Pilot wins Air Canada retirement case

[Rockie]

Rockie,
Just out of curiosity can you please enlighten me on:
a)why "change had to happen"?
b)how you can be so sure this will be best for all?

You also state that ACPA should have just accepted this from the start and just prepare for the inevitable. I could only be sure of the inevitable in so far as how our justice system works or rather how it doesn't. ACPA did what the MAJORITY of its membership requested. That is, to do whatever it could to stop this. Just because the courts decide in your favour doesn't make you right. How many times has AC seen this recently. Merger for example??? Look, you can tell yourself over and over this is right because that's where you stand. But I can guarantee you that history will prove you wrong. The potential damage to the pilot group at AC can only be avoided if this is allowed to be negotiated between ACPA and the company in a way that's best for all. And I have a feeling it's going to cost the company and the members big bucks.

Sure thing.

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.

4. The array of challenges to forced retirement at 60 is too much to fight. As much as the pilots don't want things to change anyone with a little foresight could see the futility of that position. In military terms it is much better to sue for a negotiated peace than an unconditional surrender like we are forced into now. We are completely unprepared for this by choice.

This is a failure of leadership in my opinion. It does not matter in the least what the majority of pilots wanted, it was coming regardless. We should be smart enough to figure this out on our own, but failing that our union leadership should have been getting the message out that however much we wanted to fight it, it was a fight we would lose. We should have been preparing for that day instead of wasting time and money on a futile gesture. This is not an issue that can be decided by a majority vote and we should have realized that.

"The potential damage to the pilot group at AC can only be avoided if this is allowed to be negotiated between ACPA and the company in a way that's best for all."

This is what we should have been doing all along.


"And I have a feeling it's going to cost the company and the members big bucks."

Absolutely right, and it's our own fault for not doing it sooner.

[tonysoprano]

I don't agree with your vision Rockie. Like I said, I just hope a solution that suits all can be found. You are on the side which has cried foul. I think we will see a day when another minority will cry foul and this will all be revisited if the proper solution is not found. And whether we prepared for it two years ago or now will not make any difference. And btw, I am not a young one.

[CelBatrin]

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.

Young pilots are coming into the industry and the old ones aren't leaving. People working past 60 in order to get full pensions are only going to further increase the average hiring age. So I suppose the next gen will have to work that much later. To what end? This is a positive feedback system, unstable, and therefor a bad argument.

[Rockie]

Young pilots are coming into the industry and the old ones aren't leaving. People working past 60 in order to get full pensions are only going to further increase the average hiring age. So I suppose the next gen will have to work that much later. To what end? This is a positive feedback system, unstable, and therefor a bad argument.

Whatever is causing the hiring age to increase so far it obviously isn't the retirement age since that hasn't changed. And while hiring may stagnate for a time as guys stay longer, they will eventually start leaving again and there will be just as many going out as there was before. So that won't increase the hiring age then either.

[CelBatrin]

Sure there are other factors increasing the average hiring age, but the older retirement age will only compound the problem. You cant possible think that having senior pilots work longer and not vacate their positions will not affect the recruitment of new pilots. When they do decide to leave, in 5-10 years, their position will be filled not by the average 35yo but by 40-45yo.

[bobcaygeon]

Will this mean that early retirement will now become 60 instead of 55? or will prevention of this be what ACPA uses all of its bargaining chips on next round instead of wage/working condition improvements? when these guys are retired

Stats show that males over 60 become disabled at a higher rate than those below 60? (life and disability insurance rates show this) Does the whole pilot group get to share the pain when the rates go up? The answer is too obvious


Opens up a lot of fun, fun, fun

[Rockie]

Sure there are other factors increasing the average hiring age, but the older retirement age will only compound the problem. You cant possible think that having senior pilots work longer and not vacate their positions will not affect the recruitment of new pilots. When they do decide to leave, in 5-10 years, their position will be filled not by the average 35yo but by 40-45yo.

Sure, it will effect it for a time, but eventually it will equalize and be just like before. In the meantime there are a lot of other things that will adversely effect career progression far worse than an increased retirement age. Recession, competition, mergers, aircraft delivery delays etc.

