I told myself I wasn't going to respond to this anymore as I didn't see any willingness to understand. Only a pit bull behaving like a troll......then you went and did a bunch of work. DARN YOU!
I will do my best to ignore him. I see he wasted no time with a preemptive attack. Putting words in my mouth and all.
Your graph is pretty much the same as mine. Mine just more simplistic. One difference that does stand out is you didn't factor in pension past age 60 for the initial column. I have simulated below by just adding 17,500/year for 5 years. 50% of final wage. The second is you need to compare apples to apples. Compensation to a specific age for everyone. One of you comments compares total compensation to age 65 of a new hire, against total compensation of the litigants to age 60. What about the 5 years of pension income missing from that tally. It is why I have used the term total compensation.
The overriding disagreement here has been this. Everyone seems to understand that total compensation to 60 is reduced by this change. The disagreement is over, is this reduction in compensation to age 60 recovered by age 65 if we continue to work. In your example the new hire was able to recoup the litigants SALARY to age 60 by about age 64 if he continued to work. He will never however recover total compensation versus the litigant by age 65.
Below are lines 35 and 40 from your chart. I amended column 1 at line 40 to demonstrate pension compensation.
Age 60___630,000.. 560,000..620,000...500,000
Age 65___ 717,500....730,000...785,000...670,000
So what does it tell us about the relationship between new hires and the litigants in your scenario.
Total compensation difference to age 60 of litigants versus current new hire is 130,000. 20% less.
Total compensation difference to age 65 of litigants versus current new hire is 47,000. 9% less. Even if he/ she works 5 years longer.
Back on page 6 my hypothetical scenario came out very close to yours. 22% loss by age 60. 7.5% loss by age 65.
You can continue grinding your axe at the inequity of it, but unfortunately the opportunity to address it was forfeited in favour of seniority advancement while delaying the process. Not my choice as I'm sure you know - it was the pilot group as a whole and ACPA. If it bothers you that much why didn't you argue against it when it might have mattered?
I’m unaware of what caused you to bring “the litigants” into my analysis, as I don’t believe that I made any reference to them with my income comparisons. Nor was it my intent. You noted that one of my “comments compares total compensation to age 65 of a new hire, against total compensation of the litigants to age 60”, and later, “so what does it tell us about the relationship between new hires and the litigants in your scenario”?
Well, I was not attempting to develop any relationship between new-hires and the litigants. My comparison (in the instance of a 2013 new-hire) was intended to show the difference in career income between a pilot who worked for 35 years (with no 5-year hiatus) and retired at age 60 under the old rule (I agree, the litigants would fall under this description) and a pilot hired after Dec 2012 who suffers the 5-year hiatus and is able to work 5 additional years under the new rules. If you read into that that I was comparing a litigant to a new-hire today, that was not my intent. My intent was to examine if the new-hire of 2013 would have been better off (comparing only employment income) under the old regime or under the new.
My intent is to provide a chart that all pilots still working after Dec 2012 can use to analyze whether or not they might expect an income gain or loss as a result of the abolition of mandatory retirement at age 60. It is not the intent of the chart for one pilot to make a comparison against another, only a tool to allow individuals to answer the question: Will I lose income or will I gain income as a result of the change in mandatory retirement age causing a 5-year hiatus in advancement but now off-set by being able to work beyond age 60.
I didn’t factor in pension because pension income and employment income are separate, and a pilot cannot collect both at once. A pilot, before he retires (with 35 years service) or early retires, would be wise to work the numbers to see the impact of retiring vs. continuing to work. Retirement may be the preference, or maybe not – his/her choice.
The thought just struck me, by including pension income (presumably of the litigants) after age 60, are you attempting to show that today’s worker-bees, even when working 5 additional years, will not enjoy the same "total compensation" at age 65 as will have the litigants at age 65 (their employment income + their 5 years of pension income)? This is getting complicated - at least for me! Because if you are, then why stop at age 65? Pilots retiring at age 65 under the new rules will have a higher pension (due to being able to contribute up to 5 additional years to achieve 35 years pensionable service) so why not take the “total compensation” comparison out to 70 years … 75 years … heck, let’s take it to actuarial life expectancy date and draw the ultimate comparison. Yeah, yeah, I know, now we’re really getting silly.
