It's easy when your 25 to say when I turn 60 I'll retire but until you go through the next 35 years you have no idea how you will react at age 60.Hate your job,love your job married late and still have 3 kids to put through university?So many variables .As I said easy to say you would retire but until you get there you can't say with certainty what you will do.
When your 25 you see 60 as old.I,m 57 and I felt the same way when I was 25 now I see 60 in a whole new light.Trust me you will also.
Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
I don't think people see the big picture...
I agree, it sucks to be forced to retire at 60, and in principle, I don't agree with it. But the problem is, this is the system that was set up, and you just can't throw it out overnight.
First of all, these guys have made it to where they are in their career thanks to people retiring in front of them. They must have been "selfish" too to aspire to better themselves and get to the very top of their chosen industry, and make better lives for themselves. I hate unions, but the fact is they are members of a union that is supposed to be looking out for their best interests. The majority of their members have voted at some point or another to set a mandatory retirement age of 60 years old in exchange for a nice fat pension. The two pilots in question in this article are obviously not newbies at Air Canada, they're flying the company's biggest iron... they've earned their full pension and they've been there for a while.
So fine, something needs to be done about the retirement age of 60, but you can't just snap your fingers and make it disappear overnight. You have to realize that one person retiring doesn't just benefit one "selfish" individual circling like a vulture for their seat. It allows a whole chain of people to move up a notch in the industry, right down to the guy working the dock hoping to get his/her chance to finally fly that 180 on floats, or the new Class 4 instructor hunting for that first job. One person retiring ends up benefiting possibly a dozen people in the industry.
Suddenly eliminating the mandatory retirement age means that swaths of pilots who would normally be retiring are likely to keep working for several more years... maybe 5, maybe 10. That puts the entire job market into a slump for a decade. Have a child or a nephew/niece who aspires to be a pilot like you? Forget about it for the next decade, tell them to find another interest. I hope everyone is happy where they are now, because they won't be going anywhere for long long time.
Okay, so this is a problem, lets fix it in a smart way that doesn't devastate the entire industry. Increase the retirement age a couple of years, let the industry stabilize. Increase it another couple of years, stabilize... and so on until you get to the point where you can eliminate it altogether. Fact is, Air Canada is so huge that if affects everyone, even those of us who have no interest to ever work there.
I agree, it sucks to be forced to retire at 60, and in principle, I don't agree with it. But the problem is, this is the system that was set up, and you just can't throw it out overnight.
First of all, these guys have made it to where they are in their career thanks to people retiring in front of them. They must have been "selfish" too to aspire to better themselves and get to the very top of their chosen industry, and make better lives for themselves. I hate unions, but the fact is they are members of a union that is supposed to be looking out for their best interests. The majority of their members have voted at some point or another to set a mandatory retirement age of 60 years old in exchange for a nice fat pension. The two pilots in question in this article are obviously not newbies at Air Canada, they're flying the company's biggest iron... they've earned their full pension and they've been there for a while.
So fine, something needs to be done about the retirement age of 60, but you can't just snap your fingers and make it disappear overnight. You have to realize that one person retiring doesn't just benefit one "selfish" individual circling like a vulture for their seat. It allows a whole chain of people to move up a notch in the industry, right down to the guy working the dock hoping to get his/her chance to finally fly that 180 on floats, or the new Class 4 instructor hunting for that first job. One person retiring ends up benefiting possibly a dozen people in the industry.
Suddenly eliminating the mandatory retirement age means that swaths of pilots who would normally be retiring are likely to keep working for several more years... maybe 5, maybe 10. That puts the entire job market into a slump for a decade. Have a child or a nephew/niece who aspires to be a pilot like you? Forget about it for the next decade, tell them to find another interest. I hope everyone is happy where they are now, because they won't be going anywhere for long long time.
Okay, so this is a problem, lets fix it in a smart way that doesn't devastate the entire industry. Increase the retirement age a couple of years, let the industry stabilize. Increase it another couple of years, stabilize... and so on until you get to the point where you can eliminate it altogether. Fact is, Air Canada is so huge that if affects everyone, even those of us who have no interest to ever work there.
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
I'm all for more spots opening with the airlines, but how many posters' tones will change once they reach that level and don't want to be forced to leave? It's hypocritical to criticize these pilots for being selfish when you just want their jobs. If you spend 20 years working to get to your desired position, why would you want to give it up a decade or so later?
