No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

[Four1oh]

In an actual verbal conversation this is about the time there would be a really uncomfortable silence.

Not from over here! Too funny, and thanks STL and Widow for your contribution to this thread. Much appreciated.

[turbo-beaver]

It is sad that this topic has degraded, just as it had on the ACPA forum to the type of verbal abuse that we witness here.Is this indicative of what our industry has become, or to the depths we have allowed it to fall?

Start with ACPA......by representing some members (those against age 65) and not representing the others( those for age 65) is where they made their first mistake. They are hiding behind the thin veil of a vote of 50% plus one, to justify their actions, and the officers of the Association has placed their union and its members in serious financial jeopardy. They have already had to pay out some pretty serious money in court fees, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The union leaders should have also struck a committee to explore both sides of this issue, and to find ways to mitigate the effects of what any normal person can see is coming down the pipe. The union is suppose to represent all the membership, not just the ones it chooses to represent. They should have learned this years ago when CALPA lost a huge award in a section 37 hearing brought against the Association for breaching its duty to one member. In this instance they are breaching their duty to over a hundred, and it is not going to be a free ride.

This is not going to be a windfall for the age 65 group either, should the courts find for them in the end. These guys are going to have to show they are trying to mitigate damages by getting off their butts, finding work, keeping up their medicals and licenses.

Our Association has made a lot of mistakes over the last few years. This is a huge one, that has the possibility of dwarfing the costs they spent on a merger that with a little compassion could have been concluded successfully years ago.

[JayDee]

It is sad that this topic has degraded, just as it had on the ACPA forum to the type of verbal abuse that we witness here.Is this indicative of what our industry has become, or to the depths we have allowed it to fall?

Start with ACPA......by representing some members (those against age 65) and not representing the others( those for age 65) is where they made their first mistake. They are hiding behind the thin veil of a vote of 50% plus one, to justify their actions, and the officers of the Association has placed their union and its members in serious financial jeopardy. They have already had to pay out some pretty serious money in court fees, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The union leaders should have also struck a committee to explore both sides of this issue, and to find ways to mitigate the effects of what any normal person can see is coming down the pipe. The union is suppose to represent all the membership, not just the ones it chooses to represent. They should have learned this years ago when CALPA lost a huge award in a section 37 hearing brought against the Association for breaching its duty to one member. In this instance they are breaching their duty to over a hundred, and it is not going to be a free ride.

This is not going to be a windfall for the age 65 group either, should the courts find for them in the end. These guys are going to have to show they are trying to mitigate damages by getting off their butts, finding work, keeping up their medicals and licenses.

Our Association has made a lot of mistakes over the last few years. This is a huge one, that has the possibility of dwarfing the costs they spent on a merger that with a little compassion could have been concluded successfully years ago.

Turbo Beaver,

Without a doubt the most intelligent post in this entire 14 page thread.

Well Done

JayDee

[tonysoprano]

Last I heard the 60+ gang totalled just over 100. Last time I checked we have a membership of over 3000. ACPA is not a one person body. It is a multi person association with a constitution made by the membership for the membership to work in the interest of the majority of the membership and when it can be accomplished they also take care of the minority ie. the grievance committee. If the over 60 gang had any respect for the will of the majority, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Self interest and greed of a very small proportion has changed the rules of the game.

[RB-211]

Without a question one of the best, if not the best posts I have read on this forum. Bravo. (Turbo Beaver)

You guys have bigger fish to fry than your colleagues. These big fish are called airline management. Take the advice of turbo beaver and look where the real threat to your careers is coming from. It ain’t the old boys.

Before Tony gets his panties in a twist, my airline has seen its retirment age go from 50, thats right 50 to 55 then to 65 in less than 15 years. IT'S THE LAW. I can assure you the union did not spend a dime trying to fight it and we are much better off because of that.

The old saying. I fought the law and the law won.

Get on with it.

