Retirement - Split from Hiring

[pilotbzh]

you just have to make it not worth it to fly over 60, mandatory retirement will not stay. All we have to do is make pilot over 60 cover extra insurance cost and put in a "carreer hold back" compensation for all pilot held back financed by over 60 flyers....

[Max111]

Pilotbzh,

Here is unequivocal proof that the Age 60 Committee is not even closely doing it job. Such a statement staggers the imagination. Surely you know what other airlines policies are regarding this issue....You have heard of Human Rights...?????

Thanks for your post....It was very enlightening. Most likely when you were hired, you were over the age of 27, wore glasses, etc....but then again, you don't know what i'm talking about.

Max111

[Inverted2]

Pilotbzh,

Here is unequivocal proof that the Age 60 Committee is not even closely doing it job. Such a statement staggers the imagination. Surely you know what other airlines policies are regarding this issue....You have heard of Human Rights...?????

Thanks for your post....It was very enlightening. Most likely when you were hired, you were over the age of 27, wore glasses, etc....but then again, you don't know what i'm talking about.

Max111

Thanks for not bringing up the personal hygene issue.

[Max111]

You too Inverted2 .... Wasn't a joke was it ????.......You just don't have the faintest idea of the history of this airline !

[600RVR]

A contract cannot be used as an excuse to do something illegal; mandatory retirement is illegal.

By the way; a normal month for a 777 pilot is not eight days; more like 16. 15-16 hours for a european cycle; you figure it out. Maybe the senior 320 guys can do eight days on VR, SFO, or LAX turns.

AC can say it has a surplus;or not; maybe it does, but not likely. flying is being increased, and lots of pilots are gone who will not return. Only those pilots who have objected (less than a third of retirees) can even think of returning; even in that group many will not come back. There may be short term changes, but layoffs for short term disruptions do not make economic sense.

Few pilots will stay past 60; right now 10 plus percent leave before 60. Those who do stay will save AC megabucks, which will make it healthier and benefit everyone. The pension deficit will be reduced right away, as returning pilots will be obliged to pay back any pension they collected.

So if your so sure that AC will save all this money why is it that they are not all over this and supporting your group? We all know how ruthless AC is when it comes to saving a buck. Why would they put themselves through all of this when what your saying they'll save mega bucks. just the lawyer fee's, and all the resources they are putting into this. I'm sure they put their homework into this. And it must be a bad deal for them, because we all know its not because the feel the need to support ACPA.

But when you do come back I'm sure you'll love the new contract.

600RVR

[BLZD1]

One of the biggest problems is our 777 YUL base. We have about 30 pilots on the 777 in YUL. How do you crew the base if all Capts are over the age of 60. (Meaning no FOs allowed to fly the 777 if they are over the age 60!) Do we have them fly 320 and EMB at 777 pay rates because we can not legally crew the 777 with all Capts over 60. The US carriers are now starting to feel the pinch of all the pilots over 60.

[bcflyer]

By the way; a normal month for a 777 pilot is not eight days; more like 16. 15-16 hours for a european cycle; you figure it out. Maybe the senior 320 guys can do eight days on VR, SFO, or LAX turns.

Funny I just looked at the 777 blocks and almost all of them are working 9-13 days... Only saw a few working more than that. (and most of those were because they had long layovers in South America somewhere.. ) Hardly the nasty schedule you are portraying...

[TyrellCorp]

Hardly the nasty schedule you are portraying...

Ahhh, the art of spin doctoring is what the fly past 60 group are masters of.

[FL020]

777 block out of yvr:

2 australia's/shanghai/ or narita ----- maybe 3,

AND 1 yyz turn

ie - 8-12 days. Basically plan for 10 days

[yycflyguy]

Few pilots will stay past 60; right now 10 plus percent leave before 60. Those who do stay will save AC megabucks, which will make it healthier and benefit everyone. The pension deficit will be reduced right away, as returning pilots will be obliged to pay back any pension they collected.

Absolute, 100% Buffalo burgers.

AC ran a cost analysis and found by going to a new benchmark age of 65 guys are being paid top end salaries longer in their career and more are realizing their full pension requirements putting a greater strain on the pension when they do retire. It's all about the dollar my friend, and AC sees this as an expensive path.... why else would they be collaborating with ACPA to slow this decision?

[Max111]

Sad to see that you can't read........Like most of your posts its 100% Buffalo Burgers.
These are from ACPA's actuaries..........But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

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 pensionplan(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)

[600RVR]

so Max111

Again if this is such a good deal for everyone why is Air Canada against this, and fighting this to the end?

