Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Rockie]

Garunda

Most of my career has been spent under the status pay system, and you and I are totally on the same page as far as Air Canada's pay scheme is concerned. Equipment pay has to be the dumbest creation this side of Sarah Palin.

Unfortunately you will never convince any court or the CHRT that it is discriminatory. The only answer lies with the membership itself. Maybe this age 60 thing will be the impetus to change since it removes retirement age as a factor in your compensation and mine.

Of course that also entails huge changes and you likely won't upgrade until the 2nd half of your career.

[Gurundu the Rat]

I have nothing against formula pay. I would prefer a no discount formula to a status pay, however if age 60+ passes, then status pay will be the only way to go. unfortunately the losers here will be the widebody pilots who wish to retire at 60 as they will surely see wage reductions or freezes.

Rocky it sounds like you joined AC later in life, are you by chance ex-military? just putting 2+2 together here but if that is the case would you not have a military pension to supplement your reduced AC pension?

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.

What age do military pilots retire at?
60 no?
Out of the 36 comparator airlines i`d be curious to know how many have actually seen retirements before the workforce actually moves on to better paying jobs. I mean who retires from Bearskin airlines at 65? While it may be possible to do so i`d bet the vast majority of their pilots didn`t retire there. Just putting it out there to ponder. You gotta assume out of those 4580 pilots at other airlines some of them want to (and some day will) come to Air Canada and enjoy the benefits of our collective agreement one of which is age 60 retirement. So to say that only the 3066 Air Canada pilots retire at 60 is miss-leading. Maybe we should have a referendum on the issue and poll each pilot at the comparator airlines.

[Rockie]

Ex-military...yes
Military pension...no. What bearing does that have on this discussion anyway? This is about age discrimination, not the size of someone's individual income.

You have to drop the normal age of retirement argument. The CHRT has rejected it and the government is in the process of removing it from the act. ACPA will not win that argument at the judicial review, and even if they did it will not apply in the future since the government is getting rid of it. It is irrelevant now and in the future.

Any time there is a change, doesn't matter what it is, it will have some effect on somebody. There is no way to avoid it. Sometimes the effect is detrimental to a degree, but the overriding goal is to improve. Eliminating mandatory retirement is an improvement that will ultimately benefit everyone.

[Mig29]

Rockie, one thing I will agree with you is that the pay should be based on years of service, rather than equipment. In N.America this has been the issue for decades. Why? Money, money...

And as for this 60 years rule, I got one thing to say: Beneficiary Pension.
I hope you know what this means, and who is entitled to it. In Europe it's a common thing (but even there it's starting to crack through). Pilots are one of the professionals included in it.

Now I would have to agree with people who designed this "Beneficiary Pension" rule, because they probably have more intelligence than me, and realized that working until 60 or 65 in this profession under these more intensifying demands is not that healthy for someone. So therefore, I would have to disagree with some bean counter who thought of this b.s. idea ( in the name of human rights, of course) so that he can squeeze few more years out of us, that way not having to hire more folks and hoping that once we retire, we'll kick the bucket much sooner than if we stopped by 55-60 and enjoyed our hard earned pension.

Now, you'll say to me that I can retire at 60 today, but I bet you maybe not in ten, but in 15-20 this will change. And that maybe will not affect you, but it will affect me and thousands of other people behind me. By the way, AC pilots voted 3 to 1 against this rule not that long ago....

Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't BA retire at 55 and they still do???

[Lost in Saigon]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't BA retire at 55 and they still do???

Not anymore.


http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/rewards/ba-pension.htm

British Airways Raises Retirement Age
March 24 2006 - British Airways is proposing to change its New Airways Pension Scheme (NAPS) in order to clear a £1 billion past service actuarial deficit. Despite the name, NAPS has been closed to new members sice 2003. A newer - defined contribution - scheme, British Airways' Retirement Plan (BARP) has been available since then to recent joiners, including chief executive Willie Walsh who joined in May 2005.

