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

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

Read the ruling as a whole. You are right. The CHRT did not buy into the argument that getting rid of mandatory retirement would harm younger pilots or the principles of deferred income. Why? Because there are ways to alleviate all the ramifications ACPA and AC sited would cause harm or create burden. And you know what? They are right.

In the ruling they give out examples. The respondents could do this they quote. Or this has been done here they point out. They don't state what to do because that belongs to collective bargaining. What they do instead is point out that there are options, therefor this whole argument of harm or burden is nonsensical.

By the way, that logic tells me AC applying for a BFOR for over 65 pilots will be a waste of time. Can they be accommodated? The answer is domestically yes. Therefor that option must be made available.

What happens next if there is no appeal? The respondents, as is their responsibility, negotiate ways to eliminate mandatory retirement from the collective agreement in a balanced fashion that addresses the collective needs of the entire union membership and the operational needs of the company.

And of course we all fully expect some one to scream discrimination after an agreement is reached by the respondents. And the attempted cash grab will continue.........and continue.........and continue.




[36] Another alternative is to permit workplace parties to renegotiate the terms and conditionsof employment at an agreed upon age. He stated that this has been successfully done in some Ontario universities where professors who reach a certain age agree to stay on as professors emeritus.


This idea would protect the principles of deferred income for example.

[149] However, there may be alternatives to potential scheduling problems that arise from the implementation of the over/under rule. For example, it may be that instead of requiring under 60 first officers to accommodate the over 60 captains, the respondents could agree that in the event of a scheduling problem, the over 60 captains would be required to bid into other positions where they could be accommodated.

This suggestion was a rebuff to ACPA/AC's argument that FO's collective agreement rights would be harmed by over 60 CA. The scheduling issue is obvious in the comment. It obviously ties into the above paragraph as well. What may not be obvious at first glance is that this suggestion alone, discredits all of ACPA/AC's deferred compensation harm claims as well.

It is a good question too. Why does the elimination of mandatory retirement have to end a unions desire to end load age 60, and all the collective benefits that come from that?

[tailgunner]

I have just finished reading the entire set of postings, and all I can say is "poor Rockie"...
He now feels inimidation and a level of animosity...what a shame. He and his fellows, just ran behind the backs of their fellow pilots, they ran to a HRT, and changed everyones' working conditions, and career plans without their input, yet he posts that he and his gang are now the victims of intimidation. This self- induced victimization is laughable. He reminds me of the Jones fellow in Montreal, who after defrauding thousands of people out of tens of thousands of dollars, was forced to cover his head as he scurries to the awaiting cop car.....what else did he expect?
Some people stand up and try to change things from within, they debate and win over others with reson, and logic. Then there are people who Rockie supports, they are the type of people who sue others instantly, who claim to be victims at evry turn, who threaten lawsuits and defamation at those who oppose them....Just my take. And good luck to AC pilots in getting their collective rights back.

edited for spelling

[Clyde River]

S0...let us assume that 60+ retirement is a done deal. I believe that there is NO question that this the fact.

I would like to think about a definition of the NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE, and in conjunction with that, when is a member is locked in to the option of taking a reduced/commuted cash payout vs locked in to having to stick it out for 10 more years. Presently, until the rules change, that is 50 years less a day with 25 or more years of service.

If the goal posts move for a "normal" retirement, the lock-in age then has to move also.

What will be the NRA for the future? What age for pilots that want a cash payout for early retirement? Will the "normal" age remain the same?

The people that I know that took the cash, under the current system, left with about $800K after the taxman took their chunk of flesh. Age 50 is probably a less attractive time to go than age 55. I figure there would be many more takers if the age is bumped up by 5 years.

I can see that there will not be a great incentive to change the Normal Retirement Age, in my opinion. This will create pressure on the fund in large numbers of pilots, now with 25 years, at 55, and probably quite keen to retire with cash-in-hand with a possible change to age 65 as NRA and a 55 age of lock-in.

The earned pension will also be much higher in the average 5 years of earnings for most pilots between 50-55. Visa versa, if the NRA stays at 60, there will be less and less pilots that will have 25 YOS by the age of 50, creating less pressure with cash payments.

