Read the first post.This is the secret that ACPA is keeping!

[Max111]

Age 60 +.....Here's what the MEC says publicly and here is what they say privately
"It clearly illustrated the potential for a severe impact on our pilot group"
"The MEC is planning to provide clear details on the severe impact to members that would result if the complainants are successful in removing our contractual retirement age from the collective agreement."

"Privately"

SURVEY – AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE
ACPA COMMITTEE REPORT/ASSESSMENT
Training Committee
Crew Rest Facilities Committee
Training Alternatives Committee
No changes, no effect on Collective
Agreement; not affect any part of the Training
/ Licencing requirements under our C/A.
(G. Bobro, Feb. 17/’06)
No apparent problems.
(G. Bobro, March 2/’06)
No effect.
(Y. Robichaud, March 3/’06
Subsequent submission by members of
Committee, in two parts dealing with their (1)
mandate, and (2) committee members
concerns; this committee is still in the
research and development phase of
alternative pay methods – as yet, no
consensus on whether or not it would be
affected by any change to the normal
retirement age; committee members identify
several areas of personal concerns (see for
ref. CMSC below):
 Article 25 – bidding and working
conditions … how to handle the current
freezes as pilots enter that working
years; what to do with pilots currently
frozen off equipment (Art. 25.06.02 –
last 18 or 30 months);
 Benefits packages – insurances, GDIP,
EMA … will premiums have to increase
(re-work actuarial numbers?), will
programs come under greater strain as
pilots working population ages beyond
60 … will programs be sustainable?
 Training upgrades and failures – how
will “train to standard” in Art. 14.04 be
affected? Will pilots working beyong
age 60 still have opportunity to upgrade
(? Failure rates increase; cost of
training? etc.);
Pilot Assistance Committee
CMSC
 Pilot career progression changes may
affect other members interested in
retiring at age 60 or earlier.
(March 10/’06)
No significant impact on our resources or
programs; perhaps as pilots age there would
be more performance failures (sims, checks,
etc.) and perhaps general health problems …
hard to quantify.
(A. Graham, March 3/’06)
Presently no age restriction in Article 25;
working beyond age 60 - some transition
issues that will require modification to Article
25 (not knowing final outcome re: any
changes to normal retirement age and/or
status restriction):
 Art. 25.06.01 – 18 mth mandatory
freeze (equipment/status) prior to
normal retirement age (60);
 Art. 25.06.02 – 19-30 mths
discretionary freeze (equipment/status)
prior to normal retirement age;
 Pilots who have been posted off retired
but have not reached their retirement
date --- how will they return to active
status if they wish to do so (?);
 Pilots that have retired and are allowed
to return --- how will they return to
active status (?);
 Possible impact on surplus/furloughed
pilots not returned (recall protocol
agreement);
 Protection for pilots restricted from
bidding Capt. pos because of age;
 Crewing formula adjustments to cover
older pilot group in senior pos –
vacation entitlements, sick days, GDIP,
etc.;
 Transition agreement required to
alleviate initial impact caused by
PBS Committee
Constitution Committee/
Administrative Policy Manual
GDIP Committee
backfilling positions from above
(reverse order)
(G. Marquis, March 4/’06)
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)
No effect on Constitution; APM may require
updating of Sec. III, subsec. A – Negotiating
Policy, 12. “The Association strongly opposes
any airline, government agency or person
arbitrarily setting a retirement age. The
Association will recognize a fixed retirement
age only when it has become voluntarily
negotiated as part of an agreed pension
scheme.”
(P. Carter, Feb. 9/’06)
Suggest a full review of the GDIP will be
required:
 presently pilots over age 40 are
required to have 2 medicals, 4 sims, 3
written exams, an ART session and a
mandated route check per year – will
this have to be expanded for 60+
pilots?;
 GDIP schedule of benefits (Art.
26.03.03.03) is built around age 60
retirement rule presently … will have to
be expanded to cover pilots working
beyond age 60 and for how long =
financial $cost for Company;
 Alternative – separate disability plan for
60+ age pilots, in incremental years,
tied to ability/fitness to continue in
Human Factors Committee
/PEAC
Vacation Committee
employment? – or – no GDIP beyond
age 60 employment … if become
disabled, move into retirement/pension
(?);
 Anticipated that there will also be
increased usage of sick leave/GDIP by
older 60+ age pilots = increased
$costs.
(G. Tarves, Feb. 16/’06)
Fatigue and flight safety concerns expected to
increase; e.g. humans sleep less as we age
and our ability to adapt to sleep variations
decreases as we age – implications to PEAC
(more) onerous pairings and FRMS; if U.S.
FAA not change, creating pairings that do not
fly into U.S. would reduce total pairing quality
through the entire schedule, possibly; also,
possible negative affect on bidding (PBS) if
crews have to be mixed by one under/one
over 60 ratio (e.g. India ); sim
evaluations/medicals do not specifically test
for age related deterioration of cognitive
abilities – may have to consider (?);
- research paper attached from the
Aerospace Medical Association – The
Age 60 Rule … “Upon review of the
existing evidence, the Aerospace
Medical Association concludes there is
insufficient medical evidence to support
restriction of pilot certification based on
age alone.”
(D. Tweedlie, Feb. 27, March 2/’06)
There would have to be some changes to
Vacation section in C/A, and bidding …
examples:
- retiring pilots presently have a
minimum number of days to bid, based
on the months he will be working
during the year of retirement … will
Insurance Committee
have to transition to a flexible
retirement date if allowed to work
beyond age 60 (new max.?);
- there may be pressure for increased
vacation beyond 25 yrs. service max.
at present ($cost);
- GDIP & Vacation has effect on each …
more pilots on GDIP = more manual
adjustment by Crew Manning;
- working beyond 60 (senior pilot) would
mean less vacation time/slots available
to junior pilots.
(M. Paquin, Feb. 16/’06)
3 areas of concern: ACPA Basis/Optional Life
Ins., Extended Mutual Aid (EMA) and Air
Canada Benefits:
 Basic & Optional Life Ins. – current
premiums are $3 per mth. for $20,000
basic life coverage … if there were
some impact of raising retirement age,
could increase premium (to $3.50); for
optional life, coverage could be
impacted and could be resolved by
creating a new category for age 60-64
(as an est. premium cost - $.42 per
$1000; pilots not wishing to pay this
premium could opt out);
 EMA – impacted most … our
experience is that members in the age
55-59 age group have the highest
experience onto GDIP and we assume
same for post-60 pilots group … could
put financial strain on the trust
(presently .325% of gross income
funds the trust) and expect to be
paying out more in EMA benefits due to
a higher retirement age … would have
to monitor EMA closely (perhaps
exclude age 60-65 pilots from EMA
plan?);
 Air Canada Plans – would probably see
some impact of extending benefits
coverage beyond age 60 (claims
OSH Committee
Pension Committee (Air Canada
and Former CAIL)
increase, costs for coverage … but
may be offset in other areas such as
pension and training).
- for more comprehensive study we would
have to bring in an insurance consultant …
perhaps from Eckler Partners Ltd. ?
(J. Jackson, March 9/’06)
Difficult to determine what impact might be of
having older pilots in the workplace … would
need a risk management study/analysis;
some assumptions can be made re: more
years of radiation at high altitudes, fatigue,
jetlag, airline food (nutritional factors); look at
other high stress and proficiency professions
such as medical surgeons [article offered:
Cognitive changes and retirement among
senior surgeons, by L.J. Greenfield MD, from
June 2002 Bulletin of the ACofS]; we have no
immediate accident statistics to use at Air
Canada re: older workers or older pilots; only
some speculations, comments offered.
(L. Dore, March 4/’06)
It is the text of our pension plans that currently
includes the language for mandatory
retirement, which is included by reference in
the Collective Agreement (Articles 26.04.01,
26.04.02), by the following provision(s):
“5.1 Normal retirement A Member shall
retire from the Company no later than his
Normal Retirement Date … “Normal
Retirement Date” means the first day of the
month immediately following the month the
Member attains the Age of 60.”
In our view – there are few negatives, if any,
to removing the mandatory retirement
provision; allowing a member to continue to
work and accrue additional years of pension
service may be beneficial to the pension
plan(s) … on an actuarial basis, it may be lessexpensive for a member to work an additional
year(s) and accrue an additional year(s) of
service and start his pension at age 61 then it
is for him to retire at age 60. In the end, the
Registered Plans would be better off if
individuals worked past age 60 instead of
collecting a pension benefit at that age (based
on the assumption that our plans text remain
as is, unchanged except for the requirement
to retire immediately upon attaining age 60 …
i.e. still able to retire (voluntarily) with full
pension at age 60.
*Cost implications – However on a total plan
basis, if older members do work past age 60
and they are not immediately replaced by
younger workers, the cost of the pension
plan(s) as a percentage of payroll will
probably increase, at least for the short term.
*Flexibility – removing the mandatory
retirement provision will allow members to
decide when the appropriate time is to retire
(according to their individual financial and
other considerations)
[*opinion from Eckler Partners Ltd.,
consultants]
(C. Blandford, March 7/’06)

