FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, Sulako, North Shore

Post Reply
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Dockjock » Mon Jul 21, 2014 9:48 pm

I think that article is aimed at the 55+ set. So, yeah.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/ ... ending-it/
---------- ADS -----------
  

777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul » Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:34 pm

update from FP60

http://www.flypast60.com/
---------- ADS -----------
  

MackTheKnife
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:54 am
Location: The 'Wet Coast"

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by MackTheKnife » Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:44 am

777longhaul wrote:update from FP60

http://www.flypast60.com/


Direct link to the Update

http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm
---------- ADS -----------
  
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it !!!

dukepoint
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:40 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by dukepoint » Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:19 pm

777longhaul wrote: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?
Maybe.........what I don't like are individuals who've had an amazing run during the "golden years" of aviation, and want to continue that run well past it's due date at the expense of others. I'm not alone. Likely what I won't be doing in retirement is spending time on an Aviation forum attempting to explain to others why I deserve far more than I received.

FWIW.....If you've read my posts, I've made it clear I'm mid-pack AC, and have serious vested financial interests in Westjet. I'll say from firsthand experience that career stagnation is not pleasant, and the impact of returning FP60's will be devastating. However, that's our problem, and likely absent from the thoughts of FP60. Don't expect anything remotely approaching a warm reception. $$$$ should mute the loneliness back at AC. Think of all the time you'll have to spend in your over-seas hotel rooms going over those bulging bank statements. Life will be great again.

DP.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Thu Aug 07, 2014 9:52 pm

Five have given notice to retire in July or August 2015. We still have a steady state 20-25%. The longer that lasts the more likely the average will be very close to 64.

Based on retirement average to date. Average retirement will be between 62.8 & 64.

The 64 is based on everyone going past 60 goes to 65. So far fixed about 64.

The 62.8 is based on normal retirement rate notice given next month. So far increasing every bid.

Still points to a high 63.x.

IOW? 2 more years of nothing. In fact based on the reductions on the last 3 bids the company has come to the same conclusion.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Morry Bund » Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:04 pm

dukepoint wrote:.........what I don't like are individuals who've had an amazing run during the "golden years" of aviation, and want to continue that run well past it's due date at the expense of others. I'm not alone.

...I'll say from firsthand experience that career stagnation is not pleasant, and the impact of returning FP60's will be devastating. However, that's our problem, and likely absent from the thoughts of FP60. Don't expect anything remotely approaching a warm reception. $$$$ should mute the loneliness back at AC. Think of all the time you'll have to spend in your over-seas hotel rooms going over those bulging bank statements. Life will be great again.

DP.
Give yourself a dose of reality, please. The FP60's didn't repeal the mandatory retirement exemption--Parliament did. So why are you upset with them?

Not only did they not repeal the legislation permitting age discrimination, they told you years ago, time after time that the change was inevitable, and further, that if you were smart, a big IF, you could actually profit from this change as well as being able to minimize the adverse impact. And what was the result?

You and your mid-pack seniority fellow pilots chose to deny, deny, deny. Now that the law has changed, you choose to threaten them that they won't be welcome when they come back.

Meanwhile, as I understand it, those pilots who you elected and appointed to fight this inevitability on your behalf and in your name are now starting to enjoy the fruits of their labour, sitting at or near the top of the list for an extra five years, pulling in big bucks. Well done. I don't see you attacking them for spending your money advocating one thing and then doing exactly the opposite, to your detriment, when it is to their advantage to do so.

If you are upset with anyone, you should be upset with yourself for having engaged in willful blindness leading you to now fly into the headwind that you yourself chose to put in your flight path.
---------- ADS -----------
  

turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by turbo-beaver » Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:56 am

Meanwhile, as I understand it, those pilots who you elected and appointed to fight this inevitability on your behalf and in your name are now starting to enjoy the fruits of their labour, sitting at or near the top of the list for an extra five years, pulling in big bucks. Well done. I don't see you attacking them for spending your money advocating one thing and then doing exactly the opposite, to your detriment, when it is to their advantage to do so.