Also Love the spin you guys put on GREED. Can't wait to welcome you back, I'll be the first in line with open arms, then i'll tell you what I really think. As I'm sure alot more will do the same. Whats worse is that you guys hide behind the Human rights flag. What about the rights of the juniors? Thats right we have none. Just look at the contract its self. you guys sold out the juniors as so as you got to the top. Now you want to come back and jump on us some more. No worries though mate this contract will be changing. there is alot more power at the bottom now, with alot more will to change it..


600RVR

[Max111]

600RVR

No offense meant...But you have no clue as to what you are talking about ! The collective "We" have been telling "you" for years what is happening and ways to lessen the impact...if any....but you want what you want. The senior pilots have been helping the junior pilots all these years....but, there again you know absolutely nothing about the history of the union or the pilots !!!!!!!!! Lots of good ideas out there but don't blame us...it was your association that developed the PG and the lower rates of pay for some of the equipement. Not us !!! If you think this will be easy..give your head a shake.......there is a significant part of the membership that has a vested interest in this and will not roll over to your "superior" logic.

I agree there has to be changes but you want to throw the baby out with the bath water...........thats not going to happen. Just a wild guess but i would imagine that you have never volunteered to help the association out.....Could be wrong...if that is so, my apologies.

[Max111]

Where is "yycflyguy".........No apologies ??

[600RVR]

Max111

My "superior logic" well we'll see.

Can you tell me in all seriousness when you were moving up the seniority ladder because of those that retired before you, did you think is was discrimination, or just when you made it to the top? serious question?

You still never said why this will be good for AC? and why they think other wise.

As for returning I don't think the top end guys see the effect this will have on them until they get bumped off the 777 left seat to a lesser paying job because you guys will return more senior, thus causing more people getting bumped, then its a new game and yes thats when the wheels will really start turning on the new contract. How well do you think that will go over? Even if only 40 guys return, thats 40 bumped of top spot.

And seen that we are talking about people returning, Who's to say guys who are not on the list won"t want to return? where do you put a stop to it? you can't because you guys opened up the gates under Human Rights, can't discriminate against them.

Just food for thought.

600RVR

[Max111]

I and "We" have answered these four questions many, manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy times. It never makes a difference, so the time has come to leave it alone....Let the Courts decide.

Regards,

Max111

[yycflyguy]

Where is "yycflyguy".........No apologies ??

LOL. Good one. Apologize. Nope, you have me confused with someone else. Below is the impact assessment by ACPA for the pilot group. The pilots most affected will be those 42 and younger.

Exhibit 1.
Produced from Data Table 1.

Impact on NPV of Career Earnings
Average Age at Retirement Rising from 60 to 63
By Age Group

This chart demonstrates the impact for Air Canada pilots by age group should the current mandatory retirement age (Age 60 for short) be eliminated and the average age of retirement rises to 63.

For each age group, the cumulative impact of the elimination of age 60 is plotted annually. For instance, for pilots in the 40-44 age group (yellow markers), the net present value of their career earnings (NPV) 2 up to the year 2026 is $153,536 less than it would be if the age 60 rule were to remain. However, by the age of retirement, the NPV will be $157,858 higher.

This is due to delays in career advancement that would otherwise be created by pilots retiring and opening vacancies. All age groups other than the oldest (55-60, black markers) the pattern is the same: The pilots NPV will be progressively less with an average retirement age of 63 compared to what it would have been under the age 60 rule. In the final years of employment, the additional years of earnings from working beyond 60 will offset the deficit and will, in most cases, provide a
positive benefit by the age of retirement.

The chart highlights the best and worst average outcomes for pilots. The worst case is experienced when a pilot retires at 60 while the best case is had when the pilot retires at 63. It can readily be observed that the magnitude of the downside risk and the potential benefit differs according to age. Generally speaking, the older a pilot is, the smaller the penalty for retiring at 60 and the larger the reward for remaining. For the pilots in the 40-44 group, the magnitudes of the penalty and the reward are roughly equal. The youngest pilots, however, will suffer significant losses should they retire at 60 and enjoy only negligible benefits for three additional years of work.

If you like, I can direct you to where all the pretty graphs with pretty colours are on the ACPA site.

We haven't even agreed that the practice is discriminatory.

CHRA
Exceptions 15. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if
(c) an individual’s employment is terminated
because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position
of that individual;

It was ruled once before that age 60 was the normal age...

