FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

[dukepoint]

Sheesh.....No "victim impact statements allowed??" What's the world coming to??


Love to have been in the stands when a six figure, post employment 777 Captain with a great golf tan cries the blues about not being able to afford a second condo in Scottsdale with a pool for the inlaws.

DP.

[Old fella]

Page four is quickly filling up so page five is on the way for this silly, worn out, way past best before date topic that a very good many really don't give a f--- about.

[Rockie]

Rockie, so have we gone from 9 months impact to 5 years? Quite a shift.

As mentioned the 9 months came from expert testimony derived from past experience in other industries eliminating mandatory retirement. In our case as I previously stated it may be skewed by the 1 year notice required by Air Canada and the pension changes in the FOS that force people to work past 60 for the same pension they would have gotten at 60 previously. You can thank Air Canada and the Federal Government for the FOS pension changes as the FP60 group had absolutely nothing to do with that.

I also didn't say, and there is nothing indicating the full impact will be extended to 5 years because we're only a little over a year into it.

It's simply incorrect to say there will be no impact after 5 years. To those junior pilots whose pay has been largely stagnated since this change, the impact is cumulative at a rate of roughly $50K per year, lifetime earnings.

Hogwash. You're quoting figures from the ACPA financial impact study that was completely discredited in testimony. It assumes all pilots ahead of an individual retire at 65 while the pilot who loses 50K retires at 60 in each and every case, completely ignoring the fact not all will go to 65 and the individual could also go to 65 if they wish. It also ignores the fact the vast majority of pilots choose to stay in a lower paying position for the majority of their career to have better seniority. It also ignores the increased career length every pilot has the option of completing and the increased pension they will get thanks to increased years of service.

That 50K figure is worse than a number pulled out of your ass because it's completely and provably false.

[Vsplat]

Hogwash. You're quoting figures from the ACPA financial impact study that was completely discredited in testimony. ...

That 50K figure is worse than a number pulled out of your ass because it's completely and provably false.

Two more non-factual statements and an inappropriate accusation.

I'm not quoting anything from ACPA. The information I have is real time, based on the pay information from pilots that I have personally dealt with. This is not a projection. It is happening today.

Have a look at the EMJ vs CA rates. 75 hour DMM, actually higher than many have been getting this year. Prior to the change, it was not unusual to see pilots bid up in year 2,3,4 or 5. You might want to look . Even looking at year 5 it's still a $60K delta.

Stagnation is a real fact of life these days and the pay changes go with it.

If you think these numbers are false, rather than defaming a poster, then go ahead and prove your accusation, or withdraw it.

Vs

[Rockie]

I'm not quoting anything from ACPA. The information I have is real time, based on the pay information from pilots that I have personally dealt with. This is not a projection. It is happening today.

There are lots of things happening today as a direct result of the FOS so attributing any current pay loss or inability to bid the airplane a person wants to the elimination of mandatory retirement alone is fantasy, as is extrapolating that mandatory retirement loss forward to the end of someone's career. Pure hogwash based on wild speculation and false attribution.

I can think of plenty of blatantly obvious reasons your assumptions are false - a few of which I stated in my previous post - and I don't have to prove a thing because they are so self-evident. You made the assertion that I will lose 50K per year to the day I decide to retire so why don't you prove that?

[yycflyguy]

I also didn't say, and there is nothing indicating the full impact will be extended to 5 years because we're only a little over a year into it.

Rockie.

In previous arguments over damages to junior members career earning potential, flypast60 proponents always claimed that it should be expected that guys would stay until an average age of 62.5. We are now over 1.5 years into it. With the 12 month notice expectation imposed by the company we should be seeing guys announcing retirement NOW to be out at 62.5. It ain't happening. I see most arguments expecting norm retirement at 65 now from guys that have MORE than 35 years of service.

If ACPAs BFOR argument is overturned, not likely IMO, how will the fly past60 coalition deal with the junior discrimination damages? My own calculated damages due to stagnation is around $60k and building with each year that those decide to stay for another year. Damages are a two way street.

[Rockie]

In previous arguments over damages to junior members career earning potential, flypast60 proponents always claimed that it should be expected that guys would stay until an average age of 62.5. We are now over 1.5 years into it. With the 12 month notice expectation imposed by the company we should be seeing guys announcing retirement NOW to be out at 62.5. It ain't happening.