Then how about we make the retirement age 40? Or 30? That would make lots of jobs for the low-timers.KK7 wrote:Because there aren't enough jobs for everyone, and not just in aviation. Historically retirement ages have gone up with life expectancy. Look this up in France, they just recently had a bunch of civil unrest due to the increase in retirement age.
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
All you whining broken records who keep spouting off about this subject are in serious need of a reality check. Pilots WORLWIDE are now working to 65. Why should Canada or the ‘Chosen Ones’ at AC be any different? Ask any Lufthansa, British Airways or American Airlines pilot how this has changed their career prospects and the answer is simple. It is the way it is, and they will then laugh at you for feeling sorry for yourselves.
Get a bloody grip. Spend your energy and money fighting management and not one another.
RANT OVER
Get a bloody grip. Spend your energy and money fighting management and not one another.
RANT OVER
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
Senior citizens who can collect their CCP at full rate(65) and old age supplement are now gonna be flying at AC........ same age group that is having difficulties with gas pedals and floor mats on Toyota cars............
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
I quick Google search turned up this. Coming from .. blog it may be biased however that old (20 years old) Boeing study has been quoted before and the info comes from other non AC source.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Does retiring later mean dying sooner?
The current retirement age for pilots at Air Canada is 60 years although some current and recently retired pilots support moving the retirement age to age 65. Many Air Canada Pilots do not support such a move.
Part of the discussion has turned to the effects of a later retirement age on a pilot's health and if it will lead to an earlier death.
There are different opinions on this.
Boeing Retiree Study
The study of Boeing retirees, "Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement" has been on the internet for many years. The study by Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng came to the conclusion that people retiring at the age of 50 had an average life span is 86; whereas for people retiring at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8. The important conclusion from this study was that for every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.
The one problem with the Boeing study is it's age. The study was reportedly done over 20 years ago.
Shell Oil Retiree Study
And other studies came to different conclusions. An October 2005 study "Age at retirement and long term survival of an industrial population: prospective cohort study" examined past employees of Shell Oil who retired at ages 55, 60, and 65 between 1 January 1973 and 31 December 2003.
The conclusion of this study was: Retiring early at 55 or 60 was not associated with better survival than retiring at 65 in a cohort of past employees of the petrochemical industry. Mortality was higher in employees who retired at 55 than in those who continued working.
University of Virginia Rat Study
A study by University of Virginia researchers released November 2006 is probably most relevant to pilots who are debating the idea of working past age 60.
The researchers reported that shifting the time cycle six hours once a week for up to 8 weeks hastened the death of elderly rats but was generally not fatal to younger rats.
According to a WebMD article reporting the study:
53% of elderly rats put on an advanced-time schedule were dead after eight weeks, compared with only 17% of the elderly rats on a normal schedule.
Advancing the rats' schedules was more lethal than delaying them say Alex J. Davidson, PhD, Gene D. Block, PhD, and colleagues in an article in the Nov. 7 issue of Current Biology.
"The dramatic differences in morbidity associated with phase advances of the biological clock raise important issues about the safety of … rotating shift work and the potential long-term health consequences for airline crews regularly crossing time zones," Davidson and colleagues conclude.
The researchers didn't start out studying jet lag. They were working on a different study when they noticed older rats tended to die when their time schedules were advanced.
Davidson and colleagues took groups of young and old rats and shifted their time zones once a week. One group had their schedules advanced by six hours, while another had their schedules delayed by six hours. A third group stayed on their normal time.
Eight weeks later, there was no difference among the young rats.
But for elderly rats, the difference was remarkable. Only 17% of the normal-time rats had died. But 32% of the delayed-schedule rats were dead, and a whopping 53% of the advanced-schedule rats had expired.
Stress did not seem to be a factor, as the dead animals did not have high levels of stress-related hormones.
Exactly what did kill the rats isn't clear. Davidson and colleagues say sleep deprivation or disruption of the immune system may have been to blame.
Whatever the reason, the researchers say upsetting the internal time clock can have serious health consequences -- and these consequences may be far worse for those getting on in years.
Davidson is currently with Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta.
Source:
Jet Lag Proves Deadly in Rat Study - November 6/06 - WebMD
Related:
Jetlag 'can damage your health' - November 6/06 - BBC
Chronic Jet-Lag Conditions Hasten Death in Aged Mice - November 6/06 - Newswise
http://...blogspot.com/2006/11/doe ... ooner.html
Monday, November 06, 2006
Does retiring later mean dying sooner?
The current retirement age for pilots at Air Canada is 60 years although some current and recently retired pilots support moving the retirement age to age 65. Many Air Canada Pilots do not support such a move.
