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

[Jastapilot]

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.

Very true.

[Old fella]

That is what I said " when the time is ripe". Old fellas have have a feeling that you younger chaps don't have and that feeling... " IT'S TIME".

Over and out!!!!!!

[Max111]

Update

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear the additional age discrimination cases against Air Canada and ACPA with a start date of July 20th . The Tribunal is scheduled to last two weeks. Sixty nine new cases will be included and the number is growing with each passing month. It is expected that a decision will be rendered by the Tribunal on the Vilven-Kelly complaint prior to July 20th to better assist the parties in their defense.

[W5]

Air Canada Pilots Association critical of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0908 ... ada_pilots

The other side:

http://www.carp.ca/

[Churrasco]

The current AC/ACPA collective agreement has been negotiated using the premise that the members of ACPA will retire at 60. There is nothing illegal or discriminatory about renegotiating the collective agreement to minimize the effects of seniority and more evenly spread the wealth among the pilot group. Status pay is one option, assigned blocks (like those at Westjet, CX or EK) are another - the winner take all seniority system that has plagued the airline for over 60 years will most likely be dismantled.

There are so many different ways to take the wind out of the complainant's sails and frankly all of these ideas would be marked improvements for the airline and its workers. The whole notion of deferred compensation, outlined in the CHRT's decision, is foolish given the high corporate failure rate in the airline industry. The current AC/ACPA collective agreement is a result of 60+ years of industrial relations and certainly not the template any sane person starting fresh would opt to negotiate - and if you look at the successful carriers (CX, EK and WJ) none do.

It is decades of bargaining history and inertia that has contributed to the current circumstance at Air Canada and now the workers and their employer have an opportunity to right the ship. If this is accomplished in the weeks and months to come the profession will improve.

The vitriol of those who will suffer at the hands of the complainants may actually be the catalyst that leads the profession to a better place. It will be a difficult time for everyone over the next few months.

Bon chance.

[Thirteentennorth]

So, in the socialist republic of Canuckistan, individual 'rights' trump collective rights yet again.

[Rockie]

So, in the socialist republic of Canuckistan, individual 'rights' trump collective rights yet again. Pathetic freakin' country!

Your individual rights are what allowed you to make this post without going to jail in the first place. In many other places in this world you wouldn't be so lucky.

[tonysoprano]

Well Rocky, great wisdom and quite sage you are but remove his sarcasm and his statement reveals a truth you can't deny. The CHRT has meddled with a private company's Collective, Negotiated, Binding Agreement. It`s bad enough the company has meddled with it for years, now the majority of us have to bend over for the CHRT as well. As a side note, I believe that in Europe, as elsewhere, they also have age 65 but individual companies still allow their pilots to retire well before that age. I wonder if we`ll see the same or will the courts also dictate how this contract violation will be enforced as well...

[Rockie]

I believe that in Europe, as elsewhere, they also have age 65 but individual companies still allow their pilots to retire well before that age. I wonder if we`ll see the same or will the courts also dictate how this contract violation will be enforced as well...

Not even the courts or HRTC can tell you you must work till 65. The conditions under which you leave at 60 if you still choose is what ACPA should have been preparing for all along...but haven't...and still aren't. When they finally get around to it there will be a lot to catch up on wouldn't you agree?

[tonysoprano]

When they finally get around to it there will be a lot to catch up on wouldn't you agree?

Maybe. But who cares? What's the rush? I think ACPA is getting legal advise and studying implementation of this contract violation. I know you would have wanted this to be ready ages ago but that's not how the real world works. You wanted APCA to admit defeat before going to battle. ACPA did what the majority of its membership requested. It wasn't ACPA you should have targeted, it was the membership you should have convinced. Realizing full well you couldn't do that, in the end it only took the brainwashing of a handful of people at the HRTC. You may not like or agree with how this was handled by ACPA but you'll be even less impressed with how it gets handled from this point in. Just a hunch.