[tonysoprano]

Ahh my good friend Nigel. Your union didn't seem to do much to prevent people from working for free either. Frankly your group and you in particular would be the last resource ACPA or AC should look to for advice. It's called fighting for what you believe in and having the balls stand up to anything that gets in your way. I suggest you get over whatever it is urks you about AC and "get on with it".

[DocAV8R]

Food for thought for those who do think...

Age 60 and Global Unity
Robert J. Lavender ©2004

(ALPA national has declined to publish this article and its predecessor "Learning to Compete Wisely--A Primer in Creating Natural Unity")

For more than 20 years, this writer has actively engaged in working for and writing about pilot unity. These days, it seems that there is always some issue around that can either enhance or inhibit the sense of professional unity that pilots desire. The Age 60 matter is no exception. The purpose of this article is to show that ALPA pilots should seriously consider supporting a change to the Age 60 rule (the "Rule") if they intend to be in harmony with fellow pilots worldwide, the public, and with general global trends. This paper is about unity, credibility, and relevancy.

Consider this:

"Labor remains in a death spiral, and its house needs a top-to-bottom overhaul if it's going to survive."

These are the words of Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the nation's largest and fastest-growing union. Moreover, Mr. Stern charges, "The AFL-CIO [of which ALPA is a member] has become an antiquated structure that 'divides workers strength'…Change 'is so long overdue that we either transform the AFL-CIO-or build something stronger.'"

Ladies and Gentlemen: The AFL-CIO is the sum of its parts. Anyone who believes that the Air Line Pilots Association is somehow immune from the decline suffered by numerous other unions is either globally unaware or in an awful state of denial. Allegiance to obsolete concepts such as the Age 60 rule represents the mentality causing this decline. Make no mistake about it, the Age 60 rule is under monumental global pressure and change will occur for air carriers in the United States. It is hoped that after reading the following points you will agree that not only should ALPA members support a change to the Rule, they must take a leadership role in creating something new.

Influences on the Age 60 Rule

Global Airline Influence: Many other countries and air carriers (including ALPA and IFALPA) have dispensed or wish to dispense with the Age 60 limitation.

1. Air Canada Jazz (Air Canada Jazz is an ALPA carrier): Canadian pilots may legally fly as an ATP long as they can hold a medical certificate. Age restrictions are contractual, not regulatory. Consider this comment from Monty Allan, vice-chair of the Air Canada Jazz ALPA :

My airline - Air Canada Jazz - is an Age 65 airline. You can retire at 55 (with early retirement penalty), or you can retire at 60 (no penalty), or you can retire as late as age 65 if you want to accrue more years in the A Plan.

We all like the system because we all get to benefit from up to an extra 5 years if that is our personal choice.

I am 43 and have seen no tangible personal benefit from the system and will not for another 17 years. However, as a Negotiating Committee member I have defended this option for years for the benefit of those that have expressed a desire for the decision at age 60 to be a personal one, not contractual (or in your case, regulatory)…we will keep the system that we have.

[Signed]

Monty

(Mr. Allan has also stated that our Age 60 limitation complicates their monthly bidding. Jazz pilots who are over 60 are not allowed to fly into U.S. airspace.)

2. BALPA (British Air Line Pilots Association): BALPA is currently conducting a campaign to bring France, Portugal, and Italy into conformity with the other 20 country-members of the European Union all of whom allow pilots to fly past 60. Readers may visit the campaign website at: http://www.balpa.org/intranet/Media---P ... /index.htm. Here are the highlights:

The campaign for post-60 flying in Europe

The problem

A small number of EU states forbid pilots aged 60 or over from acting as commanders on international air transport flights in their airspace.

EU rules: The vast majority of EU member states…and applicant countries have adopted EU rules…which allow pilots aged over 60 but under 65 to act as commanders on international flights in their airspace. However, a small number of EU states have not - namely France, Portugal and Italy.

An absurd and unacceptable situation

easyJet and BALPA believe the current situation is anachronistic and damaging to the interests of pilots.