[Churrasco]

Rockie:

I think the point you are missing is that formula pay, as it is currently understood by the pilot group at Air Canada, is not a right it is a choice. If the pilots decide, through their bargaining agent, that it should no longer be the case that piloting a large aircraft should pay the most money then they may do so. In my view, an EMJ-190 PIC and a 777 PIC have the same responsibility and both have the potential to cause harm well beyond their compensation levels. Any distinction in income between the two seats is arbitrary. If I were the ACPA, a socialist trade union by definition, I would have a 5 year pay scale distinguished between Captains and First Officers and pay everybody at the same number of years of service in the same status the same wage. You are a bunch of bloody socialists after all and why some get more and others less when each member has one vote makes no sense.

I would also do away with PBS and seniority based vacation bidding and ensure that every pilot works a similar number of days per month and has access to premium vacation periods on an annually rotating basis. Seniority based systems protect the weak and punish the strong and are so incredibly arbitrary. An employee hired a month after another employee is no less valuable than someone hired a month earlier - yet you union types base your entire work lives around this premise. It is little wonder that the general public has such little regard for trade unions and their members.

[Brick Head]

Churrasco,

Completely agree with you collective bargaining statements. And although they could, I doubt the union will head in the direction of a flatter pay gradient. Smaller pensions is why. I believe they will seek to continue end loading a specific age.

I am speaking in general here.

Although it is true that a dollar earned today has more value than a dollar earned tomorrow unions generally don't look at that way. Why? Because the time value of money only works if you save it. If a specific age is not end loaded for pension purposes, pensions will be smaller. Since most won't save? So unions, and the majority of their membership, have a vested interest in deferred compensation targeting a specific age.

Socialist? you bet. In fact a very diligent planner would likely do better with the money earlier and may actually be harmed by this whole concept of deferred compensation due to the time value of money.

But hey this is collective bargaining. Unions have the view point that they know best. Hold our hands into retirement sort of speak. And you know, by in large they are correct. Without forceably making people save for retirement most won't do it. Just look at all the RRSP eligibility room never used every year.

Treating us like a preschooler? Should they be? Do we need to be?

As for your working conditions comments. I agree and they have no affect of compensation. If you ask some old farts that have retired it was the advent of PBS that brought in senior take all. The canned blocks prior to that (used in the early 90's) were much more equitably distributed. So when someone tells you it has always been this way? Say Bull stools.

[Clyde River]

Brickhead and others:

If you want change in a massive way, it is likely that it will have to be phased in.

If you want a DC pension, or new seniority system, then it can't start at the top and penalize people that have lived and worked under a agreement for 20, 30, or more years to accept something that will, in all likelihood, cost them money. That is just not reasonable.

Giving your collective heads a shake, think about a workable model that might be a graduated one, starting with a whole new system for the next new hire, and working it's way UP the seniority system. PG may be one that you don't like, but that is probably here to stay for the bulk of some peoples' careers. That is one where it is pretty easy to give it up for the people that have not been hired. However, looking for pilots that have waited most of their careers for the promised rewards - some of whom will never seem the promised land because of the various waves in sine curve of business - it is totally unreasonable to expect a top-down impetus, or even any enthusiasm, for change as you are discussing.

Clyde

[Churrasco]

Giving your collective heads a shake, think about a workable model that might be a graduated one, starting with a whole new system for the next new hire, and working it's way UP the seniority system.

Exactly. However, the ruling from the CHRT isn't going to be phased in over time, it will be immediate and therefore will have an immediate and negative effect on the junior members. Crisis is a good time to get things done and a massive rework of a collective agreement at a time when the assumption it was predicated upon (retirement at 60) is obliterated by a legal ruling makes good sense. The ruling punishes junior members and a rework of the collective agreement to flatten the pay structure removes the windfall for the senior boys and everyone can move forward at par.

A third party is saying the presumption upon which the CA was based is illegal. The members might say that if that assumption is illegal then they do not want the status quo in terms of wages, scheduling rules and vacation entitlement. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and frankly makes more economic sense for the membership. Deferred compensation schemes make little sense in a globalized and increasingly volatile economy. You need to earn money now not later as later may never come.

[Brick Head]

The ruling punishes junior members and a rework of the collective agreement to flatten the pay structure removes the windfall for the senior boys and everyone can move forward at par.

Churrasco,

Cart waaaaaay out in front of the horse. Have you actually read the whole ruling? Not just the conclusion, but the arguments that went into coming up with that conclusion.

There has been a sideline going on here since the beginning that most haven't noticed. Some didn't actually even get why at first. There are examples of it in every submission and every ruling.

