Is 60 too old?

[ivanhoe]

Interesting opinions at the bottom of the story.




http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story ... nipeg.html

[KAG]

WJ has 65 as a CPT, and as old as you want as an FO until you lose your medical. If your fit, of sound mind, and actually WANT to fly, why not? I've got nothing against it. Sure it holds up the newer hires from upgrades, but alot of people have lost their nest eggs with the stock crash need a few more years of work.

[Old fella]

Most people work beyond 60 yrs of age because they have to, not because they want to. At that age( I am there now) you accomplished what you set out to do - give or take a little, you have nothing else to prove and what ever happened, happened.

As luck should have it, I didn't have to work any more and glad I don't. I certainly don't miss it

[bmc]

Most people work beyond 60 yrs of age because they have to, not because they want to. At that age( I am there now) you accomplished what you set out to do - give or take a little, you have nothing else to prove and what ever happened, happened.

As luck should have it, I didn't have to work any more and glad I don't. I certainly don't miss it

Did you grow up with the Wright Brothers?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Is 60 too old?

No.

[Old fella]

Is 60 too old?

No.

But you can collect your CPP(at a reduced rate - most do) and take advantage of those "seniors" discounts!!!!!!!!

[WF9F]

Kag ,
These greedy , selfish pilots advanced to their respective senior positions because of others leaving at 60. It has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing ones pension because of the stock crash.It is about making 200+ and working 8-9 days a month for 6 months a year. Greed, plain and simple. It is what it is and if the ruling stands against forced retirement at 60 then fine but implement it from now and for any new hires. It is OK for some senior guy to say to new hires " you knew what the pay was when you accepted the job" but so did they when they knew you had to retire at 60.
This will change a lot of things in our contract and for the better IMO. It would be pretty naive to think that our pay structure, vacation bidding, minimum days worked per month will not chage in the future so these few can still hog the troff and screw the guys behind them. The seniority entrenched system we have is going to change and it's about time. Some fairness for all is just what the doctor ordered.
Think about it again from a not so senior AC pilots perspective.

[yycflyguy]

Kag ,
These greedy , selfish pilots advanced to their respective senior positions because of others leaving at 60. It has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing ones pension because of the stock crash.It is about making 200+ and working 8-9 days a month for 6 months a year. Greed, plain and simple. It is what it is and if the ruling stands against forced retirement at 60 then fine but implement it from now and for any new hires. It is OK for some senior guy to say to new hires " you knew what the pay was when you accepted the job" but so did they when they knew you had to retire at 60.
This will change a lot of things in our contract and for the better IMO. It would be pretty naive to think that our pay structure, vacation bidding, minimum days worked per month will not chage in the future so these few can still hog the troff and screw the guys behind them. The seniority entrenched system we have is going to change and it's about time. Some fairness for all is just what the doctor ordered.
Think about it again from a not so senior AC pilots perspective.

[Brick Head]

This will change a lot of things in our contract and for the better IMO. It would be pretty naive to think that our pay structure, vacation bidding, minimum days worked per month will not chage in the future so these few can still hog the troff and screw the guys behind them. The seniority entrenched system we have is going to change and it's about time. Some fairness for all is just what the doctor ordered.

WF9F,

This ruling is what I feared the most. Not the ability for people to stay past 60 per say, but rather an imposed inability by the CHRT for us to change our collective agreement to make sure the collective pie is distributed as intended. Judging by the wording, (my opinion) anything that would strip even the slightest benefit from someone over 60 will be considered age discrimination. Everything from status pay to rotating vacation ect all negatively impact their benefit.

The CHRT looks to be stepping into a unions right to collectively bargain and to distribute the collective pie as they see fit. On this ground alone this ruling must be appealed.

As it stands with this ruling a 777 CA who stays to 65 will remove a million dollars from the collective pie that was intended to other individuals.

As it stands we have 523 positions that pay enough to achieve a max pension. Every one of those positions that do not become vacant as planned, means someone else won't get a full pension at age 60. To achieve a full pension they will have to keep working. Waiting until someone ahead of them chooses to retire.

The only benefactors here are those that presently occupy one of the 523 positions and choose to stay. Everyone else will now have to work for less, and work longer for the same pension benefit or choose to retire as planned at 60 with a smaller benefit.

