Age 65 Ruling

[JazzJetDriver]

"but it will be done whether you like it or not."

Hmmm...where did I hear that one before. Oh yeah, it was sometime back in the late '80's.

[Jaques Strappe]

Airline pilots flying to over sixty is inevitable. Instead of squandering time and money trying to stop what cannot be stopped, we should be focusing our efforts on implementing it in such a way that no one at Air Canada prior to any agreement being signed is penalized in any way if they choose to retire at sixty. This can be done in a way that no one loses if we're smart enough about it...but it will be done whether you like it or not.

That is fine but it should be done within the collective agreement, not by a Human Rights tribunal. That just opens a can of worms with no end in sight as possibly shown in the previous posts. IMO anyway.

I would be interested to know where the company sits on this issue. On one hand they would gain more time before a pilot begins to draw on a pension and less time on the pension as a result of life span, along with more contributions to the pension. However, they also have to pay a senior pilot huge money for very few days of work versus his/her replacement within the pay group.

[WF9F]

Rockie,
It is not my greed that is fueling the over 65 group,on the contrary. These guys enjoyed the retirements that pushed them into the top paying jobs at AC but now the over 65 bandwagon comes along and they hitch their horse to the wagon. I and many others just want what they have benefited from for most of their careers.Nothing more or nothing less.

Pilots in Canada can fly after 60 just not at Air Canada.That will not change . It is a negotiated item in our contract.

[flyinphil]

Pilots in Canada can fly after 60 just not at Air Canada.That will not change . It is a negotiated item in our contract.

Come on... Change is the only constant in aviation.
Contracts come and contracts go. Things will change.

[Rockie]

Pilots in Canada can fly after 60 just not at Air Canada.That will not change . It is a negotiated item in our contract.

Come on... Change is the only constant in aviation.
Contracts come and contracts go. Things will change.

Truer words were never said. The smart people try and influence the manner in which change occurs rather than stop it. And I fully agree with Jaques Strappe when he says it has to occur within the contract. I've never said otherwise. But we have to control how it's done because we're wasting our time trying prevent it.

[CD]

Truer words were never said. The smart people try and influence the manner in which change occurs rather than stop it. And I fully agree with Jaques Strappe when he says it has to occur within the contract. I've never said otherwise. But we have to control how it's done because we're wasting our time trying prevent it.

Indeed... Also, a consideration will have to be what the membership will be willing to give up in order to have the age limitation modified in the contract. It's very likely that the company will want something in return. The 2009 negotiations will be very interesting if that's the case.

[zforzulu]

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/coe/gutub/e ... etire1.htm

See section 2. Food for thought.

[Rockie]

Truer words were never said. The smart people try and influence the manner in which change occurs rather than stop it. And I fully agree with Jaques Strappe when he says it has to occur within the contract. I've never said otherwise. But we have to control how it's done because we're wasting our time trying prevent it.

Indeed... Also, a consideration will have to be what the membership will be willing to give up in order to have the age limitation modified in the contract. It's very likely that the company will want something in return. The 2009 negotiations will be very interesting if that's the case.

It could be the exact opposite. The company may very well want this to happen because of circumstances beyond its control (a severe pilot shortage for instance, or insurance premiums going through the roof). In that case they may have to give us something for it.

[Lost in Saigon]

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/coe/gutub/e ... etire1.htm

See section 2. Food for thought.

That study was flawed......................



http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/heal ... t_age.html

Don's Home Health Retirement vs Longevity Contact
Retirement vs Longevity
A 2002 article by Sing Lin, Ph.D. titled "Optimum Strategies for Creativity and Longevity" (See: http://www.seeya-downtheroad.com/Inform ... Young.html) reported that people who retired later died at a younger age. It was based on data from a Boeing study.

In a later paper he reports that the old Boeing data (may be 20 yrs. old) was flawed and sights a 2001 Sandia Labs study which shows that there is no clear influence of age of retirement on life span for age of retirement below 65.[/color]

[Jaques Strappe]

I would take issue with any study only because we are airline pilots flying within an ever widening hole in the sky. I personally chose to fly the Embraer because sitting at high altitudes for long periods of time in the higher latitudes is killing us. The data won't show this for years to come. Not to mention the Jetlag. May not affect some but it was killing me. Where do most guys spend their golden years at AC? Flying the long haul to max out their pay.

The 777LR will fly for 20 hours on a tank of gas, no thanks. Luftansa restricts the number of polar crossings their crews do within the month. Unfortunately, we don't fit the common demographic. We don't even fit within the demographic of pilots 20 years ago, simply due to environmental change.

Therefore I would be wary of any published data that is not specific to todays pilot in todays environment.

[Four1oh]

unless you're doing lots of high altitude polar flights I wouldn't get too worried Jaques.

