CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

Message
Author
Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#1 Post by Raymond Hall » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:15 pm

The CHRT today released its decision on the ACPA motion to dismiss the complaints of over 90 pilots who were forced to retire before the mandatory retirement exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed, effective December 15, 2012.

In short, the complaints of all pilots who were forced to retire prior to December 31, 2009, were dismissed.

But the complaints of 45 pilots who were forced to retire in 2010 and later were not dismissed. Those complaints will continue to a hearing at the Tribunal.

Decision: http://www.flypast60.com/Documents/2017CHRT22.pdf
---------- ADS -----------

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

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#2 Post by MackTheKnife » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:53 pm

What time frame do you envision?
---------- ADS -----------
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it !!!

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#3 Post by Raymond Hall » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:05 pm

MackTheKnife wrote:What time frame do you envision?
Hearing will likely take place early next year. Many things to sort out, first, including the number of potential witnesses from each party and whether any party wishes to call an expert witness. The Tribunal will likely convene a preliminary conference call in August to discuss the requirements.

One thing that we have learned from this process is that the wheels of justice do indeed turn slowly.
---------- ADS -----------

yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#4 Post by yycflyguy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:26 pm

Raymond Hall wrote: One thing that we have learned from this process is that the wheels of justice do indeed turn slowly.
Just like career progression
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#5 Post by Rockie » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:54 pm

:roll:
---------- ADS -----------

Sharklasers
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#6 Post by Sharklasers » Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:08 pm

If the plaintiffs die early deaths from the stress of squandering their golden years with their giant well funded DB pensions fighting the system that they had built themselves and had allowed them to have long fruitful careers will the cases be dismissed or will their progeny be able to pick up the torch?
---------- ADS -----------

43S/172E
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#7 Post by 43S/172E » Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:50 am

Meanwhile in Europe

https://www.aerotime.aero/en/news/19342 ... ed-legally

Published on: July, 14, 2017
Source :
AeroTime staff

On July 5, 2017 European Union Court of Justice announced its ruling in the Lufthansa vs. a pilot case, stating that the airline legally fired a pilot as soon as he turned 65 years old. The EU Court of Justice is the highest-ranking court in Europe, making this decision final and mandatory to all European carriers.
The dispute invokes German carrier’s decision to fire a pilot as soon as he turned 65 – reached pension age – despite the fact that there were two months left until the expiration of his employment contract.  The EU court of justice has ruled that Lufthansa did not breach the law.
The opinion with the ruling states that pilot’s age is an important factor in his ability to perform his duties and therefore “safety comes first”. It is stated in the judgment:
“Concerning, first of all, the appropriateness of such a provision in the light of the aim pursued, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that, as regards air traffic safety, measures that aim to avoid aeronautical accidents by monitoring pilots’ aptitude and physical capabilities with the aim of ensuring that human failure does not cause accidents are undeniably measures of a nature to ensure air traffic safety […]      Furthermore, it should be noted that, after stating that it is essential that airline pilots possess sufficient physical capabilities, in so far as physical defects may have significant consequences for that profession, the Court held that it is undeniable that those capabilities diminish with age […]”.
However, in this case poses the question whether the two months really make a crucial difference in pilot’s abilities to fly a plane. Perhaps surprisingly, other pilot unions welcome the EU Court of Justice ruling, saying that despite the age of pilots being a controversial issue, the decision regards that pilots need sufficient physical capabilities to carry on their duties safely.
“Pilots should be able to early retirement with full benefits,” Ignacio Plaza, Deputy Secretary General of European Cockpit Association AISBL told to AeroTime. “The judgment of the Court is coherent with a previous ruling and sets a maximum limit. A reasonable and proportionate age limit is ultimately important for safe operations”.
It is widely accepted that pilot’s capability to perform duties diminish with age, therefore after the age of 55 pilots undergo more increased medical supervision, as the number of mandatory medical checks that can incapacitate pilots from working upsurges. After the age of 60 a pilot can only fly an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations if he or she is part of a multi-pilot crew whose other members are younger than 60 years old, according to the EU and international legislation. The pilot who has attained the age of 65 years cannot pilot an aircraft engaged in commercial air transport operations.
In 2017 the European Aviation Safety Agency has also launched a call for research in order to assess the need for a pilot age limit with the aim of further alleviating the risk to flight safety resulting from the potential increasing cases of incapacitation for pilots aged over 60 years old.
Vereinigung Cockpit, the pilot union representing Lufthansa’s employees, was not able to comment on this topic.
---------- ADS -----------

FADEC
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#8 Post by FADEC » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:21 am

in Fact, there is no "Over/Under" rule, so the court clearly didn't know the rules. No rule at this time requiring the "rest of the crew to be under age 60".