In any event, we’ve both given (or tried to give) out best shot at this; time to let individuals mull over our thoughts and charts and draw their own conclusions. It’s been a slice - over and out!
My apologies for the "litigant" comments. I was showing my own bias I suppose. You are correct we can not collect both a pension and a salary. You have to choose one or the other. In the case of pre 2012 there was no choice. You had to take your pension.
First off BINGO! Why 65? Inaccurate comments like this.The thought just struck me, by including pension income (presumably of the litigants) after age 60, are you attempting to show that today’s worker-bees, even when working 5 additional years, will not enjoy the same "total compensation" at age 65 as will have the litigants at age 65 (their employment income + their 5 years of pension income)? This is getting complicated - at least for me! Because if you are, then why stop at age 65?
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.
Numbers taken from your spreadsheet.
Compensation to Age 65 for ACXXXXXX F. Blade
Pre 2012 - 35 year career plus 5 year pension.
Total compensation to 65 - 717,500. Comments: includes pension 60-65
Post 2012 - 40 year career
Total compensation (junior in 2012) to 65 - 670,000 Comments: choose to work to 65
40 year career.
Total compensation ( senior in 2012) to 65 - 785,000. Comments: choose to work to 65
Basically you're saying the five years extra working for a junior guy at a lower salary won't make up for what he would have made earning a pension for those same five years and that in concept I agree with only if everybody was going to get a 35 year career pre-change, but we know that's not true. In my case I will never make per year in pension what I made after a few years at Air Canada, however my pension after the change will be increased making my lifetime earnings much greater than it would have been. Assuming of course I live as long as I statistically should. The same applies for most people in the group you say is most effected since their median age on hiring was around 35. Most still won't get a full pension even after this change, but it will be greatly improved thanks to the five extra years contributing.
Any lifetime calculation for earnings would have to be specific to an individual pilot to have any meaning at all, and even then would require very large assumptions on many variables that in the end may not resemble reality.
No, total compensation to age 65. The same frame of reference you set 5 pages ago. The same frame of reference you have insisted EVERYONE will make more to, if they work to it.Rockie wrote:Now you're talking about lifetime earnings.
Correct. We were looking at longer careers in all of the scenarios. Shorter careers will produce different results. Careers where people are hired older or younger than the average age will have differing results. I never said every junior pilot working to 65 will make less. I simply refuted your claim that EVERYONE working to 65 will make more.Rockie wrote:Basically you're saying the five years extra working for a junior guy at a lower salary won't make up for what he would have made earning a pension for those same five years and that in concept I agree with only if everybody was going to get a 35 year career pre-change, but we know that's not true.
Hired at a later age? Yes absolutely that could be true. The smaller the pension income the more lucrative continuing to work becomes. The pre and post 2012 difference could actually be very substantial for that individual, as the older the person is hired at, the more substantial the gain.Rockie wrote:In my case I will never make per year in pension what I made after a few years at Air Canada, however my pension after the change will be increased making my lifetime earnings much greater than it would have been. Assuming of course I live as long as I statistically should.
I can only say that....wait.Ah_yeah wrote:Why is it that ICAO is not being taken to task for mandatory retirement at 65 ? If one applies the same principles that age discrimination is illegal, it should be any age. I have my theories but I'm curious what "the panel" thinks.
This topic could easily be the subject matter of a separate thread. Nevertheless, here is a quick snapshot of the issue.Ah_yeah wrote:Why is it that ICAO is not being taken to task for mandatory retirement at 65 ? If one applies the same principles that age discrimination is illegal, it should be any age. I have my theories but I'm curious what "the panel" thinks.
