Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[SeaBat]

Deleted

[777longhaul]

Ah_yeah

your post, shows that you are not reading ALL the posts, or you are not seeing what is being posted. I have ALWAYS, said, that the new hires, the juniors, and the narrow body pilots, need to obtain any savings, and/or gains that the age 60 issue will generate, IF acpa, plays its cards right. Please, dont paint, everyone with the same brush. There are ways to manage this issue, and make it work for everyone. If, you doubt my statement here, go and look at my postings, on many different dates, over the years. Thanks.

===================================

Ah_yeah wrote:
Morry, read back through this thread. There are numerous posters constantly refering to how badly they are going to financially screw over each and every ACPA pilot. A large number of these victims earn one third of what a 777 retiree makes in pension a year. So if your morals can deal with that then there is not much more to say. Should be a big party waiting for you guys on your first layover.

What have I done to adapt embrace for the change ? What has FP60 ever done to show some couth or respect for the junior members ? I only ask to expose the fact that no one ever answers that one and I know you won't either.

[Mechanic787]

Even if ACPA were to TRY and Impose a "special assessment", the pilots could de-certify the union the next day. (Did you think the pilots have forgotten this trick?) Have you absolutely zero concept of how liability works?

You might wish to think that one through a bit. Let's assume that the damage award is significant. Seven figures.

Both Air Canada and ACPA are jointly liable, by agreement (collective agreement, that is).

ACPA attempts to decertify strictly in order to avoid the liability. Because of joint liability, that would mean that Air Canada would then be liable for 100% of the damages.

I would be willing to bet that Air Canada would take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it doesn't wind up paying the whole amount, especially when the numbers are in the seven-figure range.

Do you really believe that Air Canada would not be able to prevent that from happening, one way or another?

[Rockie]

What has FP60 ever done to show some couth or respect for the junior members ? I only ask to expose the fact that no one ever answers that one and I know you won't either.

Exactly what would you suggest that I or anyone else do in that regard? Give me one or more concrete suggestion(s), taking into consideration the actual legal and factual situation, and I will do my best to answer you. Honest.

I'll answer that because I can think of several ways the FP60 group has been showing couth and respect for not just the junior pilots, but every pilot.

1. Raymond Hall and all the rest are fighting for every pilot's right to be free of age discrimination that every single pilot is entitled to, even the many that are too shortsighted to see that they will one day be 60 years old themselves. Contrast that with ACPA and many of its pilots who reject the notion of age discrimination despite how the rest of Canadian society obviously views it and are only interested in their own immediate career progression.

2. Raymond Hall and several of the FP60 group have spent the last six years trying to prevent ACPA and its pilots from making the terrible mistakes they've been making so that they could on the one hand prepare for the change that has always been inevitable, and on the other save themselves from massive and completely unnecessary liability. It is not their fault ACPA and its pilots chose the destructive path they did.

3. Raymond Hall has been the only source of unvarnished fact since this episode began in 2006, and if rank and file pilots know anything at all about this issue it is thanks to him. Throughout it all he has maintained his composure and successfully resisted the temptation to indulge in the kind of insulting personal attacks he has himself been relentlessly subjected to.

[JetPro]

It has been rather entertaining watching this thread and watching everyone get into a lather over the FP60 and any potential liability to Air Canada and/or ACPA.

What has been forgotten in this debate is that the FP60 coalition is batting zero when it comes to winning any of the CHRT cases. Vilven/Kelly shot down due to BFOR; Thwaites due to the "normal" age of retirement being 60 for airline pilots in Canada. Yes, Thwaites is being appealed but the appellate court would rule on whether the CHRT violated the law, not in their decision based upon the facts they heard. It is not the appeal courts role to retry cases if tribunals like the CHRT following the law.

So both AC and ACPA have had their positions upheld by the CHRT so how could they possibly be liable for any damages?