[zforzulu]

Lost in Saigon,

Thanks for the updated information.

[Brick Head]

unless you're doing lots of high altitude polar flights I wouldn't get too worried Jaques.

Either of you may be right. We don't really know yet. The science for the moment points toward pilots getting less radiation exposure than clinical staff who say work in a dentists office. Good article in the ACPA Journal.

The Boeing study was not based on pilots. It was based on the entire group, many of whom worked shift work. Don't be too quick to completely dismiss the study. The studies initial assumptions were wrong which contributed to a finding of death rate, inappropriate to the cause. In other words they were dieing earlier but why was not determined due to flaws.

Further studies to find out why have concluded.

People who choose to work past 60-65 do not die younger.

Also found, People who work shift work do die younger. Anywhere from 17-10 years younger depending on the source.

Disruption of the circadian rhythm is not just a pilot thing. It is a police, fire fighter ect. thing as well. Those groups, particularly the police have done many more studies into the impact of shift work on health.

The health affects range from. Heart, stroke, MS, depression and the list goes on and on. It is know that the immune system levels drop due to chronic sleep debt. It is know that the body only produces anti oxidants while sleeping on the body clock time.

It is also know that the older you are the less able your body is to recover from the effects of sleep debt.

If you are an ACPA member you have an excellent resource on the subject in YVR on the PEAC committee.

Or do some reading on the internet about shift work aging, health ect.

To be clear this is not an aging only issue. It is an everyone issue. However as you age the affects of sleep debt are magnified, exposing the individual to greater risk.

Another study that comes to mind was the Quantus study a few decades back. Dieing so early. The initial assumption was radiation but has now been debunked. Actually the whole study has. It doesn't change the fact that they were dieing early however. It just means we never figured out the cause.

How hard do you think it would be to get a study into the life expectancy of an overseas pilot versus a domestic pilot? Harder than you think. You need someone willing to finance it. The airline community won't. Too much liability in it.

[Brick Head]

This topic is wandering. If a guy/gal wants to work himself to death.......

Lets cut back to the chase.

The fight is not against someone working to 65. The fight is to stop someone from taking an extra 5 year advantage of the best place on the seniority system. On the top. And the subsequent reduction in potential earnings and pension income for everyone else that still wants to retire at age 60.

This isn't rocket science;

-We are unique in the way we are payed and progress. Most other workers do not have such a steep progression wrt pay. Our compensation ranges from 40K to 250K. Progression stops....pay increases stop.

-less than 600 positions have the wage to earn a max pension. If individuals in those positions don't move out of them. Others won't/can't get a max pension or at least get the best pension they could attain.

-Excluding new hire progression, the total Air Canada pilot compensation, the total sum of all pilot pay, is fixed. If an individual continues to pull 200K+ a year, out of that fixed pool past age 60, that money came from someone else's pocket, as dictated by the collective agreement.

So back to the discussion. I have no problem with individuals staying past 60 as long as everyone is treated equally when it comes to our collective agreement, collective compensation and collective pension compensation. No winners no loser's.

Are there any suggestions from the fly past 60 crowd on how we might accomplish this? Equality I mean.

Do you care to even discuss the issue?

This is the issue after all. I doubt anyone would care if individuals remained beyond 60 ( excluding people looking to be hired ) if the above issues were adequately dealt with.

[Four1oh]

so then it's all down to money again. AC wants them gone because they can replace the 200 G plus wage with a $40,000 wage? The other pilots want them gone because they want in on the $200 G wage, and to hell with them, when it comes time for the up-and comers to turn 60, they're booted too, unmercifully.

Wow, I thought we only eat our young. I guess we eat anything and everything we can.

[Brick Head]

so then it's all down to money again. AC wants them gone because they can replace the 200 G plus wage with a $40,000 wage? The other pilots want them gone because they want in on the $200 G wage, and to hell with them, when it comes time for the up-and comers to turn 60, they're booted too, unmercifully.

Wow, I thought we only eat our young. I guess we eat anything and everything we can.

Of course the issue is money and progression, at least for the under 60 crowd. Motivation for the over 60 crowd is likely varied. For some it will be money for others it will be love of the job. Just being honest and cutting to the point. If you don't discuss the points each side brings to the table on the issue how do you resolve it? Answer. You don't, the courts do. As long as there is not frank discussion and recognition about both sides concerns it can never be resolved without imposition from the judiciary.

How is a desire for equality eating our elderly????? We just want what they got. What is so vulgar about that? I actually have no problem with them working past 60 as long as it is done an equitable fashion. What is so unreasonable about that?