THE UNION HAS SOLE DISCRETION OVER DISTRIBUTION OF THE COLLECTIVE WEALTH.

THE CHRT CAN NOT INTERFERE IN DISTRIBUTION.

WEALTH TRANSFER WILL TAKE PLACE IF AGE 60 IS DEEMED ILLEGAL AND NO CONTRACTUAL CHANGES ARE MADE.

I believe you are about to see an onslaught of information that unequivocally shows redistribution of the wealth should people stay beyond 60 with no contractual changes. You are going to see it in remedy. Once the CHRT acknowledges it they can't stop the union from dealing with it.

You will notice in the latest ruling the CHRT has already acknowledged wealth transfer although they basically call it small. No new evidence was permitted at the recent hearing that was not presented at the initial V&K hearing. Basically nothing was presented as evidence except the basic concept that wealth transfer will take place as a result.

Deferred compensation schemes make little sense in a globalized and increasingly volatile economy. You need to earn money now not later as later may never come.

Now that is a good point.

I still think we will see an end load of a specific age at the end of all this though. Just the option to stay beyond that if one wishes.

[Churrasco]

Brickhead, I should have been more precise. A decision that tosses the current mandatory retirement provisions for pilots at Air Canada will have the effect of creating a windfall gain for those on the cusp of retirement at the time the provision is quashed - should the other terms and conditions of the collective agreement remain the same. I suspect that the membership at ACPA, who largely favour retirement at 60, will deal with this by negotiating changes to the collective agreement that prevent the windfall. In other words, if Vilven, Kelly et al were motivated by a commitment to human rights and human rights legislation then they will have succeeded and the mandatory retirement provisions will be quashed. If they don't care about the human rights issue and were using the humans rights legislation as a vehicle to line their pockets, then I suspect they will ultimately fail.

[Slipstream]

It is great to see that the majority of pilots are NOT going to be let down by ACPA. The HRT ignored many Court rulings in other similar cases. Like I said before, the legal process has many levels of appeals and it is our right to explore all legal avenues for us. I doubt this issue will be solved any time soon. So, for those who have stated that the HRT decision is now law and we must lie down - you were wrong. We will not lie down and have our careers crushed by a few selfish individuals - and NO it is not selfish for a junior pilot to expect the same benefits that the very senior pilots have enjoyed for so many years. These few selfish pilots ( that will not retire ) would not have advanced their careers in the same manner if the honorable pilots before them had not retired at the NEGIOTATED age of 60. I believe that by the time this is settled the FEW will be far to old to fly and hopefully have realized what mess they have caused . GOODBYE AND ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT - BY THE WAY WHAT A CRAPPY WAY TO END YOUR CAREER - BEING REMEMERED AS A SELFISH PR*CK

[Jastapilot]

... We will not lie down and have our careers crushed by a few selfish individuals - and NO it is not selfish for a junior pilot to expect the same benefits that the very senior pilots have enjoyed for so many years. These few selfish pilots ( that will not retire ) would not have advanced their careers in the same manner... yada yada yada... GOODBYE AND ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT - BY THE WAY WHAT A CRAPPY WAY TO END YOUR CAREER - BEING REMEMERED AS A SELFISH PR*CK

I can't wait to see how you deal with it when your number comes up and the rest of the world is still at 65 except 'ole'(pun intended) Air Canada. I suppose you'll bow away gracefully regardless of your competency or medical condition?

[Churrasco]

Slipstream:

People are self-interested - that is the basis of our capitalist economy. In my view there is nothing wrong with that. There is no sense getting angry about this issue, regardless of the motivation of Vilven and Kelly. Their motivations are immaterial. The fact is that the mandatory retirement provision will be struck down as s.15(1)(c) of the Canada Human Rights Act is probably contrary to S. 15 of the Charter. At the end of the day this isn't that important. What is important is your unions response to the ruling. If the pilot group doesn't push its elected officials to negotiate changes to the collective agreement you will undoubtedly suffer economically at the hands of the complainants. I suspect Vilven and Kelly are banking on the usual apathy that flows through the veins of most pilots at Air Canada. If the majority of the group doesn't act "selfishly" and look after their interests they deserve what happens to them.

[Jaques Strappe]

Well, you went for the bait. Say what you will but with all the highest paying equipment occupied with the plus 60 crowd, don't think for a second that nobody will get a reduced pension if they decide to retire as planned at 60. This will undoubtedly affect the best five of many many pilots.