With the changes to the federal law in Dec 2012 and subject to AC not getting a BFOR exemption, they (and possibly ACPA) may indeed be liable if mandatory retirement continues because at that time they would be offside with the law. But that day is still 11 months away and lots (or nothing) can happen by then. Lots being AC applies for and receives a BFOR exemption or nothing in that AC choses not to get an exemption and Age 60 retirement disappears.

Either way, there is no mechanism, short of a successful appeal of Thwaites, that would permit the over 60 today from coming back. And with respect to the new law, there is no retro-activity.

[Morry Bund]

It What has been forgotten in this debate is that the FP60 coalition is batting zero when it comes to winning any of the CHRT cases. Vilven/Kelly shot down due to BFOR; Thwaites due to the "normal" age of retirement being 60 for airline pilots in Canada. Yes, Thwaites is being appealed but the appellate court would rule on whether the CHRT violated the law, not in their decision based upon the facts they heard. It is not the appeal courts role to retry cases if tribunals like the CHRT following the law. So both AC and ACPA have had their positions upheld by the CHRT so how could they possibly be liable for any damages?

Partially correct, but wrong on a couple of major points. First, the Charter decision trumps the normal age of retirement decision. Both Air Canada and ACPA lost that at both the Tribunal level and at the Federal Court level. We are not batting zero. Based on those two decisions, every other union at Air Canada has been ordered by arbitrators to stop terminating employees, and to reinstate the employment of those recently involuntarily terminated.

The Federal Court of Appeal decision on ACPA's appeal will determine whether the Tribunal's decision will remain intact. The Federal Court of Appeal has also been asked to issue the general declaration that the Federal Court declined to issue. If that declaration issues, liability will be pre-determined for all of the pilots whose complaints are before the Tribunal, because the Tribunal will be bound by the decision, regardless of the outcome of the Thwaites decision. The next step is the remedy hearing, and the calculation of damages.

Not correct on BFOR, either. The Thwaites decision on BFOR dismissed Air Canada's and ACPA's BFOR defence, on the basis of fairly sound reasoning.

There is a huge potential liability sitting staring everyone in the face, as well as the potential reinstatement of employment of a whole bunch of pilots. It's a shame that your Association does not keep you properly informed of these critical facts.

[Rockie]

ACPA recognizes the potential liability and have gone completely silent because they see it closing in on them. They don't want to risk further damage so they are keeping their mouths shut and pretending they aren't responsible for their actions the last six years. One of their age 60 committee members admitted as much on the pilot forum.

ACPA and the Air Canada pilots have been trapped in this narrowing canyon fighting to avoid getting shot by the legal system. They've been pretty successful so far, but each time they avoid a shot they get driven further into the corner and the legal system not only refines their aim but gets a bigger gun with each passing month. Very soon they will be backed all the way in unable to dodge in any direction and the legal system will have the cannon barrel resting dead center on ACPA's forehead.

ACPA's maneuverings have been a delaying tactic at best which many of the pilots are aware of and happy about. It should not in any way be interpreted as success though because the liability grows as time goes on and they are doing nothing to prepare for the inevitable loss in the meantime.

The purely practical aspects of this issue are bad enough. Of deeper concern to me in the long run are the ethical implications of a union and pilot group that supports discrimination against its own members in clear contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Labour Law and Canadian societal values. That is the real disgrace here. We have been exposed as narrow minded dinosaurs unwilling and unable to adapt.

[Stu Pidasso]

The last time I accepted that bet I got paid with one of those miniature bottles of scotch.

Thanks for the laugh, never underestimate the 'cheap @ss Pilot.'

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

It must feel good to try and take money from Embraer F/O's. It's not enough to damn them into career stagnation they want part of their salary too. Classy bunch eh ? But of course only your perspective counts and who gives a flip about the guy your fleecing, you'll never have to see him face to face. And you wonder why the membership's message is to fight this morally repugnant mission to the end ?

For the life of me, I cannot see why you are so bitter. Your anger is misplaced. How many position assignment slots have you missed in the last five years as a result of anyone over 60 parachuting in on top of you? How many blocks did not not get awarded? How many Christmases did you not get off? How many summer vacations did you miss as a result of any of us? How much salary did you lose as a result of not moving up in accordance with your expectations? Zero. None. Not even a penny. No missed opportunities at all.