This error alone renders the judgement irrelevant.
---------- ADS -----------

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#9 Post by Raymond Hall » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:39 pm

ACPA has requested the Tribunal to proceed with scheduling the hearing of the remaining Air Canada pilot complaints before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has responded by commencing the first step in that process, namely scheduling what is referred to as a "case-management conference call," with all parties. That will likely occur this month. The agenda of that call will likely include determining the location, length and dates of the hearing, as well as clearing up all procedural matters required before the actual commencement of the hearing.
---------- ADS -----------

Raymond Hall
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#10 Post by Raymond Hall » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:23 pm

---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#11 Post by confusedalot » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:10 pm

I find it so sad that courts and public perception are stuck in a stereotype of the dinosaur era.

Life expectancy and general health are way over the standards of the 60's, and, 65 is the new 50 for virtually everybody in society, including pilots.

Sad indeed.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
Sage
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:50 pm
Location: Centre of the Universe

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#12 Post by Sage » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:26 pm

confusedalot wrote:
Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:10 pm
I find it so sad that courts and public perception are stuck in a stereotype of the dinosaur era.

Life expectancy and general health are way over the standards of the 60's, and, 65 is the new 50 for virtually everybody in society, including pilots.

Sad indeed.

You don't know anything about this. I suggest you do some reading on thi forum and other Canadian airline forums. Has nothing to do with life expectancy or discrimination but all has to do with greed. Ask yourself why this was fought during the end of their career and not at the beginning.
---------- ADS -----------
Scope. Not just a mouthwash.

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#13 Post by confusedalot » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:36 pm

So this means that the desire to keep working is only motivated by greed?

I suspect you are one of those in the middle of a ''list'' that is not happy about his airbus position and wants his 787 position tout de suite, right now. You can't wait two years, ohmygosh.

I don't work for the place, never have, but I can see ''greed'' when I see it. Pretty sure you are going to bitch big time when you are somewhere around 60-65.

You are giving lessons to the wrong person.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
Sage
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 12:50 pm
Location: Centre of the Universe

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#14 Post by Sage » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:52 pm

I'm happy with my current position and bid for lifestyle and I also plan to retire as soon as I can get full unreducd pension thank you. I got here because pilots ahead of me retired. It's not 2 years like they have you believe so like I said read up about it. Stay out of it if you don't a horse in the race because you're opening up a big can of worms. Ray Hall has been losing and will lose. His bank account is the only one coming out on top.
---------- ADS -----------
Scope. Not just a mouthwash.

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#15 Post by Rockie » Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:02 am

Actually Sage it’s about human rights. Always has been.

Some people (ahem) think they were fighting greedy old guys on the seniority list, and incredibly still don’t realize they were fighting the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was a totally one sided fight from the start despite what you may have been sold.

But since you brought up the word “greed” have you ever looked in the mirror and asked yourself why you want senior pilots off the list? Is it because you selflessly want them to enjoy more golf or something?
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#16 Post by confusedalot » Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:52 pm

Well, there is the charter issue and then there is the reality issue to my mind, and of what little I know about the business.

A few years ago, I bumped into an air inuit pilot that I had not seen for decades at the doctors office of all places, I made a slight comment about how we are all getting old and my time will come in a few years, and then, proceeded to tell me they have a 737 captain that is 70.

Here goes with the charter thing; no, you cannot discriminate against a person because of age. Works for Air Inuit, they do no cross borders. No operational problems. 70 year old still flies.

Fast forward to big red; big operational problems, pilots cannot fly into non canadian airspace since most if not all other jurisdictions, have an age limit of 65. Therefore, not feasible to keep an over 65 year old on staff, you can't do anything with him, since big red has a complex route structure where it would be impossible to schedule a guy like that around the constraints, as in only flying in canada.

Am I on the right track? Of course the over 65 type will not get what he wants at big red. But he could conceivably get satisfaction in a canada only operator.
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#17 Post by Doug Moore » Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:30 pm

Rockie wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:02 am
Actually Sage it’s about human rights. Always has been.