One thing that has been completely ignored is that if there is no mandatory retirement age (I don't think that will be the end result anyway) and we don't voluntarily retire, it will be forced by either medical issues or an age related loss of competency. Thats something else our Doc's and checkers will have to wrap their brain around.

[xsbank]

Well, Rocky and I rarely agree but it seems you have it taped....

It comes own to a basic freedom - who has the temerity to try and tell me when I should retire? I don't work for AC and I don't have the dosh to retire at 60. Some of my ex-CP friends retired or were bought out well below 60 and they seem happy with their well-padded pensions. The rest of you won't do so well, you will not be so well-off.

Besides, AC can go to the wall again... its done it before...

[Ogee]

Excellent analysis and well said, Rockie. Because it is a company operating in a federally regulated industry, relief can be sought against it under the Charter of Rights. A majority vote in a union has nothing to do with the Charter. The Charter concerns itself with whether Raymond Hall could be forced to retire at age 60. The Court found that to force Hall to retire was a violation of the Charter. I haven't read the decision, but I assume it was ruled to be an unjustified discrimination based on age. And it obviously is. Contracts which are contrary to law, and the Charter is the supreme law of Canada, are void.

Young guys won't like it, but its pretty clear cut law.

It does raise the issue of how old would some people be before they retired.

[tonysoprano]

Contracts which are contrary to law, and the Charter is the supreme law of Canada, are void.

Young guys won't like it, but its pretty clear cut law.

It does raise the issue of how old would some people be before they retired.

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.

[El Comat]

Agreed, Tony. At some point let's hope that common sense prevails over all the knee-jerk do-gooders who are out to protect whiners' "rights". Why didn't Raymond Hall launch this fight when he was a 30 year old rookie? He knew the rule existed then, so why not get the ball rolling and perhaps come up with a way to ease in new retirement standards? Maybe it was due to the fact it didn't benefit him then, as he would've been the one getting the shaft in the short term. Now it benefits him to stay, so a-fighting he will go!

I say Canadian law be damned! If that guy wants to work so badly past 60, he can do what a friend's dad did...retire at 60 (like the majority WANT and ACCEPT...imagine that!), and do contract work for other companies, either domestically or abroad.

Just my 2 pennies....I'm sick of the squeaky wheels getting all the grease!

lol...I haven't ranted like that on here in a couple of years!

EC

[swordfish]

El Comat wondered:

Why didn't Raymond Hall launch this fight when he was a 30 year old rookie? He knew the rule existed then, so why not get the ball rolling and perhaps come up with a way to ease in new retirement standards? Maybe it was due to the fact it didn't benefit him then, as he would've been the one getting the shaft in the short term. Now it benefits him to stay, so a-fighting he will go!

This argument surfaces repeatedly, and begs the same response each time:

Probably because retirement is the last thing on your mind when you hire on with a big company; probably because he figured he would be ready for retirement at age 60 anyways; probably he failed to accurately foresee the state of the country, economy, company, union, and his own personal situation in 30 years; probably because he didn't want to disturb shit as an up-&-coming pilot, looking at his longevity and advancement in AC.

Or maybe he simply changed his mind and decided he'd like to continue working with the pay and benefits of a full-time employee when he got there. After all, he, like Tony, probably thinks it's a great job.

And if all this fails, some lawyer probably told him the time to rise up and fight this will be when the Company forces you to retire. You have no proactive defence against something that MIGHT happen, or with a policy or Agreement that might be changed over the course of time.

You don't think the policy or the Agreement would have been changed without Mr Hall's action, do you?

[swordfish]

One more thing while I'm in a good mood:

Mr Hall won this decision based on a challenge of an unconstitutional the Law of the Land.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms spoonfeeds the legislation. Once you understand this process, you will have less difficulty dealing with the decision. You're not being FORCED to work beyond age 60...you are allowed the freedom of deciding that for yourself.

You'll be forced to retire when you lose your medical. Until then don't anyone try and hand me that actuarial crap about "over age 60" risk factors....

Now I AM in a bad mood...

[AntiNakedMan]

Excellent analysis and well said, Rockie. Because it is a company operating in a federally regulated industry, relief can be sought against it under the Charter of Rights. A majority vote in a union has nothing to do with the Charter. The Charter concerns itself with whether Raymond Hall could be forced to retire at age 60. The Court found that to force Hall to retire was a violation of the Charter. I haven't read the decision, but I assume it was ruled to be an unjustified discrimination based on age. And it obviously is. Contracts which are contrary to law, and the Charter is the supreme law of Canada, are void.