The New Airways Pension Scheme (NAPS) NAPS has 33,794 active members, 20,269 deferred and 15,185 pensioners. BA intends to keep a final salary pension scheme with no changes to pension benefits already earned and no increase in staff contribution rates. But, under the new proposals, there will be changes to members' benefits relating to future service.

Key changes for future service are:

Normal retirement age for cabin crew raised from 55 to 60 initially and 65 after 5 years.
Normal retirement age for pilots raised from 55 to 60 - 65 if countries such as France and the USA remove restrictions on older pilots overflying them.
Slower accrual rate
Pensionable pay increases no more than inflation
Pension increases on retirement capped at 2.5 per cent each year
Company and staff to share impact of changes in life expectancy

[Mig29]

thanks,
like I said...it's slowly starting to 'erode' in Europe unfortunately too...

[Mig29]

thanks,
like I said...it's slowly starting to 'erode' in Europe unfortunately too...

[Lost in Saigon]

Air France is now 65 as well:

http://mobile.france24.com/en/20081118- ... -65-france

18/11/2008 - FRANCE
Senate approves raising pilot retirement age to 65

French lawmakers approved Tuesday raising the retirement age of pilots from 60 to 65 despite a four-day strike that caused havoc for Air France's operations.

The French Senate approved the measure by a vote of 200 to 139 in a late night session. The measure has already been approved by the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly.

The measure includes a compromise reached after the strike began on Friday that would allow pilots to continue to retire at 60 if they choose.

However the pilots refused to cut short their strike, which forced Air France to cancel half of its short- and medium-haul flights and a quarter of long-haul services on Monday.

Service was set to return to normal on Tuesday.

Air France has put the cost of the strike at about 100 million euros (126 million dollars) after it was forced to cancel hundreds of flights over the four-day strike.

[Mig29]

Thanks for that as well....
here's the piece in that article that I have a problem with all this nonsense....

"The measure includes a compromise reached after the strike began on Friday that would allow pilots to continue to retire at 60 if they choose."

So, basically Air France went on strike to fight this rule for days and got a compromise out of this. What is Air Canada doing to protect the 'rights' of those who chose to retire by 60??? Was there a compromise???

Rockie, do you see what I'm trying to say here?? And I don't mean any disrespect here whatsoever, but let me retire at 55 (like in the old days) or 60 (present) without ANY penalties on my pension, and you and others can work until 65. Heck man, I have no problem of you working until 80, as long as you go to the bottom of the pile after you reach 60. Otherwise, let's just ground all flightschools since we won't need any new recruits for another decade....

[Rockie]

Rockie, do you see what I'm trying to say here?? And I don't mean any disrespect here whatsoever, but let me retire at 55 (like in the old days) or 60 (present) without ANY penalties on my pension, and you and others can work until 65.

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. When ALPA changed course on their opposition to increasing the retirement age, this is one of the fundamentals they insisted on:

"Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty."

ACPA has done no such thing because they are only interested in stopping it...which they won't do. They are doing nothing...repeat...nothing to protect your rights now that things have changed. All they are doing is trying to sneak in punitive, discriminatory measures against pilots who choose to stay longer.

Why don't you ask the union why they aren't doing what you want, and ALPA has already done for their pilots?

I have no problem of you working until 80, as long as you go to the bottom of the pile after you reach 60.

This has been discussed already and is a non-starter because it is discriminatory. Let's get past this.