MB
and not a single one of these hypocritical malcrent misantropic individuals have made a single contribution to the Fly Past 60 fund.

I'm not surprised. Most of them have never even sprung for a bottle of wine at the dinner table either. Cheaper than lawyers
---------- ADS -----------
  
frog

777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:05 pm

Update on FP60 site.

posted today.

Replies filed by Air Canada, ACPA and the CHRC to our appeal of the ACPA BFOR portion of the Federal Court decision, on our web site:

www.flypast60.com/Documents/AC-Reply.pdf

www.flypast60.com/Documents/ACPA-Reply.pdf ; and

www.flypast60.com/Documents/CHRC-Reply.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:18 pm

AC now offering 3 year LOA's.

Looks like they have come to the conclusion the new normal age of retirement is going to be very close to 65.
---------- ADS -----------
  

dukepoint
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:40 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by dukepoint » Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:07 pm

Morry Bund wrote:
dukepoint wrote:.........what I don't like are individuals who've had an amazing run during the "golden years" of aviation, and want to continue that run well past it's due date at the expense of others. I'm not alone.

...I'll say from firsthand experience that career stagnation is not pleasant, and the impact of returning FP60's will be devastating. However, that's our problem, and likely absent from the thoughts of FP60. Don't expect anything remotely approaching a warm reception. $$$$ should mute the loneliness back at AC. Think of all the time you'll have to spend in your over-seas hotel rooms going over those bulging bank statements. Life will be great again.

DP.
Give yourself a dose of reality, please. The FP60's didn't repeal the mandatory retirement exemption--Parliament did. So why are you upset with them?

Not only did they not repeal the legislation permitting age discrimination, they told you years ago, time after time that the change was inevitable, and further, that if you were smart, a big IF, you could actually profit from this change as well as being able to minimize the adverse impact. And what was the result?

You and your mid-pack seniority fellow pilots chose to deny, deny, deny. Now that the law has changed, you choose to threaten them that they won't be welcome when they come back.

Meanwhile, as I understand it, those pilots who you elected and appointed to fight this inevitability on your behalf and in your name are now starting to enjoy the fruits of their labour, sitting at or near the top of the list for an extra five years, pulling in big bucks. Well done. I don't see you attacking them for spending your money advocating one thing and then doing exactly the opposite, to your detriment, when it is to their advantage to do so.

If you are upset with anyone, you should be upset with yourself for having engaged in willful blindness leading you to now fly into the headwind that you yourself chose to put in your flight path.
For the record I never entered the FP 60 debate, as it was made explicitly clear when I was hired that a seniority based system worked on the premise that you sacrifice early in your career for a "fixed run" at the top.....just like every other pilot in AC's storied history has complied with. I never, ever intended to stay past 60 and screw those patiently waiting their turn in the sun.

It's all about drawing a line in the sand. That line is 2012. If there's no line, what would stop the estate of a pilot who retired in 1968 from seeking damages? There's no point in attacking those staying past 60 who are already on the property........they didn't change the rules, AC did. FP60 ain't back yet. With 3 year LOA's being offered, it's likely no one who retired prior to 2012 will be back.....ever, so it matters not what type of reception they would have received. The jury is still out on the whole matter, so the likelihood of this entire debate being moot is very possible. With LOA's, and little to no growth, returning FP60's are very unlikely.

Bump you say............you're a different breed of human if you'd willingly accept a position knowing "some new-hire" would be tossed out on the street struggling hard to put food on the table and meet mortgage obligations simply because some greedy dudes, who have already had a great run, have some twisted need to fill the closet with expensive golf clubs. I assure you we'll give new meaning to the term "chilly reception". Us mid-packers won't take too kindly to having our current FO's, and RP's......our friends.......being tossed out on the street. The pilots that elected to stay didn't force anyone out; besides I wouldn't force the early retirement penalty that was slapped on in FOS on anyone. FP60's hungry for $$$ at the expense of those currently on the property are a different case altogether.