Some people (ahem) think they were fighting greedy old guys on the seniority list, and incredibly still don’t realize they were fighting the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was a totally one sided fight from the start despite what you may have been sold.
Rockie, the majority of the junior guys and gals who opposed FP60 never “got it” back when the fight was on, and they most likely never will until, perhaps, they themselves are approaching that point in their lives when they might like to stay in their job, but can’t because they are forced to retire due to nothing more than a date on a calendar.

Sage, whose location explains a lot (Centre of the Universe) and whose moniker, I believe, misrepresents his acumen regarding the FP60 issue, nonetheless drew a chuckle from me by stating his plan to retire “as soon as” he can get a “full unreduced pension”. And “thank you” no less. When I started out, my plan was to early-retire at 55 but then along the way I changed my views; I really enjoyed my job, my health was great and the realization dawned on me that my pension was going to fall well short of the “full unreduced” variety that Sage apparently covets.

So I had hoped to continue working but we all know how that turned out. Many of the junior (and not so junior) people moaned and groaned, cried foul, stomped their feet, whimpered and whined, said and did anything they could to ensure that as many of their brothers and sisters were forced out the door before the expected legislation banning forced retirement based on age was enacted.

Once that legislation was enacted, the sky did not fall, pilots did not lose their jobs and the seniority list worked just as it had done in the past. I suspect some pilots still early-retired, some died before retirement, others medicaled out but everybody moved up as others moved out. Just as had always been the case – but even better for those who remained given the substantial number of pilots forced to retire prior to the change in legislation.

I once had a “horse in the race” to which Sage alludes and I will always remember the immature, distorted, twisted and trumped up arguments bandied about while the race was on. But most disappointing for me was the behavior of the union that purported to represent my interests, but did not, and instead chose to favor one horse (such as Sage) over others (such as those being forced out of the race while the race was still being run).

Sage, confusedalot may or may not not know “anything about this”, but I do, and I would suggest that you heed his advice, namely, “you are giving lessons to the wrong person”. You should be able to accept his opinions as being those of an unbiased and uninterested outside observer. His intuitive comments reflect an understanding not contaminated by the resentment and animosity experienced by those of us who lived through the whole ugly affair.

I agree with you on one count: this is a can of worms that doesn’t warrant a re-opening and on that note I’ve said my piece and I’m done. Best of luck with your own retirement plans – and I mean that sincerely.

Cheers,
---------- ADS -----------

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#18 Post by mbav8r » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:08 am

confusedalot wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:52 pm
Well, there is the charter issue and then there is the reality issue to my mind, and of what little I know about the business.

A few years ago, I bumped into an air inuit pilot that I had not seen for decades at the doctors office of all places, I made a slight comment about how we are all getting old and my time will come in a few years, and then, proceeded to tell me they have a 737 captain that is 70.

Here goes with the charter thing; no, you cannot discriminate against a person because of age. Works for Air Inuit, they do no cross borders. No operational problems. 70 year old still flies.

Fast forward to big red; big operational problems, pilots cannot fly into non canadian airspace since most if not all other jurisdictions, have an age limit of 65. Therefore, not feasible to keep an over 65 year old on staff, you can't do anything with him, since big red has a complex route structure where it would be impossible to schedule a guy like that around the constraints, as in only flying in canada.

Am I on the right track? Of course the over 65 type will not get what he wants at big red. But he could conceivably get satisfaction in a canada only operator.
Confusedalot, this topic and many other threads regarding mandatory retirement at Air Canada are because pilots were being forced to retire at 60 not 65, they were the only Airline in North America that was still doing this.
Also I’m with Doug Moore, I was on the freedom 55 plan, now in my forties I realize this is not possible without winning the lottery, I’m still hoping for 60 but even that seems far fetched at this point. It’s mostly my fault but the point is things change
---------- ADS -----------
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"

altiplano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#19 Post by altiplano » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:00 am

I think the issue is largely timing.

Nobody minds if they are on top when the deal changed...
---------- ADS -----------

Ah_yeah
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 4:50 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#20 Post by Ah_yeah » Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:25 am

Bingo.
---------- ADS -----------

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#21 Post by Fanblade » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:02 am

Doug and Rockie,

The problem was conflict resolution or lack of it to be exact. When change inevitably happens, as it always does, there are often winners and losers. If this is not resolved in an equitable manor there will be conflict. Gauanteed conflict in fact.