Part of the discussion has turned to the effects of a later retirement age on a pilot's health and if it will lead to an earlier death.
There are different opinions on this.
Boeing Retiree Study
The study of Boeing retirees, "Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement" has been on the internet for many years. The study by Dr. Ephrem (Siao Chung) Cheng came to the conclusion that people retiring at the age of 50 had an average life span is 86; whereas for people retiring at the age of 65, their average life span is only 66.8. The important conclusion from this study was that for every year one works beyond age 55, one loses 2 years of life span on average.
The one problem with the Boeing study is it's age. The study was reportedly done over 20 years ago.
Shell Oil Retiree Study
And other studies came to different conclusions. An October 2005 study "Age at retirement and long term survival of an industrial population: prospective cohort study" examined past employees of Shell Oil who retired at ages 55, 60, and 65 between 1 January 1973 and 31 December 2003.
The conclusion of this study was: Retiring early at 55 or 60 was not associated with better survival than retiring at 65 in a cohort of past employees of the petrochemical industry. Mortality was higher in employees who retired at 55 than in those who continued working.
University of Virginia Rat Study
A study by University of Virginia researchers released November 2006 is probably most relevant to pilots who are debating the idea of working past age 60.
The researchers reported that shifting the time cycle six hours once a week for up to 8 weeks hastened the death of elderly rats but was generally not fatal to younger rats.
According to a WebMD article reporting the study:
53% of elderly rats put on an advanced-time schedule were dead after eight weeks, compared with only 17% of the elderly rats on a normal schedule.
Advancing the rats' schedules was more lethal than delaying them say Alex J. Davidson, PhD, Gene D. Block, PhD, and colleagues in an article in the Nov. 7 issue of Current Biology.
"The dramatic differences in morbidity associated with phase advances of the biological clock raise important issues about the safety of … rotating shift work and the potential long-term health consequences for airline crews regularly crossing time zones," Davidson and colleagues conclude.
The researchers didn't start out studying jet lag. They were working on a different study when they noticed older rats tended to die when their time schedules were advanced.
Davidson and colleagues took groups of young and old rats and shifted their time zones once a week. One group had their schedules advanced by six hours, while another had their schedules delayed by six hours. A third group stayed on their normal time.
Eight weeks later, there was no difference among the young rats.
But for elderly rats, the difference was remarkable. Only 17% of the normal-time rats had died. But 32% of the delayed-schedule rats were dead, and a whopping 53% of the advanced-schedule rats had expired.
Stress did not seem to be a factor, as the dead animals did not have high levels of stress-related hormones.
Exactly what did kill the rats isn't clear. Davidson and colleagues say sleep deprivation or disruption of the immune system may have been to blame.
Whatever the reason, the researchers say upsetting the internal time clock can have serious health consequences -- and these consequences may be far worse for those getting on in years.
Davidson is currently with Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta.
Source:
Jet Lag Proves Deadly in Rat Study - November 6/06 - WebMD
Related:
Jetlag 'can damage your health' - November 6/06 - BBC
Chronic Jet-Lag Conditions Hasten Death in Aged Mice - November 6/06 - Newswise
http://...blogspot.com/2006/11/doe ... ooner.html
https://eresonatemedia.com/
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
https://bambaits.ca/
https://youtube.com/channel/UCWit8N8YCJSvSaiSw5EWWeQ
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
And all along I thought the ruling banning Hedley was the most important ruling in Canadian aviation 
That'll buff right out 
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
Whew... thanks go to Transport for saving us from the impending pilot shortage!
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
If you don't take piss poor paying jobs while waiting for AC to call you should have nothing to worry about...
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
Guido, can you elaborate on what Transport has to do with this matter? You're the first to introduce this agency into the mix of posts on the ruling ... and since TC has zero to do with the whole process, I'm curious what info you've got.
-
North Shore
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
^ C'mon, Foggy, you, as an unapologetic rightie, should know the reason for that: When all else fails, it's the Government's fault!
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
-
The Old Fogducker
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1784
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:13 pm
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
North Shore .... yup, I had lost contact with my intrinsic sense of values I guess, and slipped into "investigator mode." Heaven forbid.