DP.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Morry Bund » Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:58 pm

dukepoint wrote:For the record I never entered the FP 60 debate, as it was made explicitly clear when I was hired that a seniority based system worked on the premise that you sacrifice early in your career for a "fixed run" at the top.....just like every other pilot in AC's storied history has complied with.
“Explicitly clear”, by whom? A union representative? What a pile of bull! In the years that I have been employed, nobody has ever imposed that expectation on me, as if they could, anyway.

There is no moral imperative to this, any more than there is to so many of the other fixed rules that we learned were not so fixed…such as no feeders taking our flying, no discount carriers, no contracting out.

If there were such a moral imperative, why is it that those who spent our money on our behalf persuading us that we needed to fund the fight against the inevitable are now themselves staying past 60 and impeding our seniority progression?

Who are the real hypocrites--those members in the minority who paid with their own money to assert their legal rights, or those members in the majority who took the dues of those in the minority and used those dues to join the employer in litigation against them?
dukepoint wrote:It's all about drawing a line in the sand. That line is 2012. If there's no line, what would stop the estate of a pilot who retired in 1968 from seeking damages?
The law is the line in the sand. The only ones who have a right to seek reinstatement and compensation are those who filed their complaints prior to the expiry of the one-year limit after their forced retirement. That number is approximately 200, and their claims are very, very real, as I understand things.
dukepoint wrote:The jury is still out on the whole matter, so the likelihood of this entire debate being moot is very possible. With LOA's, and little to no growth, returning FP60's are very unlikely.
The jury won’t be out much longer. The likelihood of this entire debate being moot is zero if ACPA doesn’t get a favourable decision from the court of appeal. In order to do so, it will have to persuade the court of appeal that the federal court decision, that completely disregarded 30 years of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada prohibiting the extension of the defence of bona fide occupational requirement to including future income expectations, is justified and should be upheld. Get real.

You are correct about many not being able to return, but the reason that they won’t be able to return has nothing to do with the outcome of the decision. The reason is that ICAO has changed the rules, and in November, there will be no pilots over 65 flying internationally. The fact that most of these pilots cannot return to work is not the real problem, given the delay in getting to the end of this process. The real problem is the issue of how much both the employer and the union will have to pay to those 200 former pilots, should they win their case at the Tribunal. Do the numbers. A big hit in the pocket for every one of us.

The union and the employer will be held jointly liable, and the numbers are scary. There is a very real possibility that the union will be forced to implement a special assessment of several thousand dollars per active pilot, if the compensation awarded to each of those 200 even approaches the sums originally paid to the first two pilots to win their case three years ago. If it goes higher, and there is every possibility that it could, given recent jurisprudence, how will the union deal with that? Almost all of those responsible for the disaster are no longer appointed or elected.
dukepoint wrote:Us mid-packers won't take too kindly to having our current FO's, and RP's......our friends.......being tossed out on the street.
You won’t have to worry about that. Apparently the human rights law does not permit reinstatement to force bumping others out of their jobs. But it can result in huge payments as a substitute.
---------- ADS -----------
  

777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul » Thu Nov 27, 2014 4:09 pm

Jan 20th 2015 is the court date that is set for the Federal Court of Appeals, in a "special sitting" of the FCA which comprises 3 judges.

If you want to know what the 3 appeals are, go to the FP60 website.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ratherbee
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 10:12 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by ratherbee » Sun Nov 30, 2014 1:43 pm

I just finished reading the submissions and am not too concerned. I doubt that the FP60 group will have anything to celebrate about. It seems to me that they have quite a hill to climb in order to gain retribution for their perceived losses. In fact I see that both AC and ACPA are seeking legal costs in the decision.

