Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Rockie]

When ACPA put the matter to vote in April 2006 they had this to say in the package about PBS bidding:

ACPA PBS Committee – Will impact monthly bidding system as accommodations will have to be made to take into account factors such as other countries’ restrictions on overflights and U.S. alternates, and
skewing of senior/junior pilots bidding rights.

However two months before the PBS committee actually reported this:

PBS Committee


No problem with the PBS system with pilots flying beyond age 60; unless other countries maintain age 60 restriction (e.g. the U.S.A.) – then possible accommodation will have to be made in bidding system, including factors of overflights and U.S. alternates, skewing senior/junior pilots bidding rights possibly.
(F. Coates, Feb. 14/’06)

Not quite the same. I won't say the MEC lied about this, but there is a curious difference and I leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions.


In the same package the MEC also said this:

"In May 2005, ALPA's Executive Board voted unanimously to accept the results of the survey of the pilot membership, which reaffirmed ALPA's long-standing policy on supporting mandatory retirement at age 60. When asked to rank legislative issues in order of importance, ALPA pilots said changing the age 60 rule was at the bottom of the list."

What they have not said is that in May 2007 the ALPA executive board reversed that decision by an overwhelming 80% vote. In the face of concerted efforts to change the rule in Congress and the FAA, the executive board directed that union resources be committed to protecting pilot interests by exerting ALPA's influence in any rule change.

Clearly ALPA was smart enough to know the change was coming regardless of their wishes and changed tactics accordingly. Here in Canada the rule has already changed, yet ACPA still doesn't realize it and continues to fight a lost battle.

[circlingfor69]

the only reason ALPA was in favour of a revised retirement age was the fact that most american airline pilots had their persion wiped out after 9/11.

[Rockie]

the only reason ALPA was in favour of a revised retirement age was the fact that most american airline pilots had their persion wiped out after 9/11.

Really?

"Concurrent to this internal ALPA work, legislative efforts in Congress to change the pilot mandatory retirement age accelerated, including the introduction of S.65 and H.R.1125 – “The Freedom to Fly Act.” The Panel concluded that the provisions in these bills do not sufficiently address ALPA’s issues with respect to a change in the mandatory retirement age.

In response to this conclusion, the Council recommended to the Executive Board that ALPA modify its policy to enable ALPA to influence legislation and regulatory efforts. This became more critical as legislative efforts to change the rule accelerated.

In its deliberations, the Board took into account the high likelihood of rule change through either the legislative or the regulatory process, as well as survey data from ALPA members overwhelmingly affirming that if the rule is going to change, ALPA needs to influence that change. ALPA will now develop a comprehensive legislative plan to do just that."

[circlingfor69]

YEAH REALLY!!!!

I dont give a sh%t about all this crap you continue to dig up!! (The bare fact that you have time to do this 12 hours a day is a testament to the sad life you must lead.)

Go talk to one of these pilots in the States. I just happened to be on a crew shuttle with a nice chap in LGA just the other day. He was VERY clear about the fact that that vast majority of pilots down there don't want to fly to 65 but have to to make up the money that they lost due to their very lack pension regulations. WE DO NOT HAVE these same lack regulations in Canada. (Can't wait to read your smart a$$ reply in 30 seconds)

[Lost in Saigon]

No one is forcing you to work past 60.

I for one like the option to go past 60, if I might want to.

For me, having to wait an extra year for an upgrade is well
worth having the freedom to continue doing what I love for a
little longer if I want to, and to retire when I feel I am ready.

I just started at Air Canada 10 years ago. I love what I do. It is too bad so many pilots
would rather be somewhere else than in an airplane doing the best job in the world.

[Rockie]

YEAH REALLY!!!!

I dont give a sh%t about all this crap you continue to dig up!! (The bare fact that you have time to do this 12 hours a day is a testament to the sad life you must lead.)

Go talk to one of these pilots in the States. I just happened to be on a crew shuttle with a nice chap in LGA just the other day. He was VERY clear about the fact that that vast majority of pilots down there don't want to fly to 65 but have to to make up the money that they lost due to their very lack pension regulations. WE DO NOT HAVE these same lack regulations in Canada. (Can't wait to read your smart a$$ reply in 30 seconds)

Sorry, I was away for a couple of hours doing things with my sad life.