Most 767 Captains flying today made more money flying the 320 or even DC-9 prior to CCAA.

Their best 5 years are long behind them if they retire on the 767.

Saigon

We all made more before CCAA. That sort of thinking or argument may be valid right here and now but it does not address the fact that when these guys you mention are gone, the plus 60 crowd will still be sitting in the top paying jobs and thereby inhibiting movement to accommodate for the best five for those who do not wish to work to 65. Myself included.

To use your above quote, what do you think these 767 guys will do now? Yup, most will continue to 65 in hopes of sitting and retiring off the 777. That has just effectively reduced everyone's pension potential unless we too are willing to work to 65. So what about our rights? I know this is a never ending argument but the fact is, we all agreed to this and signed on the dotted line. If it was an issue, at any time, we all had the freedom to work elsewhere. Nobody had a gun to their head.............until now that is.

[tonysoprano]

+1.

[ivanhoe]

Air Canada pilots seek review of age ruling


Monday, September 28, 2009

Toronto — The Federal Court of Canada is being asked to step into a dispute between pilots at Air Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

At issue is a tribunal decision that called into question the retirement age provision of the collective agreement between the Air Canada Pilots Association and the airline.

In a release issued Monday, the association says it believes the tribunal “erred at law by ignoring Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process.”

The tribunal, in an Aug. 28 decision, ruled that Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act cannot be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

That section of the human rights law states that a practice is not discriminatory if an individual's employment is terminated because he or she has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions.

As a result of this interpretation, the tribunal refused to apply this section of the human rights act in considering a complaint regarding the association's collective agreement, which contains a contractual obligation for Air Canada pilots to retire at age 60.

If left unchallenged, the decision could potentially have an impact on the wages and benefits of the active pilot group and thousands of other federally regulated employees currently working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement.

“The contractual retirement age and associated post-employment benefits are cornerstones of our collective agreement, which has supported Air Canada pilots' careers for decades,” said Capt. Brian Murray, chairman of the association's Age 60 Legal Support Committee.

“The overwhelming majority of our members support this provision and we will use every legal means to protect their right to collectively bargain terms of retirement,” Mr. Murray said.

The Air Canada Pilots Association is the largest professional pilot group in Canada, representing the more than 3,000 pilots who operate Air Canada's main fleet.

[Slipstream]

... We will not lie down and have our careers crushed by a few selfish individuals - and NO it is not selfish for a junior pilot to expect the same benefits that the very senior pilots have enjoyed for so many years. These few selfish pilots ( that will not retire ) would not have advanced their careers in the same manner... yada yada yada... GOODBYE AND ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT - BY THE WAY WHAT A CRAPPY WAY TO END YOUR CAREER - BEING REMEMERED AS A SELFISH PR*CK

I can't wait to see how you deal with it when your number comes up and the rest of the world is still at 65 except 'ole'(pun intended) Air Canada. I suppose you'll bow away gracefully regardless of your competency or medical condition?

Hi Jasta - I have not had to deal with you in awhile although I have been looking at some of your comments - bullsh*t as always . I also see that you changed your quote - I guess my comment about your previous one struck a nerve. To answer your question - I will retire at 60 or sooner if able - I think I can at 57. My life is not defined by my job and I wish to spend my time with family and friends. I am not sure why you are commenting on this problem - I can only guess that you want to piss off AC pilots - to me you are just pathetic - I hope your recovery is moving forward.

[tonysoprano]

I hope your recovery is moving forward.

They may have to up the dosage....

[Slipstream]

I hope your recovery is moving forward.

They may have to up the dosage....

Tony

I don't think anything can fix a Jasta....

[Jastapilot]

... We will not lie down and have our careers crushed by a few selfish individuals - and NO it is not selfish for a junior pilot to expect the same benefits that the very senior pilots have enjoyed for so many years. These few selfish pilots ( that will not retire ) would not have advanced their careers in the same manner... yada yada yada... GOODBYE AND ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT - BY THE WAY WHAT A CRAPPY WAY TO END YOUR CAREER - BEING REMEMERED AS A SELFISH PR*CK

I can't wait to see how you deal with it when your number comes up and the rest of the world is still at 65 except 'ole'(pun intended) Air Canada. I suppose you'll bow away gracefully regardless of your competency or medical condition?