This ruling needs to be appealed. Collective bargaining rights must not be infringed upon. As mandatory retirement slowly gets repealed throughout the country labor groups need the ability to make sure that the collective pie gets divided up as intended. That pension benefits are paid as intended. That specific demographic groups don't walk off with their peers benefits.

However one must remember that we live with a legal system. Not a justice system.

[Rockie]

These greedy , selfish pilots advanced to their respective senior positions because of others leaving at 60. It has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing ones pension because of the stock crash.It is about making 200+ and working 8-9 days a month for 6 months a year. Greed, plain and simple.

Greed is a term equally appropriate for the "instant gratification" people who want what the senior guys have, and don't want to wait for it any longer than they are now. It's time to stop using that term in this discussion.

It is OK for some senior guy to say to new hires " you knew what the pay was when you accepted the job" but so did they when they knew you had to retire at 60.

Both terms are irrelevant in a constantly changing world, and especially irrelevant now with this ruling. Time to stop using this argument as well.

Think about it again from a not so senior AC pilots perspective.

Junior pilots need to start thinking beyond the next equipment bid and take a longer view of this. If they were hired past their 25th birthday it means they may now get to collect a full pension. Something they couldn't do before. It also means the pension will be much healthier with pilots paying into it longer rather than drawing from it. It's easy to see how this may have saved our pension altogether. Plus, you have no idea what your situation will be 10 or 20 years from now, so I wouldn't be trying to slam any doors on your options just yet.

This will change a lot of things in our contract and for the better IMO. It would be pretty naive to think that our pay structure, vacation bidding, minimum days worked per month will not chage in the future so these few can still hog the troff and screw the guys behind them. The seniority entrenched system we have is going to change and it's about time. Some fairness for all is just what the doctor ordered.

Exactly. The old system is obsolete and needed to be changed. We will all benefit from this if it is done correctly, but sticking our head in the ground and wasting time and rescources fighting a lost battle is not going to do that.

[Brick Head]

Exactly. The old system is obsolete and needed to be changed. We will all benefit from this if it is done correctly.......

You have a lot of nerve. You lecture WF9F on his arguments being less than rational, then you tell him that this is good for him with no rational back up at all from yourself?

We will all benefit? Back that statement up.

So what do you propose? I haven't, as of yet, heard one suggestion from the over 60 crowd on how we can all benefit from this.

How do you propose to eliminate the wealth transfer this will cause?

How do you propose to eliminate smaller pensions for those retiring at 60?

[Rockie]

Exactly. The old system is obsolete and needed to be changed. We will all benefit from this if it is done correctly.......

You have a lot of nerve. You lecture WF9F on his arguments being less than rational, then you tell him that this is good for him with no rational back up at all from yourself?

We will all benefit? Back that statement up.

So what do you propose? I haven't, as of yet, heard one suggestion from the over 60 crowd on how we can all benefit from this.

How do you propose to eliminate the wealth transfer this will cause?

How do you propose to eliminate smaller pensions for those retiring at 60?

I was simply agreeing with comments made by WF9F himself. Deep within his anger he somehow caught a glimpse of some positives that can come out of this and I agree with those. All of those questions you ask are very valid, and I submit should have been considered right from the very start of this discussion. But they weren't, and now we have to find the answers to those question from behind the eight ball because we've done nothing about it up till now. Ray hall and others including me have advocated addressing these questions long before now, but no one was interested.

The blame game has no end and is utterly counter-productive. Let's finally stop playing it and start working on making this work instead.

Oh yes..

"I haven't, as of yet, heard one suggestion from the over 60 crowd on how we can all benefit from this."

I don't know about the over 60 crowd, but I've suggested some benefits in my last post, and WF9F has in his. Maybe you're just so angry you aren't looking for anything good to come out of this?

[Slipstream]

Thanks to all the Greedy old pilots at AC - I guess your family life sucks and you don't want to spend time with your wife, kids and grand kids. Remember guys you can't take the money with you - enjoy time with your families and stop f*cking over the junior pilots. You got to the top by guys retiring at 60 so have some dignity and do the right thing - Go enjoy your retirement with your loved ones and enjoy life - relax - look back on a great career and don't ruin it by being selfish and greedy. LEAVE at 60 like everyone before you did.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

You didn't answer the question. You made the statement. Please quantify it.

This is good for everyone? How?