So...you were on a bus in LGA with a nice chap just the other day, and he was VERY clear about the real reason ALPA did what they did. Was he speaking for the 80% of ALPA MEC chairs who issued the press release from my last post? No?

Hmmm.

ALPA says they changed their position because they could not stop it, so accepted it under the condition that their fundamental concerns were addressed. They reasoned if they spent all their effort fighting what couldn't be won, the rule would come into effect without their input. Smart strategy because their concerns were addressed.

Contrast that with ACPA's position. How would you say they're doing?

[circlingfor69]

No one is forcing you to stop working at 60. Retirement at 60 is a contractual PERK that has been MUTUALLY agreed upon by employer and employee at Air Canada. By all means carry on flying past 60 but dont do it at AC.

I love to fly to. What I dont love is the thought that I'm going to miss 5 more Christmas' with my kids, 5 more birthdays, 5 more anniversaries. All the while watching those A$$HOLES at the top reap the rewards of being at the top for 5 more years. I dont know how these guys can look at themselves in the mirror these days.

[Lost in Saigon]

I love to fly to. What I dont love is the thought that I'm going to miss 5 more Christmas' with my kids, 5 more birthdays, 5 more anniversaries. All the while watching those A$$HOLES at the top reap the rewards of being at the top for 5 more years. I dont know how these guys can look at themselves in the mirror these days.

Why do you think you will have to work 5 more years? Please explain.

[Rockie]

Having missed my share of Christmas's I can sympathize. I've likely missed more than you though, and as a result of this ruling I'm sure to miss more...just like you.

But you seem to be ignoring the fact that mandatory retirement is age discrimination in this country and therefore illegal. As well, the federal government is in the process of removing all reference to "normal retirement age" from the books which is the rationale behind ACPA's legal fight. Even in the highly unlikely event ACPA wins this case, the clause they won it on is disappearing and they're back where they started. In fact if every case before the CHRT was summarily dropped tomorrow it wouldn't change a thing. Age 60 is out.

Get used to it.

[Max111]

"We live in a world of mediocrity and mental dishonesty and it seems to be a disease that affects lots of pilots who want the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." ......Quote

All good posts Rockie.......I believe that the vast majority of pilots at Air Canada want the option of continuing to fly past 60 or believe that this is a human rights issue and are willing to let the Courts decide !!

Read what the committees {ACPA} who wrote reports, said about flying past 60............Hey...but don't let the facts get in the way of a good slagging . Another proud moment for ACPA....Something to tell the wife and the kids about.......!!

Max 111

[ivanhoe]

Rockie

I'm all for flying past 60 for those who want to at AC , so I'm with you there...

I find myself wondering why you expend so much energy trying to convince a bunch of cry babies. What will be , will be. I don't think you will bring them over to the dark side.

[Max111]

I agree... For what worth !! Max111

[Gurundu the Rat]

You guys that promote a strong work ethic should try the right seat of an Embraer for your last 5 years. And you`re gonna love the LGA turns. I personally feel 60+ pilots who wish to continue should do so at the bottom of the present day list but ahead of new hires who will be allowed to go to 65. I personally don`t think Air Canada has discriminated against anyone by forcing them to retire at 60. Why? Because every single Air Canada pilot has retired at 60 or earlier in the past. If they forced one to retire before 60 (i.e. at say 57 for example) THAT would be discrimination because that one pilot would have been singled out. THAT is discrimination. You may not agree with it but it is anything but discrimination. It is a fact of life.
anyways, JMO

[JayDee]

You may not agree with it but it is anything but discrimination. It is a fact of life.

After 4 + years of legal wrangling, apparently the CHRT disagrees with you.

Wrap your head around it, Forced Mandatory Retirement will very soon be but a bad memory.

and that, Sir, is a fact of life.

[Rockie]

I find myself wondering why you expend so much energy trying to convince a bunch of cry babies. What will be , will be. I don't think you will bring them over to the dark side.