Age discrimination

No medical evidence to support ban: There is no medical or other objective evidence for treating pilots aged over 60 but under 65 differently because of age. Medical research in fact shows that compared to the population as a whole, airline pilots as a group suffer less medical impairment and have longer life expectancy….

What is this campaign trying to achieve?

The object of this campaign is to persuade the authorities in France, Italy and Portugal to fall into line with other EU states and…permit pilots aged over 60 but under age 65 to operate as commanders in all EU airspace. Once age discrimination is made unlawful in 2006, the age threshold of 65 may increase. [Italics added]


2. SWAPA (Southwest Airlines Pilots Association): In April of 2003, SWAPA pilots voted by a sizeable majority (60%) to overturn the Age 60 rule. SWAPA president Ike Eichelkraut described the Rule as "regrettable" and "irrational" for "ejecting this know-how from the cockpit…merely because of a birth date." Southwest Airlines chairman, Herb Kelleher, has supported the pilot position in a letter to Mr. Eichelkraut and authorized him to use the letter as evidence in public proceedings. SWAPA retains a legislative lobbyist for the purpose of eliminating the Age 60 rule.

ALPA pilots need to determine if Southwest Airlines is going to rule the economic roost at every turn in modern times.

Global Economic Influence/Internal Pilot Competition: Retirement costs are an important factor in global competition and companies will invariably respond to global economic imbalances. A company's relative retirement burden and, therefore, competitiveness is a direct function of it workers' post-employment longevity. By flying to age 65 (or, potentially, older) pilots in the European Union (and elsewhere) provide their companies with a cost advantage over those whose pilots retire at a younger average age.

Pilot communities who fail to respond to this competition and insist on retaining the Age 60 limit invite risk. It is reasonable to expect that a disparity in average retirement age will motivate airline managers to outsource flying opportunities to pilots who are relatively more competitive. This may be accomplished through the expanded use of cabotage and/or by shifting flight hours around global airline networks. Given the current economic and political environment, it is unlikely that the U.S. government either can or will "protect" the U.S. piloting profession from such actions. ALPA pilots must act for themselves on this and other strategic economic matters.

Extending pilot working life in the United States is consistent with general trends. The longevity and health of Americans has improved dramatically in the last 50 years, and the financial losses suffered by many pilots as the result of corporate bankruptcies, furloughs, and retirement plan termination has made flying to an older age desirable.

Defined Benefit Plan Security and Negotiating Capital: A hard-to-miss reason for raising the retirement age for pilots in the United States stems from the laws governing pension plans that are terminated. When a plan is terminated and responsibility for it is assumed by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), the PBGC pays reduced benefits to the participants. Where a plan is based on age 60, the maximum payout is $28,500 per year (according to press reports, this is what the USAir pilots will receive). However, if the retirement age is 65, the PBGC will pay up to $44,386 per year, an increase of some 54%. (It should be noted that pilots who have already retired and are receiving payments from a defined benefit plan are not immune from the above limitation should their plan be taken over by the PBGC.)

Since a higher average retirement age significantly reduces both a company's cash payment and retiree health care liability , it also reduces pressure to terminate a plan in the first place. Thus, pilots who have already retired (or who choose to retire at age 60 or younger) may view those who work longer as contributing to the financial well-being of their plan. Likewise, the enormity of the savings achieved may be leveraged into "negotiating capital" that is currently not available to pilots employed at even the "healthy" carriers in today's economic environment. A longer working life potentially frees up cash that can be spent on things other than retirement costs.

Public Perception and Professional Image: A discussion of the Age 60 rule cannot be complete without considering how the piloting profession is perceived by lawmakers and the general public. A profession that is already viewed as disconnected from the average person is ill-advised these days to distance itself any further. A public whose own working life is getting longer and whose social benefits are sliding to a later age is unlikely to sympathize with a group that insists on bucking trends considered reasonable even by other pilot unions. This is a bigger issue than it might appear. Union membership has reportedly dropped to about nine percent of the private sector, likely, in part, because unions are often seen as averse to progressive action in even the most obvious circumstances.