As for your strategic blame game about who's at fault for no advanced mitigation measures? There was not in the past, nor now, a way to proactively alleviate this situation. For you to suggest so, while a convenient way to deflect criticism and then excuse yourself from a discussion about harm, is incredibly disingenuous. Why? Because you know full well there has never been an opportunity to address these issues without someone screaming age discrimination to the CHRT. From the very outset this has been about continuing to work with full benefits beyond 60. Anything less was never acceptable to the complainants. They have been clear from the outset on this issue.

The reason there has never been anything done to mitigate the situation is because the position of the two groups was so polarized. Not because someone stuck their head in the sand as you so love to suggest.

So please enlighten us all on how we will all benefit from this if it is done correctly? It sounds like you have a workable solution. Or at least the statement leaves that impression. Is the statement merely an attempt at appeasement or does it have substance?

Waiting

As for stop fighting this? I have agreed for along time. Post age 60 is coming. However we must keep fighting for an equitable implimentation. As I said earlier. This ruling needs to be appealed. Collective bargaining rights must not be infringed upon. As mandatory retirement slowly gets repealed throughout the country labor groups need the ability to make sure that the collective pie gets divided up as intended. That pension benefits are paid as intended. That specific demographic groups don't use the opportunity to walk off with their peers benefits.

This ruling must be fought.

[Rockie]

Brickhead

This is an emotionally volitile subject that has already resulted in the ACPA forum being shut down. It's too bad because this subject desperately needs calm discussion to work through which is now much more difficult. From reading previous posts from you I get the impression you are thoughtful and levelheaded, and I hope you can remain so discussing this issue. If not, I will back away because there is nothing to be gained by name calling and vitriol.

This is good for everyone? How?

I will cut and paste what I put on another thread as a start:

1. Pilots are older now when they're hired as opposed to when our pension was originally set up. The average newhire is 35 instead of 25, so Air Canada pilots joining for the last decade or so and on into the future would never be able to get a full pension if age 60 stands. If they aren't clairvoyant enough to see that now, they surely will when they get a little older and see the writing on the wall.

2. Defined Benefit pensions are rapidly becoming a threatened species. This will help ensure the long term viability of ours because....

3. People are living longer. The world in general is going to have to throw out some old conventions in recognition of this, and one of them is pensions. The longer people live the more they draw on the pension, and if there isn't an offsetting additional contribution then they aren't going to last very long.

In addition to that here are some thoughts from another pilot who is actually opposed to it, but find some silver lining in it regardless:

"This will change a lot of things in our contract and for the better IMO. It would be pretty naive to think that our pay structure, vacation bidding, minimum days worked per month will not chage in the future so these few can still hog the troff and screw the guys behind them. The seniority entrenched system we have is going to change and it's about time. Some fairness for all is just what the doctor ordered."

As for your strategic blame game about who's at fault for no advanced mitigation measures? There was not in the past, nor now, a way to proactively alleviate this situation.

This is simply not true, and in previous threads I've posted a link to what ALPA has done to protect the interests of all pilots knowing that they were going in the same direction. It lays down fundamental principles that all party's agreed to at the outset when 60+ is implemented in the US. We have done nothing like that when we should have. Instead we put all our eggs in the one basket that was sure to fail.

From the very outset this has been about continuing to work with full benefits beyond 60. Anything less was never acceptable to the complainants. They have been clear from the outset on this issue.

The final outcome will not be what the complainants want either, and continuing to ostrasize them to the detriment of dealing with the situation is getting us nowhere.

The reason there has never been anything done to mitigate the situation is because the position of the two groups was so polarized.

That's no excuse for not dealing with it. We're supposed to be mature, reasonably smart adults and we haven't acted like it. The kind of dialogue like the post immediately before yours is pointless and only worsens this situation. It also results in forums being disolved as has already happened. People need to cool off and discuss this calmly or stay out of it for everyones sake.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

All excellent points. I'll add a point 4 that dwarfs the previous 3 in the grand scheme of things. By 2020 there simply won't be enough workers to support the economy. This isn't an economics thread so I will stop there. But the ramifications are not minor. Look no further than the Alberta rate of inflation during the recent worker drought for a sneak peak. Yes this is coming. And yes we need to manage how it takes place so that the end result is equitable for all.

This whole disagreement comes down to this. Money.

What people object to is the single richest demographic group, opportunistically using the change over for personal financial gain, at the expense of their poorer peers.