Young guys won't like it, but its pretty clear cut law.

It does raise the issue of how old would some people be before they retired.

Just to clarify, the Charter had little to do with this case. The Charter only comes into play when the State (not a company operating in a federally regulated industry) takes action or somehow infringes on the rights and freedoms of an individual.

This was a case made out from Human Rights legislation, which is not exactly the same as the Charter, but has several analogies.

[Finn47]

Can some body explain me why some one would like to work until 65...?

The way pilot salaries seem to have gone downhill, they want to work for 5 more years so they can finally pay off flight school

[Joe Blow Schmo]

This is the ruling from Aug 28. Although there's no mention of Ray Hall in it. Was there another one?

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vh ... isruling=0

Can't say I think much of it. Yet another gem from the Human Rights Commission.

[mduffy]

Forget for a moment the merits of the argument;

What if these guys are only doing this to sue AC for five years of income they believe they've lost (A million bucks or so), without ever having had the intention of flying another flight. That would explain why they hadn't done this while still employed. Do you really think these guys want to get off their yachts and go flying again?

[Rockie]

Forget for a moment the merits of the argument;

What if these guys are only doing this to sue AC for five years of income they believe they've lost (A million bucks or so), without ever having had the intention of flying another flight. That would explain why they hadn't done this while still employed. Do you really think these guys want to get off their yachts and go flying again?

As Ray Hall explained several times, you can only file a complaint with the HRTC if you have been discriminated against. Before they were forced into retirement they hadn't been discriminated against and could not file a complaint. If they could have filed a complaint before they retired you can bet they would have.

[gustind]

Air Canada, which also requires pilots over age 40 to undergo physical examinations every six months, has 30 days to appeal the decision.

How unjust of Air Canada.

[swordfish]

Not only that: they're copying the TC regulations...plagiarists.

[CD]

Not only that: isn't it age discrimination to require a medical every six months over 40? That, and a financial burden with being taxed twice as much as the youngsters at $110 per year? I wonder if that will be the next complaint to the CHRT - that the government is ageist...

[Dockjock]

Using the data presented in the ruling I calculated how many seniority numbers I will not gain as a result of this decision.

1. 88% of pilots who are employed by comparable airlines without a mandatory retirement age work past 60.
2. 3%-10% of people (not pilots) in the workforce choose to work past age 65.

I ran a linear model that connected those two points to estimate how long "Air Canada" pilots might work if not forced to retire at 60. It cuts the 700 retirements scheduled for the 2010-2015 time period down to approximately 300. There will be then approximately 400 pilots at AC above age 60 in 2015; the majority being 60, 61 dwindling down to low double digits who stay right to 65 (or death, I guess).

In any case, I'll be 400 numbers junior to where I would have been in 2015 had age 60
remained in place.

[Airband]

Using the data presented in the ruling I calculated how many seniority numbers I will not gain as a result of this decision.

1. 88% of pilots who are employed by comparable airlines without a mandatory retirement age work past 60.

I'm having difficulty locating that statistic in the decision, could you help me out?

[Dockjock]

[7] The evidence is that 56.13% of pilots in similar positions to those of the Complainants
retired by the time they reached the age of age 60. Therefore, the “normal age of retirement”
is 60. The Court noted that this method for interpreting s. 15(1)(c) allows Air Canada, because it
employs the majority of pilots in positions similar to those of the Complainants, to set the normal
age of retirement for the entire industry.

Therefore, 44% of pilots in similar positions worked past 60. However, the second sentence in that statement indicates their assumption that Air Canada employs the "majority" of pilots in "similar positions". Being conservative, I took that majority as 51%. Given that Air Canada pilots all retire at 60 (or earlier), then the 44% of pilots who work past 60 must come entirely from the "minority" group (that doesn't include AC pilots.

ie.
44/100 of "similar" pilots work past 60.
but
51/100 pilots work under a contract that dictates they retire at or before 60.
therefore 44/49 "similar" pilots who work in companies without mandatory retirement work past 60.

44/49= 89.8%

[Airband]

Thx.