Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Stu Pidasso]

I find it sad the number of our Retirees who are under the delusion that they are returning. Who gets to return, only the signatories to the FP60 claim or any Pilot under 71 years of age?

If it is any Pilot who was "force retired" (gotta luv that line) in the last 10 years, how many is that? I don't have the data handy, but for argument sake let's say 800 - 1000.

The resulting training and downbid would cripple the corporation. You (slim chance) may see some token compensation, but I wouldn't rush out to re-write the ATP exams any time soon.

[777longhaul]

Stu
Do yourself, and others a favor, read the guidelines that have been posted here, and on other forums, and is available in the CHRC and CHRT publications, and numerous other official government sites.

A person, who is discriminated against, as per the LEGAL guidelines, has ONE YEAR to file an application with the CHRC, FROM the date that they were discriminated against.

The CHRC decides.....if the case has any traction on numerous tests, and then says yes or no to the application. From there, it goes to the CHRT and so on.

I doubt, you are an AC pilot. You would know this very important rule.

Your statements are totally bs.

Look at the FP60 website, or the Federal Government websites and get informed. Right now, there are just over 200 pilots who have applied, and been accepted by the CHRC. Over 60% of that group, are now over 65 years of age. Due the math, the re-instatement numbers are low, if.....there is any re-instatement, who knows. It will drag on and on in court, and the issue will someday, be decided by the courts.

Have a look around you, West Jet, Jazz both have abolished the age 60 rule, a long time ago, they seem to be doing very well. Other airlines around the world, have done it also.

[Stu Pidasso]

Have a look around you, West Jet, Jazz both have abolished the age 60 rule, a long time ago, they seem to be doing very well. Other airlines around the world, have done it also

Nobody is coming back longhaul - rules change, goal posts move, simply a fact of life. At the above mentioned Airlines, did anyone come back from "Forced Retirement" for a victory lap?

Not to the best of my knowledge.

We too are bumbling along since the age change, although it has severely hurt many Pilots long term planning. Namely the loss of the ability to retire at 60 without 25 years of service.

My G.A.F.F. has diminished to zero on this issue longhaul. I had one look at your beloved website years ago and had a difficult time controlling my gag reflex.

Looking at individuals that were Widebody Captains in their thirties.

[Dockjock]

Raymond Hall if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the current no age limit for AC pilots is only a partial victory. You want to go back to the beginning and recalculate what the normal age would have been, excluding AC pilots who were contractually required to retire at 60. So "normal" but not including AC pilots, who were forced, because of a discriminatory contract, into being not normal. AC pilots were not normal from 1978-2012, by that criteria.

During that period, did AC pilots earn normal or not normal pay rates, ie. were they paid above, at, or below the industry average? Is it possible that they actually earned the highest wages in the country, on average, in that period? Would you say that over that period, and every period, that the pilot retirement age, WAWCON, and pension plan are linked- influenced by each other in innumerable ways, representative of the trade offs inherent in dozens of negotiations large and small, spanning over several decades- or did they each spawn independently?

[Fanblade]

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.

Rockie,

Opinions are fair game but you need to keep it factual. What you have stated above about career earnings is completely false. It allows people to work longer but not nessisarily make more.

For illustrative purposes only.

Let's say there was this chipmunk company. They paid 1 nut in level one. Two nuts in level 2, Three nuts in level 3 and so on until level 10. The career nut earnings for the average chipmunk was 55 nuts. After level 10 the chipmunks retired and continued to collect 5 nuts per year. The average chipmunk ( 20 years) made 105 nuts in a life time.

One day a squirrel broke into the nut storage and made off with half the stored nuts for pensioners. As a result the retirement age needed to be changed to 15.

As a result.

The level 1 chipmunks remained at level 1 for 6 years before proceeding to level 2. After 10 years they had made 20 nuts. After 15 years of work 60 nuts. After 5 years of retirement they had received 85 nuts in a lifetime. A 20% reduction in life time nuts for 5 extra years of work.

The level 5 chipmunks remained at level 5 for six years before proceeding to level 6. After 10 years they had made 40 nuts. After 15 years of work 80 nuts. After 5 years of retirement they had received 105 nuts in a lifetime. These chipmunks worked 5 years longer for for the same life time nuts.