The one year notice is - I suspect - suppressing the retirement notices in large part because people don't know and are reluctant to take the irreversible step. Why don't we wait until 62.5 years and see what's happening?

If ACPAs BFOR argument is overturned, not likely IMO, how will the fly past60 coalition deal with the junior discrimination damages?

I don't know. But as a junior person potentially on the hook for that I'm not in the least worried about it happening.

[Vsplat]

You made the assertion that I will lose 50K per year to the day I decide to retire so why don't you prove that?

Actually, I said that the impact of the change was $50K per year, lifetime earnings. I thought the context of that was clear (yours, 5 years), but I guess I need to be more specific.

As long as the pilot group I was referring to is caught at junior pay and seats and unable to move, they are affected by this change. The pay delta is commonly $50K per year. That money is lost and never regained. Resuming career progression after a 5 year stall does not recoup lost earning, hence the impact is on lifetime career earnings.

I have since shown you an example where the delta is actually larger than that. Rather than acknowledge the numbers or provide any solid data of your own to refute, you've merely thrown out another broad statement that my statements are false.

How about you put up something real instead of insults?

Vs

[Fanblade]

There are lots of things happening today as a direct result of the FOS so attributing any current pay loss or inability to bid the airplane a person wants to the elimination of mandatory retirement alone is fantasy, as is extrapolating that mandatory retirement loss forward to the end of someone's career. Pure hogwash based on wild speculation and false attribution.

I can think of plenty of blatantly obvious reasons your assumptions are false - a few of which I stated in my previous post - and I don't have to prove a thing because they are so self-evident. You made the assertion that I will lose 50K per year to the day I decide to retire so why don't you prove that?

Rockie,

That financial harm claim by ACPA was far before my time. I'll give you, that it may have used assumptions that exaggerated the financial harm to junior ACPA members. I'm not saying I agree it was hog wash. Just saying I don't know.

However what you are really doing is questioning a couple of the assumptions (fair enough) and then declaring the whole thing hog wash. (That is simply an argument of convenience)

In principle the concept of financial harm to junior members is irrefutable. The only real question is how much? Or how do we calculate it?

Irrefutable harm is, and will take place. It's irrefutable that the sum total of career income prior to age 60 will be less. It's irrefutable that as a result of less pay before 60, many people retiring at 60 will have a lower pension as a result.

Over a 50-60 year time frame (Pre and post retirement) this will be a substantial sum. Throw in the time value of money and the sum gets even larger.

How much longer will people have to work to recoup this lost income? No idea. It will depend largely on what age becomes the average of retirement. It is however irrefutable that on a consolidated basis, by this I mean the sum total of average career income, to completely recoup your income individuals will need to delay retirement. If you throw in the time value of money? Individuals will need to work past the point of recouping the sum total of their lost income. If the new normal becomes close to 65? Individuals may not catch up at all.

This equates to working longer for no extra money. It leaves the possibility of working longer for less. No one in their right mind, discrimination aside, would chose this for themselves. As such it has been forced.

I hate to break it to you. If you are as junior as you say you are? This will have a substantial impact on you.

I know this will go in one ear and out the other. I shake my head at some of the posts made on the financial impact. The fact is that the before and after snap shot will be substantial. How substantial? Only time will tell.

But to claim this change isn't impacting people in a substantial way is either creative deliberate fabrication or a product of not understanding the math.

Which is it?

On a more personal level. Flew with a 56 year old CA the other day. He thinks he is going to have postpone his retirement plans past 60. He didn't get a wide body spot by age 55. He would have if retirements had continued. Now with no way to calculate how long this stagnation will last, with no idea how long he will have to wait? He can't plan anything. He will have to wait and see when in fact he gets a wide body position. Then and only then decide on the trade off. Work longer to get 5 years as a wide body Captain. Or retire at 60 with a reduced pension. Or something in between.

[Understated]

Page four is quickly filling up so page five is on the way for this silly, worn out, way past best before date topic that a very good many really don't give a f--- about.

So, who's compelling you to add your drivel to the length of these pages? If you don't like what you read here, go back to washing your vintage 60's auto, or go watch the Kardashians, and leave us to our navel-gazing.