I give the membership the benefit of the doubt because they have been deliberately denied the information they need to make an informed decision, and have effectively been manipulated by the MEC. That doesn't excuse individuals for willingly staying ignorant of the issue though. And I do find it very difficult to not lose it on the cry babies who somehow think this world, Air Canada and senior pilots owe them a living. But I'm a patient man.

I've tried to present the other side of the coin on the ACPA forum, but the character assassination that goes on there is too much to take. I would be tempted to take ACPA to court for promoting a hostile workplace.

If posting here makes even a few individuals stop raging for a few minutes and actually think about this, it will have been worth it. Plus...posting here and arguing this point has helped clarify the issue for me as well.

I personally don`t think Air Canada has discriminated against anyone by forcing them to retire at 60. Why? Because every single Air Canada pilot has retired at 60 or earlier in the past.

Yes, we know you think that. And so do many of your colleagues. However the Canadian government and the CHRT don't agree with you. That fact simply has to sink into your head sooner or later.

[ivanhoe]

Rockie

The character assasination on here is what disturbs me the most also. I'm glad I'm not exposed to what goes on in your ACPA forum. Sounds like a very ugly situation. Bad enough that we as pilot's have the red vs blue vs teal thing going on let alone turning on ones own.

[Gurundu the Rat]

Yes, we know you think that. And so do many of your colleagues. However the Canadian government and the CHRT don't agree with you. That fact simply has to sink into your head sooner or later.

They do state that it is not discriminatory to force one to retire if that is the normal age of retirement. 60 is the normal age at Air Canada I believe 60 was the normal age at Canadian. Since there are no other Legacy carriers in Canada now that they have been merged then that would make 60 the normal age of retirement. Hence non-discriminatory.

From the government of Canada:

"At the federal level, it is not a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act to terminate an individual’s employment because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions. Therefore, in those circumstances, as stated in the Act, mandatory retirement is permitted."

If you`re gonna tell me flying an RJ is a similar position then you should also argue that it should have similar pay to a 777.

[Rockie]

Yes, we know you think that. And so do many of your colleagues. However the Canadian government and the CHRT don't agree with you. That fact simply has to sink into your head sooner or later.

They do state that it is not discriminatory to force one to retire if that is the normal age of retirement. 60 is the normal age at Air Canada I believe 60 was the normal age at Canadian. Since there are no other Legacy carriers in Canada now that they have been merged then that would make 60 the normal age of retirement. Hence non-discriminatory.

From the government of Canada:

"At the federal level, it is not a discriminatory practice under the Canadian Human Rights Act to terminate an individual’s employment because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions. Therefore, in those circumstances, as stated in the Act, mandatory retirement is permitted."

If you`re gonna tell me flying an RJ is a similar position then you should also argue that it should have similar pay to a 777.

Ok. Now this is getting a little frustrating.

Go back to page one of this thread. Read the title of the thread. Now read the very first post of this thread.

It's only been repeated about 100 times already that what you are talking about is on the way out. Legislation is working its way through parliament to eliminate the "normal age of retirement" exception from the act. And in the case of Vilven/Kelly the CHRT refused to allow that exception which is within their discretion.

I get that you're angry, but please do some reading so at least you know what you're angry about.

[Lost in Saigon]

They do state that it is not discriminatory to force one to retire if that is the normal age of retirement. 60 is the normal age at Air Canada I believe 60 was the normal age at Canadian. Since there are no other Legacy carriers in Canada now that they have been merged then that would make 60 the normal age of retirement. Hence non-discriminatory.

That argument is dead.

Age 60 is no longer the normal retirement age for airlines in Canada. The CHRT has said so.

The CRT said there are a total of 7,646 airline pilots in Canada. Of the 4,580 pilots at the 36 comparator airlines, none of them retire at age 60. Only the 3,066 at Air Canada retire at age 60.

[Mig29]

Bull S**t!!
Today it's going to be optional, in a decade they will make it MANDATORY to work until 65!!!

Just like it was 55 years ago, and now it's 60....

