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

[Clyde River]

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.

That is highly unlikely I think.

It is time for ACPA to form a committee, if one does not already exist, to study the impact of the changes, and the changes that are immediately necessary to our WAWCON.

There is a political process, that people of like thinking to yours can follow, to direct your LEC which will direct the MEC.

Clyde

[Brick Head]

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.

I am just spit balling here. I am not advocating anything. Just pointing out that we do have restrictions on seniority within our CA. That is it. Those restrictions in some cases are based on age. In others they cover a specific demographic permanently.

-The PG is a lifelong restriction on bidding certain positions.

-Vacation bidding. It can not be split without the second spot requested put at the bottom of the list

-PBS. Individuals have a right to a block over another individuals right to specific flying. For many this impeded even day off requests.

-Freezes. Up. Down. Cross base. Close to retirement.

-J seat upgrades. Capt first even if another senior FO is boarding.

-VSP. Many times have not been offered in seniority. The last one for example.

-Up/Down training. Is weighted toward what equipment/status/base the individual is coming from rather than seniority. Many times people get pay raises and cuts out of seniority as a result.

I'm sure others could add to the list

In this case moving a CA to the right seat of the aircraft they are on, when they hit 60, might be considered a cost savings initiative by the company. From both a planning/training perspective and an operational perspective AC does have a problem that needs solving. How does AC plan 1 year out when they don't know when people are leaving? How do they plan staffing levels to ensure two 60+ pilots are not in the same flight deck, when they don't know when they are leaving, but at the same time keep it cost neutral? Would you advocate over staffing the 777 to accomodate the inflexibility of the age group? Or perhaps no FO's over the age to 60 on wide bodies? Or no CA over the age of 60 on wide bodies?

You see unless AC is forced to throw money at this, which is likely an unrealistic burden for the CHRT to impose, someone is going to have restrictions imposed upon them.

Yes that would mean yet another restriction on seniority for somebody

[Rockie]

Brickhead

All your points are good, and I agree there will likely be restrictions placed on senior pilot pairings due to the "one crew member under 60 rule" that is in place. The company and us will have to abide by them and make them work as best we can. But again, that is far different than forcing senior pilots to the bottom of the list to the lowest paying positions. Any measures like that instigated out of anger or spite for them exercising their right to stay past 60 will not fly, pardon the pun.

[the original tony]

The idea of going to the bottom of the list or to an RP, like it or not is going to be at the discretion of the company and the union.
The position given to them will be what is mutually voted upon. There is nothing stating positions after age 60, i am for making it start as of now. I didn't agree to have guys stay till they were over 60 either, but here we are. Being forced to a position is not age discrimination, its making life for the remaining pilots the same as it was for these guys when they were waiting for the "old farts" to retire. Why do they enjoy the movement of age 60 retirees and not us?
And at the worst case if you don't like it..........retire. That was the plan set in motion a long time ago.

Tony

[Rockie]

The idea of going to the bottom of the list or to an RP, like it or not is going to be at the discretion of the company and the union.
The position given to them will be what is mutually voted upon. There is nothing stating positions after age 60, i am for making it start as of now. I didn't agree to have guys stay till they were over 60 either, but here we are. Being forced to a position is not age discrimination, its making life for the remaining pilots the same as it was for these guys when they were waiting for the "old farts" to retire. Why do they enjoy the movement of age 60 retirees and not us?
And at the worst case if you don't like it..........retire. That was the plan set in motion a long time ago.

Tony

Well then, if it's up to the company and the pilots why wait until they're 60? Why not 50 then your upgrade to the 777 will happen that much sooner? After all if we're going to set an arbitrary age before actual retirement then we shouldn't be fixated on any specific number, any age will do and as far as a 30 year old is concerned the earlier the better wouldn't you say?

[600RVR]

Ray

You'll make a fine MP just like the rest of them.

