Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Gravol]

A lack of maturity and judgement isn't a label, it's a fact in human beings until they get older. Society doesn't consider minimum age limits for activities that require maturity and judgement that very young people lack discriminatory. Unlike forcing capable people to leave their job just because they reach an arbitrarily chosen age.

Like Air Canada pilots this is something you must eventually learn.

Freedom 55? Come on, you need to pay more attention.

When I read these threads all I think about is inherent selfishness.

I believe one of the greatest issues of our time is the inability of young people to find well paying secure jobs in their respective fields. Mature or not, if some of these guys want to keep working, go fly for some regional op who compensates a fraction of your current position. This isn't about age. It's about scoring a comfortable seat and eventually making some of the best compensation in the country. There are many mature, experienced, and qualified / capable young pilots ready to move on.

There are more factors to this than what meet the eye and we're all bias for our own subjective reasons. Some people for sure want to keep working - so keep working. You don't need to be in that role to stay active in the industry. Retiring is a part of life. Some positions require it for a variety of reasons.The golden days have and always will be limited. If the age was increased to 65, 70, it would still be a problem for those turning 64 and 69.

[Rockie]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

Mandatory age 60 retirement at AC had to change even if it were not considered discriminatory for the reasons above.

As for the current senior guys reasons for staying - that's entirely up to them. Junior guys might not like it but the simple fact is senior guys do not owe junior guys their job when they turn 60 or a reason for wanting to go beyond 60. Everybody's turn will come just like it always has.

[yycflyguy]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

That is a weak argument now Rockie.

It was a plausible excuse 3 years ago but the "miraculous" turn around in the bond and investment market that eliminated a $3.7 Billion dollar pension shortfall in less than a year shows how the corporation manipulated both the unions and the Federal Government into buying into the "Great Pension Crisis". It's not a Ponzi scheme.

Now the corporation saves on age 60+pilots delaying their pension, New Hire DC program, exorbitant penalties on those who do want out early (or in some cases, wanting out at 60 without the YOS) and the missed opportunity by the pilots to realize some of those savings in the form of salary improvements to pay into a DC program. Executive bonuses will be in excess of what a New Hire can expect from their DC plan.

[Gravol]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

Mandatory age 60 retirement at AC had to change even if it were not considered discriminatory for the reasons above.

As for the current senior guys reasons for staying - that's entirely up to them. Junior guys might not like it but the simple fact is senior guys do not owe junior guys their job when they turn 60 or a reason for wanting to go beyond 60. Everybody's turn will come just like it always has.

As usual thanks for the polite response rocky. I do see what you're saying and most certainly appreciate your points.

Can you clarify further the first part of what you wrote? You're saying that the new guys hired @ mainline today will not have a chance anyway at securing the higher tiers with security? Explain further. I'm looking at this from an overall economic point of view as well; where there are only so many jobs which need to be cycled. When is enough enough? While true, they can work til their hearts content, it doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

[Ah_yeah]

a)Those that have the ~300K/yr part-time job will now enjoy it until they...um, can't
b)Those that were "forced" to leave said position as agreed upon are so, so angry.
c)Those that have to wait longer now just wish those in a) and b) would finally admit it's all about the money. We might actually be able to solve something with that admission out of the way.

[accumulous]

a)Those that have the ~300K/yr part-time job will now enjoy it until they...um, can't
b)Those that were "forced" to leave said position as agreed upon are so, so angry.
c)Those that have to wait longer now just wish those in a) and b) would finally admit it's all about the money. We might actually be able to solve something with that admission out of the way.

A) First of all it's not even close to being a 300k a year job. Secondly it's not a part time job. The job is based on block hours per month. The Court's most recent document clearly shows the depth of misunderstanding. But it's not their fault. Everybody works the same number of block hours, even new hires. Loads of pilots like working more days for less hours per day close to the home base time zone. So the junior pilot get-off-the-list because you're working 9 days smoke screen doesn't even come close to telling the real story. It's not the Court's fault they don't understand the real story. They can only read what's in front of them. On this next go-around they'll have the real numbers. If you want to work 9 days a month, then bid overseas. The big airplane will pay you what the small one does. In fact if you take a look down through the seniority list bid awards for the last 30 years you'll see what a huge percentage of pilots bid lifestyle rather then the bucks. That will all be shown. It's all there for presentation. What's left is discrimination for many easily demonstrable reasons.
B) Those who were forced to leave the position haven't been forced to leave it yet. For now they've been temporarily suspended by a group of junior pilots pending the outcome of the present deliberations. If it plays out the way it's heading, we can all meet at the bar at age 60 because we'll all be out of a job at the same time. It's all part and parcel of ACPA's chronic contractual suicide policy.
C) No, it's not all about the money. It's about the right to work at one's chosen profession free from discrimination. Canadian Parliament put an overwhelming end to forced retirement through the elimination of Age Discrimination and unlocked the door for almost a million federally regulated employees junior and senior by handing them a completely open ended career. There are a ton of AC pilots who by virtue of the Courts removing age discrimination as applies to the age of hiring, 30 years ago, would have to work until the age of 75 to come close to maxing their AC pensions, never mind 60.
The real numbers clearly show the junior pilot smoke screen at work. It is remarkable that Parliament has ended age discrimination for all federal employees by ending age discrimination, and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else. Perhaps you are right though, instead of having an open-ended career that would boost your lifetime earnings and pension income by huge numbers, maybe the best solution would be to get the courts to return you to your previous situation.

