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

[Rockie]

Rudder:

You are wrong. Formula pay, the PBS, the vacation bid, are not "human rights". They are the current method by which a particular collective bargaining unit has elected to organize its work member's work life and remuneration. Taking the wind of the senior crowd's sails by changing the winner take-all collective agreement is perfectly acceptable and is being worked on as I write this. I am afraid that if you think the current terms and conditions contained within the collective agreement are the only legitimate method to divide up the pie you are sadly mistaken. In this current round of collective bargaining you can look for the thin edge of the edge on this issue and there will be changes whether you like it or not.

DFR is "duty of fair representation", which means a union has to represent all the members fairly. The CIRB is the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, which has nothing to do with human rights.

[sepia]

Rudder:

You are wrong. Formula pay, the PBS, the vacation bid, are not "human rights". They are the current method by which a particular collective bargaining unit has elected to organize its work member's work life and remuneration. Taking the wind of the senior crowd's sails by changing the winner take-all collective agreement is perfectly acceptable and is being worked on as I write this. I am afraid that if you think the current terms and conditions contained within the collective agreement are the only legitimate method to divide up the pie you are sadly mistaken. In this current round of collective bargaining you can look for the thin edge of the edge on this issue and there will be changes whether you like it or not.

DFR is "duty of fair representation", which means a union has to represent all the members fairly. The CIRB is the Canadian Industrial Relations Board, which has nothing to do with human rights.

Exactly, treat all members fairly. If you wanna stay at the top, then it's fair that things get redistributed. You're absolutely out to lunch if you think anyone is gonna stand by and let things stay the way they are.

[rudder]

Rudder:

You are wrong. Formula pay, the PBS, the vacation bid, are not "human rights". They are the current method by which a particular collective bargaining unit has elected to organize its work member's work life and remuneration. Taking the wind of the senior crowd's sails by changing the winner take-all collective agreement is perfectly acceptable and is being worked on as I write this. I am afraid that if you think the current terms and conditions contained within the collective agreement are the only legitimate method to divide up the pie you are sadly mistaken. In this current round of collective bargaining you can look for the thin edge of the edge on this issue and there will be changes whether you like it or not.

I didn't say human rights - I said DFR.

There is another independant pilot union in the US that tried tactics that were 'targetted' at specific members of the bargaining unit. They are now in court.

nuff said.

[Rockie]

Exactly, treat all members fairly. If you wanna stay at the top, then it's fair that things get redistributed. You're absolutely out to lunch if you think anyone is gonna stand by and let things stay the way they are.

If you read back through this thread you will see that I favour a status pay system where people are paid according to their position (CA/FO/RP) and years of service, not what kind of airplane they fly. In my mind that is a much more equitable pay system than what we have now since under the current pay scheme the hardest working pilots are also the lowest paid. Another benefit of that system is that it matters less how long a person stays. So in a way I am all in favour of things getting redistributed.

But as I also said in that post, that system has its own problems that you have obviously not considered and for sure would not like very much. I encourage you to think about this issue with more than just the next bid in mind. Try and think about it in terms of your pension expectations not being realized because of economic reasons, and your potential situation when you reach the age of 60, not 40.

[Letterhead]

Rudder:

The point is that some of the aged members of ACPA believe that they have some kind of right to the current way in which the collective agreement is written. They do not. There is no need to target a particular identifiable group to change the terms and conditions to more equitably distribute the cash and work life balance. The pie will be redistributed in a more equitable fashion among the membership. You aren't going to receive a windfall plain and simple. Call it status pay, the removal of PBS in favour of a rotating schedule requiring every pilot to put in the same amount of work for the same remuneration, and a rotating vacation bid that equitably distributes summer vacation among the pilot group. These changes will occur. ACPA is a democratic organization and the union has a duty to fairly represent ALL of its pilots not just those at the top of a list of names who have had their snouts in the trough for far too long. One member one vote old timer - change is coming. I suggest you prepare yourself.

[Rockie]

Rudder:

The point is that some of the aged members of ACPA believe that they have some kind of right to the current way in which the collective agreement is written. They do not. There is no need to target a particular identifiable group to change the terms and conditions to more equitably distribute the cash and work life balance. The pie will be redistributed in a more equitable fashion among the membership. You aren't going to receive a windfall plain and simple. Call it status pay, the removal of PBS in favour of a rotating schedule requiring every pilot to put in the same amount of work for the same remuneration, and a rotating vacation bid that equitably distributes summer vacation among the pilot group. These changes will occur. ACPA is a democratic organization and the union has a duty to fairly represent ALL of its pilots not just those at the top of a list of names who have had their snouts in the trough for far too long. One member one vote old timer - change is coming. I suggest you prepare yourself.