The level 10 chipmunks remained at level 10 for five more years before retiring. After 10 years they had made 85 nuts. After 15 years of work 135 nuts. After 5 years of retirement 160 nuts.

So what happened and why? The pool of nuts being distributed remained stagnent. The only thing that took place was redistribution of the nuts.

What happens to the new hire chipmunk after retirement resumes? He moves up a level every year and a half now since everyone works 15 years rather than 10. After 15 years of work he will earn 67.5 nuts. After 5 years of retirement 92.5 life time nuts.

So why did the new hire chipmunks life time nuts also decrease? Delayed career nut earnings.

So who really benefits beside the squirl? Only the chipmunks at the top. Everyone else will work longer for the same or less nuts over a lifetime. Moreover the change is permanent. All chipmunks from here on out will work longer for less over a lifetime.

This is reality. Making claims to the contrary only exemplifies a lack of the financial understanding of the change.

[rudder]

Rockie,

Opinions are fair game but you need to keep it factual. What you have stated above about career earnings is completely false. It allows people to work longer but not nessisarily make more.

For illustrative purposes only.

Let's say there was this chipmunk company. They paid 1 nut in level one. Two nuts in level 2, Three nuts in level 3 and so on until level 10. The career nut earnings for the average chipmunk was 55 nuts. After level 10 the chipmunks retired and continued to collect 5 nuts per year. The average chipmunk ( 20 years) made 105 nuts in a life time.

One day a squirrel broke into the nut storage and made off with half the stored nuts for pensioners. As a result the retirement age needed to be changed to 15.

As a result.

The level 1 chipmunks remained at level 1 for 6 years before proceeding to level 2. After 10 years they had made 20 nuts. After 15 years of work 60 nuts. After 5 years of retirement they had received 85 nuts in a lifetime. A 20% reduction in life time nuts for 5 extra years of work.

The level 5 chipmunks remained at level 5 for six years before proceeding to level 6. After 10 years they had made 40 nuts. After 15 years of work 80 nuts. After 5 years of retirement they had received 105 nuts in a lifetime. These chipmunks worked 5 years longer for for the same life time nuts.

The level 10 chipmunks remained at level 10 for five more years before retiring. After 10 years they had made 85 nuts. After 15 years of work 135 nuts. After 5 years of retirement 160 nuts.

So what happened and why? The pool of nuts being distributed remained stagnent. The only thing that took place was redistribution of the nuts.

What happens to the new hire chipmunk after retirement resumes? He moves up a level every year and a half now since everyone works 15 years rather than 10. After 15 years of work he will earn 67.5 nuts. After 5 years of retirement 92.5 life time nuts.

So why did the new hire chipmunks life time nuts also decrease? Delayed career nut earnings.

So who really benefits beside the squirl? Only the chipmunks at the top. Everyone else will work longer for the same or less nuts over a lifetime. Moreover the change is permanent. All chipmunks from here on out will work longer for less over a lifetime.

This is reality. Making claims to the contrary only exemplifies a lack of the financial understanding of the change.

If you believe that you are in the majority amongst the active members of your bargaining unit, then there is nothing stopping you from advocating a change in your pay system that mitigates your illustrated example. However, whatever you propose cannot be based on age such that it contravenes the revised law of the land.

There are lots of examples of non-equipment based pay out there in the industry if you look.

Good luck.

[Dockjock]

That nut example is awesome and mostly correct. However the time for that argument is long past, and we are currently in year 11, so to speak, whereby the top chipmunks are collecting their first bonus year of nuts while everyone else hangs out in their former position for a while longer. Not that I'm happy about it, but the reality is this is the new normal; age discrimination is illegal and the contract is now in compliance.
However, for some squirrels that's not nearly good enough. The poor, downtrodden squirrels who missed the cutoff want to come back and grab their bonus nuts too, or preferably, just have them shipped direct. Either way, I'm sure, is fine by them. The reality they they, in fact, already received their nuts spread out throughout their careers is lost. They've eaten those nuts; never even realized how good they were. They weren't informed that the extra nuts they got 10, 15, 20 years ago, wouldn't have actually been received had not the former year 10 squirrels taken retirement when they did.
Such is life, I guess.