[bcflyer]

Just curious where you got hold of "private" ACPA info (if it really is private) and why you would post it on a public forum?

[Max111]

It's not private...it was entered into evidence at the Tribunal.......!!!!!

[bcflyer]

Then why post it as some kind of "secret" that ACPA is keeping.. If its already entered into evidence, its obviously not a secret to anyone....

[JayDee]

This info has been floating around for about a month now.

ACPA has been playing a shell game which is very shortly about to explode in their faces. Of course you will never hear that from ACPA. They are too busy hiding the truth from the membership, rather than come clean and admit the truth !

I feel sad for the membership who will have to pay huge $$$$ for the MEC's utter failure and complete lack of leadership at a time when leadership was so desperately required.

[Max111]

True it's not a secret but very few pilots at Air Canada know of this survey.........Why??
The MEC refused to release it...I would think that if you are an Air Canada pilot, you have a right to see what problems the various committee's believe will happen when mandatory retirement is abolished.

Here again are their words...Are they being impartial ???? Do you expect leadership or do you prefer to follow......Myself I would like to be part of an informed decision.....!!


"The MEC is planning to provide clear details on the severe impact to members that would result if the complainants are successful in removing our contractual retirement age from the collective agreement."

[yycflyguy]

I don't see this as anything new. Promises, posturing and "if's". Whatever.