I think what rudder was referring to was a system whereby the current seniority advancement remains in place until a member turns 60, and then he is punted down to the bottom. That is beyond a doubt discriminatory and a union would find themselves in a lot of hot water if they tried to implement something like that. What you have described is totally different, and I think it would be acceptable to most. But it'll be a tough sell to the top half of the seniority list, and the bottom half might not like the resultant changes either as I've already mentioned. And implementing it would be enormously complex and painful.

[Letterhead]

Thanks Rockie. I don't think that it will be bad for anyone in the long run. It will upset a few with vested short term interests, but they will get over it. FYI - I apologize for the "tone" of the last post, but the sense of entitlement of some of the baby boomers is infuriating.

[Rockie]

No sweat letterhead. Sense of entitlement is an affliction that runs from top to bottom on our seniority list along with those of other companies that will remain nameless, and is the root of most of our problems. Wouldn't life be so much easier without it?

[rudder]

I think what rudder was referring to was a system whereby the current seniority advancement remains in place until a member turns 60, and then he is punted down to the bottom. That is beyond a doubt discriminatory and a union would find themselves in a lot of hot water if they tried to implement something like that.

Yup

[rudder]

Rudder:

The point is that some of the aged members of ACPA believe that they have some kind of right to the current way in which the collective agreement is written. They do not. There is no need to target a particular identifiable group to change the terms and conditions to more equitably distribute the cash and work life balance. The pie will be redistributed in a more equitable fashion among the membership. You aren't going to receive a windfall plain and simple. Call it status pay, the removal of PBS in favour of a rotating schedule requiring every pilot to put in the same amount of work for the same remuneration, and a rotating vacation bid that equitably distributes summer vacation among the pilot group. These changes will occur. ACPA is a democratic organization and the union has a duty to fairly represent ALL of its pilots not just those at the top of a list of names who have had their snouts in the trough for far too long. One member one vote old timer - change is coming. I suggest you prepare yourself.

None of what you have suggested would rise to the level of a sustained representational protest given that it applies to ALL and affects ALL.

Watching with interest....

[Brick Head]

This thread is interesting. Just had a chance to read the ruling. I'm not following the tone of the thread or the title.

The original CHRT ruling is being sent back to the CHRT on two counts.

1) The comparator. Since mandatory retirement, at a specific age, is legal as long as it is done at an age that is normal for the industry, we need to know how we determine "normal" for the industry.

The CHRT said normal is the average age of retirement at legacy carriers world wide. On appeal the Fed court said you can't use individuals outside the Canadian boarder. So using foreign carriers as a comparator is out. However the court also ruled that V/K is still dismissed because in Canada most pilots retire at 60 still. They didn't use individual airlines in this assessment but rather the individuals themselves. At present more than 50% of the individuals in this industry retire at 60. So 60 is still normal at the moment and the V/K complaint was dismissed.

2.) The charter question. The Charter of Canadian rights and freedoms does not allow for age discrimination except for a few exceptions. One of those exceptions is mandatory retirement.

The claimants are claiming the exceptions violate the CHRA and should be struck. Of course the exceptions violate the CHRA that is why they call them.........."exceptions". The authors of the CHRA intentionally limited human rights under certain conditions particularly targeting age.

Why? Because our society is structured around age discrimination.

Life insurance goes up with age.
Car insurance goes down .....
can't drink until.......
can't drive......
Married.......
Age of consent........
senior discounts........

Blah blah blah.

So why does the CHRA have an exception for mandatory retirement?

Mandatory retirement is allowed, as stated by the courts many times, because it improves Human rights through collective bargaining. CA's revolve around mandatory retirement. Case in point end loading career earnings to enhance pensions. All unions do it because pension calculations center on the best 3-5 years. If is referred to as differed income.

In our situation for example. Status pay, to avoid windfall gains and losses, if post 60 were to happen, will flatten the pay system and lower pensions as earnings are no longer end loaded. The best 3-5 years becomes lower. Pensions pay less, for on average, nearly 20 years.

So I ask? What is better for human rights? Allow people to work until they choose? At the expense of the very system that is designed to protect elderly individuals from financial degradation?

