk processing my health card will be 'lucky and free' to work until 100, that's their issue or problem to deal with! My problem is with my own profession and setting a bad example for the rest out there who will undoubtedly follow the same path, demanding to work even longer then their agreed time - screwing everyone else! You don't understand this, and I tried numerous time to paint it for you and FP60 members, but it's impossible. It's almost like someone blocked that part of the brain for you guys and it's not receiving, only sending out information. And even though you are not part of the FP60 group, you advocate more in their name the anyone else! I can bet my life, that once you turn 60you will be one of them and demand to stay longer!

As I said, you are right, the over Law is changing, but that doesn't mean everyone WANTS it and especially our own industry members don't! This job was a great profession to be proud of in the days, silly changes as this are killing it slowly to the point that even you won't recognize it in 10-20 years!

Thanks a lot fellows....

[vic777]

It's almost like someone blocked that part of the brain for you guys and it's not receiving, only sending out information.

Well, it should all become clear in December, when AC tells ACPA the terms and conditions of the NWO.

[Mig29]

It's almost like someone blocked that part of the brain for you guys and it's not receiving, only sending out information.

Well, it should all become clear in December, when AC tells ACPA the terms and conditions of the NWO.

The NWO of the most selfish and sell centered society I have ever seen, that will ultimately lead to our own self distruction! And you guys will undoubtedly have a part in the history making!

[Mig29]

Maybe a little harsh, but you get my point about NWO

[Rockie]

Who cares about them Rocky!!??? I care for my OWN profession, and I was glad AC was one of the few places you COULD retire with a hefty pension and still enjoy descent promotions/advancements there at 60! Not 65 or 75 tomorrow...I don't care if the city bus drivers or some illiterate government clerk processing my health card will be 'lucky and free' to work until 100, that's their issue or problem to deal with! My problem is with my own profession and setting a bad example for the rest out there who will undoubtedly follow the same path, demanding to work even longer then their agreed time - screwing everyone else! You don't understand this, and I tried numerous time to paint it for you and FP60 members, but it's impossible. It's almost like someone blocked that part of the brain for you guys and it's not receiving, only sending out information. And even though you are not part of the FP60 group, you advocate more in their name the anyone else! I can bet my life, that once you turn 60you will be one of them and demand to stay longer!

As I said, you are right, the over Law is changing, but that doesn't mean everyone WANTS it and especially our own industry members don't! This job was a great profession to be proud of in the days, silly changes as this are killing it slowly to the point that even you won't recognize it in 10-20 years!

Thanks a lot fellows....

Yes, I know many at Air Canada didn't want the law to change. Yes, I know you don't care what goes on outside of Air Canada. Yes, I know you're pissed off.

But nothing you or anybody else at Air Canada said, or could have said was going to change the fact this country has evolved to the point they consider mandatory retirement illegal on discriminatory grounds. We are nothing in the big scheme of things and unfortunately for you we have to obey the law. Blaming a few people for the direction this country took is childish and unrealistic don't you think? Don't you think it was also unrealistic in the extreme to believe Air Canada pilots would somehow be isolated from this change?

Listen, my personal feelings about mandatory retirement actually had nothing to do with how I think we should have dealt with it. Those developed after I took a hard look at what was likely to happen under the circumstances and came to the conclusion it was dead. You only fight an all out battle you can win, and if you can't win you switch strategy to try and have some control over the terms of your defeat. Knowing the difference and choosing the right strategy makes a world of difference. We chose wrong and now we're going to pay for it.

[TheStig]

Back on topic now. I thought you FP60 boys would be all high fiving each other and salivating at the acknowledgement by the company that they are preparing to implement and respect the government deadline for mandatory retirement.

YYC, I had nearly the same statement written but deleted it. I remembered that this is about money, not human rights, and at this point they have not been reinstated into senior positions or received a massive payout.

[DLurker]

There is a simple solution to the problem.
Fly past 60 you do it as a F/O lets say @ 50% of top F/O Pay.

[Rockie]

There is a simple solution to the problem.
Fly past 60 you do it as a F/O lets say @ 50% of top F/O Pay.

Why 60? Why not 50?

The majority of AC pilots are likely under that age now and you could probably get it passed in a vote. Think of the rapid advancement.....

[Mig29]

My idea is for every one FP60 guy staying, AC allows one guy to retire BEFORE 60 with no penalty on the pension?? Fair? Sounds good to me!

[TheStig]

There is a simple solution to the problem.
Fly past 60 you do it as a F/O lets say @ 50% of top F/O Pay.

Why 60? Why not 50?

The majority of AC pilots are likely under that age now and you could probably get it passed in a vote. Think of the rapid advancement.....

Because there isn't an ICAO requirement to have one person on the flight deck under the age of 50.

[Rockie]

There isn't an ICAO requirement to have PIC's under 60 either.

If we're going to just pick an age most advantageous to us regardless of what ICAO says let's make it 50. That will go a long way to moving some of that income up to an earlier time in your career so you can make bigger RRSP contributions once your DB pension disappears. It will also set you up nicely for those lucrative asian jobs at an earlier age because you'll have the command time and no financial incentive to stay.

Man, I'm a genius.

[TheStig]

There isn't an ICAO requirement to have PIC's under 60 either.

If we're going to just pick an age most advantageous to us regardless of what ICAO says let's make it 50. That will go a long way to moving some of that income up to an earlier time in your career so you can make bigger RRSP contributions once your DB pension disappears. It will also set you up nicely for those lucrative asian jobs at an earlier age because you'll have the command time and no financial incentive to stay.

