Retirement - Split from Hiring

[Rockie]

Fly past 60 ruling is OK, but it should only apply to new hires NOW because the rest signed on knowing the 60 rule.

So what you're saying is that discrimination is OK if it's applied to people in, say, the top half of the list (where do you draw the line anyway?), but it's not OK to discriminate against people in the bottom half. And the law does not apply to everyone.

Is that what you're saying? Because it's the equivalent of saying if you're already a child labourer when the practice was abolished then the new law doesn't apply to you, and you have to stay as a child labourer. Afterall, children were depended on in those days to help support their family. They did so willingly and knew what the rules were when they signed on too. So...is that what you're saying?

Do something for the new generation...

They have. The new generation just hasn't figured it out yet...but they will.

[ywger]

Rockie: Thanks for enlightening us with your knowledge of geopolitics, but you missed my point. If I may take the liberty to summarize your attitude, you're trying to vilify the majority of AC pilots (who strongly disagree with the abolition of mandatory retirement), simply because it was recently deemed 'uncool' according to the collective morals of society.

The problem with your mentality (apart from being nauseatingly presumptuous), is that it is entirely black and white. For starts, society doesn't think of mandatory retirement the way we do. The collective mind of society imagines some young hired-gun forcing their grandfather to quit his job because he may eventually become prone to flatulence, and his prescription hemorrhoid cream is already costing the health care plan too much cashola. And while I disagree with the spirit of that kind of mandatory retirement, the reality, in an Air Canada context, is that a vast majority of us democratically support mandatory retirement. It sustains progression, and mitigates stagnation, while ensuring a large chunk of the most youthful of our latter years is protected from professional obligations. It's hard not to like that!

This is not as black and white as you'd like to think, so you should take your own advice and get your head out of your #ss. This issue will take longer than you think to resolve itself, because there exists legitimate corporate structures in Canada, which rely on mandatory retirement to sustain progression, and who's membership whole-heartedly support it. And given the fact that lighter shades of this issue exist, it can not be managed with a black and white strategy, such as total abolition of mandatory retirement.

Now you understood the retirement deal when you signed on, as did the rest of this group of mutts. So if there ever was a shred of integrity in this initiative, it was lost when all of you waved your right to conscientiously refuse your job offer from AC, in protest of their 'prejudiced policies'. Your movement sure wouldn't be suffering from a credibility deficit like it is now!

And to say you're being prejudized against when you've got a $+110k/yr pension to look forward to is a VERY slippery slope, especially when you play the 'it will cause me undue financial hardship' card. It brings certain details of our remuneration into the public eye, where we run the risk of permanently destroying any good will for our profession, and our company by sounding like a bunch of out of touch cry babies.

So if you need more than your 'measly' pension to survive, there is no law prohibiting you from taking your skillset elsewhere after you retire (while hopefully taking some time to reevaluate your lifestyle choices along the way). Many an old-timer have enjoyed a second career abroad, pulling in loads of cash while having the time of their lives. That's what my plan is, as long as the selfish bullies in our ranks don't get their way.

[Squid]

you knuckleheads don't get it that sometimes it's not all about the cash. Some just don't want to stop flying for the love of flying. Can't deny them that YWGer. knob.

[ywger]

Thanks for your contribution to this subject Squid. Very persuasive.

[barefootpilot]

Its not cause of there love of flying, its cause they have nothing else but a boring life and need work to survive. If it was for the love of flying, then take their boat loads of money they have made over there career, plus the juicy pension check and buy a plane an actually go back to the roots of flying, oh thats right they probably already own a plane..

Or if it is for the love of flying then tell them to give up there 777 capt seat working 10 days a month and put them at the bottom of the list making PG peanuts flying 6 legs a day. Hey its for the love of flying right, I am sure everyone is wondering eagerly where to sign up. Wait the guys lined up are the 5000+ dreaming of a chance to have a career at AC and work hard making nothing to start but won't get that chance for 5 more years if this BS happens.

I feel so discriminated against....

