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

[Chuck Ellsworth]

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.

Actually I really don't have much more to say to you on this subject but in closing I would like to make these comments.

The last thing in aviation that I would want to do is fly another long haul trip in any airliner as I found it to be extremely boring. For what ever it is worth in this discussion I worked for Airbus Industries for two years and was given the A320 training in Toulouse which I found to be interesting but not the kind of machine I would want to fly full time.

As to my ability to fly I held an unrestricted air display authority for flying in the airshow circuit in Europe and just did a flight last month with one of the people who I flew with in Europe when I retired in 2005...he could find no change in my airplane handling since I retired...not that it really matters because I have no intention of going back to work.

I will close with this comment.

I hope you live as long as I have and get to fly as many airplanes as I did without ever bending one.

[Old fella]

Assuming a pilot was hired at AC 35 yrs of age. When he/she hits 60 yrs of age is their pension 50% unreduced (25 yrs service x 2%) and no age penalty because at 60 yrs of age. Are there any other monitory benefits associated because(at present) a pilot is forced to stop flying when he/she hits 60 years. Obviously there are/can be administrative positions(assuming they are qualified) available within AC for those pilots who do want to continue working beyond 60

[Rockie]

The maximum years of service contributable for pension purposes is 35, which was normal when the plan was concieved and they were hiring 25 year olds. You qualify for "early" retirement after 25 years of service or when your age and years of service equal 80. Now of course with 35 being the average age of new hires, the best they can hope for is "early" retirement at greatly reduced pension benefits if the retirement age stayed at 60. With the change to 60+ they will now have the opportunity to recieve a pension closer to what the architects of the plan envisioned and that their predecessors get.

This is one of the arguments I have been putting forward, but most of us can only see as far as the next bid and are unable or unwilling to consider the end of their career rather than tomorrow.

Your other point about taking administrative jobs at 60 if they still want to work is really no different than getting a job at Walmart. In the first place there has to be an opening and there just aren't that many. Plus we are pilots and are usually not trained to do anything else anyway. The other thing is of course the pension. If you aren't a pilot you aren't contributing to the pension and that is one of the key things here as mentioned in the first paragraph of this post.

[sepia]

I'm more concerned about the massive hit to my career, and the slowing of any upgrades than anything else. I find it hilarious that I should now look forward to working past 60, just so I can eke out what I would have had at 60 if you greedy guys didn't want more.

[tonysoprano]

The maximum years of service contributable for pension purposes is 35, which was normal when the plan was concieved and they were hiring 25 year olds. You qualify for "early" retirement after 25 years of service or when your age and years of service equal 80. Now of course with 35 being the average age of new hires, the best they can hope for is "early" retirement at greatly reduced pension benefits if the retirement age stayed at 60. With the change to 60+ they will now have the opportunity to recieve a pension closer to what the architects of the plan envisioned and that their predecessors get.

Sounds great Rockie. However, most pilots at AC know full well they will be able to get by on whatever pension they get "stuck" with at retirement knowing they will be mortgage free if they enjoy a better position TODAY. Most AC pilots have young families, mortgages, debt and a low salary which allows them only to get by. In other words, most AC pilots are only interested in achieving the best standard of living they can at this point in their lives. Having pilots retire at a later age, whatever that may be, will only prolong the agony of today and advancement to a better paying position. In the end it seems that what this has come down to once again is personal gain at the expense of others. Which side of the argument you are on seems to be determined by which position in life you happen to be at AC. However, once again, it seems that the minority has won. I happen to be in the group that you are fighting for but also in the group that I have described and personally, I think I would opt for quicker advancement and better standard of living TODAY knowing that it would help me at retirement.

['79K20driver]

I'm more concerned about the massive hit to my career, and the slowing of any upgrades than anything else. I find it hilarious that I should now look forward to working past 60, just so I can eke out what I would have had at 60 if you greedy guys didn't want more.

I,I,I,...me,me,me!!

I'm a bit confused. Who is being greedy? Let's see. One side wants to keep working, or at least have the right to keep working, and the other side sees it as taking money and opportunity away from them but says it's the old guys that are greedy. Yup, I'm still confused. It sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
The whole situation is unfortunate, but it really is a sign of the times more than anything else. People have been saying for years things like, "35 is the new 25." 65 is the new 60. Let's face it, people are healthier and tend to live longer now days. If they enjoyed their jobs you'd expect that they'd want to keep working longer.
One arguement I hear is, "why didn't these guys argue for this when they were younger? Why did they wait until 60 to raise it?" I think its because 10 years ago they (or 1999's crop of retirees) would not have had a hope in hell. It wasn't that long ago that Bush signed it into law in the States. Without that, I don't think you'd see what you're seeing now. 10, or even 5 years ago it would have been pointless.
I feel for those that see it as being detrimental to their careers. Yes, its unfortunate that it is your generation that will be affected, but you all should have seen it coming. When it passed for law in the States, it was only a matter of time...
Now it's time to deal with it the best way you can. Who knows, when you're sixty, maybe you'll feel a little different about it (that's probably not what you want to hear but there could be some truth in it).