[115B]

It is suggested that those who want to fly past 60 had a mandatory retirement age when they joined, and should leave accordingly. Actually, according to ACPA, 60 was not in the contract till the mid 80's. In fact, when those guys joined, CALPA opposed age 60 retirement.
60 was not negotiated, it was accepted because at that time there were many countries a Captain could not fly to. That changed in 2006, and there is no further reason to retire at 60.
When many pilots joined, you could not fly with medical conditions such as diabetes, monocular vision, heart or neurosurgery etc. Should someone who joined under those conditions leave if they now have one of those conditions, because it was disqulifying when they joined?
ACPA chose to fight the Age 60 change instead of using it as an opportunity to negotiate flexible retirement, allowing more pilots to go early with the money AC saves when a pilot stays longer. If ACPA had managed this change, rather than fighting the inevitable, ACPA would have saved the hundreds of thousands they have wasted on legal fees, and bogus reports. The relatively small number of pilots who stayed would not have caused much disruption, particularly if ACPA had used this as an opportunity.
One of the ACPA Age 60 Commottee members will have more than a 40 year career at 60. He wants to tell those who joined later in life that they cannot improve their pension by working longer, or simply work longer because they enjoy doing so.
In any case, Age 60 retirement is over, because you cannot use a contract to do something illegal, and age based retirement is illegal.

[Brick Head]

ACPA chose to fight the Age 60 change instead of using it as an opportunity to negotiate flexible retirement

That statement is only partly true. Yes plan A was, and still is, to stop post 60. Do I think they will win that? No. Does the Age 60 committee? I doubt it. It doesn't matter they are following their mandate.

What they have done to deal with this is a working plan B. You can see the development of plan B right from the very start of the initial V/K hearings.

Simply put. Find a solution that has enough flexibility to protect those who wish to retire at 60 with the full benefit of the present system, while allowing those who wish to go beyond that age the ability to do so.

It seems to me that ACPA is seizing the situation. It also seems to me to be a worthwhile goal.

Even Rockie agrees we should be striving for this very worth while goal.

Rockie wrote.

Excellent. Now we're getting somewhere. When ALPA changed course on their opposition to increasing the retirement age, this is one of the fundamentals they insisted on:

"Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty."

ACPA is doing exactly that with the fall back plan. The US system imploded after all the bankruptcies. We, on the other hand, have much to protect and I am glad to hear you guys are on board with doing so.

So lets get to what is quickly becoming the heart of the matter.

How do we seize this opportunity, bring in flexible retirement, and support the ability of a pilot to retire at 60 without penalty?

ACPA during remedy has put forward solutions to do just that. Apparently you guys don't like any of them.

What would you suggest then?

And here I will remind you. If solutions don't exist? Trash bin.

[Rockie]

It doesn't matter they are following their mandate.

They are following the MEC's agenda, not a mandate from the membership.

The MEC did not provide the membership with an impartial assessment of the facts on both sides of the issue before calling the vote. No information was provided analyzing the legislative direction all of Canada is taking which obviously takes precedence over the contract, probably because they didn't analyze it themselves. There was never any honest risk assessment presented to the membership on if this case was winable, or what the consequences may be if it were not won. There was obviously no information given to the membership that even if it was won the age would change anyway. No one can deny that.

The question put to the membership without benefit of any information was not "Should ACPA oppose eliminating mandatory retirement?" The question was:

"Do you support the MEC’s position to maintain the
Age 60 retirement provisions?"

The MEC had already made up their mind, and the last thing they were interested in when they put it to a vote was an informed response from the membership. They wanted their vote to carry and ensured that it did by keeping the pilots ignorant of the issue.

Even now the MEC is keeping the membership in the dark while they continue to fight a battle lost, and for what purpose?

[Brick Head]

Even now the MEC is keeping the membership in the dark while they continue to fight a battle lost, and for what purpose?

Huh?

Every submission before the Tribunal is on the ACPA web site. Yes ACPA has been publicly silent, although considering the issue is before the courts that is a wise position. Every member is free to contact someone on the age 60 committee. Including you. It is in fact encouraged.

I would submit that if there is any member in the dark, and yes there are some, it is by choice. All issues can be attained by doing a little reading and asking a few question if still unclear.

But back to the real issue.

