The Air Canada split.

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

The Air Canada split.

Post by Cat Driver »

Reading the depth of animosity between the two groups in the Air Canada age 60 discussion is becoming more and more difficult to believe.

Hopefully it does not reflect the thinking of the majority..if it does it will be a very unhappy work place for decades.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

There are unquestionably strong feelings, but the rhetoric aside in all honesty I've never heard of a situation where it came to a head on an airplane despite some spirited discussions. This process is much more painful than it needs to be but in the end it will all work out. What is damaged the most is our ability to effectively deal with issues that have long term implications unless we learn what we did wrong with this one. For that I'm not hopeful.
---------- ADS -----------
  

look on your back
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:26 am
Location: Asia

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by look on your back »

F....K that !! :prayer:
Give me 50 000 $ a year for the next 25 years of career and i'll stay close to my river enjoying fishing, travelling, enjoying life.... instead of getting closer to my death time @ 35000 ft !!!!

People have 99% of chance diing after 60 than before 60 !!! hhhalalooooo wake up everyone !!!! :goodman:
---------- ADS -----------
  

W0XOF
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by W0XOF »

look on your back wrote:F....K that !! :prayer:
Give me 50 000 $ a year for the next 25 years of career and i'll stay close to my river enjoying fishing, travelling, enjoying life.... instead of getting closer to my death time @ 35000 ft !!!!

People have 99% of chance diing after 60 than before 60 !!! hhhalalooooo wake up everyone !!!! :goodman:
Good point.

The Boeing Study suggests that for every year you WORK after the age of 55, you lose 2 years off your life.

Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement.

Age at Retirement Average Age at death

49.9 86

51.2 85.3

52.5 84.6

53.8 83.9

55.1 83.2

56.4 82.5

57.2 81.4

58.3 80

59.2 78.5

60.1 76.8

61.0 74.5

62.1 71.8

63.1 69.3

64.1 67.9

65.2 66.8
---------- ADS -----------
  
Read you 2 by 2. Too loud and too often!

hairdo
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:14 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by hairdo »

^with above^ If I'm not retired by 60, punch me! I have nothing against people older than 60, nor do I have the feeling of "get out of my way", but really, by 60, you've had a good run at 'er. If you still want to fly, go down to the local flying club and impart some knowledge to some students (You don't need an instructor rating to teach IFR, and the students would be better off for it). If that doesn't float your boat, get a float rating and a float plane and have some fun!
---------- ADS -----------
  
Gravity lands us, we just make it look good.

Northern Flyer
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Northern Flyer »

W0XOF wrote:
look on your back wrote:F....K that !! :prayer:
Give me 50 000 $ a year for the next 25 years of career and i'll stay close to my river enjoying fishing, travelling, enjoying life.... instead of getting closer to my death time @ 35000 ft !!!!

People have 99% of chance diing after 60 than before 60 !!! hhhalalooooo wake up everyone !!!! :goodman:
Good point.

The Boeing Study suggests that for every year you WORK after the age of 55, you lose 2 years off your life.

Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement.

Age at Retirement Average Age at death

49.9 86

51.2 85.3

52.5 84.6

53.8 83.9

55.1 83.2

56.4 82.5

57.2 81.4

58.3 80

59.2 78.5

60.1 76.8

61.0 74.5

62.1 71.8

63.1 69.3

64.1 67.9

65.2 66.8
I think that this study is bullshit.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by fish4life »

well what it doesn't say that normally someone making more will be able to retire earlier which can skew that study. because lets face making more money tends to lead to better lifestyle and longer living
---------- ADS -----------
  

W0XOF
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by W0XOF »

Northern Flyer wrote:
W0XOF wrote:
look on your back wrote:F....K that !! :prayer:
Give me 50 000 $ a year for the next 25 years of career and i'll stay close to my river enjoying fishing, travelling, enjoying life.... instead of getting closer to my death time @ 35000 ft !!!!

People have 99% of chance diing after 60 than before 60 !!! hhhalalooooo wake up everyone !!!! :goodman:
Good point.

The Boeing Study suggests that for every year you WORK after the age of 55, you lose 2 years off your life.

Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement.