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond Hall if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that the current no age limit for AC pilots is only a partial victory.

There is no "victory" that I see. I and the 200+ others who have financed this litigation against both the employer and the union are now no better off than we were on the day we were forced out, save for the cards in our hands. Not so for those who financed the union's legal fight via increased union dues, in order to delay the inevitable. They may consider that a victory, but that has to be viewed in context--the ball game isn't over yet. We are in the bottom of the 8th inning, the bases are loaded and there is a huge one-sided wager riding on the final score. If we lose, we simply lose a valiant fight and the status quo remains unchanged. If those who oppose this lose...well, that is an entirely different story. The chickens will indeed come home to roost.

I find it amusing that many refuse to inculcate into their psyches various facts. On the previous page I pointed out that mandatory retirement in Canada and at Air Canada was never guaranteed--that income expectations based upon continued forced retirements were unfounded. There was no "contract" that pilots accepted, implied or otherwise, on being hired, that required them to retire at age 60, because the future retirements and the corresponding income expectations were always conditional on satisfying the requirements of the narrow exemption in the legislation that permitted mandatory retirement at the "normal age of retirement for individuals performing similar work."

Sometime between the year 1957, when mandatory retirement was introduced for Air Canada pilots unilaterally by the employer, not by agreement with the pilots, and the year 2005 when the majority of these complaints started pouring in, the "normal age" moved off age 60. That is a fact. So at some point, age 60 was then the exception, not the norm, and termination of employment on the basis of age contravened the law. Those terminated on the basis of a statutory provision that didn't apply then gained the legal right to object to the discriminatory practice that was improperly imposed upon them, and to seek redress. There is no magic to that.

Much as many would like to believe that the issue here should be focused on income distribution, career expectations and the like--it isn't. There was never any guarantee to any expectation, especially in an industry as volatile as the airline industry. It's about law, pure and simple--the law of discrimination on the basis of age, and ultimately the law of liability and the law of remedy.

That is the message that I have been relentlessly putting forward since 2006. The patent irony of all this is that the employer recently described in its financial statements some remarkable numbers posted as gains from the repeal of mandatory retirement--gains that could have been shared and used to offset any adverse consequences of the change, per my suggestions from 2006 through 2012. Lost. They were never seriously considered because emotion triumphed over logic and politics triumphed over reason.

But even more remarkable is the fact that the message about the underlying issue is apparently still falling on deaf ears.

[Rockie]

Let's say there was this chipmunk company.

Your chipmunks will get just as much time at the top as they would have before the change. They will also get to spend more time working for a salary that is higher than they will get for a pension, and for most their pension will be higher too thanks to more time contributing.

Lots more nuts for your chipmunks if they choose to stick around to collect them.

Your logic is false.

[Fanblade]

Let's say there was this chipmunk company.

Your chipmunks will get just as much time at the top as they would have before the change. They will also get to spend more time working for a salary that is higher than they will get for a pension, and for most their pension will be higher too thanks to more time contributing.

Lots more nuts for your chipmunks if they choose to stick around to collect them.

Your logic is false.

Rockie,

The post 60 debate aside, because I have no desire to enter that debate. Its done.

My response to you was simply triggered because you are posting claims that mathematically are false.

Yes my analogy is simplistic. It was meant that way. And yes there will always be exceptions. Hired later in life comes to mind.

Denial is your best defense? Isn't that what you have accused your adversaries of?

Anyway post 60 is here to stay. With it comes consequences. We can do things to mitigate the consequences, or not. I would agree with Raymond that its too late. I would respond to Rudder. What do you do with those just about to reach higher paying jobs? People who have spent a couple of decades waiting for those jobs? Unless the pool of money increases any solution just becomes a different form of redistribution. Without a larger pool of money someone will always win and someone will always lose.

I think it is simply life. No one ever claimed it to be fair.

But no one wants to hear pie in the sky claims of gibberish.