What is your solution. How would you suggest we find a solution that has enough flexibility to protect those who wish to retire at 60 with the full benefit of the present system, while allowing those who wish to go beyond that age the ability to do so.

I mean you have already agreed we should be taking care of this. Or was it lip service?

[JayDee]

[quote="Brick Head]

What is your solution. How would you suggest we find a solution that has enough flexibility to protect those who wish to retire at 60 with the full benefit of the present system, while allowing those who wish to go beyond that age the ability to do so.

[/quote]

Even more amazing is Brick Head posting anonymously on this site looking for the answers the AGE 60 committee should be asking on the ACPA forum. If ACPA hadn't instructed the moderators over there to stifle discussion or delete all posts or posters of relevance maybe the answers would be staring you in the face

[Brick Head]

Even more amazing is Brick Head posting anonymously on this site looking for the answers the AGE 60 committee should be asking on the ACPA forum. If ACPA hadn't instructed the moderators over there to stifle discussion or delete all posts or posters of relevance maybe the answers would be staring you in the face

All I heard from you is an evasive answer.

The real reason for the partial closure is liability. Although it is a very small minority,the propensity of some complainants to repeatedly attempt to introduce forum posts as evidence, and the propensity of some posters willing to give them the ammunition they seek, can not be ignored. The answer is we shut it down, all of us, by not behaving.

Besides who cares what ACPA is doing on their site. ACPA has already published what they believe is a solution, that has enough flexibility to protect those who wish to retire at 60 with the full benefit of the present system, while allowing those who wish to go beyond that age the ability to do so.

This is not just an irrelevant question as some might like to claim. It is in fact central to the Tribunals logic during the Oakes test. Alternatives that effectively preserve the benefit system.

My understanding is you don't like ACPA's solution. Correct? Lets hear yours.

I'm starting to get the impression you guys don't like this question. Why not?

[115B]

The pension based "solution" to the Age 60 situation proposed by ACPA discriminates against those not retiring at 60 and will not fly further than the courts. That ACPA should even propose such a solution shows the arrogance and legal ignorance of the Age 60 committee.

ACPA could ask that AC use the pension savings from pilots working past 60 to allow those who wish to leave earlier to have better pensions. AC saves a six figure amount per year that any pilot stays working past 60. The Pilot Pension is separate from other AC pensions (because at one point the pilot contributions were funding the entire AC pension; AC wasn't contributing) thus savings would stay within the Pilot Pension and can be used to the benefit of pilots wishing to retire.

As far as retroactivity of any Remedy. Any pilot who has retired early, or who has not objected to retiring at 60 has no right to return; the liability is limited to those who have objected, not all previous retirees.

The sad thing is, that if ACPA had worked to phase in the change in 2006, there would have been two complainants, a few more pilots would have stayed, and the whole thing would have been forgotten by now. Instead, there are well over a hundred complainants, and the liabilty is growing.

[Brick Head]

115B,

The proposal you speak of is a balance between what AC has indicated they are prepared to do and what ACPA is prepared to do.

What your suggestion does is transfer pension savings from individuals working past 60, to those who retire at 60 or earlier. What it doesn't address is the cost to AC of individuals accruing pensionable benefit past age 60. Yes there is a cost. Pensions are expensive.

AC has indicated they are not prepared, under any circumstances, to increase their pension liability, through increased years of service, to anyone. There appears to be an unfortunate misconception out there that if the retirement age changes, AC is automatically responsible for allowing pension benefits to accrue beyond the age agreed upon within the CA. This is simply not the case.

Thank you for the suggestion. It is great example of how convoluted any solution becomes when more than two parties are involved.

[Rockie]

Even now the MEC is keeping the membership in the dark while they continue to fight a battle lost, and for what purpose?


Huh?

Every submission before the Tribunal is on the ACPA web site. Yes ACPA has been publicly silent, although considering the issue is before the courts that is a wise position. Every member is free to contact someone on the age 60 committee. Including you. It is in fact encouraged.