Maybe this is the end of the road? A well travelled one I might add.

Meanwhile back at the ranch... the dire predictions some pilots raised are proving to be true. Although we are still showing a few retirements every month, I am sure that as flying past 60 becomes normal behaviour then the numbers will be more like 90% to 65. It's clear, the financial impact to the vast majority of our pilots will far exceed any awards that the FP60 group might achieve.

As Laughton stated in ACPA's submission, which I read on the FP60 website, "Working longer to compensate for debt which one cannot collect is not repayment. It is merely working longer to make up for what somebody else has taken away."

The only winners here are those who were standing at the top when the bar was raised. I don't blame them for taking advantage of their windfall but I certainly expect them to be generous when it's time to saddle up to the bar and pay the bill. Especially the ones who were recent union leaders. Irony sure is ironic sometimes!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Mechanic787
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:38 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Mechanic787 » Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:06 pm

ratherbee wrote:I just finished reading the submissions and am not too concerned. I doubt that the FP60 group will have anything to celebrate about. It seems to me that they have quite a hill to climb in order to gain retribution for their perceived losses.
Interesting. Your read of the submissions is obviously different from my read of them. More importantly, it is not just the submissions that are relevant--the decision of the Federal Court is also relevant. Remember that the Federal Court decided three separate issues, all three of which were appealed by the respective parties. Two of the three were decided in favour of the Fly Past 60 group. Air Canada lost on both the normal age of retirement issue and on its BFOR issue. ACPA was successful on its BFOR issue.

Overturning a decision is far more difficult than maintaining it, according to the statistics.

Having said that, one must consider the favourable ACPA Federal Court decision in light of the extensive Supreme Court of Canada precedent of the past 30-plus years dictating the opposite outcome. If the FCA upholds the Federal Court decision on the ACPA BFOR, finding that the BFOR defence should be expanded beyond occupational requirements to include terms and conditions of employment, including income expectations, the FCA would not only be violating case after case of SCC precedent, but it would be blasting a gaping hole in the statute and seriously undermining the intent of Parliament in protecting human rights.

Clear SCC precedent repeatedly states that that human rights defences, including the BFOR defence, are to be narrowly construed. To construe this defence otherwise, expanding it beyond the "occupational requirement" component would essentially undermine the entire purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Read the Meiorin case, and look at the Step 1 requirements. The BFOR defence is restricted to a "purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job". Not pay. Not income. Not career expecations.

Nevertheless, it would be speculative to make any presumption about what the FCA will have to say about any of the three issues in dispute. But in my view, the dice are certainly not loaded in favour of either the employer or the union.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Morry Bund » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:24 pm

Mechanic787 wrote:
ratherbee wrote:I just finished reading the submissions and am not too concerned. I doubt that the FP60 group will have anything to celebrate about. It seems to me that they have quite a hill to climb in order to gain retribution for their perceived losses.
Interesting. Your read of the submissions is obviously different from my read of them.
Ditto. And with respect to Air Canada’s submissions, they seem to focus almost entirely on the court’s alleged error in talking about its competitors rather than on the legal question that was before the tribunal, namely, was age 60 the normal age of retirement for individuals engaged in work similar to the work of Air Canada pilots? The evidence was that Air Canada pilots were the only ones required to retire at age 60. Did they constitute a majority of the airline pilots in Canada?

The Vilven decision, the court decision that told the tribunal exactly how to answer the question, included Skyservice, Air Transat and WestJet in the comparator group. The tribunal decision ignored that fact and excluded those carriers. But it included several small regional carriers as comparators. Does that make any sense at all?

The court, in overturning the tribunal decision, cited that error, among others.

Then again, what difference does it make what the tribunal or the court decided? Isn’t it the job of the court of appeal to determine the correct legal interpretation of the statutory exemption, based on the facts adduced at the hearing, regardless of the earlier decisions?