The Old (super-sleuth) Fogducker
The Old (super-sleuth) Fogducker
-
Big Pistons Forever
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
So now the guy can go back to being an FO while flying backside the clock, max duty day, min rest turns, breathing stale air and being micromanaged at every step .....at age 70 
..... while making less then he did when he retired at 60 
. I have a hard time seeing how this is a "victory"
..... while making less then he did when he retired at 60 . I have a hard time seeing how this is a "victory"Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
And who has brought this fight may I ask???? Management or Pilots to them selves??? I didn't see management jumping up and down and forcing anyone to work past 60!? As a matter of fact AC requires you to work 25 years and you can have a pension (not full of course).RB-211 wrote:All you whining broken records who keep spouting off about this subject are in serious need of a reality check. Pilots WORLWIDE are now working to 65. Why should Canada or the ‘Chosen Ones’ at AC be any different? Ask any Lufthansa, British Airways or American Airlines pilot how this has changed their career prospects and the answer is simple. It is the way it is, and they will then laugh at you for feeling sorry for yourselves.
Get a bloody grip. Spend your energy and money fighting management and not one another.
RANT OVER
I know this forum is not a valid place to vent because majority of decision making people in our industry does not read it, but I will say it anyways...this is one big crap shut we have brought on our selves folks, and you can't blame anyone else but us for this!! With the help of "human rights society" gestapos who pretty much rule in favor of anything that comes their way, but effectively squash the rights of an ordinary human being. Ironic!?
I will say it again, I am happy for you if you can work past 60 and get your medical! Great, you kept your body in a good state and so go for it, but do it from the back of the line if you so GREATLY love this flying gig! Let others move up because if you don't they will stagnate so bad that next thing we'll have guys demanding to work til 70 (as this 65 was just not enough time "to pay all my bills, educate all my kids and buy another ski lodge for my 3rd wife...etc"). For crying out loud, if you are 60 and you STILL have kids asking you for money then something is really wrong!! I worked since I was 16 and when I was done school at 22, I never asked for money from my parents! And my folks are not even 60 yet! If you have to work til 65 and support your kids then they are not kids but 30-35 year ADULTS!!! (with few exceptions of course).
Why don't air force pilots work til 65? Or 55 or 45 for that matter??? Because the job demands certain (high) level of efficiency and physical ability. Why do Europeans have a thing called "Beneficiary Pension"?. Do you even know what that is? It's for high risk/stress jobs like Surgeons, Police, Firefighters, Air Force (and Airline pilots used to be there but are losing that battle), who accrue pension at a faster rate. (For 1 year of service you get say 15 months, so as you get close to 55 or so, you effectively have worked 65 years). Now, why you ask??? Because someone smarter then me and MOST OF YOU has figured out that body after constant and prolonged stress breaks apart earlier and dies. (Teacher has posted a great example above).
Air Canada used to retire earlier then 60, waaaay back, now it's 60, soon to change to 65. When does it end people???? And this is not directed to AC, but every other airline pilot who may decide that 65 is not "in accordance with human rights and freedom"!
You people are more laughable then a 2 year old lying in their own poop
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
Yes, it is truly tyranny of the minority....
Prepare for mechanic787's or acculumous's typical response:
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!
Prepare for mechanic787's or acculumous's typical response:
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!
-
Johnny Mapleleaf
- Rank 3
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
You should give them both a lot more credit than that, I think. Although I certainly don't agree with everything they say, they are both individuals who back up their posts with solid, clearly explained reasoning. In my view, the long series of exchanges between Mechanic787 and Brick Head, for example, were some of the most balanced, informative and unemotional posts made on this Forum in the last couple of years. At least somebody here has something valuable to contribute, even if that contribution is somewhat one-sided.beast wrote:Yes, it is truly tyranny of the minority.... Prepare for mechanic787's or acculumous's typical response: RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!
-
'effin hippie
- Rank 5
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:44 pm
- Location: Further..further...ok, too far...
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
Retirement age was 65 when I started, can't recall if it was mandatory. ZBBYLW....if you see light at the end of the tunnel, it's probably your proctologist trying to get your head out of your ass.
bronson - you can be in a hurry or you can be in an airplane, but don't ever get into both at once
Re: Most important Ruling in Canadian aviation history:
+1RB-211 wrote:All you whining broken records who keep spouting off about this subject are in serious need of a reality check. Pilots WORLDWIDE are now working to 65. Why should Canada or the ‘Chosen Ones’ at AC be any different? Ask any Lufthansa, British Airways or American Airlines pilot how this has changed their career prospects and the answer is simple. It is the way it is, and they will then laugh at you for feeling sorry for yourselves.
Get a bloody grip. Spend your energy and money fighting management and not one another.
RANT OVER
Get a grip and accept your job for what it is: one of the best in North America.