[Squid]

they earned the seat they have and they contributed to the company so you newbies can have your job. Get over your whining and time to move on. some will retire - some will stay. good on em which ever path they wanna go. focused on money is pretty narrow minded bro. My contribution ywger? man you can't see the forrest for the trees knob.

[Phileas Fogg]

Fly past 60 ruling is OK, but it should only apply to new hires NOW because the rest signed on knowing the 60 rule.

So what you're saying is that discrimination is OK if it's applied to people in, say, the top half of the list (where do you draw the line anyway?), but it's not OK to discriminate against people in the bottom half. And the law does not apply to everyone.

Is that what you're saying? Because it's the equivalent of saying if you're already a child labourer when the practice was abolished then the new law doesn't apply to you, and you have to stay as a child labourer. Afterall, children were depended on in those days to help support their family. They did so willingly and knew what the rules were when they signed on too. So...is that what you're saying?

Do something for the new generation...

They have. The new generation just hasn't figured it out yet...but they will.

The ole child labour comparison!! HAhahaa! You win!

There's a medical aspect behind the mandatory retirement - heart disease and stroke are pretty common in our society, especially around the ages of 60-65 and probably most of the AC pilots approaching that age bracket are PIC on their machine. Time to move to Florida and golf.

As far as "They don't want to retire because of their love of flying" ?!?!??! Hahaa, whatever. Buy a Cub. At that point in their career how much "flying" are they really doing anyway?

[Rockie]

If I may take the liberty to summarize your attitude, you're trying to vilify the majority of AC pilots (who strongly disagree with the abolition of mandatory retirement), simply because it was recently deemed 'uncool' according to the collective morals of society.

No. I'm trying to convince you that mandatory retirement is no longer tolerated in Canada and we as a pilot group would be much better off getting used to the idea and dealing with it than wasting time, money, and whatever semblance of respect for your colleagues you have left fighting it. Mandatory retirement has not been deemed "uncool" as you so inappropriately put it...it is illegal. As in against the law. "Uncool" is a highschool term.

And while I disagree with the spirit of that kind of mandatory retirement, the reality, in an Air Canada context, is that a vast majority of us democratically support mandatory retirement.

If Air Canada pilots wrote Canadian Law I would say you have an argument. However Air Canada pilots don't write Canadian Law, they comply with it. What we think or vote for doesn't matter. Do you understand that?

All of your other arguments about knowing the deal when we hired on, or it's not your fault (boo hoo) that other people can't live on their pension are totally irrelevant.

Its not cause of there love of flying, its cause they have nothing else but a boring life and need work to survive.

It is not for you or anybody else to judge why a person would choose to work past 60. It isn't any of your business either.

No hiring planned until the impact of the age 60 thing can be assessed once all the proceedings are complete. There would have been hiring in the fall otherwise.

One of the biggest reasons Air Canada and ACPA should have dealt with this differently is because no planning can be done until it's settled. Every pilot after August 28th of last year has the right to stay, but every month this is delayed makes the situation all the worse. ACPA's delaying tactics will succeed only in making the problem much worse than it already is.

There's a medical aspect behind the mandatory retirement - heart disease and stroke are pretty common in our society, especially around the ages of 60-65 and probably most of the AC pilots approaching that age bracket are PIC on their machine

Where have you been? Jesus H. Christ, will you please do some reading?

[Lost in Saigon]

There is a rumour that there will be a "Cease and Desist" order against ACPA and Air Canada very soon.

If so, at least those retiring after March 2010 will be able to continue working, while ACPA and Air Canada continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to delay the remedy for those who have already been forced to retire against their will.

[Bede]

Sorry, I don't follow this debate much, but what's do say that if age 60 get cancelled, 65 will be the new retirement age? Why 65? Couldn't a guy work until 70? 75? Assuming that he needs to pay alimony.

[Lost in Saigon]

Age 60 has already been cancelled by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. ACPA and Air Canada are continuing to fight it in the courts, trying to delay it's implementation as long as possible. While doing this they are increasing their own liabilities for every additional pilot who is still forced out the door at 60.