Publishing documents on the website is not the same as presenting an unbiased examination of the issue prior to asking the membership for permission to fight it. And you don't seriously expect anyone to get unbiased opinions from the age 60 committee do you? If anything ACPA promotes, or at least tolerates a hostile atmosphere toward anybody who supports 60+.

What is your solution. How would you suggest we find a solution that has enough flexibility to protect those who wish to retire at 60 with the full benefit of the present system, while allowing those who wish to go beyond that age the ability to do so.

I mean you have already agreed we should be taking care of this. Or was it lip service?

I have already suggested that the money the company saves as a result of this should be directed toward the bottom half of the seniority list. Another thing we could do is reduce the extreme pay disparity between the top of the seniority list and the bottom. Keep the deferred compensation scheme so it's still advantageous to move into bigger airplanes, but reduce that advantage so people can earn more money earlier in their career (in the process not go into debt just for the privilege of flying at Canada's flag carrier). Pension savings could also be redirected toward those who wish to go at 60 as 115B suggests.

Those are off the top of my head. Contrast that with ACPA's only solutions which penalize anybody who stays past 60 and are blatantly discriminatory.

Please, tell us more how ACPA is taking a balanced postion on this issue that serves the needs of all the members.

AC has indicated they are not prepared, under any circumstances, to increase their pension liability, through increased years of service, to anyone. There appears to be an unfortunate misconception out there that if the retirement age changes, AC is automatically responsible for allowing pension benefits to accrue beyond the age agreed upon within the CA. This is simply not the case

That pertains to anybody staying past 60 who already has accumulated the maximum years service. It does not apply to anybody who hasn't. People hired today will continue to accrue pensionable years of service up to the maximum as long as they are employed beyond age 60. Failing to do that is age discrimination, which Air Canada and ACPA will learn the definition of before all this is over.

[rudder]

AC has indicated they are not prepared, under any circumstances, to increase their pension liability, through increased years of service, to anyone. There appears to be an unfortunate misconception out there that if the retirement age changes, AC is automatically responsible for allowing pension benefits to accrue beyond the age agreed upon within the CA. This is simply not the case.

Contrary to some misguided beliefs, the mortality tables used for calculating actuarial pension liabilities do not change based on age of retirement. Therefore, even if an extra year or two of credited service is earned due to extended service, the years that it will be drawn upon are reduced for the purpose of calculating actuarial liability.

Is it a zero sum game? I am not the actuary so I do not know. What I do know is that the member extends contributions. I also know that even if an enhanced benefit is derived, it is provided for less total years. For example, if the member earns an extra 2 years of credited service at $2500/yr then that is a pension benefit increase of $5000/yr post-retirement. If the member draws on that benefit for say 16 years, then they have inceased their total retirement compensation by $80,000. If their total annual pension benefit had been $100,000/yr but was drawn for 2 less years due to delayed retirement then that saved the plan $200,000 - $80,000 = $120,000 plus the member added 2 years of contributions that would otherwise not have occurred and accrue interest.

I'll leave this to the actuaries to debate but it looks pretty clear to me. This is the exact same reason that the teachers plans are in such awful shape - they retire too early and draw the retirement benefit for too long. And by the way, if the pilot member that is being considered already has 35 years of credited service in the plan, then every year that they stay at AC after 35 actually decreases the actuarial liability. That is already the case today as there were pilots hired in the 1973/1974 and 1978/1979 cadre that hit 35 years of service well before age 60.

[Brick Head]

Rudder,

Working longer, and thus collecting for a shorter period will defiantly reduce pension liability for AC. And yes, although it is really another debate, you very well might prove correct at the end of the day. We may all have to work longer to save our pension. In fact that is the reason BA moved initially to 60.