I, for one, find this site one of the few places where I can actually get a reality check in the form of straight facts, from a few who actually know what they are talking about. I sure can't get much info from my union reps, apparently because most of them haven't a clue about the true facts and issues. And I don't need to post anything to get those facts. All I need to do is tune in periodically, without complaining about what others are posting.

[Raymond Hall]

If ACPAs BFOR argument is overturned, not likely IMO, how will the fly past60 coalition deal with the junior discrimination damages?

Now, maybe, we can get at the crux of the issue. You say, "not likely..." And you have been with the issue since the beginning.

Are you basing that statement on the submissions made to the Court by both the Coalition and ACPA (they are posted on the Fly Past 60 Web site for everyone to read)? If not, then what?

You might want to re-read those submissions. There is a lot of meat there, and the submissions from both sides are based on fact and law, not on unrealistic expectations of career progression predicated on the status quo being maintained forever and the law never changing.

If ACPA's argument is overturned, exactly what are you meaning when you say "deal with the junior discrimination damages?" If the decision is overturned, what happens then? The BFOR defence is unsuccessful and all that is left is the normal age of retirement issue that will be decided by the FCA in the same decision.

Don't forget that the case before the Federal Court of Appeal deals with the arguments that were made to the Tribunal in 2007 and 2008.

In 2012 both Air Canada and ACPA voluntarily changed the contract to remove the age 60 restriction, with neither side putting the argument to the arbitrator in their Final Offer Settlement submissions that mandatory retirement is a BFOR. Both abandoned their respective BFOR arguments and voluntarily changed the contract to remove the mandatory retirement provision, without a whimper.

So much for career income expectations and damages resulting from them. ACPA acquiesced to the change, notwithstanding its ongoing legal arguments before the Court taking the exact opposite position, and Air Canada acquiesced to the change, notwithstanding its argument to the Court that it couldn't operate under the ICAO Over-Under restrictions. Which position should we believe?

[Fanblade]

In 2012 both Air Canada and ACPA voluntarily changed the contract to remove the age 60 restriction, with neither side putting the argument to the arbitrator in their Final Offer Settlement submissions that mandatory retirement is a BFOR. Both abandoned their respective BFOR arguments and voluntarily changed the contract to remove the mandatory retirement provision, without a whimper.

So much for career income expectations and damages resulting from them. ACPA acquiesced to the change, notwithstanding its ongoing legal arguments before the Court taking the exact opposite position, and Air Canada acquiesced to the change, notwithstanding its argument to the Court that it couldn't operate under the ICAO Over-Under restrictions. Which position should we believe?

Curious about this comment Raymond.

ACPA placed within FOS something about mandatory retirement that no one had any idea if it was legal. The arbitrator even commented if I recall. To put something that could be illegal in a FOS document guaranteed he couldn't pick it. That one thing meant he had no choice but pick the companies submission.

Isn't any BFOR wording the same idea? Placing something in FOS, that an arbitrator wouldn't know was legal or not. Isn't that a bad idea?

Therefor doesn't the absence of said language means next to nothing?

Another question. I don't understand why some are so opposed to acknowledging hardship due to this change. The way I look at it, as my Dad always said, sometimes life isn't fair. Suck it up.

Why is it important to your group to not acknowledge any collateral damage? What's at stake here? I'm assuming, could be wrong, that if nothing was at stake we wouldn't have this seemingly endless argument that winners and losers don't exist with this change.

So what's up? Why doesn't your side want to acknowledge collateral damage?

[Raymond Hall]

I don't understand why some are so opposed to acknowledging hardship due to this change. The way I look at it, as my Dad always said, sometimes life isn't fair. Suck it up. Why is it important to your group to not acknowledge any collateral damage? What's at stake here? I'm assuming, could be wrong, that if nothing was at stake we wouldn't have this seemingly endless argument that winners and losers don't exist with this change. So what's up? Why doesn't your side want to acknowledge collateral damage?

I will answer your latter question first. Then below I will deal with the Stanley Award.

There is no question that there is and will be some adverse affect on the junior pilots as a result of the removal of the mandatory retirement provision from the collective agreement. That is a fact, and we acknowledge it. The jury is still out on the measure of that effect.