[TheStig]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

[accumulous]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

Watch the optics - you're not supposed to be over it for at least 5 years. In fact, when Parliament abolished age discrimination your argument was that you wouldn't ever be getting over it because nobody had the right to go past 60 including yourself. It's going to be a real challenge in court getting all the worms back in the can that's been open for about 8 years.

[TrailerParkBoy]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

If a pilot retired a few years ago, he/she can easily go fly for Sky Regional or Air Georgian since they are looking for experienced pilots! I mean if it's not for the salary but yet the right to fly til you die, I'm sure they would love to fly for those companies!

[teacher]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification. In my opinion than I would hve to say if you retired prior to the law changing than you stay retired. If you hit the age after the law changed than you could stay. That was the position at Jazz.

[Raymond Hall]

In my opinion than I would hve to say if you retired prior to the law changing than you stay retired. If you hit the age after the law changed than you could stay.

What many fail to consider was that the mandatory retirement exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act, now repealed, was never absolute. Since its introduction in 1978 it was always conditional on age 60 being "the normal age of retirement for individuals working in positions similar." In other words, there was never any guarantee or legitimate expectation that mandatory retirement would always be available, even if the exemption was never repealed.

That conditional factor is the basis for the argument for reinstatement. If age 60 wasn't the normal age of retirement, the termination was not justified, absent other grounds.

The Federal Court's decision says that the Tribunal must reconsider the comparator group question on the basis of the functional components of the Air Canada pilot's job. I can think of literally dozens of functional characteristics of the jobs of other airline pilots in Canada that are similar to those of the Air Canada pilot's job, but I can't come up of dozens of characteristics where the functional characteristics differ. Its not a slam dunk, but in my view, the things are different this time 'round.

The evidence before the Tribunal was that Air Canada pilots accounted for fewer than 30% of airline pilots in Canada, not the majority. So it will be interesting to see how the Tribunal responds to the requirement to reconsider the comparator group question when that question arrives back on its doorstep.

[777longhaul]

Gravol

your post:

When I read these threads all I think about is inherent selfishness.

I believe one of the greatest issues of our time is the inability of young people to find well paying secure jobs in their respective fields. Mature or not, if some of these guys want to keep working, go fly for some regional op who compensates a fraction of your current position. This isn't about age. It's about scoring a comfortable seat and eventually making some of the best compensation in the country. There are many mature, experienced, and qualified / capable young pilots ready to move on.

There are more factors to this than what meet the eye and we're all bias for our own subjective reasons. Some people for sure want to keep working - so keep working. You don't need to be in that role to stay active in the industry. Retiring is a part of life. Some positions require it for a variety of reasons.The golden days have and always will be limited. If the age was increased to 65, 70, it would still be a problem for those turning 64 and 69.

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

The inherent selfishness, are only the ones that are putting the jack-boots to the age 60 pilots, so they can get into the force retired seats, while they are still warm. It is NO more selfish, one way or the other. It is equal. Any pilot can stay as long as they are qualified, able, and willing to stay, they ALL have a choice now. That is not selfish.

I tried the Regionals. Got one email response from a Chief Pilot. He politely, advised me, that I was to old. The others did not respond.

YOU are correct when you say, "Retiring is a part of life." And only the pilot, should decide when she/he is ready, they have a choice, now, and it is a good thing for everyone.

[777longhaul]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

That is a weak argument now Rockie.

It was a plausible excuse 3 years ago but the "miraculous" turn around in the bond and investment market that eliminated a $3.7 Billion dollar pension shortfall in less than a year shows how the corporation manipulated both the unions and the Federal Government into buying into the "Great Pension Crisis". It's not a Ponzi scheme.

Now the corporation saves on age 60+pilots delaying their pension, New Hire DC program, exorbitant penalties on those who do want out early (or in some cases, wanting out at 60 without the YOS) and the missed opportunity by the pilots to realize some of those savings in the form of salary improvements to pay into a DC program. Executive bonuses will be in excess of what a New Hire can expect from their DC plan.

========================================end

yycflyguy

acpa blew it.

You are totally correct, when you state that AC manipulated the union (acpa) and the Federal Government about the pension and other issues.

acpa lost over 300 million in savings, on the age 60 rule change, that could have been applied to the entire contract issue. It would have helped the junior, and mid level pilots in many many ways.