However in the case above the individual was suggesting we take the companies pension savings from someone retiring past age 60, and apply that to the benefit of the person still wishing to retire at age 60. As you pointed out, the younger an individual is, the more expensive a proposition like that becomes. In this case I doubt very much an older individual subsidizing a younger one would balance actuary speaking.

In this case we would have an individual still accruing pensionable years, while their benefit is effectively being paid out elsewhere. This situation would increase pension liability for the company because the early paid out benefit is not compounding within the plan as intended.

I am sure however AC would be more than willing to listen to any ideas that reduce their liability.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

Suggestions that effectively preserve the system please. You are suggesting we dismantle.

To recap what we are talking about. Not that you don't understand this but I wrote it 3 pages ago now. I don't think people read back that far.

-Deferred compensation systems are used to end load a specific age for increased pension benefit.

-Deferred compensation systems require that the benefit be passed on at a specific point so that the next individual gets the same benefit as their predecessor.

-The mechanism to trigger and control the specific point the benefit is passed has always been mandatory retirement. This is why 15(1)c is in the CHRA. Still is by the way.

-During the Oakes Test, the foundation for not applying 15(1)c, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that if alternatives can effectively preserve the benefit system, why infringe on a protected right. Based on that logic they refused to apply 15(1)c

Preservation of the system requires that the benefit be passed on to the next individual at a predetermined point. What mechanisms or ideas do you propose to do that in the absence of mandatory retirement?

For instance you find individuals not being able to bid Captain as discriminatory. Yet ACPA has proposed that solution as a way to ensure the benefit is passed on to the next individual, at a predetermined point, in an effort to preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

What do you suggest? How would you ensure the benefit is passed on to the next individual, at a predetermined point, in the absence of mandatory retirement?

[Rockie]

Suggestions that effectively preserve the system please. You are suggesting we dismantle.

Read what I said again. We can keep the equipment based deferred compensation system but lower the disparity between top and bottom. That brings more money into the bottom which should have been done long ago, and reduces the so called windfall gain by staying at the top that so enrages people. That suggestion dismantles nothing, because mandatory retirement is in no way required to maintain it contrary to what you think.

I don't know why you insist that the only way to preserve deferred compensation is through mandatory retirement. It simply isn't true. But if it comes down to a fight between ending mandatory retirement (discrimination) or keeping deferred compensation, then I guess deferred compensation is out. Deferred compensation is not a right. It is a right to not be discriminated against.

This is why 15(1)c is in the CHRA. Still is by the way.

C'mon, it isn't for much longer and you know it. Every jurisdiction has rejected it or its equivalent, and it is merely a formality to have it removed...which is happening right now.

Preservation of the system requires that the benefit be passed on to the next individual at a predetermined point. What mechanisms or ideas do you propose to do that in the absence of mandatory retirement?

Your first sentence here is false, and I've already suggested things as you know. I'm sure there are others that smarter people than me can invent as well.

For instance you find individuals not being able to bid Captain as discriminatory. Yet ACPA has proposed that solution as a way to ensure the benefit is passed on to the next individual, at a predetermined point, in an effort to preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

I don't find it discriminatory..it is discriminatory. If ACPA could successfully make a BFOR argument supporting that measure at age 60 it would be different, but you know there is no way in hell they can do that. It is therefore punitive and discriminatory, and you know very well the Tribunal would see it that way as well.

[Brick Head]

I don't know why you insist that the only way to preserve deferred compensation is through mandatory retirement. It simply isn't true. But if it comes down to a fight between ending mandatory retirement (discrimination) or keeping deferred compensation, then I guess deferred compensation is out.

Really now. That isn't what the Tribunal said. Nor does that logic fit with the Oakes test. The reason for not applying 15(1)c. Nor does it fit the logic of what has transpired in other jurisdictions. Remember here. No matter what you and I believe will eventually happen to 15(1)c of the CHRA, at this very moment mandatory retirement is perfectly legal. It has a purpose enshrined by current law. The Tribunal must respect that.