There is a logical way around this. You retire, collect your pension, and come back doing contract work in vacancies at the bottom of the list. People retire and come back doing contract work for their former employer all the time these days in other sectors. Ex managers work for there former subordinates all the time. We are way behind the times in this regard. It is going to be the way of the future. It balances industry needs ( lack of workers) with the needs of older workers. (flexibility, semi retirement, some extra income, ect.) and that of younger workers.

Maybe even throw in some 1/2 blocks. Allow people to leave slowly at their pace. Heck I might be interested.

[Rockie]

Are there any suggestions from the fly past 60 crowd on how we might accomplish this? Equality I mean.

Do you care to even discuss the issue?

This is the issue after all. I doubt anyone would care if individuals remained beyond 60 ( excluding people looking to be hired ) if the above issues were adequately dealt with.

I'm glad you said that because a discussion needs to take place. Voting against it and thinking that the issue has gone away is not going to help.

Maintaining equity is the key and there are ways to do it especially since I'm convinced it will be industry providing the impetus for over sixty, not the pilots. There is no advantage for the company to retire someone at 60 because they pay by equipment. Kick one guy out at 200K a year and you have to replace him with someone else at 200K a year and then hire someone else off the street. But there is a looming worldwide pilot shortage and company's are going to figure out that they need to keep the people they have as long as they can.

The discussions on how to best implement over sixty will be long and involved, and not done on this forum. My point is we better start thinking about it instead of flatly rejecting it because it's coming.

[Brick Head]

My point is we better start thinking about it instead of flatly rejecting it because it's coming.

Yup,

My problem is that the coalition thus far has rejected the notion that harm to others even exists. You can not discuss what you refuse to recognize exists.

The right to work past age 60 at AC, will likely, in the future become a human rights issue. However in what capacity that work is done, in our case, is a collective agreement issue. Making the assumption that working beyond 60 goes hand in hand with retained seniority value is not a wise thing to do. Yes if the stripping seniority value was purely an age related penalty it would not fly with the CHRT. However if the seniority devaluing happened due to the unions desire to distribute the collective pie as it was originally intended, it would not be a human rights issue. That is a collective agreement issue.

Don't like that interpretation? Read the ACPA and AC submissions looking for this perspective of thinking. It is all over the pages. Read the Tribunal decision in the same vain.

My point is we should be talking as well. The basis for the discussion however has to be equity for everyone, or the discussion will not take place. If the discussion doesn't take place it will eventually be imposed. The question is what it will look like and how many years it will take to accomplish.

Is that the route we want to go down?

[Rockie]

It's impossible to say whether there will be harm to any side of the issue until the issue has been thoroughly explored, which it hasn't. And even then conditions could change at any time making it better or worse. What we need to do is be ready for when it is most advantageous for us...all of us. Not just one side or the other.

[Brick Head]

It's impossible to say whether there will be harm to any side of the issue until the issue has been thoroughly explored, which it hasn't. And even then conditions could change at any time making it better or worse. What we need to do is be ready for when it is most advantageous for us...all of us. Not just one side or the other.

Spoken like a politician.

In other words. You don't accept that the issue even exists. It may or it may not cause harm. Harm might be either way. Not been studied enough.

Vilven and Kelly both were asking for full reinstatement. So is everyone behind them. The leader of the Age 60 Coalition outright refuses to acknowledge harm to peers as a result of a mandatory retirement age change.

Non acceptance that harm exists is a convenient way to allow for avoidance on the subject. What you are asking for is discussion, but only if it happens on your terms. That is not how issues get resolved. On the surface it sounds reasonable but what you really doing is refusing to recognize the needs of your peers. Refusal to recognize those concerns, given how obvious the concerns are, is unfortunately very telling wrt to intent on your part.

However, that stance is your right. You are just trying to get the best deal you can. Just remember, you the coalition, made that decision. We will continue to react to it in kind.

This whole we won't talk, or we are unreasonable stance, might work in the media. It won't work with your co workers.

If you want to work past 60 you have two choices. Sit down at the table. Bring a willingness to recognize, and mitigate harm to your fellow pilots, or stay on your present course and we will let the judiciary decide what our contractual obligations are to those over 60.

IMO the ball is in your court. Always has been. ACPA has it's hand tied because of the litigation. They can't change the rules for working past 60 at the moment, out of fear it will later prejudice them in court.

[. .]

well said brick head.

[Rockie]

It's impossible to say whether there will be harm to any side of the issue until the issue has been thoroughly explored, which it hasn't. And even then conditions could change at any time making it better or worse. What we need to do is be ready for when it is most advantageous for us...all of us. Not just one side or the other.

Spoken like a politician.

In other words. You don't accept that the issue even exists. It may or it may not cause harm. Harm might be either way. Not been studied enough.