That isn't the issue, though, for a number of reasons, the first one being that the law says that age discrimination is illegal. There was also an adverse affect on others when Air Canada maintained discrimination against women pilots, against pilots who wore glasses (both of which were in effect when I was hired). Does that mean that when the law changes, the contract or the employer's policies shouldn't accord with the law? Which takes precedence? Policy, contract or law? So that is the first point. When Parliament changed the law, it didn't say that this law applies to everyone except Air Canada pilots.

The second point is that the mandatory retirement exemption was always conditional on age 60 being the normal age of retirement. According to the Federal Court in the January decision, the Tribunal got it wrong when it narrowed the comparator group to exclude the majority of pilots in Canada from the comparator group. My point is that there was never any certainty that mandatory retirement would be upheld, and the union ought to have anticipated that a decade ago when so many of use were telling them to get serious about the implications of the decisions that were being made.

The third point is that a BFOR defence is based on an "occupational requirement." Without going into a lot of detail and argument, the adverse effect on junior pilots has absolutely nothing to do with being qualified to perform the tasks required to do the job that underlie the BFOR defence. Yes, there is harm. Is it legally relevant? Our position before the Tribunal and the Courts is that it is not. It simply doesn't meet the legal test. BFOR cannot be used as a viable argument to overcome Parliament's express prohibition against age discrimination, if age is irrelevant to the principles underlying the defence, as the Tribunal found, plain and simple.

There are other legal arguments that are also germane, that I won't go into. The main point is not only that if you don't ask yourself the appropriate questions, you can't possibly get relevant answers, but that there is a good possibility that you will simply wind up scratching your head when you are left flat on your ass with a huge liability staring you right in the face. That is something that calls for courage in decision-making, not emotion.

The irony of all this is that the most junior pilots were the most vehement opponents to this change and they are the ones that wound up getting screwed the most, after all the dust settled, just as I warned they would, back in 2006 and so many times afterwards.

I can't help looking at this entire fiasco as anything other than a huge exercise in musical chairs. Yes, I wound out of the chair when the music stopped and I won't be coming back, having just turned 65. But those who represented you making the decision to oppose this, for the most part, are not out of the chair. In fact, they will be in the chair for some time to come, by what I understand is happening.

[Raymond Hall]

ACPA placed within FOS something about mandatory retirement that no one had any idea if it was legal. The arbitrator even commented if I recall. To put something that could be illegal in a FOS document guaranteed he couldn't pick it. That one thing meant he had no choice but pick the companies submission. Isn't any BFOR wording the same idea? Placing something in FOS, that an arbitrator wouldn't know was legal or not. Isn't that a bad idea?

The Stanley award is posted on the Fly Past 60 web site: http://www.flypast60.com/Documents/StanleyAward.pdf
It is interesting to go back and read it again, in hindsight. I can find no mention in it of any BFOR submission by either party. In fact, both ACPA and Air Canada took the position before the arbitrator that the end of mandatory retirement was law that would take effect in December, 2012.

The Final Offer Selection hearings took place before Arbitrator Stanley on July 10, 11, 13, and 18, 2012. Remember that Parliament gave Royal Assent to the abolishment of the mandatory retirement exemption on December 15, 2011, to become effective December 15, 2012.
ACPA’s proposal in the Final Offer Settlement hearing suggested that pilots over age 60 could remain employed but only as First Officers, paid as Captains (if they were already Captains). Moreover, ACPA's submissions stated repeatedly that the age 60 exemption was being abolished, and its proposal to the arbitrator was its means of dealing with that fact.

From the decision, Page 51:

ACPA’s final offer contains a recognition of the fact that mandatory retirement at age 60 is no longer a requirement. Their proposal (at page 215 of their brief) is as follows:

Our proposal accomplishes five goals: it
(1) accommodates pilots flying past age 60;
(2) addresses the career expectations of junior pilots;
(3) prevents the uncertainty of senior pilot retirement from affecting Air Canada`s manning requirements;
(4) maintains the current cost structure of the Air Canada pilot group; and
(5) provides additional solvency funding relief to the pilots pension plan.