[Rockie]

Maybe. But who cares? What's the rush?

By not caring and doing nothing proactively about it we risk someone else defining the manner in which this is implemented. Personally I would rather we define how this is implemented.

You wanted APCA to admit defeat before going to battle.

No. I wanted ACPA to be smart and realize the chances of winning this battle were very slim, and to prepare for the day they lost. They haven't prepared and they have lost. Their next step in the legal battle is just wasting more time and money, and giving those who don't want it to happen false hope that it won't.

ACPA did what the majority of its membership requested.

ACPA's job to lead as much as follow. They failed in that regard and continue to fail by all accounts.

It wasn't ACPA you should have targeted, it should have been the membership you should have convinced.

I haven't targeted ACPA at all, in fact I have not corresponded with them on this matter whatsoever because as you stated they are only doing what the majority membership want them to do. Nothing more. I have been trying to convince the membership that they should be preparing for the day they lose this fight. Do you think the membership have been listening?

But in the end, it only took the brainwashing of a handful of people at the HRTC.

As the saying goes this wasn't their first barbecue. They aren't idiots, and just because they produce a ruling you don't happen to agree with doesn't mean they were brainwashed.

You may not like or agree with how this was handled by ACPA but you'll be even less impressed with how it gets handled from this point in.

ACPA and our membership have done absolutely nothing useful to handle it. Anything they do that actually recognizes the reality of this situation will be an improvement.

[tonysoprano]

Rockie.
You seem to have a problem understanding how ACPA works. It is a grassroots organization which means it gets its input and mandate from the membership. The membership has always and will always be against age 65. Nothing to do with leading or following, ACPA simply represents and fights for the will of the majority of the group. We also happen to have a democratic process whereby the will of the majority, and to some extent the minority, gives guidance and mandate to the Association. The lengthy and costly polling process which asked the members what their priorities were for the last contract negotes are an example. They do their best to represent everyone, but asking them to prepare for the "inevitable" at the cost of the needs and the will of the membership only shows how narrow minded you are.

[Clyde River]

Tony:

This is my first post here, so bear with me please.

I don't believe that age 65 is a limit. There is no limit as far as the CHRT is concerned. There may be a practical limit with ICAO however.

I agree with the bulk of your posting regarding the mandate of ACPA to represent the majority interest.

There has been much talk of comparisons in the apparent denial of rights. I don't agree that anyone's rights have been denied to this point, but probably the benchmark was due to be changed at some point in time I suppose.

The comparisons that seem to bear the most emotion, and maybe the most weight with a group like the -CHRT, revolve around the rights of blacks in the past being denied by a whites that considered it normal that blacks with inferior.

Any comparison by the flypast60 group is the antithesis of the real situation I believe. There are numerous other emotional comparisons that have been used, but similar.

The comparison(s) is/are backwards because :

-the flypast60 group has always been on the inside, or the accepted members, vs black/white issue where blacks were always on the outside, or other deprived right comparisons.

-the flypast60 pilots have reached the peak of there earning potential, for the most part, with the airline, whereas a deprived group probably was never part of the elite earners.

-the flypast60 pilots reached that elite group because of the limitations of the collective agreement that allowed them into that elite status, not an avenue available to a deprived group.

The CHRT has made a finding. The right to fly past 60 has been determined. I don't believe that will be reversed.

The argument is: When does that take effect? Is there a claim for damage?

The flypast60's knew that 60 was a retirement age, and there was an end to the privilege. There has to be an end to that privilege even as defined by the CHRT in their finding, and that has yet to be defined. The members knew the rules until the CHRT finding. Even in the USA, the finding was not retroactive. There is no practical way make that retroactive, except possibly to the Aug. 28 date of the finding I guess.