[the original tony]

Sounds good to me, Trip 7 cappy at 30, but lets just go the way of the moral majority.
I feel pretty good at 64 lets go for 70, hey 74 is here feeling good, 80 it is. Just start complaining a year before show time and you're gold.
When does it stop? The worlds oldest just died at 115 a few weeks ago, how about that for a limit.
Get real.
60 is what they agreed to, stop this stupidity of retiring at 50, 40. Just quit, i don't think what I or you have to say means a pile of shit at the end of the day.
Like complaining about flying an Emb when you are hired, i'm pretty sure you knew the deal when you got on.

Tony

[Slipstream]

Ray - stop fishing - you fished out the ACPA forum and now you are here - GO AWAY --

[Rockie]

60 is what they agreed to

Well, no. None of us signed a contract when we first hired on agreeing to leave at 60.

[Lost in Saigon]

Ray - stop fishing - you fished out the ACPA forum and now you are here - GO AWAY --

Fishing? Fishing for what?

I welcome any posts that Ray may make to this forum. He always tries explain the facts. If you can't handle the facts then maybe it is YOU who should "Go Away".

[Slipstream]

You know what he is doing - you must be one of those guys - welcome to the PG group - we are waiting for you

[Lost in Saigon]

You know what he is doing - you must be one of those guys - welcome to the PG group - we are waiting for you

I was hired in 2000 so I am not "one of those guys". In 2000 there were already rumblings in the USA about changing the retirement age. I fully expected it to change before I hit age 60, and in fact it has changed earlier than I expected.

ACPA pretends to be showing leadership by opposing age 65 but they are doing us all a big disservice. They constantly raise the hopes of the membership only to constantly let them down. I have seen it with the Piche Award, Keller Award, and now this Vilven/Kelly decision.

The fact that you think ACPA can force an over 60 pilot into Position Group is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. ACPA may have the right intentions but they are failing miserably at every turn.

[Rockie]

The fact that you think ACPA can force an over 60 pilot into Position Group is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. ACPA may have the right intentions but they are failing miserably at every turn.

ACPA cannot do that however much some members might want them to because that in itself is age discrimination, and we've already had that fight.

I've been trying to convey the folly of attempting to impose pay cuts and forcing senior people to the bottom of the list based on an arbitrary age, but I don't seem to be getting through. A pilot who is 60+ is now no different than one that is 30, except they probably sit higher on the seniority list. They now have no distinction from us, and the sooner we finish with these legal challenges the better. Those pilots turning 60 post-ruling will be entitled to their jobs back when the legal wrangling is over and done with, so it is in all our interests to stop flogging that dead horse and get on with implementing it.

[Slipstream]

It is funny how you believe that the CHRT ruling will now immediately become law. There are many stages of the law process. There are also many stages and levels of the appeal process. ACPA has the legal right to appeal any decision until all the appeal options have been exhausted. Then and only then will ACPA have to make adjustments. I would imagine that both sides of this debate will not be happy with the result. The problem ACPA faces is that the pilot group is so divided. We have the Original Red ( the pilots that have been truly screwed over ) , The Blue ( the guys that won the lotto ) , the Greens ( the guys whose hope of a future is fading fast ) and now the Greys ( the guys that are willing to eat the young ). How can ACPA win ? No matter what they do - and those guys work HARD - they will Lose ! When this crisis is over I am sure some selfish pilot will start something new to hurt our airline even more. Maybe you guys will be happy when we are all out of jobs - stop changing the rules. You got where you are because pilots retired at 60 - now it is your turn - LEAVE like the honorable pilots before you.

[Rockie]

You got where you are because pilots retired at 60 - now it is your turn - LEAVE like the honorable pilots before you.

We all got where we are because we applied for the job after gaining the necessary experience and got in. Nothing more than that. There is nothing "honourable" about leaving at 60. The rules have changed along with the rest of the world and dragging it out in the courts will not change it back, it will only vastly complicate implementing it. You are right though in saying neither side will be completely happy with the end result, but that is only to be expected when you have two such diverging view points. Since you agree that the pilots who want things to remain as they are won't be happy either you must know at some level things are going to change. Don't you think it's time to switch the game plan from trying to stop it to influencing how it is implemented?