This must be opposed. And will continue to be opposed. If you have payed attention to ACPA there message has not been absolute opposition to working past 60. It has been absolute opposition to the resulting wealth transfer it would cause. ACPA has fought hard to maintain their right to decide how the collective pie is divided, so that if need be, they could intervene to stop the wealth transfer. Unfortunately this latest ruling likely severely hampers ACPA's ability to make sure this change over happens equitably. It therefore must be challenged.

Lets face it. If the complainants were willing to make sure they didn't take what belonged to someone else, this issue wouldn't even be on the radar. As it stands though this is not the case. So long as someone is trying to take something that rightfully belongs to someone else, even if cloaked in human rights, it will be opposed.

Simply put. You have a right not to be discriminated against due age. You do not have a right to take what belongs to others.

[Rockie]

Simply put. You have a right not to be discriminated against due age. You do not have a right to take what belongs to others

You're right in that it's all about money. But with this last statement you are assuming something that isn't so in the eyes of the law, and which goes against every tenet of seniority. A senior position on an aircraft doesn't belong to anybody else until the current legitimate occupant vacates it. This is one of the issues that will have to be addressed.

[Brick Head]

Simply put. You have a right not to be discriminated against due age. You do not have a right to take what belongs to others

You're right in that it's all about money. But with this last statement you are assuming something that isn't so in the eyes of the law, and which goes against every tenet of seniority. A senior position on an aircraft doesn't belong to anybody else until the current legitimate occupant vacates it. This is one of the issues that will have to be addressed.

Well I must respect your honesty. However your attitude is exactly why this dispute has ended up in litigation and why it will likely stay there for a long time. It is why there is really no point in discussion. There is no common ground.

ACPA and AC have agreed to a contract. You and I have agreed to the same contract as a condition of employment. That contract specifically outlines each individuals right to their portion of the collective pie. It is clear and concise.

The problem here is not the clarity of what contractually belongs to who. The problem is that some people don't understand that taking something that belongs to someone else is wrong.

Two different sets of laws are colliding here. Human rights and labor law. This issue, not ours per say, but the issue of unwinding mandatory retirement in this country is in its infancy. Using human rights legislation to trump labor law, in an effort to take that which contractually belongs to your peers, is an abuse of the legislation's intent.

Do you really think the CHA was meant to allow individuals to legally extract that which belongs to others?

Although I respect your honesty. All you have really done is solidified my belief that your position and attitude must be opposed at every turn.

Yes it is happening. It looks like we have a long fight a head of us over implementing it equitably.

[tonysoprano]

This was never about ability or human rights. This is not a do-gooder scenario. Anything but. This was all about greed and taking care of one's interests "a la Madof" at the expense of others. What's worse is the justice system once again was chewing on granola bars and dreaming of psychedelic smoke rings while the weezles were in tears. In the end that's all the judges saw. First the merger greed, now the age greed. Yep, some sure know where to look for gold. It's called Air Canada. Only this isn't mining. This is raping. I am sorry for the harshness but once again, the justice system failed for Air Canada employees. I expect this to be a thorn in me until I retire. At 60!

[Brick Head]

I expect for this to be a thorn in me until I retire. At 60!

This is likely just a direction change on the way to our final destination. This whole attitude of Human Rights legislation being used to extract wealth from peers has to make its way through the appeals courts. They will be viewing this from a much broader perspective than the CHRT.

[tonysoprano]

Right then, why don't we just do away with contracts, organized labour and democracy and let the justice system decide how companies will conduct their business and heck while were at it why don't we let judges decide who gets hired and who is or isn't qualified to be a pilot or a doctor or a plumber.

Just repeating myself.

[lawndart]

Hopefully the compensation / damages awarded to the complainants will be adjusted for the age discrimination that got them to their present positions. Why should someone get to claim age discrimination only when it applies to them? Had those ahead of the complainants not been forced to retire at 60, they wouldn't have been in the position they are in now. Their entire careers have been "accelerated" by 5 years due to age discrimination; every promotion would have come five years later had they not been reaping the benefits of the discriminatory policy, so any compensation for being forced out early should reflect that.

In the new age-blind utopia, they only would have been 320 captains instead of 767 skippers, or being promoted to 777 drivers at 59 instead of 54 or whatever the case might be.