The claim of damage against ACPA and ACPA members appears to be one where ACPA under the constitution of the union, the best interest of the members, and the direction of the members, as you point out, was one to challenge the existing requirement to retire at 60. How can there be a claim of damage where the union was carrying out their mandate, abiding by the collective agreement, and acting in good faith for the majority of the members under an agreement that has been in places for decades?

I believe that the right decision is new retirement age will be established, with no retro activity (date to be determined), that the flypast60 have won the "right", there is no compensation for ACPA acting on behalf of the membership as any union would do in my opinion, that AC and ACPA must rework the collective agreement without prejudice to incorporate the necessary adjustments to allow the finding, that there is a normal retirement formula, that there is a declining scale of benefits (GDIIP for example).

Thanks for bearing with me.

[tonysoprano]

Well put Clyde and the questions you raise will decide what this will all cost Air Canada and its employees. To me, all the intellectual wisdom used to support the ruling has overshadowed the reality of the consequences. I also wonder what implications this precedence will have in the future. When I reach 65, will I be able to go to the HRT and claim that I am good enough to fly to 68? 70? and therefore my rights are compromised? What does this say for collective bargaining in Canada?

[Slipstream]

Clyde - nice post - you probably are correct - no one is going to get what they truly want - the future is now uncertian - good luck to us all !

[Rockie]

Rockie.
You seem to have a problem understanding how ACPA works. It is a grassroots organization which means it gets its input and mandate from the membership. The membership has always and will always be against age 65. Nothing to do with leading or following, ACPA simply represents and fights for the will of the majority of the group. We also happen to have a democratic process whereby the will of the majority, and to some extent the minority, gives guidance and mandate to the Association. The lengthy and costly polling process which asked the members what their priorities were for the last contract negotes are an example. They do their best to represent everyone, but asking them to prepare for the "inevitable" at the cost of the needs and the will of the membership only shows how narrow minded you are.

Tony

Grassroots doesn't mean ACPA should check their brains at the door. Their mandate is to represent the interests of the membership, and I can't believe they believe the members interests are properly represented by fighting a battle that was not going to be won and doing nothing against that eventuality. ALPA was smarter than that and their members interests have been much better defended because of it. I don't see how preparing for an eventuality costs the need and the will of the membership anything. To me it's kind of like being a boy scout and being prepared for what's coming. It doesn't imply resignation, it is just being smart, which we are not being.

This is a done deal regardless of the members wishes. The time to prepare for it was a long time ago, but now that it's here we still are doing nothing about it. I just don't get it. Would you pretend your engine wasn't on fire?

[the original tony]

My guess is that since there is nothing in our contract that states anything past 60, we have to vote on what is to be done.
Now is the fun part. As a company can we tell you when to retire, now i guess not.
As a company can we tell you where you are going to be seated after 60, you're f*(&ing right we can.
Since this has NOTHING to do with money, let's see, the best spot for such seasoned, experienced pilots...........nowhere that will be blocking anyones path to advancement.
Right seat Emb or RP. Fly to your hearts content, but not 8 days a month to Hong Kong.

Tony

[Rockie]

As a company can we tell you where you are going to be seated after 60, you're f*(&ing right we can.

You're forgetting that those people have seniority numbers higher than yours, and their seat remains theirs until they decide to vacate it. Altering that seniority driven system will not be easy and cannot be done without changing our entire pay system (which badly needs some updating in my opinion) and many other aspects of our working conditions. Status pay anyone?

We need to get out of this way of thinking that their seat is by rights yours when they turn 60. That is not the case anymore, and throwing senior people into the pit just because they turn 60 isn't going to work. Their status will not change from 59 to 60 anymore than yours will going from 49 to 50. We also need to stop obsessing about their motivation or making pariah's out of them, because that does nothing to protect our interests and only inflames irrelevant and corrosive emotions. Eventually you are going to be them.