This is what the authors of the CHRA struggled with. This is what we struggle with today. This issue is much farther reaching than AC, will attract a lot of attention if it starts to get legs, and will undoubtedly take a long journey through the courts assuming anyone embraces the idea to begin with.

My personnel take.

Normal age of retirement. People will now be able to stay beyond 60 at AC when the average age of pilots retiring in Canada exceeds 60. neither side can point outside our boarders to justify their position. Age 60 supporters can no longer point at the LH pilots to justify age 60. Fly past 60 supporters can no longer point at the ICAO changes or the US as justification for going beyond 60. That is a significant change.

The charter question. The Federal court sent the charter issue back for clarification since the CHRT didn't deal with it. They just brushed it off.

[Johnny767]

Some emotional comments. You think you have seen "career stagnation," embrace the Age 65 idea. Talk to some of the (USA) Pilots that have made the change. I firmly believe it is a long way from a "fait accompli" and this latest ruling has some upside for ACPA.

This thing will drag on for some time.

The CHRT is the same group handling CUPE's "F/A pay of equal value to Pilots."

Where is that brilliant case at?

The resurgence of the age old "Status Pay" debate always appears during tough times and has been around for at least 30 years.

The Junior guys at Air Canada have good reason to be choked with the abysmal pay scales, but Status pay isn't the answer.

I have never known one person, that has taken the time to take a detailed, informed look at the complexities of Status Pay, continue to support it. There is a wealth on information around, take the time to try and get a balanced opinion. It is a very complicated issue, with serious implications.

These debates:

Screw the Senior guys...who do they think they are...we are going to fix them... why do I have to work Christmas... we will out vote their fat / old @sses.

Are nothing new, I've heard them, even thought them myself at one time.

Rough times in a business that is getting worse by the minute.

[Rockie]

This whole "career stagnation" argument is overblown to begin with, and short sighted. At worst you will stagnate for five years and then the whole ball of wax starts moving again. That is pessimistic because according to most on here they have every intention of leaving at 60 anyway. Try a shutdown and see how that stagnates your career. It is also a fallacy that you are entitled to a better job or that senior people owe you anything. They don't.

Regardless, with demographics and the pension situation being what they are today and in the future I think most people would end up glad they had that stagnation when they were younger.

[Letterhead]

Mandatory retirement is allowed, as stated by the courts many times, because it improves Human rights through collective bargaining. CA's revolve around mandatory retirement. Case in point end loading career earnings to enhance pensions. All unions do it because pension calculations center on the best 3-5 years. If is referred to as differed income.

The current pension is based upon your best five years not your last five years. The end loading of your earnings in the twilight of your career is based upon a poor understanding of how the economy functions. A dollar earned today is worth more than a dollar earned tomorrow (time value of money). Many aspects of the collective agreement actually contribute to making pilots poorer than they ought to be. Status pay with higher front loaded pay rates makes more economic sense than the current system. I have heard this argument many times suggesting that formula pay is superior but those advocating the system just make blanket generalizations without an specific argument. I guess if you say something often enough it must be true.

[Al707]

"This whole "career stagnation" argument is overblown to begin with, and short sighted"

Tell that to the guy who'll no longer be able to hold widebody (barely at that!) for his final/best 5 years (for pension purposes) and now needs to settle for A320 or...... follow suit and work till 65 as well!

You guys make me laugh with your BS statements!

[Rockie]

Tell that to the guy who'll no longer be able to hold widebody (barely at that!) for his final/best 5 years (for pension purposes) and now needs to settle for A320 or...... follow suit and work till 65 as well!

I do every morning...me. I'm not upset about it because I recognize that change will occur for many reasons besides the HR thing and there's nothing I can do about it. Plus I don't have an unwarranted sense of entitlement.

[JakeYYZ]

Who, in their right mind, would want to work past 55? I retired at 55 and believe it’s
the smartest thing I’ve ever done. Those that want to go on, are either broke, or have a screw loose.
I no longer need a calculator to determine if I can accept a dinner invitation a month from now.
I don’t have to get up at 04:00 to sit beside someone I wouldn’t normally give the time of day to.
Work past 60! Can’t even imagine it.

[Old fella]

Ditto for me. I never worked in the airline industry but got out of the aviation sector a few years shy of the magical senior citizen age. In a way it was sort of a forced retirement in lieu of a funded re-location. No regrets on leaving and it was a good decision all around and the better half was happy with my decision to leave. Others in the same situation as me did likewise with no regrets as well. The happiest people I see around are the the individuals who see themselves clear to get out of the workforce after putting in their time. Granted there are those who have to stay beyond the senior citizen age because of money and that is understandable and most who do so freely admit it.