[DocAV8R]

AIR NAVIGATION COMMISSION
FINAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ANNEX 1 IN
THE LIGHT OF COMMENTS FROM STATES AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
(Presented by the Director of the Air Navigation Bureau)

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 2 December 2004, the Air Navigation Commission (167-10) reviewed a proposal to amend the
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) related to the upper age limit for pilots in Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing. The Commission agreed that the proposed amendment be transmitted to States and appropriate international organizations for comments. Accordingly, State letter AN 5/16.1-05/17, dated 25 February 2005, was sent with a due date for replies of 15 June 2005.

2. SUMMARY OF REPLIES
2.1 By 15 June 2005, sixty-five replies had been received from sixty-three Contracting States and
two international organizations. By 9 November 2005, seventy-four replies had been received from seventy-two Contracting States and two international organizations. A summary of the replies is given in Appendix A.

3. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE REPLIES
3.1 Of those responding to the State letter, seventy States and one international organization agreed
with the proposal, three States and one international organization disagreed with the proposal and one State took no position. Nine States indicated that they do not impose any upper age limit on pilots licensed in their State.
See also: [AN Min. 167-10] [AN-WP/7982]
International Civil Aviation Organization
WORKING PAPER
AN-WP/8074
9/11/05
ANC Task No. MED-7101: Upper age limits for flight crew members

APPENDIX B
COMMENTS OF STATES AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
IN RESPONSE TO STATE LETTER AN 5/16.1-05/17



Canada
Canada is in agreement with comments.
Canada would like to see the age restriction removed entirely as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Article 15, makes limitations based purely on age, discriminatory. Canada currently does not curtail the privileges of pilots who have attained their 60th birthday. Canada has no objections to pilots who are 60 years of age or older, holding a medically valid ICAO Contracting State licence, from flying foreign registered aircraft within Canadian airspace.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Robert Milton was the head of IATA which was party to ICAO at the time. All major airlines were involved in this decision as well. It is about time that Air Canada got with the program- note the above dates.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
just how many of "your fair share of Christmas's" have you missed? Remember, you have passed yourself off as being in the bottom 15 % of the list. You also seem quite sure that you have been away more than the other fella...Hmmm. So, please enlighten us....Which one is it? Are you in the bottom 15% or not? I think your facade is starting to crack. Bottom 15% my a$$.

[Rockie]

Rockie,
just how many of "your fair share of Christmas's" have you missed? Remember, you have passed yourself off as being in the bottom 15 % of the list. You also seem quite sure that you have been away more than the other fella...Hmmm. So, please enlighten us....Which one is it? Are you in the bottom 15% or not? I think your facade is starting to crack. Bottom 15% my a$$.

What makes you think Air Canada is my first flying job?

Bull S**t!!
Today it's going to be optional, in a decade they will make it MANDATORY to work until 65!!!

Just like it was 55 years ago, and now it's 60....

Back to school for you. Slavery was abolished in 1834 in Britain, and 1865 in the United States. It hasn't been mandatory for anybody to work in North America since then. I'll bet you every penny each of us makes for the rest of our lives that it won't be mandatory in ten years either.

[Gurundu the Rat]

I think he meant without penalty.

Maybe the narrow body pilots can learn from this and present an argument to the CHRT that they are being discriminated upon based on the type of aircraft they fly. I mean after all we are subsidizing a differed compensation scheme, all the while enduring a 5-15% discount pay rate not to mention PG. Maybe we can put an end to this injustice through the courts. After all justice in this country is all over equal pay for equal work. Huh? What? I knew when I joined? Right!

[JayDee]

Maybe the narrow body pilots can learn from this and present an argument to the CHRT that they are being discriminated upon based on the type of aircraft they fly. I mean after all we are subsidizing a differed compensation scheme, all the while enduring a 5-15% discount pay rate not to mention PG. Maybe we can put an end to this injustice through the courts. After all justice in this country is all over equal pay for equal work. Huh? What? I knew when I joined? Right!

Please explain how a pay based argument would have anything to do with the CHRT mandate??


The Act prohibits discrimination on the following grounds:

race
national or ethnic origin
colour
religion
age
sex (includes pay equity,( male vs female) harassment (applies to all prohibited grounds, not just sex), pregnancy and childbirth)
marital status
family status
sexual orientation
disability (can be mental/physical, includes disfigurement, past or present, alcohol or drug dependence)
conviction for which a pardon has been granted.