If we come to the conclusion I have underlined above then the present ruling is heading for the Trash bin because the Oakes test logic is dependent on finding a solution that preserves in the absence of mandatory retirement. The tribunal has no choice, as the defender of the CHRA, as long as 15(1)c remains.

By the way. I am not saying the only way to preserve the deferred compensation system is through mandatory retirement. I am simply asking. The alternatives required to preserve the current benefit system, in the absence of mandatory retirement, are they practical? Are they themselves discriminatory?

Is this whole assertion that the benefit system can be protected with alternatives, the basis for not applying 15(1)c, an error in the case of a steep deferred compensation system like ours?

In fact your own arguments lend to the very idea that this assumption is an error. None of your proposals preserve the benefit system. Any idea put forth that does effectively preserve the benefit system, you declare discriminatory.

You are effectively arguing that there are no alternatives that effectively preserve the benefit system because they themselves are all discriminatory.

For this ruling to work we need to find alternative that preserve the current benefit system. One of the must haves for this to transpire is the ability to force the removal of individuals from the top end pay scales at a predetermined point. That is the sole purpose of 15(1)c, for which the Tribunal has embraced alternatives to do the same thing. Without it the system can not be preserved. Yes if we had a flat pay grid this would be a none issue.

Simply put. Mandatory retirements (15(1)c) sole objective is to force individuals to pass the benefit on at a specific point. Mandatory retirement, for the moment anyway, is still a perfectly legal way to accomplish this within the CHRA. Any alternative to 15(1)c would need to accomplish the same thing.

You see I am perplexed as to how the Tribunal expects this ruling to be workable in our case. The options to preserve all seem discriminatory. Yet not implementing the options befuddles the logic in the Oakes test and would be contrary to the CHRA as along as 15(1)c remains.

I think this ruling is heading for a rough ride through the appellate courts because it was made before the removal of 15(1)c. Because 15(1)c still is a legal method of forcing individuals to pass the benefit on, at a predetermined time, the Tribunal as the defender of the CHRA, is bound to the concept that an alternative, to accomplish the same thing, be adopted.

I am not saying mandatory retirement is not on its way out. I believe it is. I am just saying at this very moment 15(1)c is enshrined, with purpose, within the CHRA. Once it is removed? Then what? Do the courts really want alternatives, to do the same thing as what mandatory retirement has done in the past, to become public policy for federal employees? At the very least there are enough questionable concerns with the ruling that it would seem the likelihood of a stay is rapidly increasing.

I just can not see the federal court allowing remedy to be enforced on the respondents under the current circumstances.

What I see is a mess.

[115B]

Pension contributions are are 4 1/2% and 6% of salary for the basic and "Top Hat" portions of the pension. The pension benefit only increases at 2% per year of service, which makes extra years of sevice and fewer years of collection a double benefit to the Pension Plan. There are quantifiable savings to the Pension Plan from employees working longer and collecting for fewer years. Actuaries calculate these things, and can show what amount of money is available to throw at early retirement programs.

Instead of wasting money fighting the age change, ACPA should get their actuarial consultants to come up with a proposal that will get some benefit out of the change.

When AC bought the 767, CALPA decided to fight the two pilot change in the industry and insist that AC use three pilot crews. A special assessmant was imposed, CALPA paid the 767 pilots to stay home. Because CALPA elected to fight instead of managing the change, the pillot group essentially got nothing. CALPA could have proposed that AC split the DC8 S/O salary 50/50 between 767 Captain and F/O, and let AC keep the savings on benefits training etc. We would have got less than that, but would have ended up with something rather than nothing. Arbitrators do not like it when parties refuse to deal with reality as CALPA did in that case, and ACPA is doing in the Age 60 case.

The liabilty in the Age 60 case is in the millions, and as AC has made ACPA jointly liable if the case is lost. IF ACPA is made to pay up, the members will get a rude shock from the extra deduction on their pay statements