Either age 60 was the normal age of retirement, or it wasn’t, based on the total number of pilots doing the kind of work that Air Canada pilots do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:18 am

ratherbee wrote:It's clear, the financial impact to the vast majority of our pilots will far exceed any awards that the FP60 group might achieve.
Incorrect. There will no doubt be some impact if a pilot still chooses to go at 60, but the severity of that impact is anything but clear. If a pilot chooses to go to 65 they will make more than they would have not only in career earnings, but also for the majority increased retirement income as well. Longer time earning a great living, and more pensionable time resulting in a better pension. Simple arithmetic if you care to look at it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:04 am

Rockie wrote:
ratherbee wrote:It's clear, the financial impact to the vast majority of our pilots will far exceed any awards that the FP60 group might achieve.
Incorrect. There will no doubt be some impact if a pilot still chooses to go at 60, but the severity of that impact is anything but clear. If a pilot chooses to go to 65 they will make more than they would have not only in career earnings, but also for the majority increased retirement income as well. Longer time earning a great living, and more pensionable time resulting in a better pension. Simple arithmetic if you care to look at it.
Rockie,

The retirement age issue aside. Not interested in the debate.

However the consequences of the changes should not be played down. Fact, some will make less working to 65 than they would have had mandatory retirement remained at 60 PLUS a lower pension.

I did my own evaluation just for kicks.

Assumptions:

- YYZ BASE
- bid to bottom spot on most senior equipment as soon as available.
- seniority differential of 600 numbers as a result of change.
- 29 year career to age 60 that started 4 years ago.
- 2015 pay rates used for entire eval.

Age 60:

- 793,000 less income.
- pension not impacted ( I barely made the 5 year threshold as WB CA). This makes me a lucky one.

Age 65:

- 150,000 less income ( derived by subtracting lost pension income age 60-65 from wage)
- Pension not impacted.

5 years longer for 150k less.

Now I am not bitching about this at all. Its life. I accept it. I am very cognizant that most people looking at this would see a bunch of rich people fighting with other rich people. To be honest, I think I am very fortunate as I was just under the DB wire.

My point? My only point? Stop the BS. There is substantial impact and it is irrefutable.

For those that are suing me for even more of my hard earned dollars? Us at the bottom of the food chain also look up and essentially see a bunch of rich people fighting with a bunch of other rich people. Crazy thing is you want me to pay.

FWIW I appreciate the courts introducing some rational thought by stating, for possibly the first time, financial impact needs to be looked at. No one ever intended the human rights act to be used for generational wealth transfer.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:51 am

Fanblade

Everybody older than you and above you on the list who would have retired at 60 will still have to retire at 65. Their seat will be vacated allowing you the same amount of time to fill it as before, just delayed at most 5 years. If you were going to get 5 years LS B777 before, you will still get 5 years LS B777 now - maybe more if enough guys retire before 65. In the meantime you will at the very least get 5 more years at your current pay that you wouldn't have gotten before.

This is because the seniority list doesn't change. You keep your place and will retire in the same relative position or better depending on how many above you go before 65.
Fanblade wrote:5 years longer for 150k less.
If you retire at 60 then you are correct. However if you go to 65 then your last five year's income will be the same as before. In fact your income after the five year wait for the rest of your career - for the same amount of time - will be the same as before going to 60.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Old fella » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:05 pm

Rockie wrote:
ratherbee wrote:It's clear, the financial impact to the vast majority of our pilots will far exceed any awards that the FP60 group might achieve.
Incorrect. There will no doubt be some impact if a pilot still chooses to go at 60, but the severity of that impact is anything but clear. If a pilot chooses to go to 65 they will make more than they would have not only in career earnings, but also for the majority increased retirement income as well. Longer time earning a great living, and more pensionable time resulting in a better pension. Simple arithmetic if you care to look at it.