Hi Jasta - ... To answer your question - I will retire at 60 or sooner if able - I think I can at 57. My life is not defined by my job and I wish to spend my time with family and friends. I am not sure why you are commenting on this problem -...

I'll ignore the cheap shots, this time. I'm curious though, how close you are to 60 and I'd like to know how you can call these old guys selfish, but not yourself for what you want. Let's just get to the bottom of this shall we? It's greed on both sides, isn't it? Majority will win I guess but like I said, we'll see how you feel about retiring at 60 when you're healthy, competent, and maybe you're retirement savings have been flushed down the toilet just before you retire...
I don't know what their situation is, but like I said earlier, the rest of the world is going to 65, how are they dealing with it?

[tonysoprano]

Jast.
There are many issues, most have already been discussed but let me summarize my opinion:
a)The Supreme Court of Canada had already rejected a previous complaint in the early 90s thus precedence was set. Despite this, someone got away with taking something away from us. Who's selfish?
b)All of us accepted the terms of employment including age 60. In fact age 60 is one of the reasons we are here and not at other companies. Greed is when you take something away from someone. Age 60 was at AC before anything or anyone else here today. Someone has taken that away. Who's selfish?
c)Age 60 was a negotiated agreement (contractual) between ACPA and AC. Someone took that away. Who's selfish?
d)The rest of the world may have age 65 but companies are still allowed to set their own age limit. The AC complainants don't want that. They want full restoration of seniority, benefits and lost wages. Who's selfish?
This is just the surface. There is more. This is not over yet, but you're right, it's inevitable and we should just get use to it, perhaps, but I just wanted to point out where the selfishness is. Only an opinion.

[Jastapilot]

Jast.
There are many issues, most have already been discussed but let me summarize my opinion:
a)The Supreme Court of Canada had already rejected a previous complaint in the early 90s thus precedence was set. Despite this, someone got away with taking something away from us. Who's selfish?
b)All of us accepted the terms of employment including age 60. In fact age 60 is one of the reasons we are here and not at other companies. Greed is when you take something away from someone. Age 60 was at AC before anything or anyone else here today. Someone has taken that away. Who's selfish?
c)Age 60 was a negotiated agreement (contractual) between ACPA and AC. Someone took that away. Who's selfish?
d)The rest of the world may have age 65 but companies are still allowed to set their own age limit. The AC complainants don't want that. They want full restoration of seniority, benefits and lost wages. Who's selfish?
This is just the surface. There is more. This is not over yet, but you're right, it's inevitable and we should just get use to it, perhaps, but I just wanted to point out where the selfishness is. Only an opinion.

thanks for the big boy response Tony, well done. Now, back when age 60 retirement was 'negotiated' was it not also true that was a legally limiting age set by TC?

[tonysoprano]

I don't know. Maybe. Thing is, the current contract, as voted in favor of, by an overwhelming majority, supported age 60. That's what matters in labour contracts. A democratic process which involves the input of all and supports the wishes of a majority and considers the needs of the minority as well. I know you're not too familiar with how a union works so I don't expect you to grasp all this.

[Jastapilot]

I don't know. Maybe. Thing is, the current contract, as voted in favor of, by an overwhelming majority, supported age 60. That's what matters in labour contracts. A democratic process which involves the input of all and supports the wishes of a majority and considers the needs of the minority as well. I know you're not too familiar with how a union works so I don't expect you to grasp all this.

Just can't drop the arrogance, can you? WTF do you know about my union experiences? I guess you're only good for 1 big-boy response per day. Unfortunate.

[Slipstream]

Jasta can't grasp anything...ever ! Imagine having to work with a FO like him. It would be single pilot IFR all day long. What a dumb F*ck. I will make it simple for you Jasta -- 60 is the negiotated age by our contract --- Until the members vote something else it will stay - no matter what the legal morons believe has happened - nothing has happened. If the members vote a change - then it will change. Go drink your spiked happy drink at the dark airline and p*ss off you worthless piece of crap.

[Jastapilot]

Jasta can't grasp anything...ever ! Imagine having to work with a FO like him. It would be single pilot IFR all day long. What a dumb F*ck. I will make it simple for you Jasta -- 60 is the negiotated age by our contract --- Until the members vote something else it will stay - no matter what the legal morons believe has happened - nothing has happened. If the members vote a change - then it will change. Go drink your spiked happy drink at the dark airline and p*ss off you worthless piece of crap.

You 2 deserve each other and your union. Have a nice day.