If ALPA pilots wish to retain the designation of "professional," they must cease burning political and public capital on issues that smack of short-term, "it's all about me" thinking. They must cease raising the "safety" flag where it is not warranted. And, they must come up with professional-type solutions to the issues with which they are confronted. Rules that were created in a highly regulated economic environment, 50 years ago, don't work. And insistence on their preservation creates not only an image of amateurism and isolationism, but appears downright bizarre to outside observers. This is the kind of thing that leads to union irrelevancy and it must be avoided.

Concluding Statement

The Age 60 matter is reminiscent of the effort in the early 1980s to keep the third pilot in the cockpit of the B-737. Southwest and other carriers were flying the aircraft with two crewmembers but ALPA pilots thought they could buck the trend. They were wrong. When the status quo is out of harmony with everything reasonable in the world, pilots who insist on preserving it will be ignored. It does not matter what "the rules were when we signed up." The rules change every day and it is the failure to sensibly respond that damages credibility and leads to irrelevancy.

It is possible but risky to ignore the position and actions of the British Air Line Pilots Association, SWAPA, and other pilot groups regarding age discrimination in the cockpit. And, while ALPA pilots could choose to remain in a state of disunity with these pilot unions, it would make more sense for ALPA to disavow its past position on the matter, call it ancient history, and throw its weight behind shaping new rules. An alternative, of course, is to let changes be legislated into existence and delivered to the pilots as a government mandate. If pilots take control of the issue, it is easy to envision a plan akin to that at Air Canada Jazz, wherein, retirement at Age 60 without penalty is an option. If the lawmakers do it…well, you know the answer.

There has been evidence published in Air Line Pilot Magazine over the last year that some people are seriously thinking "outside the box" these days. With the Age 60 issue, ALPA pilots can demonstrate a wider view of what is going on in the world, a willingness to rise above self-centered thinking, and an ability to act strategically to manage today's challenges. By helping to rewrite the rules ALPA pilots can unify with pilots worldwide and enhance the professional stature of pilots in this country.

Some pilots have been thinking outside the box for a long time. Now, it is time to act outside the box.

[RB-211]

Nice one Tony. You again ignore the facts and head straight to the fiction section. You should be working for FOX News. Our carrier simply asked ANY employee to take a week or two off through the winter (you know this one in the middle of the biggest downturn post war). The key word here is asked. They also asked senior guys if they wanted buy outs, many of our pilots are part time (Moms and other people it suits) and wind down towards retirment. Of course Air Canada is in such great financial shape, this never even crossed their minds.

You guys have blue fighting red fighting green now fighting the old farts. Perfect, a Technicolor food fight with 3000 guests. Management are selling the tickets.

I think you should take your my way or the highway attitude and put your money where your massive mouth is and stand for election within your representation. ACPA clearly needs a single minded table thumper like you. Get of your electronic soap box and do something about it.

Of course being over 50 you must be comfortably in the left seat of a wide body with not a worry in the world. I am all right Jack as we say!

Air Canada pilots along with all other pilots in the WORLD will be flying to 65 at some point. Consolidation is coming as well (You know the German White Knight you keep dreaming about) meaning possible job losses. Stop trying to prevent the inevitable and put your energy in to mitigating the effects of younger members. See first paragraph.

Again, great post Beaver and now Doc. My hope is many more intelligent people like yourselves are feeling the same way.

[Rockie]

Last I heard the 60+ gang totalled just over 100.

This is a total falsehood. The last time there was a vote on this there were 500 fewer pilots. The ACPA MEC took the position they were going to fight 60+ and then put it to the membership to vote on whether or not they were going to support them on it. There was no examination of the issue and no one put forth any balanced rationale for why 60+ might actually be timely and good for us. The vote (such as it was) was no different than an election in Libya. The outcome was pre-determined.

Aside from the fact a vote on this issue is irrelevant since law is what's driving it, not our own wishes, I would love to see another vote just to see how the members really feel. Only this time the pros and cons of each option must be properly presented to the membership so they could make an informed choice, not the farce vote like the last one.