Would you still be so bitter if your Association had taken the savings from the increased age limit to create a financial incentive for some pilots to retire early, completely offsetting any suggested career stagnation?

Are you still going to carry this bitterness with you after the repeal of mandatory retirement comes into effect in December? There will be many pilots over 60 continuing to work, despite the fact that they never had anything to do with the Fly Past 60 group. In other words, are you going to blame them and us for what the government has done?

Why not knock off the slander, and address your mind to trying to salvage some benefit out of this, instead of either stewing in your juices or trying to figure out some contractual ways to circumvent the clear intention of the government to end the practice of age discrimination in the entire federal sector? You would be doing yourself and all of us a favour.

[Sea2Sky]

For the life of me, I cannot see why you are so bitter. Your anger is misplaced. How many position assignment slots have you missed in the last five years as a result of anyone over 60 parachuting in on top of you?

Uhh, none. You can't parachute in after 60 right now, only out.

And that's the way most of us want to keep it.

[vic777]

And that's the way most of us want to keep it.

"You gotta know when to hold 'em know when to fold 'em know when to walk away and know when to run."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo
You're out'a Aces!

[Norwegianwood]

And that's the way most of us want to keep it.

"You gotta know when to hold 'em know when to fold 'em know when to walk away and know when to run."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo
You're out'a Aces!

BUT..... his dealer, acpa, hasn't told him yet (or anybody else for that matter)

[Rockie]

And that's the way most of us want to keep it.

At least until you turn 60 and realize rather belatedly that you're being discriminated against.

[vic777]

And that's the way most of us want to keep it.

As Rockie said, until you're Fifty-nine. Lie to us, but don't lie to yourself. You just want the max for yourself. There's nothing new being said here. The fun starts when people return and stay on after December 2012. Watching ACPA will be a laugh city.

[777longhaul]

From the Globe and Mail.

So.....has AC given up the BFOR fight?? If they are going to 65, then they are not pushing the BFOR issue?

If they have stopped fighting the BFOR issue, then how is that going to play out in the court of appeals etc, and the CHRT cases?

What about FO who have NO, ICAO restrictions, at age 60, or age 65?

to read this article from the web page, go to:

http://www.globeandmail.ca then go to business tab at the top of the page.



Air Canada (AC.A-T1.070.032.88%) plans to abandon mandatory retirement for its pilots who turn 60.

Under the proposal, as long as one of the pilots in a two- or three-pilot international crew is younger than 60, one or two others in the cockpit can be 60 or older.

Air Canada said it intends to comply with new rules to take effect in December that will abolish mandatory retirement at federally regulated employers.

More related to this story
•Air Canada turns back on conciliation, pilots’ union says
•WestJet plan a new threat to Air Canada
•WestJet workers start voting on regional carrier proposal
Air Canada (AC.A-T)
1.07 0.03 2.88%
As of Jan 27, 2012 3:59
.
. .
The age discrimination issue has surfaced as the Air Canada Pilots Association and management enter a crucial phase in contract talks. Some pilots say Air Canada is trying to create a distraction with contentious retirement changes while there still are other major topics such as outsourcing yet to be discussed.

The carrier announced its proposal to the 3,000-member union as part of an 18-page presentation posted on an internal website this week. “Amendments to the collective agreement must be made in order to accommodate the legislative change,” according to the airline, noting that contract changes are required to help “determine future staffing requirements.”

Captain Rick Allen, Air Canada’s senior director of flight operations, added in a memo that the carrier is addressing the retirement issue due to recent changes in federal legislation and policies already in place at the International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the United Nations.

If Montreal-based Air Canada opts to follow certain international standards, captains will be allowed to fly overseas until reaching age 65, as long as the first officer is under the age of 60.

The previous ACPA contract expired on March 31. Union leaders and younger pilots say the current system works well to create room for advancement for the next generation, but dozens of retired pilots remain upset at being forced out.