[Rockie]

That's what I mean by not able to see beyond the next bid. Our pauper wages when we first hired on can be fixed with a little bit of will, and everyone will be able to make a wage decent enough to live quite well early on in their career. The pension however requires years of contribution which people hired nowadays have less of. But this ruling goes a long way to fixing that.

Please don't trot out the greed argument again. It cuts both ways and is utterly counter-productive to this discussion.

Perhaps you would be willing to offset the reduced years of pension contribution by guaranteeing a full pension for everyone at age 60 regardless of their age when they hire on? That would ensure very, very few people would stay and people would progress as normal before the ruling.

[North Shore]

Does everyone get the same pension amount, or is it a case of best 5 years, and therefore to get the (not so) really big pension, gotta fly the really big iron?
Seems to me that if you started everyone at the same salary level, and then got maximum pay for whatever you were flying at 60, but with the ability to go to 65, no change thereafter, that might solve some problems???

[Rockie]

Does everyone get the same pension amount, or is it a case of best 5 years, and therefore to get the (not so) really big pension, gotta fly the really big iron?
Seems to me that if you started everyone at the same salary level, and then got maximum pay for whatever you were flying at 60, but with the ability to go to 65, no change thereafter, that might solve some problems???

Some problems yes, but the biggest factor is years of service. The irony here is that the people most vocal about getting the senior guys out of their way so they can get the best paying airplane as quickly as possible are ultimately robbing themselves because if they get their way they will have 5 years less to contribute to the pension. That's what I mean about the "instant gratification" generation. They want it now and tomorrow will take care of itself (they think).

[tonysoprano]

I'm a bit confused. Who is being greedy? Let's see. One side wants to keep working, or at least have the right to keep working, and the other side sees it as taking money and opportunity away from them but says it's the old guys that are greedy. Yup, I'm still confused. It sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.
The whole situation is unfortunate, but it really is a sign of the times more than anything else. People have been saying for years things like, "35 is the new 25." 65 is the new 60. Let's face it, people are healthier and tend to live longer now days. If they enjoyed their jobs you'd expect that they'd want to keep working longer.
One arguement I hear is, "why didn't these guys argue for this when they were younger? Why did they wait until 60 to raise it?" I think its because 10 years ago they (or 1999's crop of retirees) would not have had a hope in hell. It wasn't that long ago that Bush signed it into law in the States. Without that, I don't think you'd see what you're seeing now. 10, or even 5 years ago it would have been pointless.
I feel for those that see it as being detrimental to their careers. Yes, its unfortunate that it is your generation that will be affected, but you all should have seen it coming. When it passed for law in the States, it was only a matter of time...
Now it's time to deal with it the best way you can. Who knows, when you're sixty, maybe you'll feel a little different about it (that's probably not what you want to hear but there could be some truth in it).

Here's the difference: We had a democratic process where the majority of the group has negotiated something only to have that internal decision overturned by the opposition of a minority. There was nothing illegal about what ACPA and Air Canada had agreed upon for decades. In fact it was part of a legal, negotiated binding contract. You can say it's all about "me" but in this case the minority "me" was able to change a labor contract using an outside body. Does anyone see the danger here....

but you all should have seen it coming.

That`s a cop-out statement and borderline arrogant.

[Max111]

Surely Tony...You don't believe that a union contract should trump the Constitution...Hard to believe that some people are still spouting such stupidity.......If you held a vote right now and 99 % did not want women or muslims flying ...no offense meant to these groups...would that win the day because the majority was in favour. Read a few books...expand your horizons....Just a thought

[tonysoprano]

I don't think our contract deals with extremes but if that's the way you're going to state your case then we are in more trouble than I thought we were. Not just organized labor but Canadian society as a whole. All this while some read books and "expand" their "horizons". Please.

[Rockie]

The whole world is going to 65. If that's not enough it has been deemed age discrimination (and therefore illegal) to force people to retire before that. The wishes of the majority do not count here. Similarly if the group tries to force people to the bottom of the list at age 60 that too would be age discrimination, and therefore illegal.