[rudder]

I would respond to Rudder. What do you do with those just about to reach higher paying jobs? People who have spent a couple of decades waiting for those jobs? Unless the pool of money increases any solution just becomes a different form of redistribution. Without a larger pool of money someone will always win and someone will always lose.

I think it is simply life. No one ever claimed it to be fair.

But no one wants to hear pie in the sky claims of gibberish.

Can't fix every perceived shortfall by revisiting the pay grid. But the choice as to how pay scales are set is in large part an edict to the MEC/Negotiating Committee from the bargaining unit. There is nothing stopping you from considering narrowing the gap between NB and WB Capt or the gap between Capt/FO/RP.

Your group makes its own decisions. If it is zero sum I would not see the employer having much resistance. May even lower training expense.

[duranium]

That nut example is awesome and mostly correct.

Sorry but not correct. AC did not break in and/or remove anything from your pensions. What they did was NOT contribute what they should have. Now, the pensions are solvent with what was stated recently.

So why all the whining. You should be gratefull the interest rates have picked up and erased the deficit. It appears you people are NEVER happy and you are and will always be looking for a reason to bitch and complain. With the economy barely grinding along in second gear, you cannot even be grateful to be able to live a better than decent life. More primadonnas amongts your ranks than previously thought. Give us a break.

[Rockie]

My response to you was simply triggered because you are posting claims that mathematically are false.

If a pilot works their way through the same pay scales ending up at the same level on the seniority list but with more years service they must therefore earn more money over the course of their working career.

How is that mathematically false? How is it possible to work more years through the very same pay scales and earn less total money? Sounds like ACPA logic successfully trying to fool a bunch of pilots into supporting their agenda.

[TheStig]

My response to you was simply triggered because you are posting claims that mathematically are false.

If a pilot works their way through the same pay scales ending up at the same level on the seniority list but with more years service they must therefore earn more money over the course of their working career.

Have you ever considered that the vast majority of pilot want to retire at sixty? The elimination of mandatory retirement has been a huge victory for a very small number of pilots, the rest of the group now either has to work longer for the same career earnings or retire at 60 after delayed career progression, the group as a whole knows this.

How is that mathematically false? How is it possible to work more years through the very same pay scales and earn less total money? Sounds like ACPA logic successfully trying to fool a bunch of pilots into supporting their agenda.

Because you're not considering the fact that we have a 'pay scale' after retirement. Fanblades' illustration exemplifies the fact under the DB plan, with mandatory retirement, once a pilot started working for AC they started earning a paycheque for the rest of their life. Effectively defined benefit for work and retirement. I would expect there to be pressure to flatten the pay tables in the future, as some will suggest this isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face, but rather, adapting to the reality that pilots simply aren't retiring at 60.

[Rockie]

Have you ever considered that the vast majority of pilot want to retire at sixty?

The vast majority of pilots want the pilots above them on the seniority list to retire at sixty or earlier. Our experience since the end of mandatory retirement however is that the vast majority of pilots themselves actually want to continue working past sixty when they reach that magic age. You can't say right now that you'll be any different.

Because you're not considering the fact that we have a 'pay scale' after retirement.

Correct. And for most pilots currently here their pay scale after retirement will be improved thanks to extra years contributing if they so desire. Previously they had no such choice.

I would expect there to be pressure to flatten the pay tables in the future, as some will suggest this isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face, but rather, adapting to the reality that pilots simply aren't retiring at 60.

An obvious solution that negates the "sky is falling" doom and gloom posited by ACPA and many pilots over the end of mandatory retirement. Of course we have to adapt, the argument all along has been do we adapt before the change and get something for it or be forced to adapt after and get nothing? We chose the latter against all common sense.

[Fanblade]

My response to you was simply triggered because you are posting claims that mathematically are false.

If a pilot works their way through the same pay scales ending up at the same level on the seniority list but with more years service they must therefore earn more money over the course of their working career.

How is that mathematically false? How is it possible to work more years through the very same pay scales and earn less total money? Sounds like ACPA logic successfully trying to fool a bunch of pilots into supporting their agenda.

Rockie you simply don't understand. Stig and others are following it.