However there are those who come up through an industry, be it whatever and they freely indicate their love of their jobs and indicate a desire to stay way past their time when their pensions are fully paid up as they have no interests outside of work and are consumed by their work status(Note Managers as they feel the place will go for a shit without them). I have seen it happen, it is painful to witness and the airline industry is probably no exception I would guess. Throughout my career it was quite easy to spot such persons as all they did was talked about their jobs be it break time, vacation, social gatherings and, of course colleague retirements.In my retirement years I hated to run in to such people and unfortunately, I still do on occasion. I didn’t want to be around such individuals during my working years and even less so now. Maybe this applies to Air Canada cockpits as well; I certainly don’t know but wouldn’t be surprised if it did.
TS and JS, care to reflect….

[ivanhoe]

Who, in their right mind, would want to work past 55? I retired at 55 and believe it’s
the smartest thing I’ve ever done. Those that want to go on, are either broke, or have a screw loose.
I no longer need a calculator to determine if I can accept a dinner invitation a month from now.
I don’t have to get up at 04:00 to sit beside someone I wouldn’t normally give the time of day to.
Work past 60! Can’t even imagine it.

It always amuses me to see posts like this. There's a guy on the aeforum that is always spouting off about how great retirement is , yet he spends a lot of time posting on an airline site. I don't get it.

If retirement is so great , what are you doing here and why do you feel the need to justify your decision to us? ( broke pilots with loose screws)

[Slipstream]

" The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the Few " - the pilots of the narrow body fleet will not allow the seniors to continue to take advantage of us. I am sure that when this is all over there will be a better distribution of the benefits of being a pilot at Air Canada. I am sure the majority of us are anxious for this chance to make things fair.

[sepia]

Who, in their right mind, would want to work past 55? I retired at 55 and believe it’s
the smartest thing I’ve ever done. Those that want to go on, are either broke, or have a screw loose.
I no longer need a calculator to determine if I can accept a dinner invitation a month from now.
I don’t have to get up at 04:00 to sit beside someone I wouldn’t normally give the time of day to.
Work past 60! Can’t even imagine it.

It always amuses me to see posts like this. There's a guy on the aeforum that is always spouting off about how great retirement is , yet he spends a lot of time posting on an airline site. I don't get it.

If retirement is so great , what are you doing here and why do you feel the need to justify your decision to us? ( broke pilots with loose screws)

Ivanhoe: just because someone retires doesn't mean that they suddenly lose all interest in what they've done for the last 30yrs. I'd think retirement would be the best of both worlds with the internet now. Stay in touch with things your interested in, without having to depart at 11pm to fly across the North Atlantic. I didn't take his post as trying to justify his decision. I just took it as someone adding their point of view.

[ivanhoe]

sepia

I can see that point of view.

It just ticks me off when others make judgements with regard to anothers wants or needs. Hey , if a guys life revolves around his job and it makes him happy , that's his business.

My point of view on this whole subject is...let everyone decide what's best for themselves and act accordingly.

[JakeYYZ]

You’re right, Ivanhoe. I’m no longer with BIG RED and really shouldn’t post on the AC thread.
In fact, since joining AvCanada, I made a pledge to myself to neither view nor post on the AC thread. I think I have failed twice. Henceforth, I shall confine myself to “Misc/Political/Humor” threads.

Kind regards,

Jake

[Old fella]

Myself and the rest of the "old fellas" moved aside when the time was ripe (retired). By doing so, that created promotions from the inside and enabled some external hiring (aka bring in new blood with fresh thinking and enthusiasm).
If I was a young junior F/O on a B767 having to sit across from some cranky ex-CAI 60+ yr old who has been through umpteen mergers and paying off a few ex-wives to boot………….

[Rockie]

Myself and the rest of the "old fellas" moved aside when the time was ripe (retired). By doing so, that created promotions from the inside and enabled some external hiring (aka bring in new blood with fresh thinking and enthusiasm).
If I was a young junior F/O on a B767 having to sit across from some cranky ex-CAI 60+ yr old who has been through umpteen mergers and paying off a few ex-wives to boot………….

I hate to wave the BS flag here, but nobody retires out of a sense of responsibility to those below them on the seniority list. They retire willingly only because it suits them personally, or they are forced out.