When all is said and done I think it is extremely unlikely those that have already retired pre-ruling will be permitted to return because that will be an unacceptable financial burden on the company due to retraining costs, and there is plenty of precedent against making rulings like that retroactive. But that won't happen by itself, and if we as a group want to ensure that doesn't happen then we have to be making the case, which we aren't. Likewise if we want to protect the ability of those of us who still want to go at 60 then we need to be making that case as well, which we aren't. The ruling also states no limit whatsoever on retirement age, but in our world it is not possible to fly internationally older than the ICAO age of 65. The details of that will have to be worked out and the company will likely be spearheading that effort, but it is in our interest as well and we need to be stating that case too, which we aren't.

In fact we are not even thinking about it much less doing anything about it.

Age 60+ is now fact, and the fight against it is over. We are only hurting ourselves by refusing to accept it and not participate in implementing it.

[Brick Head]

You're forgetting that those people have seniority numbers higher than yours, and their seat remains theirs until they decide to vacate it.

Rockie,

That statement is opinion only, and in my opinion wrong. An individuals right to a position is contractual. In this case the contract is clear on what belongs to whom and when.There is an assumption or notion out there, by some, that access to a position that contractually belongs to someone else is a human rights issue. Therefore it over rides labor law and the contract. That is opinion only and will be the subject of phase two of this fight if those who wish to stay post 60 keep pushing for it.

I agree though that there will be a fine line to navigate between what would be considered age discrimination and what would be considered a unions right to divide up the collective pie. Doing something to post 60 workers that appears demeaning will not be permitted.

As for people staying post 60? We could end up with an appeal and a stay yet as this moves through the courts. Assuming that does not happen, we need to wait for remedy, as quite often the CHRT will use a collective agreement expiration as the line in the sand. (if it is not deemed to be to far off in the future.) As you pointed out the training cost involved in bringing people back would be an unrealistic burden on the company. So too would letting those stay, although to a lesser degree, who have already had their replacements trained. The CHRT has a history of allowing time for transition where complex contractual and human resource factors exist.

Your criticism over not doing anything on this subject is a little puzzling. This subject matter will be part of the remedy arguments that have yet to happen. It is impossible for you to know what preparation has, or has not happened. The comment appears to be no more than pure speculation with the intent to tarnish your opponent.

[Rockie]

That statement is opinion only, and in my opinion wrong. An individuals right to a position is contractual.

Seniority is something that applies or it doesn't. Arbitrarily setting a date in someone's career where their seniority no longer applies according to the wishes of the membership is a dangerous thing to do, because that date will move as the demographics of the pilot group changes and another vote is held. You think there are bad feelings now? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

Your criticism over not doing anything on this subject is a little puzzling. This subject matter will be part of the remedy arguments that have yet to happen. It is impossible for you to know what preparation has, or has not happened. The comment appears to be no more than pure speculation with the intent to tarnish your opponent.

Admittedly I am assuming ACPA has done nothing in the way of preparation for this ruling. Since they have mentioned nothing about the subject except using all the resources of the union to fight it I think that assumption is reasonable. However if they have laid the groundwork for implementation in secret then I heartily applaud them for that and unconditionally withdraw my criticism.

[tonysoprano]

Admittedly I am assuming ACPA has done nothing in the way of preparation for this ruling.

Is it me or does that statement seem to appear over and over again? Is it some kind of way of making others believe something by repeating it? I guess if you say it enough times, you might actually sound convincing. No, not really. I think we get your point Rockie.

[Brick Head]

Seniority is something that applies or it doesn't. Arbitrarily setting a date in someone's career where their seniority no longer applies according to the wishes of the membership is a dangerous thing to do, because that date will move as the demographics of the pilot group changes and another vote is held. You think there are bad feelings now? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

huh? We do all the time. XX month freeze on up bid. XX month freeze on down bid. Freeze XX months from retirement.

Just throwing this out there. This is just off the top of my head. Haven't put any thought into this at all. Just an example of a what if. What about a freeze from the 550 wide body captain positions that if not vacated as contractually outline, and agreed upon by all, will prevent other from attaining a max pension by 60?