Raymond Hall, a lawyer who heads the Fly Past 60 Coalition, said Air Canada’s plan to allow pilots to fly beyond age 60 has taken a long time to emerge. “It’s a milestone. It’s an acknowledgment that mandatory retirement will no longer be permitted in the federal jurisdiction effective Dec. 15, 2012,” Mr. Hall said in an interview Friday.

Management and the union are now in a mediation phase, with a 21-day cooling off period slated to end at 12:01 a.m. on Feb. 14, when Air Canada will be in a lockout position. ACPA leaders have said they don’t plan to hold a strike vote any time soon.

The two sides remain far apart on wages and working conditions. Air Canada is offering wage increases of 12.58 per cent compounded over the course of a five-year contract, compared with hikes of 12.51 per cent compounded over four years in the previous contract that was rejected by unionized pilots last May.

In management’s presentation, the matter of pension reform is again being raised. Air Canada wants to place new pilots on less costly defined contribution pensions, which don’t have a guaranteed payout upon retirement.

Canada’s largest airline also wants to outsource flying in some instances, notably on jets and turboprops that seat up to 119 passengers.

As well, the carrier is seeking to change the pay grid so that pilots flying Boeing 777s and Boeing 787s will be grouped together.

Captain Gary Tarves, chairman of ACPA’s master executive council, said he’s concerned about management’s recent manoeuvring. “I suspect this decision to bypass the bargaining table and appeal to the pilots is only the first of what will prove to be many attempts to show division and wring further concessions,” Capt. Tarves said in a newsletter to pilots.

“The other disturbing move by the company this week was its refusal of appeals from both ACPA and the federal government’s representative to extend conciliation. This decision means that Air Canada has started the 21-day clock running toward the legal ability to lock us out or take some other provocative action.”

[Rockie]

So.....has AC given up the BFOR fight?? If they are going to 65, then they are not pushing the BFOR issue?

As it stands right now there is no way for Air Canada to force retire anybody after December 15th, 2012. If they want people out at age 65 they will have to make the case for BFOR of age 65 and they haven't even tried to do that yet. They do appear to have finally abandoned their argument for age 60 though.

I don't think this is a coincidence that Air Canada is doing this now. I think they hope it lends credibility to the rest of their offer in the eyes of the government, and by circumventing the legal negotiating protocol and releasing it to the pilots directly they've inserted a controversial red herring to take our eyes off the ball. From what I've been reading on the pilot's forum that tactic seems to enjoy some success. They will also no doubt use what's going on with the contract in general to ensure they reap all the benefits of eliminating mandatory retirement while ensuring we get none of it. I haven't read anything so far to indicate our pilots have made the same leap in logic.

[TheStig]

Given that the companies proposal has already been turned down and is simply being used to lower the memberships expectations, while providing a 'low water mark' for any potential arbitration. It is even worth discussing its contents? That said, it certainly provides a heads up as to what Air Canada is hoping to achieve in negotiations, and what items are on the table. Notably that Age 60 is actively being negotiated. It will be interesting, how specifically, Air Canada will be able to determine future staffing requirements through adjustments made to the collective agreement?

[accumulous]

Given that the companies proposal has already been turned down and is simply being used to lower the memberships expectations, while providing a 'low water mark' for any potential arbitration. It is even worth discussing its contents? That said, it certainly provides a heads up as to what Air Canada is hoping to achieve in negotiations, and what items are on the table. Notably that Age 60 is actively being negotiated. It will be interesting, how specifically, Air Canada will be able to determine future staffing requirements through adjustments made to the collective agreement?

It sure doesn’t appear that age 60 is being negotiated anywhere. That train already hit the station at a substantial rate of knots and disgorged its passengers.

It will still take us a while to realize that, given our current state of awareness. We’ll probably realize it right about the time coming up shortly when the Company will need to know for purposes of the next Equipment Bid, how many pilots plan to continue working. That question will come from the Employer, and it will obviously be coming soon. Why? Planning.