The MEC is comprised of individuals who like you have no desire to see their advancement into a higher seat delayed in any way. That is what drove their decision making on this without even looking at the issue, and then they obtained a kangaroo court mandate to pursue it by sneaking it past the membership. In other words they represented themselves in taking the union in this direction, not the membership.

ACPA will not win this fight. There are several very very compelling reasons why we should go to 60+ totally aside from the fact we will be forced to anyway. Fighting it will not work and will cost us a lot of more money than just legal fees when the pilots who have been damaged by it seek compensation.

[DocAV8R]

-maybe ACPA should behave more like ALPA- and REPRESENT- EACH of its members- providing fair representation to each and every one for the good of the whole. If they think that representing some of its junior members against others who have paid dues their whole carriers is appropriate, I submit that it is not the OLD Guys who are putting the Union at risk of destruction.

ALPA’s Vision Statement, Strategic Goals & Initiatives

Vision Statement

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, will spare no effort to aggressively fight for the rights and needs of airline pilots. We will work together—across all segments and corporate brands—to restore our proud profession. We are committed to the principle that our profession is best served by unifying all pilots within our union and organizing all pilots within our profession.

ALPA pilots must embody the values of solidarity, integrity, and tenacity as we work to accomplish the goals of the union. Leaders commit to identifying and aggressively addressing the concerns, aspirations, and ideas of our members, and leaders will act decisively to move the pilots’ agenda forward.

When one ALPA pilot has a problem, all ALPA pilots have a problem.

[tonysoprano]

Rockie.
If you are privy to it, can you tell me how many pilots are on the list of complainants at the present hearings? Regarding a vote, past or present, the general consensus I'm getting on the line is that most (including the old guys) don't want 60+ and the small number that does has a very limited and conditional acceptance of it. I could be wrong but I'm willing to bet my money that a vote today would be in favour of 60. Remember the WAWCON survey that ACPA put to us prior to the last negotes? The 60+ thing was not at the top of the majority of the group in that survey. I'm not sure how any labor group leaders can fight for something its majority don't even care for. Perhaps if they present it with the options and strings attached, some might change their mind. I'd certainly be curious as to how this would be implemented. Maybe it might change my mind too. But for now, everything I've seen and heard, has not been very encouraging to the big picture of our future.

[Lost in Saigon]

I heard that there is about 100 pilots that have filed. But there are lots more who still have not filed for one reason or another.

Even so, it only takes ONE to make it a human rights issue.

[tonysoprano]

I heard that there is about 100 pilots that have filed.

That's what I was trying to tell Rockie.

Even so, it only takes ONE to make it a human rights issue.

I agree. That's the way it should be in some cases. I'm not so sure our case should fall under that statement.

But there are lots more who still have not filed for one reason or another.

Lots?

[Rockie]

I don't know how many people have filed complaints, but people can only file a complaint once they are actually retired. Saying only 100 people support 60+ ignores the people who are still currently working, and that's a lot of people. I've flown with people who are against 60+, but when I explain to them they will not get a full pension unless they work to 65 they get that pensive look like they've never considered that before. That's how I know that we as a group aren't very good at seeing beyond the next bid.

[tonysoprano]

I've flown with people who are against 60+, but when I explain to them they will not get a full pension unless they work to 65 they get that pensive look like they've never considered that before. That's how I know that we as a group aren't very good at seeing beyond the next bid.

I suspect those who won't get a full pension are not coming up for retirement in the near future. I say that because AC has hired some older people recently but have a few years to go yet before they retire. Maybe they are just interested in surviving today while saving for tomorrow. Most guys I talk to are not going to rely on our pension (myself included) and are putting money away for age 60 through other means. Also, many who were hired at AC late in life came here already in possession of a pension from somewhere else and don't really care about a full pension from AC. The dynamics are widespread and it's hard to get a consensus but I still believe the majority don't want to go beyond 60. Majority, however, is not part of this decision. Neither was contractual, binding arbitration. To most of us, that didn't go down to well.