Then at Pages 56-57:

Removing mandatory retirement creates a major problem for ACPA. It pits the interests of younger pilots with career income aspirations against the interests of older pilots who would like to be free from age discrimination in their continued employment. In their reply brief ACPA identifies, “the most harmful features of the Air Canada final offer from a pilot point of view”. Second only to scope changes is Air Canada’s proposal on mandatory retirement. At page 231 of their Brief they state:

Mandatory retirement at age 60 has long been the policy of the Association, one that was for many years supported by both legislation with respect to the normal age of retirement for occupational groups, and by the jurisprudence recognizing the right of unions to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment. However in recent years there has been a growing acceptance that because people are healthier and living longer, they should have the option to remain employed longer. This has resulted in an increasing pressure to accommodate the wishes of those pilots who wish to fly at Air Canada beyond 60 years of age. Most recently, the government has removed one of the legislative supports for mandatory retirement provisions formerly section 15(1)c of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Arbitrator then responds with:

However, ACPA’s proposal on flying past 60 is untried and uncertain. If mandatory retirement at age 60 has been struck down on the basis of its being “age discrimination”, the same principals are going to apply when someone decides to challenge any change in the terms and conditions of their employment based on age 60, notwithstanding maintenance of their pay. I understand ACPA’s dilemma— they need to move pilots off the top of seniority list at age 60 to accommodate their younger pilot members. The difficulty is that this is what the Human Rights Act, as interpreted, is just as likely not going to allow. I conclude that ACPA’s offer on flying past age 60 is flawed by the uncertainty that surrounds its implementation. The “savings” attributed to that aspect of the offer are to the same extent “uncertain”.

There is merit in your suggestion that it is problematic to make a proposal that is based on a proposition that is not yet established in law. The way to work around that is to make a proposal that includes alternatives, so that in the event that the one desired is ultimately, long after the award is rendered, not sustainable, the other one automatically kicks in.

My point earlier, however, was that ACPA did not, at any time or place other than in its representations to the Court, assert the BFOR argument.

[777longhaul]

For those of you who are so dead set against this FP60 Coalition issue:

First off, no one, from the FP60 group is standing in your way to your perceived injustice, of keeping you from advancing up the list. NO ONE. Read that again, please. NOT one pilot, in the FP60 Coalition, is flying at AC.

So who is blocking your vertical rapid climb to the senior positions at AC?

All of your current problems, dislikes, hatred, etc. etc. has been caused by acpa. They totally screwed up the entire issue, and they even further screwed up the TA1 TA2, and the FOS. No one, from the FP60 Coalition caused these events. NO ONE FROM THE FP60 COALITION, was involved in the contract negots. So, how in the hell, have they caused you all this injustice? It was all acpa, AC and the Federal Government, but, acpa lead the charge all the way to the FOS. So, go gunning for them. Look at the various MEC/LEC/Committee members, and see who is sitting where on the seniority list, and who is benefiting the most, from the Federal Governments changes. The FP60 Coalition, did NOT change the rules, and cause you all the perceived hardship. Many, of you, don't even know what sacrifices all the pilots made at ALL the various airlines, before you juniors came to AC. They far exceed your current problems of not getting what you want when you think you should get it.

Your problems, are being driven, by acpa, and financed by your union dues.

The majority of the FP60 Coalition, are past 65, so what's your panic? They/we/I will never be back. I wanted to keep flying, and nothing else, just like the rest of the Coalition, but acpa ensured that no one could, regardless if it was age discrimination or not. Now, like Raymond, I am close to 65, so it is done, what's left, for all of the FP60 Coalition members, that are in this same position, will be back wages etc, IF...the courts decide to do this. This issue, is now, in the hands of the courts. acpa, put this situation into that realm.

AC took back any union member who filed a grievance, from all the various unions, period.

acpa, DID NOT! They refused any and all grievance requests, by the pilots who were still employed at AC, paying union dues, (max dues) and members in good standing. That's your union.

They (acpa) are the only ones who know more than everyone else. So don't sweat the small stuff, acpa has your back, and you will have a happy life for ever after, if you just let acpa handle this issue. Look at their track record, and don't get so wound up about, the FP60 group, that has not stood in your way.

Go and get real in acpa's face.

Oh, and don't forget, the Federal Government changed the rules, because it was discriminatory. NO OTHER REASON given by them.

acpa, got smoked big time (FOS) by AC and the Feds, but don't worry, be happy. The courts will decide what to do.