Laws change and so we must too. We have a negotioted contract voted on by the membership that states in part what our duty times will be. If the Feds ever get around to reducing them then that would make that portion of our contract illegal as well. Are you suggesting that because we agreed to a contract with those duty times then we should continue to work to them even if they're illegal?

The wishes of the majority count for a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.

[Rockie]

We had a democratic process where the majority of the group has negotiated something only to have that internal decision overturned by the opposition of a minority. There was nothing illegal about what ACPA and Air Canada had agreed upon for decades. In fact it was part of a legal, negotiated binding contract. You can say it's all about "me" but in this case the minority "me" was able to change a labor contract using an outside body. Does anyone see the danger here....

You have the correct tense here. The contract "was" legal but it's not anymore. Also most laws are changed because there was a need to, and lots of times it takes individuals to point out that need. Our industry is full of examples like that and you can thank the safety record we enjoy today on individuals just like that who were not content with the status quo. Over time people will see that this change isn't the end of the world they make it out to be. Some outspoken opponents may even find themselves glad that it happened.

['79K20driver]

There was nothing illegal about what ACPA and Air Canada had agreed upon for decades. In fact it was part of a legal, negotiated binding contract.

That doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me that the courts are saying that it was infact an illegal contract and therefore invalid. I don't think contracts are legally binding when the courts deem them as contravening the laws of the land.

You can say it's all about "me" but in this case the minority "me" was able to change a labor contract using an outside body. Does anyone see the danger here....

If the outside body you are refering to is the Canadian Legal System, then what's the problem?

but you all should have seen it coming.

That`s a cop-out statement and borderline arrogant.

Perhaps, but also true given the changes in the US. It was not my intention to sound arrogant as I am simply an outside observer voicing an opinion.

[tonysoprano]

That doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to me that the courts are saying that it was infact an illegal contract and therefore invalid. I don't think contracts are legally binding when the courts deem them as contravening the laws of the land.

Yep. The courts, not ACPA or AC will in the end decide everything. I say we read more books, expand our horizons, smoke some dope, take up Yoga and let the courts deal with our contracts.All ths while someone screws with my career. Heck, let's get rid of ACPA too. It seems they are not required anymore. It would be like going into a permanent CCAA. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Slipstream]

I would like to know who is going to fly with these over 60 guys ? If no one will work with them ( because of stress ) then they cannot work. If the majority stick together ( for once ) we have a chance of removing these selfish dudes. By the way I have flown with many 60 + guys outside of this airline and they were hurting units. Why the Hell would you want to fly past 60 - you are only shortening your life span. It must be greed - I guess you can't live on a 100,000 + a year pension. Although you don't give a sh*t about the junior 700 + green guys that have mortgages and young families that will now be stuck at a low wage for 5 years longer. If you don't live where you work good luck getting the jump seat - because you won't be with me - LEAVE LIKE THE GUYS BEFORE YOU AND STOP SCREWING US OVER

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If you don't live where you work good luck getting the jump seat - because you won't be with me -

In other words despite it being against the law to discriminate based on age you would deny a fellow Air Canada captain over the age of sixty the privilege of flying in your jump seat?

That alone is reason enough for me to fly with anyone except Air Canada because I might be unlucky enough to have you as the pilot.

How many more Air Canada pilots think like this one?

[Slipstream]

I have every right to not want an idividual who has intentionally ruined the careers of hundreds of pilots to be in the flight deck. It is a distraction and does not promote safety. So, go use your big salary and go buy a ticket. Let the jumpseat go to a junior guy who needs it. I suppose the 60+ guys want ALL the benefits. The jumpseat will go to the junior guy - not the selfish few. By the way - I really don't care if someone like you flies with us - go fly with someone else !

[Slipstream]

If you don't live where you work good luck getting the jump seat - because you won't be with me -

In other words despite it being against the law to discriminate based on age you would deny a fellow Air Canada captain over the age of sixty the privilege of flying in your jump seat?

That alone is reason enough for me to fly with anyone except Air Canada because I might be unlucky enough to have you as the pilot.

How many more Air Canada pilots think like this one?

You always have to scream Discrimination - Discrimination - I am so sick of hearing this word it is constantly used in every aspect of life to force us to do what a few want. What will it be next week. Discrimination is so over used - BUT I SUPPOSE IT WILL BE FORCED UPON US LIKE IN EVERY OTHER CASE - WHEN WILL IT STOP - IT WILL NEVER STOP BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME LITTLE SH*T THAT SCREWS IT UP FOR THE PEOPLE WHO TRULY DESERVE THE JOB. BYE CHUCKY GO FLY SOMEWHERE ELSE !