Age 65 will become the new maximum mandatory retirement age for pilots in Canada, because that is the normal retirement age for the majority of airlines in Canada.

Of course there will be no minimum retirement age and Air Canada pilots can continue to retire at age 60 if they wish.

[Rockie]

Sorry, I don't follow this debate much, but what's do say that if age 60 get cancelled, 65 will be the new retirement age? Why 65? Couldn't a guy work until 70? 75? Assuming that he needs to pay alimony.

Or had their life savings stolen by a Bernie Madoff or Earl Jones. Or have a sick relative that requires extremely expensive treatment. Or any one of 1000 other reasons they can't retire. When you reach the ripe old age of 90 and you're still married to your first wife you still won't have the moral right to judge someone's marital history. You certainly don't now.

The CHRT will allow mandatory retirement under certain very limited conditions that supercede a person's individual rights. The exceptions have been posted here many times but it's not hard to look them up for yourself. One of them is called "Bonofide Operational Requirement". That means if an employee is not employable above an age because of the nature of the job then forcing retirement at that age is not considered discriminatory.

ACPA has tried to convince the CHRT that age 60 is a BFOR for airline pilots. Absurd given that the entire world has now gone to 65, and the CHRT rejected that ridiculous argument out of hand as they should. Instead of uselessly fighting a battle already lost ACPA and the company should be making the case for a BFOR of 65. They're not.

I encourage all ACPA members to ask their MEC why not.

Edit: Small correction Lost in Saigon...the "normal retirement age" exception is 15(1)(c) that ACPA is hanging all of their marbles from. The legislation going through parliament right now will remove that provision from the Act. So if ACPA and the company want any age of retirment they will have to do it with a BFOR.

[Bede]

Rockie,

Thanks for the good response. Sorry if I touched a nerve there; not judging anyone, just making light of a sad reality. Perhaps it was in bad taste.

However isn't age 65 as a BFOR somewhat arbitrary as well? Why shouldn't it be allowed for a pilot to fly until he's 66 if he can handle it? Couldn't someone argue that an "age 65" rule is discriminatory.

As for the legislation, I don't believe that applies in circumstances where a collective agreement is in place. (I'm not 100% sure about that though).

Cheers

[Rockie]

No worries Bede, and I apologize for snapping at you. That divorce argument is used all the time by young people who haven't been around long enough to experience the kind of marital challenges they most certainly will in the future. Someone who's been married ten years, five years, or maybe never married passing judgement on someone who survived 25+ years is insulting.

But I know that you weren't.

The CHRT may actually reject a BFOR of 65 as well, but Air Canada is an international airline and most countries do not permit anyone over 65 from operating there. Whether a BFOR of 65 is accepted remains to be seen. My point was ACPA is not even trying. Instead they are still inexplicably trying to win age 60.

As for the contract...no collective agreement ever takes precedent over the law. How could it?

[Gurundu the Rat]

As for the contract...no collective agreement ever takes precedent over the law. How could it?

I don`t think anyone has a problem with retiring past sixty. Where the problem lies is that the entire collective agreement is based on a differed compensation system where one maxes out their gains at the end of their careers as to put in their 5 best years for the pension. While the law may be the law, it would be highly immoral to cherry pick those 5 best years from someone who wants to retire at 60. Especially since the complainants rose through the ranks through the earlier generations retiring at 60. This must be implemented in such a way as to not harm anyone presently wishing to retire at 60.
One solution that is fair is to have 60+ pilots wishing to stay return to the bottom of the present day list but ahead of any new hires as of this date. Hence if you are 50 now in 10 years you turn 60 and can hold whatever a 10 year seniority pilot holds. Probably Emb capt. If you are 59 right now, go RP. This way the whole mess gets sorted out with time without hurting anyone and those who love aviation can continue to enjoy flying. They could even take out their pensions to supplement the PG wages. Sorry no GDIP.
Anyone have a problem with this solution where there are no windfall gains and no losers? I think its a good compromise most are willing to live with.