This isn’t between AC and ACPA. It’s now a third party issue and the third party is Parliament, having enacted the end of Mandatory Retirement. ACPA can pretend it’s not there but all they’ll succeed in doing is ensuring zero benefit from zero planning and that comes as no surprise. They’ll only have the Company exactly where the Company wants them.

As for planning training issues around retirements, each individual pilot will be making the decision on when they retire, not some guy with a seniority list and a magic marker. Simply put a proviso in there that suitable notice shall be given, let’s say 6 months or a year, or perhaps attach it to 2 or 3 Equipment Bids hence. That’s likely how it will be done. It should take about a minute for that one.

As it currently stands there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for any pilot to give notice. Each and every pilot on the seniority list could quit right now if they wanted to. It would seem then that any new retirement policy would likely apply to everybody. The end of retirement is subject to Transport Canada licensing and ICAO restrictions which presently prevent Captains from occupying PIC past 65 if you go international. Like WestJet, at 65, you slide over to the right seat and do your next ride in the right seat. There are no ICAO restrictions for F/O’s over 65.

[SilentMajority]

If Air Canada is now admitting that there is no Bona Fide Occupational Requirement to force retire its pilots at age 60....does that mean that there never was a BFOR?

Wonder what that means for Mssrs. Vilven & Kelly who temporarily lost their reinstatement of employment through a poorly adjudicated BFOR ruling last July.

Wonder how the Craig ruling will now stand up under a judicial review?

If the BFOR argument no longer exists for Air Canada past December 15th, 2012.....then it begs the question......did one ever really exist in the first place??

[TheStig]

It sure doesn’t appear that age 60 is being negotiated anywhere. That train already hit the station at a substantial rate of knots and disgorged its passengers.

It will still take us a while to realize that, given our current state of awareness. We’ll probably realize it right about the time coming up shortly when the Company will need to know for purposes of the next Equipment Bid, how many pilots plan to continue working. That question will come from the Employer, and it will obviously be coming soon. Why? Planning.

This isn’t between AC and ACPA. It’s now a third party issue and the third party is Parliament, having enacted the end of Mandatory Retirement. ACPA can pretend it’s not there but all they’ll succeed in doing is ensuring zero benefit from zero planning and that comes as no surprise. They’ll only have the Company exactly where the Company wants them.

As for planning training issues around retirements, each individual pilot will be making the decision on when they retire, not some guy with a seniority list and a magic marker. Simply put a proviso in there that suitable notice shall be given, let’s say 6 months or a year, or perhaps attach it to 2 or 3 Equipment Bids hence. That’s likely how it will be done. It should take about a minute for that one.

As it currently stands there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for any pilot to give notice. Each and every pilot on the seniority list could quit right now if they wanted to. It would seem then that any new retirement policy would likely apply to everybody. The end of retirement is subject to Transport Canada licensing and ICAO restrictions which presently prevent Captains from occupying PIC past 65 if you go international. Like WestJet, at 65, you slide over to the right seat and do your next ride in the right seat. There are no ICAO restrictions for F/O’s over 65.

ACC I'm going to have to disagree on some of your statements. When Air Canada's pilot's fly past the age of 60, they will do so under the terms of the collective agreement, therefore the terms of their employment will be negotiated. You might not want to jump to any conclusions with respect to what those terms might be.

There are too many variables to come up with a comprehensive list, but possible solutions might include; A requirement to give 6 months notice prior to retirement (as you've alluded to) with the caveat that a pilot will not be able to begin collecting pension payments until that date. Or even forcing Captains into an FO positions at 60 in order to solve the over/under rule, this solution would provide less 'cascade' training when an over 60 pilot does decide to leave. A common 777/787 grouping alone might allow AC enough scheduling flexibility to drop the BFOR fight? I don't know what's being tabled at this time, I doubt you do either though. However, I do agree that there likely wont be another equipment bid until this is sorted as the last bid accounted for retirements up to the end of 2012.