Is that age discrimination? Or is it a union seeking constructive ways to look after the needs of the membership?

[Rockie]

Seniority is something that applies or it doesn't. Arbitrarily setting a date in someone's career where their seniority no longer applies according to the wishes of the membership is a dangerous thing to do, because that date will move as the demographics of the pilot group changes and another vote is held. You think there are bad feelings now? I don't think anyone wants to go down that road.

huh? We do all the time. XX month freeze on up bid. XX month freeze on down bid. Freeze XX months from retirement.

Just throwing this out there. This is just off the top of my head. Haven't put any thought into this at all. Just an example of a what if. What about a freeze from the 550 wide body captain positions that if not vacated as contractually outline, and agreed upon by all, will prevent other from attaining a max pension by 60?

Is that age discrimination? Or is it a union seeking constructive ways to look after the needs of the membership?

Senior pilots are members too don't forget. The particular freezes you mention are cost mitigating measures put in place at the behest of the company, and are temporary in nature after the member has exercised their seniority in another way. And none of them strip the pilot of their current position. A completely different animal than what you are talking about for pilots going beyond 60.

If we had status pay this would be a non-issue. You get paid for your status and years of service regardless of what kind of iron you drive around. Implementing it would be a bear though and painful for all involved, but after a period of years it would remove an awful lot of complications.

[lawndart]

How about letting 60+ folks keep their assigned position and bidding priority, but inserting anyone over 60 into the position group? Since it isn't about money and all. PG is an arbitrary assignment to those hired after a certain date anyway.

[Clyde River]

You're forgetting that those people have seniority numbers higher than yours, and their seat remains theirs until they decide to vacate it.

Rockie,

That statement is opinion only, and in my opinion wrong. An individuals right to a position is contractual. In this case the contract is clear on what belongs to whom and when.There is an assumption or notion out there, by some, that access to a position that contractually belongs to someone else is a human rights issue. Therefore it over rides labor law and the contract. That is opinion only and will be the subject of phase two of this fight if those who wish to stay post 60 keep pushing for it.

I agree though that there will be a fine line to navigate between what would be considered age discrimination and what would be considered a unions right to divide up the collective pie. Doing something to post 60 workers that appears demeaning will not be permitted.

As for people staying post 60? We could end up with an appeal and a stay yet as this moves through the courts. Assuming that does not happen, we need to wait for remedy, as quite often the CHRT will use a collective agreement expiration as the line in the sand. (if it is not deemed to be to far off in the future.) As you pointed out the training cost involved in bringing people back would be an unrealistic burden on the company. So too would letting those stay, although to a lesser degree, who have already had their replacements trained. The CHRT has a history of allowing time for transition where complex contractual and human resource factors exist.

Your criticism over not doing anything on this subject is a little puzzling. This subject matter will be part of the remedy arguments that have yet to happen. It is impossible for you to know what preparation has, or has not happened. The comment appears to be no more than pure speculation with the intent to tarnish your opponent.

Do not lose sight of the fact that seniority, as imperfect as that might be for pay, advancement, etc, also does protect you. What yardstick would you use for advancement? Would it be a points system or one of the most worthy, most keen, least bookoffs, best ride? For example, in the most extreme situation, you might potentially have direct entry captains inserted ahead of you...or me.

The status pay issue has been studied. There is a cost initially, with a saving to the company in the long run, but the saving potential was not willing to be recognized by AC in the past. I don't know if any of the original pilots that did the study are still around. One of them was a now retired pilot, Dave Peters, as I remember.

In my opinion, there are pressing matters within the structure of the collective agreement that need to be addressed. The status pay issue could be studied for vote and possible implementation at some point in the future, but I don't believe the membership as whole have the desire to embrace a wholesale change of our WAWCON. In my opinion, we have to approach the changes absolutely required for >60 pilots very carefully, so that we don't end up getting screwed in that process...again.

Clyde