[Rockie]

This must be implemented in such a way as to not harm anyone presently wishing to retire at 60.

Ideally yes. That may not be entirely possible though, but the other side of the equation is now you have the option of working longer. When your time comes it is entirely likely you may want to despite your feelings now. Also the degree to which your career will be impacted in the opinion of the CHRT is not nearly as serious as the union and fearmongering would lead you to believe. Suffice to say no clear determination can be made on that until it actually happens.

But what has your union done to ensure minimal impact to those wishing to leave at 60? Absolutely nothing. Instead of laying the fundamentals for implementation they've been wasting time, money, and union solidarity on the single-minded purpose of defeating it.

One solution that is fair is to have 60+ pilots wishing to stay return to the bottom of the present day list but ahead of any new hires as of this date.

That's not a solution. That's age discrimination. What eliminating mandatory retirement means is that a pilot's status when they turn 60 changes as much as it did when they turned 50, 40 or 30. It doesn't change. Tying any change in working conditions to any age is discriminatory.

Any change Air Canada pilots implement as a result of this will have to apply to everyone regardless of age.

[Gurundu the Rat]

Fine! Status pay with rotating seniority.
You won. In doing so you have proven yourself greedy by not accepting a compromise allowing you to stay while not hurting anyone. You will have gained nothing as the entire contract will be overhauled. and you will have burned a lot of people in the process.
Congrats.

[Lost in Saigon]

Fine! Status pay with rotating seniority.
You won. In doing so you have proven yourself greedy by not accepting a compromise allowing you to stay while not hurting anyone. You will have gained nothing as the entire contract will be overhauled. and you will have burned a lot of people in the process.
Congrats.

Rockie, myself, and others on this forum who support to OPTION of age 65 retirement, are all junior. Probably just as junior as you. The difference is we understand what a hardship it can be for us, and others, to be forced to retire at age 60. The hardship is due to the fact that we were not hired age age 19 like many of those who went before us. We were hired at age 35, or 38, or even 44. Retiring at age 60 means our pensions will SUCK BIG TIME.

We would all welcome a Status Pay system with rotating seniority. Doing so could eliminate the need to work past age 60.

"Gurundu the Rat", how many years of service will you have at age 60? Have you ever worked out what your pension would be at age 60? Have you also worked out what it would be if you went to age 65?

[babybus]

All I can say is that if I was contemplating on staying on past 60 at the expense of one of my junior colleagues getting laid off or bumped to a lower position because of my greed I couldn't live with myself.
Furthermore I would tend to think that the extra 5 years that I stay would be rather unpleasant seing that I would be having dinner and happy hour alone on all the layovers and that none of the FO's and RP's (about to be laid off or demoted to that position because of me) that I fly with talk to me.
But hey it will still beat having to get a life outside of flying or forming an identity other than being a ''captain''.
I pitty you guys and I think that most of this greed is actually not so much financial so much as that you don't really have a life or anything interesting to do after you retire.
And when you go to dinner parties you can lie and still tell people you are an Air Canada captain so you feel better about yourself.....just don't stay and f..ck everybody.

Fine! Status pay with rotating seniority.
You won. In doing so you have proven yourself greedy by not accepting a compromise allowing you to stay while not hurting anyone. You will have gained nothing as the entire contract will be overhauled. and you will have burned a lot of people in the process.
Congrats.

Well said.

[Rockie]

Fine! Status pay with rotating seniority.
You won. In doing so you have proven yourself greedy by not accepting a compromise allowing you to stay while not hurting anyone.

What do you mean I've won? I personally could accept letter for letter your "compromise" and it would make no difference. It isn't me, you, or ACPA that determines what constitutes age discrimination, and what you suggested is age discrimination and will not be permitted.

It is this insistence on making this a personal fight against individuals that prevents people from seeing the issue clearly. The flypast60 group didn't invent this. It wasn't them that made mandatory retirement discriminatory and therefore illegal. The sooner our pilots and union get past that they'll be able to see what's going on in the world and adapt just like every other person in the country has.