Age at Retirement Average Age at death

49.9 86

51.2 85.3

52.5 84.6

53.8 83.9

55.1 83.2

56.4 82.5

57.2 81.4

58.3 80

59.2 78.5

60.1 76.8

61.0 74.5

62.1 71.8

63.1 69.3

64.1 67.9

65.2 66.8
I think that this study is bullshit.
I'm glad an expert finally chimed in...................
---------- ADS -----------
  
Read you 2 by 2. Too loud and too often!

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

W0XOF wrote:The Boeing Study suggests that for every year you WORK after the age of 55, you lose 2 years off your life.

Table 1 - Actuarial Study of life span vs. age at retirement.

Age at Retirement Average Age at death
Boeing themselves have rebutted this study as crap. You will find the link on this page:

http://www.squarecirclez.com/blog/retir ... n-myth/822
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
yyz monkey
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:36 am
Location: CNC3

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by yyz monkey »

---------- ADS -----------
  
The Theory of Flight - Because even after 100 years, we're still not sure it works!

Northern Flyer
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Northern Flyer »

Thanks Rockie I knew it was crap, funny how some people will believe every thing they read hey W0XOF.... :butthead:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Pirate Pilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:14 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Pirate Pilot »

Oh, Thank God....I wasn't goin' to make next weekend and there's a BIG party.... :smt040
---------- ADS -----------
  

W0XOF
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by W0XOF »

Northern Flyer wrote:Thanks Rockie I knew it was crap, funny how some people will believe every thing they read hey W0XOF.... :butthead:
NF, Sure glad you knew it was crap and didn't want to share your wealth of knowledge as to why with anyone. I'm sure it's you who's full of crap. Hard to weed through all the helpful and factual information in your posts though.

Also, your statement above, why wouldn't that apply to the rebuttal document???? You believe it. Why is that document correct? Oh that's right, you believe it because you read it. Not a well thought out statement after all eh?

I couldn't care less if the study was accurate or not. This is all I need to know, if you retire at 55 or 65 and live to be 80, It still means 10 extra years in retirement and 10 more years the company pays out from what you put in instead of paying out 10 less years and keeping it for themselves. Hey, if I was Boeing, I would have written a rebuttal too and encouraged later retirement so I wouldn't have to pay out so much. Survivor benefits are much cheaper.

You guys actually read those studies?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by W0XOF on Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Read you 2 by 2. Too loud and too often!

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by fish4life »

I know for some people not retiring is actually keeping them alive longer because it keeps them busy whereas if they were to retire they would "get old quick"
---------- ADS -----------
  

5400AirportRdSouth
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:23 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by 5400AirportRdSouth »

I have to agree, I know of more than a few people in my life who were quite active while they worked and didn't make it more than a couple years after retiring before flying west for the last time.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Remember, only YOU can stop Narcissism

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

Everyone is different, and what is good for one person may be extremely bad for another. Working one more day in a job they despise probably will take a couple years off some people and they should get out as quickly as possible. On the other hand being forced to retire is very distressing for others and will hasten their demise as well. I personally knew a lowly school janitor who loved his job and dreaded, literally dreaded retirement. He died less than a year later.

It is because of him I have no patience for people who criticize others for having no life outside work. Frankly it is none of their f***ing business and they should drop the self-satisfied sense of superiority. Why is it okay for the Warren Buffett's of the world to continue working but not a school janitor or pilot?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

W0XOF wrote:Also, your statement above, why wouldn't that apply to the rebuttal document???? You believe it. Why is that document correct? Oh that's right, you believe it because you read it. Not a well thought out statement after all eh?
Well, the fact that it's taken directly from the Boeing company website adds a certain amount of credibility to it don't you think? Or do you know what you're talking about and Boeing doesn't?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Northern Flyer
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 437
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:40 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Northern Flyer »

W0XOF wrote:
Northern Flyer wrote:Thanks Rockie I knew it was crap, funny how some people will believe every thing they read hey W0XOF.... :butthead:
NF, Sure glad you knew it was crap and didn't want to share your wealth of knowledge as to why with anyone. I'm sure it's you who's full of crap. Hard to weed through all the helpful and factual information in your posts though.

Also, your statement above, why wouldn't that apply to the rebuttal document???? You believe it. Why is that document correct? Oh that's right, you believe it because you read it. Not a well thought out statement after all eh?