Err......... yes and no. At age 60 you can collect your CCP at the reduced rate and be at the top end of that reduction rate. Also no CCP/EI/union contributions and any other associated out of pocket expense relating to going to work(no matter your employer: gas, parking meals etc., etc.) Point is when you put it all together and crunch realistic numbers 60-65 yrs, you may be pleasently surprised how much or how little you are going to work for. Each person's situation, of course is different, but in my particular case it wasn't worth continuing on and there were a very good many in my situation. Just saying.

:drinkers:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:28 pm

Rockie wrote:Fanblade

Everybody older than you and above you on the list who would have retired at 60 will still have to retire at 65. Their seat will be vacated allowing you the same amount of time to fill it as before, just delayed at most 5 years. If you were going to get 5 years LS B777 before, you will still get 5 years LS B777 now - maybe more if enough guys retire before 65. In the meantime you will at the very least get 5 more years at your current pay that you wouldn't have gotten before.

This is because the seniority list doesn't change. You keep your place and will retire in the same relative position or better depending on how many above you go before 65.
Fanblade wrote:5 years longer for 150k less.
If you retire at 60 then you are correct. However if you go to 65 then your last five year's income will be the same as before. In fact your income after the five year wait for the rest of your career - for the same amount of time - will be the same as before going to 60.
Rockie,

I suggest you read my post again.

793k was the lost income at age 60. 150k at age 65.

I will work to 60 and absorb a massive financial hit. 793k by estimate. Or I can work 5 years longer and only take a 150k loss on income.

Either way I can not recover from the loss even if I work 5 years longer.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 04, 2014 1:58 pm

I don't need to read your post again.

If every single pilot at Air Canada works to 65 now there will be absolutely no movement on the seniority list for 5 years (all other things being equal). No one will retire, and if everything else stays the same no one will be hired. Your seniority number will not change for 5 years nor will your relative position on your fleet. It's a five year freeze.

At the end of those five years everything starts up again at exactly the same rate it was before because pilots will once again be forced to retire.

Nothing else changes in this theoretical scenario except you have worked five years longer. With the exception of those five years plugged into the middle your career progression is exactly the same as it was before, but now those five years are in addition to what you would have made had you been forced out at 60. No loss - it's a net gain of five years career earning and lucky you if you're already in a seat that pays well. In reality however it's even better, because some pilots ahead of you will retire before age 65 who likely wouldn't have gone before 60, affording you even better advancement than you would have had before. Of course this depends on you flying to 65 yourself. If you choose to go at 60 you will take a hit, but then it will be your choice.

As for the pension, people who would have only gotten 25-30 years of pensionable service will now get 30-35 and their pension income will be increased commensurately. There are a lot of those people as you know. I am one of them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:35 pm

Rockie wrote:I don't need to read your post again.

If every single pilot at Air Canada works to 65 now there will be absolutely no movement on the seniority list for 5 years (all other things being equal). No one will retire, and if everything else stays the same no one will be hired. Your seniority number will not change for 5 years nor will your relative position on your fleet. It's a five year freeze.

At the end of those five years everything starts up again at exactly the same rate it was before because pilots will once again be forced to retire.

Nothing else changes in this theoretical scenario except you have worked five years longer. With the exception of those five years plugged into the middle your career progression is exactly the same as it was before, but now those five years are in addition to what you would have made had you been forced out at 60. No loss - it's a net gain of five years career earning and lucky you if you're already in a seat that pays well. In reality however it's even better, because some pilots ahead of you will retire before age 65 who likely wouldn't have gone before 60, affording you even better advancement than you would have had before. Of course this depends on you flying to 65 yourself. If you choose to go at 60 you will take a hit, but then it will be your choice.

As for the pension, people who would have only gotten 25-30 years of pensionable service will now get 30-35 and their pension income will be increased commensurately. There are a lot of those people as you know. I am one of them.
Wrong,

Do us all a favour. Before pontificating on the financial impact of the group as a whole go do some random samples. You don't seem to have a clue as to impact.