I have been PM'd a comment that in fact ACPA has at some point in the past commissioned an outside analysis of this specific issue. I took a look for it on the ACPA site with little luck.

Fact is, if ACPA commsioned an analysis of this specific issue, that stated people will work longer for less as a result? The analysis is correct.

Why do you think this change is so appealing to corporations and our conservative government? Collecting pensions for a shorter time is obvious. The bigger picture not so much.

I challenge you to find that analysis and post it. I bet I know exactly what it will show. The 6 year chickmunk and up gain. Everyone else loses.

Post it.

[Rockie]

I know the financial study you're talking about and it is a worthless piece of trash produced solely to enrage the pilots about how much money they were going to lose. I have no financial training yet I was able to easily identify several incorrect assumptions they used as a basis for their numbers as well as incorrect logic. A trained accountant with all the relevant facts would make a laughing stock of that study, and if I'm not mistaken it was thoroughly discredited during one of the many legal proceedings.

It wasn't a study...it was propaganda plain and simple.

By the way, Air Canada fought this change alongside ACPA for reasons unknown and the Federal Government changed the legislation only because they had to.

[Fanblade]

I know the financial study you're talking about and it is a worthless piece of trash produced solely to enrage the pilots about how much money they were going to lose. I have no financial training yet I was able to easily identify several incorrect assumptions they used as a basis for their numbers as well as incorrect logic.

Let me get this straight.

So it does exist. You know full well it exists. You admit to no financial training, yet in your opinion its trash. You claim its simple propaganda while at the same time you tank your credibility by making statements that clearly indicate you don't understand the concept.

Begs the question. Why?

Wouldn't it be better to just admit yeah change isn't always even or fair. Heck you could blame ACPA for not acting on this specific issue since they knew full well it existed. Which is another good question. They commissioned this study when? How long has ACPA understood the issue?

As a cellar dweller, and an ACPA member, I would like to see the analysis. Due to how steep our pay scale is I bet it is a real whopper.

Post it. If not please help me find it. I want to see it. I suspect every chipmunck below step 5 would like to see it. At the same time I do understand how those chipmunks above level 6 might prefer it didn't exist.

[Fanblade]

Never mind I found it.

It looks pretty much as one would expect and is dated Dec 2009.

So Rockie.

You acknowledge this document exists. You acknowledge you have read it. Your statements clearly indicate you don't understand it and you freely admit that you have a limited grasp on financial aspects.

YET you have no problem spouting off complete gibberish on the issue as if it were fact.

So how am I supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Well one positive, you led me to this document. It may have been produced for the age 60 issue nevertheless it is more relevant than ever to the chipmunks below step 6 today.

Every junior ACPA pilot should see this document. Warning take your blood pressure meds first.

ACPA site: Full committee list/MEC committees/Age 60 legal support/page 4/Financial impact on pilot group. Date Dec 09, 2009.

[Rockie]

You acknowledge this document exists. You acknowledge you have read it. Your statements clearly indicate you don't understand it and you freely admit that you have a limited grasp on financial aspects.

Yes of course I've read it and here are some things I don't understand about it and you should be asking yourself as well:

1. What assumptions have they made regarding voluntary advancement of pilots? Most guys delay advancement until they can hold a better number in the next position but the study doesn't say anything about that or appear to consider that in its findings.

2. What assumptions of any kind were made in establishing the base line for this study? Any study is worthless without baseline assumptions especially one of this kind when there are countless variables. None of that information was given.

3. Who did this study? What information were they given as the baseline? What assumptions did they make in their calculations? What is there in this study to prove the results of it are anything but bulls**t designed to sway opinion amongst the pilot group?

According to this study (uncredited propaganda) extending a career to 63 costs all pilots but especially the junior ones a lot of money. By that logic compressing a career to a mandatory retirement age of say 57 should have the opposite effect and increase everybody's career earnings. Extending it beyond 63 should increase a pilots losses further and compressing it below 57 should increase the gains even more. Maybe if we only allow one year in the career we could all retire wealthy? Does that make sense? If not...why not?


It looks pretty, but that's about it.