All I can say is that if I was contemplating on staying on past 60 at the expense of one of my junior colleagues getting laid off or bumped to a lower position because of my greed I couldn't live with myself.

You'll get over that around the time you turn 58.

Furthermore I would tend to think that the extra 5 years that I stay would be rather unpleasant seing that I would be having dinner and happy hour alone on all the layovers and that none of the FO's and RP's (about to be laid off or demoted to that position because of me) that I fly with talk to me.

By the time you're 58 that won't happen. But if it does you'll cease caring about that too.

[Gurundu the Rat]

I have not done the math, nor do I really plan on actually having a pension when I retire at 60 (or 58). It will be gravy if I have one. For the record, I will not have a full pension at 60, nor would I have 35 years in at 65 for that matter.
So for arguments sake, under my scenario, if one is hired at say 45 and is forced under present day pilots at age 60. That would mean they would go pretty senior as EMB captain or junior 320 Capt to fly out the remaining 5 years. Pretty descent. I don`t see the need for windfall gains to the detriment of the vast majority. As someone said above it`s not black and white. We need to implement this under an entire generation. Not overnight. I`m not against age 65, i`m against the way the complainants want to implement it immediately all the while having benefited from the system their entire careers.

[Rockie]

I don`t see the need for windfall gains to the detriment of the vast majority.

Read the literature. There is no windfall gain, and the detriment to the majority has been hugely misrepresented by ACPA.

We need to implement this under an entire generation. Not overnight. I`m not against age 65, i`m against the way the complainants want to implement it immediately all the while having benefited from the system their entire careers.

The end of mandatory retirement in Canada has been a long process, hardly an overnight one. As I've said before this has been coming for a long time and Air Canada has defied the odds longer than they should have. If the change seems sudden you can thank the union and company for not doing anything about the inevitable change until they were forced to.

Once again, it isn't the complainants forcing the immediate change. What Air Canada is doing is illegal. Not sort of illegal...illegal. Do you really expect the CHRT to tolerate age discrimination just because you have the mistaken belief ending it will be bad for you?

[Lost in Saigon]

So for arguments sake, under my scenario, if one is hired at say 45 and is forced under present day pilots at age 60. That would mean they would go pretty senior as EMB captain or junior 320 Capt to fly out the remaining 5 years. Pretty descent. I don`t see the need for windfall gains to the detriment of the vast majority.

You are wrong. It is not "pretty decent". It doesn't matter what position you have attained by age 60. What matters is your years of service at retirement.

A 320 FO with 30 years of service is going to do a Hell of a lot better than a 320 Capt with 15 years of service.

It is time you got yourself educated on the process.

[sepia]

I don`t see the need for windfall gains to the detriment of the vast majority.

Read the literature. There is no windfall gain, and the detriment to the majority has been hugely misrepresented by ACPA.

We need to implement this under an entire generation. Not overnight. I`m not against age 65, i`m against the way the complainants want to implement it immediately all the while having benefited from the system their entire careers.

The end of mandatory retirement in Canada has been a long process, hardly an overnight one. As I've said before this has been coming for a long time and Air Canada has defied the odds longer than they should have. If the change seems sudden you can thank the union and company for not doing anything about the inevitable change until they were forced to.

Once again, it isn't the complainants forcing the immediate change. What Air Canada is doing is illegal. Not sort of illegal...illegal. Do you really expect the CHRT to tolerate age discrimination just because you have the mistaken belief ending it will be bad for you?

After listening to Brain Murry speak on the issue today, it's pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Gurundu the Rat]

After listening to Brain Murry speak on the issue today, it's pretty clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Rocky or me? both?


Rocky: You don`t need to tell me what you think is good for me.

Lost in Saigon: I`m proposing viable solutions that everyone can live with to accommodate those who wish to stay. Bottom line is the change would occur over a generation without negative impact to anyone. It`s not perfect, it`s a compromise that gets less and less "discriminatory" every year until every pilot on property is fully retired. If you think the membership will swallow the age 65 pill without major changes to the contract you are dead wrong. I want my differed compensation back!