[DocAV8R]

Mandatory Retirement has ended in most jurisdictions in the civilized world.- Almost all provinces from BC east, the Comonwealth- Great Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, even Cathay... Even federal employees are not subject to Mandatory Retirement. Transport Canada ended Age 60 decades ago and that is why we do Medicals every 6 months unlike our US counterparts. ICAO, Transport Canada, the FAA and most Airlines all agree that safety is not an issue ( - even Air Canada conceded this in VK).

You can fight kicking and screaming as ACPA MEC and the Against AGE 60 group have done wasting Union and Air Canada money, which by the way, you get to pay for. They are poisoning the environment instead of protecting all pilots rights and working to unify and strengthen the group. Maybe that's what AC wants- Bust the Union. What if the MEC are just playing into their hands to get nice fat desk jobs in Management, once they succeed in that? There is no doubt- AGE 60 IS GONE. It only remains a figment of ACPA's imagination. Thousands of pilots in Canada are entitled to go past 60- Every other Carrier in Canada and most of the world and there are thousands.

We as a group should get sensible and work to implement this as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is where the efforts should be- instead of this divisive behavior which makes everyone suffer.
10 Pilots are retiring every month- some may want and will be entitled to stay. Not many I suspect, but Canadian Law is ( as will rapidly be made clear,) going to give them the option.

No one has said that they can disregard ICAO and remain PIC's forever unless flying domestically. ICAO rules would have let GV remain flying as an FO even before Nov 2006.

ALPA is fighting the OVER/Under rule. But with augmented flights, what is the chance that the relief pilot will be over 60? This is a rule that is easy to accommodate.

There is no point picking on 1 or 100 of the Over 60 guys- this rule was going to change. The infighting is non-productive and will cost millions to no defensible purpose. The pension will be better off with more pilots not collecting and continuing to pay into it. The Airline will be better off- that was the main reason Cathay, BA, SW, Jazz and others have implemented the change.

The pilot group will benefit even if they don't realize it now.
Yes - it will take a few months more to advance, but not years as has been erroneously advertised. Losing the Cargo and Flying to Jazz has done far more damage. The many cases ACPA has fought and lost will cost all pilots and the union more than accommodating the few who want to keep their jobs.
Pilots will be able to maximize their pensions. The average age of hire being 34 or 35 now- Believe me it will be a concern even to the new guys when they get to Pensionable age.
You never know what may happen or how you will feel in he future. We as humans are not capable of that. It may be that you want to retire early, at 55, at 60, at 65 or whatever. Wouldn't it be nice to have the choice, assuming you still like your job, are fit and able. No one is forcing anyone to stay. Leave early if you want.
Everyone says we voted for 60- It was imposed on us, just like the foolishness this union is subjecting us to now. It is not rational to say because we took a job that we accepted and agreed with some rule, that is actually not in the OP or Collective Agreement, but only appears in the Pension Manual. How many of you knew and agreed with every word dictated to you? The only way anyone could appeal was to first be discriminated against and then file a complaint.

The End Of Mandatory Retirement in Ontario
Issued: December 8, 2005
Updated: December 19, 2006

* Employer/Employee Pension Plans
* Benefits
* Workplace Safety and Insurance System

When did the new rules against mandatory retirement take effect?
Mandatory retirement (in Ontario) ended on December 12, 2006.

Could I be penalized for retiring at or before the age of 65?
The legislation amended the Ontario Human Rights Code and other legislation so as generally to prohibit employers from forcing employees to retire merely because they are 65 or older. It does not prevent employees who want to retire from doing so.

Ending mandatory retirement should not result in people being penalized if they choose to retire at or prior to the age of 65. Rather, older persons will be able to choose for themselves how long they wish to remain in the workforce, based on their own lifestyles and circumstances, so long as they are capable of performing their jobs.

Can I be forced to work past the age of 65?
Ending mandatory retirement should not result in people being penalized if they choose to retire at or prior to the age of 65. Rather, older persons will be able to choose for themselves how long they wish to remain in the workforce, based on their own lifestyles and circumstances, so long as they are capable of performing their jobs.