[Chuck Ellsworth]

By the way - I really don't care if someone like you flies with us - go fly with someone else !

And there is an example of why so many people use Air Canada as an example of unfriendly public relations.

Has it ever occurred to you that it is us, your customers who you owe your job to?

Once again how many of you Air Canada people think like this gem?

[Rockie]

All ths while someone screws with my career.

Your career is screwed with by much more than this and much worse as well. This will slow down your seat advancement by a little bit, and after 5 years it picks right up to its normal pace. You will still retire with a full pension and in the seat you likely would have before even if you still decide to leave at 60. Most guys voluntarily screw with their own career by taking a lower paying position anyway so they can get the days off they want, or bid reserve and never go to work, so your career won't suffer as much as you are claiming. You're over-dramatizing this.

I would like to know who is going to fly with these over 60 guys ? If no one will work with them ( because of stress ) then they cannot work. If the majority stick together ( for once ) we have a chance of removing these selfish dudes. By the way I have flown with many 60 + guys outside of this airline and they were hurting units. Why the Hell would you want to fly past 60 - you are only shortening your life span. It must be greed - I guess you can't live on a 100,000 + a year pension. Although you don't give a sh*t about the junior 700 + green guys that have mortgages and young families that will now be stuck at a low wage for 5 years longer. If you don't live where you work good luck getting the jump seat - because you won't be with me - LEAVE LIKE THE GUYS BEFORE YOU AND STOP SCREWING US OVER

You sir, need to chill out and think about what you are saying. What you propose here is an illegal job action that would hold both the union and the people taking part in it accountable. This is not an us against them issue because you will one day be one of them, and you should learn just a little more respect for your elders. If I may be so bold you also need to grow up and act like the professional you profess to be. Start thinking beyond that next pay raise and consider what your position might be in 40 years when you are at the end of your career and have learned a thing or two.

[Slipstream]

Yo Rockie - Respect is something that is earned and just because someone is older than me does not mean I should respect them. Certainly the small group of selfish pilots will NEVER get my respect. And Finally, Rockie don't ever tell me to grow up - I am just trying to fight for what is being stolen from us. By the way I have read alot of your posts and you spout off constantly - maybe you need to grow up big guy. Your big statements and big words are so overwhelming I can barely contain myself. Maybe when " I grow up " I can be a big guy like you. It is obvious that your job is not on the line - maybe give us your emploee number so we don't have to fly with your massive EGO// I doubt you have anything you can teach me - you are assuming that you have more experience than me - I doubt you do !

['79K20driver]

I would like to know who is going to fly with these over 60 guys ? If no one will work with them ( because of stress ) then they cannot work. If the majority stick together ( for once ) we have a chance of removing these selfish dudes. By the way I have flown with many 60 + guys outside of this airline and they were hurting units. Why the Hell would you want to fly past 60 - you are only shortening your life span. It must be greed - I guess you can't live on a 100,000 + a year pension. Although you don't give a sh*t about the junior 700 + green guys that have mortgages and young families that will now be stuck at a low wage for 5 years longer. If you don't live where you work good luck getting the jump seat - because you won't be with me - LEAVE LIKE THE GUYS BEFORE YOU AND STOP SCREWING US OVER

Jesus, that's unbelievable. There really must be some kind of cancer instilled in the AC workforce. It's impossible to have an argument with someone so pig-headed.
Just what low wage for five years are you talking about? Are you not on regular pay after 2 years? What's the minimum regular pay? 75 or 80 grand? Cry me a river. You're still better off than most guys in this industry.

I have every right to not want an idividual who has intentionally ruined the careers of hundreds of pilots to be in the flight deck. It is a distraction and does not promote safety. So, go use your big salary and go buy a ticket. Let the jumpseat go to a junior guy who needs it. I suppose the 60+ guys want ALL the benefits. The jumpseat will go to the junior guy - not the selfish few. By the way - I really don't care if someone like you flies with us - go fly with someone else !

I'm pretty sure "ruining your career" as you call it, is not an intentional part of the over 60 crowd's agenda. Boy o' boy, if you think this is "ruining your career" then you must think that the rest of us outside of AC are utterly doomed!
Again, ...unbelievable..

[Slipstream]

If you want to get here the 60 + crowds' plans will throw a wrench in your goals. As well, you are not here so you are not experiencing the problems that this and many other issues are having. So, keep your comments to yourself. These 60+ guys are going to keep you out and by your wimpy response - I am glad. I was wondering are you one of the aviation dudes that signs a huge bond and works for no pay ? - probably ! P*ss OFF