Man, I'm a genius.

and humble too.

While I'm well aware you're being condescending, let me humour you. I'm sure you're aware of Capt. Duke's testimony to the extent to which Air Canada would be unable to forecast the number of pilot's planning on staying past 60. Placing all pilot's over the age of 60 into FO positions would resolve any undue hardship issues with respect to scheduling for Air Canada, and allow it to drop it's BFOR fight. Once again, why isn't the FlyPast60 group embracing such ideas?

[Norwegianwood]

There isn't an ICAO requirement to have PIC's under 60 either.

If we're going to just pick an age most advantageous to us regardless of what ICAO says let's make it 50. That will go a long way to moving some of that income up to an earlier time in your career so you can make bigger RRSP contributions once your DB pension disappears. It will also set you up nicely for those lucrative asian jobs at an earlier age because you'll have the command time and no financial incentive to stay.

Man, I'm a genius.

and humble too.

While I'm well aware you're being condescending, let me humour you. I'm sure you're aware of Capt. Duke's testimony to the extent to which Air Canada would be unable to forecast the number of pilot's planning on staying past 60. Placing all pilot's over the age of 60 into FO positions would resolve any undue hardship issues with respect to scheduling for Air Canada, and allow it to drop it's BFOR fight. Once again, why isn't the FlyPast60 group embracing such ideas?

Stig,
Just think about your suggestion for a nanosecond and you will come up with, that's right. discrimination........

[Rockie]

While I'm well aware you're being condescending, let me humour you. I'm sure you're aware of Capt. Duke's testimony to the extent to which Air Canada would be unable to forecast the number of pilot's planning on staying past 60. Placing all pilot's over the age of 60 into FO positions would resolve any undue hardship issues with respect to scheduling for Air Canada, and allow it to drop it's BFOR fight. Once again, why isn't the FlyPast60 group embracing such ideas?

And you're also no doubt aware of expert opinions from earlier hearings stating that most people afforded the opportunity to work longer only do so for 2 more years. As well you must be aware that in the Thwaites ruling Air Canada utterly failed to convince the tribunal that they would encounter any hardship whatsoever scheduling these pilots much less an undue one. Also you must know that Air Canada never considered any options to accommodate these pilots or suggest means of increasing their ability to plan for retirements after age 60. In fact now that there is no retirement after age 60 next December Air Canada finds themselves in the same position they said would be an undue hardship, yet somehow they don't seem all that upset about it do they?

That's why the FP60 group isn't embracing those ideas along with the fact those measures are themselves discriminatory, and are designed to perpetuate age 60 because you want to, not because you need to.

Ps. I wasn't being condescending, I was being facetious. But the principle is sound. If you're going to just pick an age based on majority vote disregarding such niceties as discrimination laws why not 50? It makes complete sense given the reasons I "facetiously" provided above, plus every foreign carrier I've seen has an age limit of between 53 and 58 to get hired. Age 60 is too late.

[accumulous]

Once again, why isn't the FlyPast60 group embracing such ideas?

Just a few notions about that. Do you have any examples among all the other airlines, and/or all of Canada’s million Federally regulated employees, and/or all of Canada’s 17 million Provincially regulated employees where marginalization of employees takes place at 60? There aren’t any. AC is the last bastion of Discrimination.

More to the point, AC’s Flight Attendants now have age 65 dropped. Do they get demoted at 65? Ask them. How about the CAW, the Machinists. Age 65 is gone. Any of them demoted by age or getting demoted?

The only way you could get around the issue of Discrimination and marginalizing pilots at 60 would be to spread it across all age groups.

If you want 30 pilots demoted at 60, there would have to be agreement to a lottery to similarly randomly demote 30 pilots out of the left seat who are under 60, all the way down to the youngest Captain position. Or even demotions by equipment type, regardless of position. Any takers? Demotions have to apply to any age, because as of December ALL pilots have the right to work as long as they want. The embodiment of the right to work applies to ALL pilots. You want to stroll up to the flight deck 9 months from now, tap a 777 Capt on the shoulder and offer him or her the RP chair, unless they are voluntarily retiring, they’re not going to be moving because ICAO has already taken care of that move. It occurs at age 65 over to the right seat or to the centre seat.

The focus should be on capitalizing on the benefits of an open-ended career. It could very well be that AC’s latest contract offer vis-a-vis the end of Mandatory Retirement in December is an offer to negotiate some of the operational savings and pension fund savings into bigger pay increases across the board. Looking at the range of increases proposed, it’s doubtful that even covers the Cost of Living Index as it stands. Ask yourself how our preoccupation with a rights issue that we lost right out of the starting gate, got us painted into a corner in negotiations. You don't think the 'sting' was in place several years ago? We've got 9 months to get with the program, if it's not too late already, because looking at the wreckage in the contract offer, like TA1, the carnage didn't get there all by itself.

On the issue of planning for the future, it would be interesting to see AC put on the next Equipment Bid, a call for who plans to remain employed from December, 2012, through December 2013. If it’s planning they want, why restrict it. String it out for a year past the normal projection. Pushing it a year out also provides some actuarial data for what the savings are. Apply that to negotiations. Bear in mind that there is presently no requirement whatsoever for any pilot, regardless of age, to give notice so the projection should include everybody.