Can employers still offer early retirement incentives?
Yes. Employers can continue to use early retirement packages as an incentive to promote voluntary exit from the workplace.

Can an employer terminate or force an employee to retire?
An employer is not able to end an employee's employment merely because that person has reached a certain age, unless being younger than that age could be shown to be a bona fide occupational requirement.

Have an employer's termination obligations changed?
The government is not planning to change the severance pay exemption that applies in certain cases where an employee receives an actuarially unreduced pension.


Has an employer's duty to accommodate an individual employee's disability changed?
No. The duty to accommodate obligations under the Code remain the same. Older workers will not be subject to a lower standard of accommodation than other protected groups.

How will this initiative affect collective agreements?
Collective agreements are not exempt from a prohibition on mandatory retirement. As a result, as of December 12th, 2006, mandatory retirement provisions in collective agreements will be unenforceable, and employees in unionized environments cannot be forced to retire at a specific age.

[rudder]

ACPA is not the employer. The biggest mistake being made right now is that AC is continuing to terminate pilots at age 60. The employer will have to be held financially liable for 100% of any damages levied in the remedies phase for delaying compliance with the ruling.

[tonysoprano]

ACPA is not the employer. The biggest mistake being made right now is that AC is continuing to terminate pilots at age 60. The employer will have to be held financially liable for 100% of any damages levied in the remedies phase for delaying compliance with the ruling.

To the best of my knowledge agreements between unions and employers are binding and when there is a dispute between them one side puts in a grievance and the process then goes to an arbitrator. In this case there was no dispute between union and company. In fact it was one of the few parts of the contract that both sides never disputed. It worked well for both sides. Now both sides will inevitably be at odds as to how this will get administered. Hence my term "shit disturber". Not what we need on top of the other fish we're trying to fry. The color game is working well, still. Once again, thank you Mr. Chretien. Thank you Mr. Collinette.

[rudder]

AC had no problem complying with the original ruling in 2007. So why the difficulty complying with the ruling from the same body in 2009? As I said, ACPA is not the employer and the collective agreement does not trump the law. Yes, there is an appeals process (JR). However, delay in compliance will not simply be treated as water under the bridge.

[DocAV8R]

It is my understanding that ACPA is forcing AC to continue this fight, even so much as threatening job action if they had not continued the delaying tactics. I may be wrong. But both the union and AC know that they will eventually lose. The law has changed. The delay game is just to prolong the pain and escalate the costs as much as possible, in my considered opinion. No one will win, and everyone loses. What kind of an unintelligent game is that?

Where is the common sense? Too bad we can't convince our union to quit the foolishness and start to figure out the best way to implement the change. Don't you feel that that is the best use of the limited money, time and other resourses? Shouldn't the union be trying to encourage a cohesive group, rather than assume there is 100% support for this idiocy? Certainly, I have heard a significant number of dissenting opinions, and suspect that there is a significant number who would like to have the option, or think it would be fair for others to have the option to continue in their chosen employment at least until they have maxed their pension. There are many reasons one may chose to continue to work. Even those of you who are arguing against it may have a change of heart when it actually happens to you. Some people actually like their jobs and would rather do that than occupy a desk at ACPA.

I do not believe that the MEC speaks for the majority, and I do not feel that the information, and facts have been presented to the group honestly and fairly. Certainly the one and only vote was not clear, most didn't even vote and of those that did as I recall it was certainly less than 50% of the total number- closer to 30 as I recall. Did the voters know that every other airline in Canada and most of the world does not have a mandatory age of retirement? Did they know that most provinces were eliminating mandatory retirement at 65? Did they even know that Transport Canada does not have a mandatory age of retirement for pilots? Did they know that no one was asking them to be forced to work past 60, only that they would be given a choice?

Perhaps a balanced information package, and another vote are in order. But that would require fairness- Is ACPA capable of that? I doubt it. Just my opinion.