600RVR is right. The green generation numbers around 650 or just over 1/4 of the ACPA membership. I believe our voice will be heard in the next negotiations, and it is only getting stronger.

[115B]

One problem with this whole discussion is that ACPA is not educating the members. The material in the ACPA "Economic Impact" piece was shredded at the CHRT hearings; ACPA didn't tell their members that the ACPA hired gun did poor work and his numbers didn't stand up. The impact is much less than ACPA would have you believe; negligible in most cases. You do know that one of the ACPA "Age 60" committee members started at 20 cause his old man got him a job. He will have almost 40 years of service at 60, and wants to stop others from getting 30 or 35 so he can be number one for years.

Another thing ACPA didn't tell you; ACPA and AC looked all over for a medical witness to say that there was a medical issue with pilots staying past 60; they couldn't find one because all the studies show otherwise. Those saying there will be medical problems with over 60 pilots haven't looked at the ICAO study of 15,000 individuals which was done before ICAO changed the age recommendation. ICAO found that pilots over 54 were less likely to have a medical problem in the cockpit, and were also safer than younger pilots. Typically, cardiac and neurological problems show up earlier; those making it past 54 are survivors.

The age for pilots flying "for hire or reward" in Canada was once 45. Pilots hired by TCA under those rules stayed on when the age changed to 60; some of them even fought 60. CALPA policy till the mid eighties was against mandatory retirement. 60 was not in the contract till the mid-eighties, so most of those fighting mandatory retirement now were not hired with 60 in the contract; it was not "in the rules" when they were hired.

It is hard to see why AC is opposing this, other than to make nice with ACPA. AC has numbers showing the savings for every pilot that stays. Might be that those numbers werre commissioned by Montie Brewer and Calin didn't see them. Might be the lawyers thinking that no matter how it plays out, AC can say "we were forced into it". The quality of AC's evidence at the hearings certainly doesn't look like they want to win.

[TAT]

I for one cant wait to see the class action law suit that comes out if this does go through everyone on the flypast60 will be named... they will have to continue to work to pay the legal fees.

[JayDee]

I for one cant wait to see the class action law suit that comes out if this does go through everyone on the flypast60 will be named... they will have to continue to work to pay the legal fees.

Totally Clueless

[Raymond Hall]

Totally Clueless

Agreed. We are on the threshold of a significant turning point in the area of human rights law in the history of this country, and the majority of those who will be affected haven't the slightest clue about the legal process, the legal issues, the potential outcome or the reasons for that outcome. As I said on my most recent update on our web site, "May you live in interesting times..."

[TyrellCorp]

We are on the threshold of a significant turning point in the area of human rights law in the history of this country,

Well I suppose you can call it that. The rights of a privileged group are going to be upheld to the gross detriment of the rights of an already underprivileged one. Spin doctor it whatever way you want, but at the end of the day this is simply the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Mechanic787]

The rights of a privileged group are going to be upheld to the gross detriment of the rights of an already underprivileged one.

I was just wondering...

What is all the emotion about? The law is the law. Why can't you guys who oppose this change accept the reality of the age discrimination laws of this country and work within the constraints to carve out a better deal for yourselves while you still have the chance? Why can't you move beyond the fact that your contractual restrictions that allow for this anomoly are part of the last century and won't cut it in the current regime our the legal system? Why are you attacking the individuals who are ahead of the curve?

Is this personal, or do you really have your eyes on the ball?

Do you really think that this whole dispute is about fairness? About what everyone signed up for? Look around you, men, for heaven's sake. Have your really looked at what your are up against, as opposed to what you believe in?

You still have a chance to manage the change, but that chance is dwindiling, day by day.

IMHO

[Raymond Hall]

The rights of a privileged group are going to be upheld to the gross detriment of the rights of an already underprivileged one.

Get over it. Embrace it. Manage it. Take charge and make the necessary changes while at the same time minimizing the most adverse affects of the change on those who can least afford the change.

It is not the ligitants who will determine this change. It is the Parliament of Canada. Parliament makes the law, and if those who fall within the purview of that law are adversely affected, it is up to their unions to ensure that their members are protected. If the change cannot be prevented, the change should be managed. And that requires a wholly different strategy than the one currently being employed by ACPA, in my view.

[JayDee]

Get over it. Embrace it. Manage it.

And that requires a wholly different strategy than the one currently being employed by ACPA, in my view.

ACPA is hell bound to fight on till death. What the MEC hasn't grasped yet is it will be the death of ACPA.

Because of the total mismanagement of this issue, the inevitable loss will devastate whats left of an already extremely fragile association of people.