Do not forget, it is only acpa, at AC, that is refusing to accept the age 60 rule, prior to the Federal Governments rule change. ALL the other unions at AC accepted the age issue, and took back anyone who wanted to return to work at AC, ONLY acpa has fought it, and still is. Why would that be? Does acpa, and its lawyers, know, that everyone else was wrong?

The Federal Government, finally followed what all the Provincial Governments did a long time ago, they abolished the age discrimination issue, at the Federal Level. They abolished it, because it was discriminatory. So.....the only way to apply an age discriminatory enforcement, back then, was to qualify for a BFOR, and establish the Normal Age of Retirement. If....you could not qualify for the BFOR, and NAR, then you could not discriminate against anyone, group, etc. But they did, and now the courts will decide if that was legal.

[SilvrSurfr]

YOU are correct when you say, "Retiring is a part of life." And only the pilot, should decide when she/he is ready, they have a choice, now, and it is a good thing for everyone.

777,

I believe at this point we have all heard the argument that this is about rights, and choice. Currently we have pilots staying past 60, and as you suggest may have pilots over 60 return to the list. So be it, but please spare us all the assertion that it's "a good thing for everyone". You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and you have a right to fight what you believe is injustice against you. I also fully realise that it may be good for you and others who have now reached the top of the ladder. However, your "extended" stay there is costing those below you a significant amount. I don't mean this to be argumentative or disrespectful, it is simply my opinion. We will all have to accept the judgement of those hearing the case, so be it. I'm just tired of hearing how good this is for me, when the evidence clearly shows the opposite.

Silver Surfer

[Transonic]

In my humble opinion, the best and easiest solution is to abolish seniority based schedule bidding and progress to socialized bidding. You will not have this “problem” if the most senior captain works the same schedule as the most junior FO. The current system has made it too sweet to leave if given the choice. Further, it will be less attractive for the former retirees to return thus mitigating the severity of the possible damages to be paid by AC/ACPA.
The lifestyle component will very much be alive in the ability to bid different aircraft types via seniority. Perhaps the recent experience with Rouge will sway the junior vote.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

Yes blowing up the current top-heavy seniority system would make it a lot less attractive for those "contemplating" a return if they are allowed to....

Don't you just love the statements about how all the other unions have accepted "it" an d moved on....

Nice try but you're comparing apples and tunafish...

None of those other unions have pays scales tied to their specific work....they fight over their shift schedules and that's about it....once they reach their 12 year (or whatever it is) pay scale...

flight attendants, customer service, airports, rampies, flt dxers, all get paid the same once they max out their pay scales...so they only fight over schedules....

So it's no wonder they don't care about over 65 workers.

[MackTheKnife]

In my humble opinion, the best and easiest solution is to abolish seniority based schedule bidding and progress to socialized bidding. You will not have this “problem” if the most senior captain works the same schedule as the most junior FO. The current system has made it too sweet to leave if given the choice. Further, it will be less attractive for the former retirees to return thus mitigating the severity of the possible damages to be paid by AC/ACPA.
The lifestyle component will very much be alive in the ability to bid different aircraft types via seniority. Perhaps the recent experience with Rouge will sway the junior vote.

First you blow up the contract with FOS, then you trash the pension with defined contribution, literally stomp on wages via Rouge and now the only thing left to throw away are the few gems of working conditions left that seniority allows. .????

When are you going to learn that cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't work?

[Rockie]

However, your "extended" stay there is costing those below you a significant amount.

How do you figure that? While the trip to the top may take a little longer everybody will still eventually get there and spend as much time at the top as they would have if this change had not occurred. They will be able to earn good employment income for a longer period of time (more money) and for most pilots they will be able to contribute longer to the pension fund resulting in increased retirement income.

Rather than costing anybody anything it is giving everybody the opportunity to earn more over the course of their career and most the ability to earn more after they retire. We also have the ability to even the income earning out to make it more equitable for those at the bottom which we should be doing anyway now that the DB is gone for all new hires.

If you earn less it's because you choose to by retiring before you need to.

[bluemic]

Question for Raymond.

Does the recent dissolution of AC's law firm - Heenan Blaikie - have any effect on the current FP60 legal proceedings? Or do the lawyers for AC just continue on under the letterhead of whatever new firm they've snuggled up to?

mic

[Raymond Hall]

Does the recent dissolution of AC's law firm - Heenan Blaikie - have any effect on the current FP60 legal proceedings?

You and I and everyone else is entitled to choose whoever we wish to represent us in our legal proceedings. The name on the shingle is irrelevant to the underlying causes of action. I have no doubt that Air Canada will have no problem obtaining excellent representation from the same or other lawyers, regardless of the fate of HB. They also have the ability to use their in-house counsel. In fact, the current head of their Employment Law section appeared at the Tribunal on behalf of Air Canada on days when outside counsel had a scheduling conflict; he is presently the President of the Canadian Bar Association.