Remember also, that acpa never got a mandate to fight the FP60 issue, when they did the IVR vote. But, they decided, that they could win in the long run. The courts will decide. Maybe they will, and you will all move up, but wait, we are not on the list, so that won't affect your rapid advancement, that you all seem to think is owed to you. acpa is looking after your concerns.

The problems of employment, are far less, than the problems of unemployment. Don't ever forget it.

Hope you have an acpa day!

[Rockie]

As long as the pilot group I was referring to is caught at junior pay and seats and unable to move, they are affected by this change. The pay delta is commonly $50K per year. That money is lost and never regained. Resuming career progression after a 5 year stall does not recoup lost earning, hence the impact is on lifetime career earnings.

The actual 50K loss you cite cannot be attributed to the loss of mandatory retirement alone, you are ignoring the negative effects of the FOS/Rouge which are significant. It is also not true the money cannot be recouped because people can work 5 years longer at the same relative position or higher on the overall seniority list than they have always been if they choose to. I agree there will be loss if they still choose to retire at 60 but that's their decision to make and you cannot blame the loss of mandatory retirement for that.

However what you are really doing is questioning a couple of the assumptions (fair enough) and then declaring the whole thing hog wash. (That is simply an argument of convenience)

I read the ACPA financial impact submission very carefully and the only way their figures made any sense is by applying the assumptions I mentioned in my earlier post (I could mention them again but just scroll up if you really want to know). The study did say however that any loss in income could be recovered and exceeded by every age group by working past 60 (albeit less for junior pilots) but it said nothing and so we must assume it didn't account for adapting our pay structure to improve the lot of junior pilots which we are certainly able to do. Now of course the landscape has completely changed with FOS/Rouge making whatever little credibility the impact study had irrelevant.

Irrefutable harm is, and will take place. It's irrefutable that the sum total of career income prior to age 60 will be less. It's irrefutable that as a result of less pay before 60, many people retiring at 60 will have a lower pension as a result.

I have never said there will not be harm to pilots after mandatory retirement was abolished. As a junior pilot I have always been keenly aware of the immediate effect it would have on my own career advancement. My arguments have always been centered on the increased harm that would occur fighting it and the loss of advantage by not being proactive about it. My posts for years have been absolutely consistent on those points and it is in fact why I've been so vocal about it.

The harm becomes permanent though only if someone chooses to still retire at 60 as you say above and I agree with that. But you don't have to retire at 60 and if you still do then losing that career income is your choice. What people are talking about really is having their career expectations adversely effected because they view everything against still retiring at 60. Well, careers are effected by many things out of our control especially in this industry. All we can do is do the best we can with what we have to work with, and my objection all along has been to sticking our head in the sand pretending Canadian law wouldn't apply to us. The most harm done to us is self-inflicted.

[Dockjock]

With the 12 month notice expectation imposed by the company we should be seeing guys announcing retirement NOW to be out at 62.5. It ain't happening. I see most arguments expecting norm retirement at 65 now from guys that have MORE than 35 years of service.

I think we can grant the FP60 group the acknowledgement that their retirement age prediction of 62.5, while it was a bit of a salve to the opposition, "guys relax it's not going to be too bad," it was blown up with the DB pension eligibility and penalties contained in the FOS. Today can you really blame someone for working longer to avoid a penalty of 6% per year? It's a big penalty, I personally wouldn't foist myself on a 30%-off petard just to get a few back slaps at my age-60 retirement party. Hell no.

We're at the confluence of the low interest rate pension crisis, FP60's aggressive lobbying, the actual law change, FOS pension eligibility changes, and in the middle of new aircraft deliveries, and it's only been a year and a half. I'm sure some are sticking around just to get B787 on the license.

[dukepoint]

.

[777longhaul]

For DP

Duke Point, I see, on the West Jet form. So, I assume you are not at AC, and I don't see why you are so vocal about AC FP60 issues, when you are not even at AC?

What do you say DP, are you or are you not an AC pilot?

You seem to have a great deal of opinions on the West Jet Forum.

Maybe, you work at a whole bunch of them, or maybe none of them?

[Norwegianwood]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxes/r ... -1.1143959

Go figure