Vilven and Kelly both were asking for full reinstatement. So is everyone behind them. The leader of the Age 60 Coalition outright refuses to acknowledge harm to peers as a result of a mandatory retirement age change.

Non acceptance that harm exists is a convenient way to allow for avoidance on the subject. What you are asking for is discussion, but only if it happens on your terms. That is not how issues get resolved. On the surface it sounds reasonable but what you really doing is refusing to recognize the needs of your peers. Refusal to recognize those concerns, given how obvious the concerns are, is unfortunately very telling wrt to intent on your part.

However, that stance is your right. You are just trying to get the best deal you can. Just remember, you the coalition, made that decision. We will continue to react to it in kind.

This whole we won't talk, or we are unreasonable stance, might work in the media. It won't work with your co workers.

If you want to work past 60 you have two choices. Sit down at the table. Bring a willingness to recognize, and mitigate harm to your fellow pilots, or stay on your present course and we will let the judiciary decide what our contractual obligations are to those over 60.

IMO the ball is in your court. Always has been. ACPA has it's hand tied because of the litigation. They can't change the rules for working past 60 at the moment, out of fear it will later prejudice them in court.

Do you read my posts Brickhead?

I am one of the only people here who even thinks this is an issue. The rest of you think you can have one vote and make it go away. You can't. And you guys are the ones closing your eyes to the needs of others within your group. You cannot see past your nose and you will make us all pay for it when over sixty five is forced on us when we're not ready because you can't see the writing on the wall.

Forget Vilven and Kelly. That was round one.

Wake up!!!

[Brick Head]

Do you read my posts Brickhead?

"It's impossible to say whether there will be harm to any side of the issue until the issue has been thoroughly explored, which it hasn't. And even then conditions could change at any time making it better or worse. What we need to do is be ready for when it is most advantageous for us...all of us. Not just one side or the other."

Yes I did read your post. You refuse to admit harm exists. It is an issue if and only if harm really exists. But as of yet no harm is proven. Possibly impossible to determine. That is your position. Correct?

It is impossible to know who you are talking to on this forum. Maybe I should explain why I find this attitude so offensive. Perhaps your response was a genuine one from someone not within the inner circle or doesn't realize what the Coalition is up to? The Age 60 coalition has strategically decided to avoid any discussion about harm or admission of harm whatsoever. Maybe you don't realize that this refusal to acknowledge harm is deliberate. It is a strategy specifically designed to retain as big a piece of the pie as possible.

The Coalition is doing this for two reasons.

- It allows them to play the victim. Perception is reality. The only one being hurt is those over 60. All claims of harm to others is unfounded, unproven, ect ect. The harm is all one direction and it is discrimination.

-If forces ACPA to prove harm. Proving harm will be key to the judiciary as to whether or not seniority devaluing post 60 is a human rights violation, or an act by the union, of making sure the collective pie is still equally distributed. If harm does not exist then seniority devaluing can't be for the purpose of equity can it? Therefor if harm does not exist, any seniority devaluation would be age related, and a violation of human rights.

The problems with this strategy is:

-the coalition comes across as opportunistic rather than genuinely interested in human rights. After all the basis of Human rights is equality. Right?

-Although the coalition may get their desired response from the media it alienates colleges. It makes the Coalition look disingenuous. For what purpose is this strategy? One can only assume its intent is to benefit coalition members at the expense of former colleagues

-The people making the final determination will not be swayed by this tactic so why does the coalition stay the course? Except for self interest.

"I am one of the only people here who even thinks this is an issue."

Yes and my apologies. I should have picked up on that as an indicator that you are likely genuine in you comments. A real coalition member vehemently denies harm.

"Forget Vilven and Kelly. That was round one."

If that is the route the coalition wants to go that is up to them. Just remember from our perspective, it is the coalition who is choosing to pursue an all or nothing stance that is unacceptable in the face of obvious harm to fellow co workers.

[Rockie]

Brickhead, I think you're giving this "coalition" far too much credit. They will only be one of several catalysts for change and that's all. Once Air Canada pilots stop fixating on stopping what cannot be stopped then real dialogue will begin and the will of the majority will ensure that neither side is unduly damaged by extending the retirement age. It is utterly pointless to make suppositions on who will be harmed and how when no one has even considered the possiblities of implementing it yet. I personally think with the way the industry is developing both sides will get what they want and everyone will be happy. Don't ask me how because I only see the conditions for making it happen, not the details.

One thing I know for sure is that over sixty is coming, and we will be far better off if it's implemented the way we want rather than some court ordered mechanism. As long as we continue to put our efforts into a futile fight to stop it we're leaving ourselves wide open for a nasty surprise.

[Four1oh]

Hey Rebel, what do you make of all this? Sure haven't heard from him in a while...