ICAO is part of the United Nations. It is not a regulatory body. It makes standards and recommended practices that are implemented as law by its member countries. Countries can opt out of some of the provisions. Canada has elected to opt out of the maximum age restriction.
During the Tribunal hearing, I subpoenaed the head of Transport Canada as a witness. His evidence was that in Canada's submission to ICAO with respect to its original consideration of a maximum age restriction, Canada voted against any maximum age restriction because in Transport Canada's view, it would contravene the age discrimination provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One vote out of 144 or so.
The United States has not elected to opt out of the maximum age restriction; consequently, the ICAO restrictions now preclude any FAA Part 121 pilot (or equivalent, airline pilot) over age 65 from operating in USA airspace. The USA simply does not recognize the licence.
Changes in ICAO standards and recommended practices are initiated by a committee within ICAO, and only member countries can make submissions. Obviously, not every country espouses the same values as does Canada with respect to age discrimination. In fact, age was not included as a criterion in the International Declaration of Human Rights.
This is laid out in ST/SGB/2008/5 The mere mention of Age is "Prohibited Conduct".
Despite this, the UN continues to discriminate by Age in its' employment practices, a situation which is being challenged by various employees. The UN also discriminates against pilots, having an age limit of 65 in contracts, despite this being in clear contravention of the above strict policy.
Further, the November 2014 change to ICAO recommendations regarding age (no pilots over 65) is totally unsupported by any facts or data. In the justification, reference was made to the concept that medical problems in the "General Population" increase with age. No supporting data is given. What is more, in the original supporting information justifying the change from age 60., it was made clear that one cannot extrapolate medical information from the "General Population" to the Pilot Population, because those with serious disease are selected out of the Pilot Population. When ICAO looked at 15000 Pilot Years of data, they could find no reason for any mandatory age; older pilots (over 54) were found to be safer pilots, and incapacitating medical events occurred earlier. Because Scheduled Airlines have two or more pilots, no age was found to be necessary.
The Age 65 policy, and the (now dropped) Over/Under rule were put in as sops to those countries that could not get their minds around the concept that age is not disqualifying for pilots.
If the UN was serious about its' policies, ICAO would not be recommending any age at all, but relying on Medicals, Line Checks, and Simulators etc, as Canada and other countries do. Twenty plus countries have no maximum age for pilots. The experience makes it clear that age is not a valid measure for Pilot Competency.
Hopefully, the whole issue will be revisited and reality will be used to make policy, but the UN (and ICAO) are enormous bureaucracies and things move very slowly.
I see on another forum, that aprx. 20-30% of the AC pilots are retiring at age 60. How does that affect your formula? Your numbers don't make sense, on the entire issue, and it is even further reduced, due to variable retirements actually happening as we type away at this issue.
Could someone, please look and see who from the previous years of acpa work, (acpa bulletins) specifically, on the Age 60 Committee, tell, me, and the others here, who, is now past 60 from the Age 60 Committee, and who is over 60 from the various MEC's starting back around the mid time frame of 2005, lets say, and is still flying at AC even though, they fought tooth and nail to make sure the age 60 rule, booted out as many pilots as possible.
Two wise men and one wise woman will render the decision. The panel was composed of Madame Justice Johanne Trudel, Justice Richard Boivin and Justice Denis Pelletier.Norwegianwood wrote:The 3 wise men will render a decision in about 8 weeks! NW
We are awaiting a detailed update from our counsel, but word is that things went very well for the coalition side.
Oops, major faux pas! Here come the politically correct police!Morry Bund wrote:Two wise men and one wise woman will render the decision. The panel was composed of Madame Justice Johanne Trudel, Justice Richard Boivin and Justice Denis Pelletier.Norwegianwood wrote:The 3 wise men will render a decision in about 8 weeks! NW
We are awaiting a detailed update from our counsel, but word is that things went very well for the coalition side.
Norwegianwood wrote:The 3 wise men will render a decision in about 8 weeks! NWratherbee wrote:So? How did it go in Ottawa today?
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied.
21 weeks and counting !