I couldn't care less if the study was accurate or not. This is all I need to know, if you retire at 55 or 65 and live to be 80, It still means 10 extra years in retirement and 10 more years the company pays out from what you put in instead of paying out 10 less years and keeping it for themselves. Hey, if I was Boeing, I would have written a rebuttal too and encouraged later retirement so I wouldn't have to pay out so much. Survivor benefits are much cheaper.

You guys actually read those studies?
Didn't mean to touch a nerve buddy. So settle down. Common sense dictated that the study you posted was inaccurate. I too plan to retire at a decent age, 55 hopefully. This all depends on how my financial situation is by then. I am not going to criticize those who chose to work longer, that is their choice.
---------- ADS -----------
  

W0XOF
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by W0XOF »

Rockie wrote:
W0XOF wrote:Also, your statement above, why wouldn't that apply to the rebuttal document???? You believe it. Why is that document correct? Oh that's right, you believe it because you read it. Not a well thought out statement after all eh?
Well, the fact that it's taken directly from the Boeing company website adds a certain amount of credibility to it don't you think? Or do you know what you're talking about and Boeing doesn't?
Actually no. It's in Boeing's best interest (or any company with a pension plan), to work you longer in life. That would reduce the amount of pension cheques they would have to write. That is one thing I do know, and I had shown that in my last post, all things being equal.

Because it's on Boeing's website that adds credibility for you? Yeah, and cigarettes don't cause cancer. After all, that's what all the tobacco companies said. Under oath even. Oh, and I'm sure vaccinations are 100% percent safe too, it's on the pharmaceuticals website.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Read you 2 by 2. Too loud and too often!

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

Boeing quoted actuarial information from their own pension plan on mortality rates. Are you suggesting they lied?
W0XOF wrote:Actually no. It's in Boeing's best interest (or any company with a pension plan), to work you longer in life.
Interesting. Maybe you could explain for us then why Air Canada is fighting the end of mandatory retirement? I sure can't figure it out.
---------- ADS -----------
  

trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by trey kule »

It is actually in a company's best interest, sometimes, to pension off the top end higher wage earners, and replace them with lower wage earners.
This particularily applies where pension funds are independent of the company, and where wages are based prmarily on seniority.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everyone is a genius in hindsight

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

Agreed, but that doesn't apply to Air Canada with its formula pay system. We aren't paid by seniority, we are paid by equipment. After 12 years service (most pilots) the amount of money paid out in salary doesn't change by replacing the pilot. You don't replace a 200k/year pilot with a 37k/year pilot, you replace him with another 200k/year pilot.
---------- ADS -----------
  

W0XOF
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by W0XOF »

Rockie wrote:Boeing quoted actuarial information from their own pension plan on mortality rates. Are you suggesting they lied?
W0XOF wrote:Actually no. It's in Boeing's best interest (or any company with a pension plan), to work you longer in life.
Interesting. Maybe you could explain for us then why Air Canada is fighting the end of mandatory retirement? I sure can't figure it out.
Even in the link to the rebuttal they questioned Boeing's statistics on mortality rates and which information they used and how. You must be a selective reader.

Since you would rather ask questions than look it up yourself, I'll do this one for you. AC pilots and mandatory retirement age:

Because it's the minority.

The Air Canada Pilots Association, which represents 3,100 members, conducted an April survey that indicated a sizable majority of the respondents want to keep the mandatory retirement age at 60. Of those who voted, 1,382 pilots supported the current system and 458 voted against it.

Looks like a misleading post from Rockie to me.

There are lot's of reasons to raise the age to 65. Started a family late and kids in university, started into the pension plan late and need to top up their years, ex wife has a portion of your pension and some people just like to work etc etc.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Read you 2 by 2. Too loud and too often!

W0XOF
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by W0XOF »

trey kule wrote:It is actually in a company's best interest, sometimes, to pension off the top end higher wage earners, and replace them with lower wage earners.
This particularily applies where pension funds are independent of the company, and where wages are based prmarily on seniority.

That's a good point.

To clarify, in my posts, I'm only referring to defined benefit plans. Not defined contribution.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Read you 2 by 2. Too loud and too often!

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: The Air Canada split.

Post by Rockie »

I didn't ask you why the Air Canada pilots are fighting this. I asked you why Air Canada is fighting it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”