[Slipstream]

ACPA 's last vote on this subject had a clear majority that wished that the retirement age stays at 60. Once ACPA and its' lawyers completed their strategic planning and have used all the appeals that are legal ( they have that right ) - If the ruling still stands - then we will have to deal with it - at that time. ACPA should keep fighting this ruling until all available levels of the appeals process have been used. It is part of the law process to have appeals and many lawyers use them in various parts of the legal system. I think we all have a long time until anything is finalized. So, Let's move on and wish the Greys good fishing somewhere else. Maybe some will stay ( if the ruling holds ) , maybe some will come back ( if the ruling holds ) and maybe some will do the honorable ( USA version ) / honourable ( Canadian Version ) and retire - ejoy their time with their families. To those that do the honorable thing and retire - the junior pilots I am sure appreciate your gift.

[Mustard]

What is wrong with age discrimination anyway?
I wouldn't play tackle football with an 80yr old guy and I wouldn't lend my truck to a 6yr old kid either.

[Rockie]

What is wrong with age discrimination anyway?
I wouldn't play tackle football with an 80yr old guy and I wouldn't lend my truck to a 6yr old kid either.

If the 80 year old could still whoop your ass on the playing field and the 6 year old was as good or better driver than you why wouldn't you (provided it was legal of course)?

ACPA's actions are based on a vote taken some time ago that didn't consider the reality today, and I think everyone will agree that the situation has changed somewhat. I think they should have another vote with two questions:

1. Do you want ACPA to continue fighting the HRTC ruling with the hopes of reversing it? And;
2. Do you want ACPA to prepare for implementation with the objectives of accommodating 60+ while at the same time protecting the rights of pilots wishing to retire at 60 under the old regulations?

It would be interesting to see how that vote would go.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What is wrong with age discrimination anyway?

Here is a question for you Mustard.

In that this is an aviation forum and the subject being discussed is about pilots and their ability to fly at what age would you deny them the right to fly?

I wouldn't play tackle football with an 80yr old guy and I wouldn't lend my truck to a 6yr old kid either.

O.K. lets look at a pilot in their eighties, Bob Hoover comes to mind as he was well into his eighties when he was still flying his routines in the air shows.

Do you think Bob Hoover was not capable of flying safely even though he was well into his eighties?

[Mustard]

I'm not sure if flying is a right or not but I think someone should be allowed to fly an airplane as long as they are able to...
However I think there should be a limit if they want to transport 300 passengers. What that limit is?...I don't know.
Definitely not limitless though.

[Cat Driver]

What that limit is?...I don't know.
Definitely not limitless though.

Well we have had a few guidelines that seem to have worked quite well up to this point two of which are passing a medical and passing your recurrent flight checks. As long as a pilot can pass those two requirement why should their age be a limiting factor?

Maybe I should have used a different word than a " right " but having used it I will let it stand.

However I think there should be a limit if they want to transport 300 passengers.

To the best of my knowledge there are no airplanes carrying 300 passengers with only one pilot flying the thing, if one pilot becomes incapacitated or dies during the trip the 300 passengers will in all likely hood survive by the remaining pilot finishing the trip.

[Mustard]

Wow.....there's a good argument.......It's ok for 300 people to climb into a plane with an old man at the controls
because there is 2 of them.......weak

[Rockie]

The new ICAO rule is one pilot must be under 60 and one may be over 60, but neither may be over 65. Most countries will adopt that if they haven't already which will defacto limit airline pilots to 65. It's pretty hard to employ a pilot if no countries will let him fly there.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Wow.....there's a good argument.......It's ok for 300 people to climb into a plane with an old man at the controls
because there is 2 of them.......weak

Mustard you have said more about your self with that comment than anything I could add to it.

By the way I am going to be seventy four next month, does that make me an old man and no longer able to fly safely?

[Mustard]

Well it definitely doesn't make you a young man.
Safe to fly? I'm sure you can fly an airplane but you should not be flying an Air Canada 777 to Asia.

If age is just a number how would you feel at the other end of the spectrum if you climbed on an Embraer going
to St. John's and your captain and first officer were only 16? I'm sure they could pass a ride which Cat says is the deciding factor.