This statement applies to ALL sides of this particular conflict.


No one put forward an equitable compromise.

This made the conflict inevitable.

As a result.

We ALL got what we deserved which was an inequitable solution imposed by an outside body.
---------- ADS -----------

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7324
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#22 Post by Rockie » Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:13 am

You speak as if this were an arbitrated settlement between two bodies that was subject to compromise Fanblade. It wasn’t. This was a human rights issue under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as such there was nothing to bargain. Nothing to negotiate. ACPA lost the fight before it started.

They further lost (as we all did) by doggedly refusing to recognize the nature of the conflict and perpetuating this lie that Air Canada pilots could somehow be exempt from Canada’s human rights laws, and so did not pursue any of the financial gains AC alone realized with the inevitable change in the rules.

Old argument not worth rehashing yet again, but it seems many people still don’t recognize the steam roller that crushed them.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#23 Post by confusedalot » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:25 pm

mbav8r wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:08 am
confusedalot wrote:
Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:52 pm
Well, there is the charter issue and then there is the reality issue to my mind, and of what little I know about the business.

A few years ago, I bumped into an air inuit pilot that I had not seen for decades at the doctors office of all places, I made a slight comment about how we are all getting old and my time will come in a few years, and then, proceeded to tell me they have a 737 captain that is 70.

Here goes with the charter thing; no, you cannot discriminate against a person because of age. Works for Air Inuit, they do no cross borders. No operational problems. 70 year old still flies.

Fast forward to big red; big operational problems, pilots cannot fly into non canadian airspace since most if not all other jurisdictions, have an age limit of 65. Therefore, not feasible to keep an over 65 year old on staff, you can't do anything with him, since big red has a complex route structure where it would be impossible to schedule a guy like that around the constraints, as in only flying in canada.

Am I on the right track? Of course the over 65 type will not get what he wants at big red. But he could conceivably get satisfaction in a canada only operator.
Confusedalot, this topic and many other threads regarding mandatory retirement at Air Canada are because pilots were being forced to retire at 60 not 65, they were the only Airline in North America that was still doing this.
Also I’m with Doug Moore, I was on the freedom 55 plan, now in my forties I realize this is not possible without winning the lottery, I’m still hoping for 60 but even that seems far fetched at this point. It’s mostly my fault but the point is things change
A am somewhat aware about the charter issue and 60. Practically speaking though, I recall that there was an arbitrary date (that was set outside of charter issues?) where some had no choice but to retire at 60, and others were OK to continue to 65. Recall that I have no dog in this race.

I know of some guys who are either close to 60 or are between 60-65 and are in a position to write their own ticket either way, so is it not possible for you to do the same?
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 432
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#24 Post by confusedalot » Mon Nov 06, 2017 6:21 pm

Raymond Hall wrote:
Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:15 pm
The CHRT today released its decision on the ACPA motion to dismiss the complaints of over 90 pilots who were forced to retire before the mandatory retirement exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed, effective December 15, 2012.

In short, the complaints of all pilots who were forced to retire prior to December 31, 2009, were dismissed.

But the complaints of 45 pilots who were forced to retire in 2010 and later were not dismissed. Those complaints will continue to a hearing at the Tribunal.

Decision: http://www.flypast60.com/Documents/2017CHRT22.pdf
OK, I read it. The decision does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about the way things work. The ''normal retirement age of 60 for pilots'' stated throughout the document is a subjective statement in itself, which I find to be arbitrary in nature.

It begs the question.....if 60 is normal, why has everyone gone to 65?
---------- ADS -----------
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

Fanblade
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 615
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: CHRT Decision re ACPA Motion To Dismiss Mandatory Retirement Complaints

#25 Post by Fanblade » Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:22 pm

Rockie wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2017 11:13 am
This was a human rights issue under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and as such there was nothing to bargain. Nothing to negotiate.
You expressed my point succinctly.

No compromise. Only one side takes that position and it gauarantees conflict.

There is always creative solutions available within the confines of the law.

The problem was a lack of willingness, on both sides, to examin compromises and seek consensus.

As a result an external body decided for us. some won. Some Lost. Fairness was a very distant third.

Some made a million. Some lost their jobs. Days separated the two.
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”