You appear to have two flaws in your thinking.

Problem 1) The major one. You claim the impact is only 5 years at max. It is clear you haven't put much thought into this. It is a 5-600 hundred number deficit , in my example for 25 years, from age 35-60. From age 60-65 the seniority deficient slowly reduces back to zero. It's an average of just under 32k/ year for 25 years. And NO I did not apply anything to extrapolate the time value of money. If we did that we would end up with a number much higher yet.

To put it another way? Pilots will trail by 5 years for over a couple of decades. The extra 5 years waiting for a WB captain position introduces the greatest loss. The next largest is the extra 5 years waiting for a 320 CA spot. The third largest is the 5 extra years waiting for a WB FO spot.


Problem 2) The earnings between age 60 and age 65 are off set by lost pension income. Really the recouped earnings are about 50cents on the dollar.

So if your going to pontificate like a subject matter expert, I suggest you actually know what you are talking about. Some of the pilots you are talking down to will work to 65 for less earnings than they would have earned by age 60 as a result of the change.

We have accepted this. The rules changed and winners and losers were created. It's life.

What we don't have to accept is someone blowing smoke up our butt desperately trying to tell us how good it is for us. It's not good for us. A few senior benefit financially, perhaps those hired at an older age, and the rest lose by varying degrees. That's the math.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Fanblade on Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:51 pm

Your logic is flawed. My theoretical example of nobody retiring for the five year period is the worst possible scenario and all it does is place a five year plug into everybody's career during which they still earn a living in their respective seat. After that five year period elapses career progression continues again at the same rate it did pre-2012. Saying there is a seniority hit of any kind is simply incorrect because the seniority list is fixed. No one can jump over the other.

You and many others think it's only the people at the top of the list benefitting, but in reality everybody is benefitting. It's just that as you go down the list to lesser paying seats those people are benefitting less, but everybody is still benefitting. Nobody is losing unless they choose to retire before they are required to.

Somebody disagreeing with your logic is not pontificating either...it's disagreeing.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Fanblade
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade » Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:11 pm

Rockie wrote:Your logic is flawed. My theoretical example of nobody retiring for the five year period is the worst possible scenario and all it does is place a five year plug into everybody's career during which they still earn a living in their respective seat. After that five year period elapses career progression continues again at the same rate it did pre-2012. Saying there is a seniority hit of any kind is simply incorrect because the seniority list is fixed. No one can jump over the other.

You and many others think it's only the people at the top of the list benefitting, but in reality everybody is benefitting. It's just that as you go down the list to lesser paying seats those people are benefitting less, but everybody is still benefitting. Nobody is losing unless they choose to retire before they are required to.

Somebody disagreeing with your logic is not pontificating either...it's disagreeing.
:lol: its not a five year hit in pay progression. It's a 5 year delay in pay progression over a an entire career.

We can disagree over opinion. We can't disagree over a math. When it comes to math one is right and one is wrong.

2+2=4. You can't simply disagree with it. Well you can but you would look silly. What you need to do is disprove it if you believe 2+2 does not equal 4.

Go ahead. Prove this is just a one time 5 year delay in pay progression. Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7694
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie » Thu Dec 04, 2014 5:18 pm

Fanblade wrote:Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.
I've actually said many times you will be 5 years behind in career progression...it's odd that you haven't seen that. What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that after that 5 years your career progression continues again at its normal pace and...here's the important part...you can work five years longer to replace the five years progression you lost while the same guys retire ahead of you as they would have under the old rules. In 2017 at the end of this five year period you will be at the same position on the seniority list or better than you were in 2012, and when you are age 60 you will be at the same position on the seniority list or better as you would have been at 55 under the old system, and you get to work another five years if you want. Get that?

In other words you get the same career plus the five years your career was stalled in your current seat at your current pay. How did you miss that basic arithmetic?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”