[rudder]

Hopefully the compensation / damages awarded to the complainants will be adjusted for the age discrimination that got them to their present positions. Why should someone get to claim age discrimination only when it applies to them? Had those ahead of the complainants not been forced to retire at 60, they wouldn't have been in the position they are in now. Their entire careers have been "accelerated" by 5 years due to age discrimination; every promotion would have come five years later had they not been reaping the benefits of the discriminatory policy, so any compensation for being forced out early should reflect that.

In the new age-blind utopia, they only would have been 320 captains instead of 767 skippers, or being promoted to 777 drivers at 59 instead of 54 or whatever the case might be.

The ICAO age 65 rule change that modified the industry standard was the game changer. Therefore, in the 'remedy' portion of the hearings this time frame will be highly relevant. It is unlikely what happened before the rule change will be given much weight. Under the 'duty to accomodate' requirements, it is much more practical to keep two post age 60 pilots out of the same flight deck than it would have been to keep a post-age 60 Captain in Canadian domestic airspace only. It wil be interesting to see how the CHRC decides to deal with post age 65 pilots.

[Brick Head]

The ICAO age 65 rule change that modified the industry standard was the game changer. Therefore, in the 'remedy' portion of the hearings this time frame will be highly relevant. It is unlikely what happened before the rule change will be given much weight. Under the 'duty to accomodate' requirements, it is much more practical to keep two post age 60 pilots out of the same flight deck than it would have been to keep a post-age 60 Captain in Canadian domestic airspace only. It wil be interesting to see how the CHRC decides to deal with post age 65 pilots.

Rudder,

Although the ICAO change has been highly publicized the appeals court was clear. Nothing from outside jurisdictions can be used to justify Canadian Human rights legislation when they sent it back to the CHRT for a redue. Yes the ICAO change affects any bona fide operational requirement claim. But that is it. On this point the CHRT has already stated AC did not prove it. Based not on 65 but no retirement at all. The message? Accommodate them in any measure necessary.

The game changer here was not ICAO. It is the exception to the CHA, allowing mandatory retirement, that was just nullified. In this particular case the CHRT has decided GV was discriminated against when he was forced to retire 7 or 8 years ago now. BFOR claims in his case rejected which has a time line well before the ICAO change. The CHRT says he should have been accommodated. (Domestic is the assumption I make for the time frame prior to the ICAO change. I assume that is the rational. They don't say. Just state BFOR not proven)

Mandatory retirement for federally regulated companies in Canada no longer permitted. People leave the work force when they choose. 65 70 75 who knows.

As far as compensation? Don't forget nothing illegal was happening until last Friday. Even the CHRT as late as last year backed the legality of Mandatory retirement.

If I walk my dog in the park today.

Then the city passes a by law next week disallowing dog walking, retroactive to yesterday.

Can they fine me?

[rudder]

Rudder,

Although the ICAO change has been highly publicized the appeals court was clear. Nothing from outside jurisdictions can be used to justify Canadian Human rights legislation when they sent it back to the CHRT for a redue. Yes the ICAO change affects any bona fide operational requirement claim. But that is it. On this point the CHRT has already stated AC did not prove it. Based not on 65 but no retirement at all. The message? Accommodate them in any measure necessary.

The game changer here was not ICAO. It is the exception to the CHA, allowing mandatory retirement, that was just nullified. In this particular case the CHRT has decided GV was discriminated against when he was forced to retire 7 or 8 years ago now. BFOR claims in his case rejected which has a time line well before the ICAO change. The CHRT says he should have been accommodated. (Domestic is the assumption I make for the time frame prior to the ICAO change. I assume that is the rational. They don't say. Just state BFOR not proven)

Mandatory retirement for federally regulated companies in Canada no longer permitted. People leave the work force when they choose. 65 70 75 who knows.

As far as compensation? Don't forget nothing illegal was happening until last Friday. Even the CHRT as late as last year backed the legality of Mandatory retirement.

If I walk my dog in the park today.

Then the city passes a by law next week disallowing dog walking, retroactive to yesterday.

Can they fine me?

Hopefully the 'remedy' phase of the proceeding will bring greater clarity to the practicality of solutions that apparently was not very effectively argued by either AC nor ACPA. Clearly, the CHRT was not impressed by anything that the AC flt ops rep had to say. One can presume that he will come better prepared to phase two of the hearing.