Pilots Support Retirement

[hypoxic]

Pilots Support Retirement at Age 60: Poll

August 10, 2010

TORONTO - An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union.

The survey of more than 1,800 pilots showed that 82 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or even younger.

"These survey results demonstrate without question that Air Canada pilots overwhelmingly support the freely negotiated age of retirement in their collective agreement," said Captain Paul Strachan, President of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA). "The results confirm what our members have repeatedly shown in successive rounds of collective bargaining. They want us to preserve retirement at age 60 with a secure pension that allows them to enjoy the benefits of their years of work performed on behalf of our airline and our passengers."

The results come from an on line survey of 1,860 Air Canada pilots conducted June 7 - 23 by The Wilson Center for Public Research, Inc. In the survey, which included almost 60 per cent of all Air Canada pilots, respondents were asked whether they would like a retirement age of 60 years, greater than 60 or less than 60.

Pilots were strongly united on the issue, with 78 per cent supporting retirement at age 60 and a further four per cent wanting to retire at a younger age. Even among senior pilots over the age of 50, more than 63 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or earlier, outnumbering those wanting to work past 60 years by more than a two-to-one margin in that sub-group. Only 13 per cent of pilots wanted a retirement age greater than 60 years.

Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the pilots' contract and pension plan, which are negotiated with Air Canada by ACPA and ratified by its member pilots in a democratic vote each time their collective agreement is renewed.The negotiated age of retirement is also the subject of an upcoming Federal Court judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decision. In August 2009, the CHRT asserted that a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) cannot be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That section of the human rights law says that a practice is not discriminatory if an individual's employment is terminated because he or she has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions.

ACPA asked the Federal Court to review the CHRT decision, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process.The Federal Court will hear the case November 22 - 25 in Ottawa.

"We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights."

The Federal Court's decision could potentially have an impact on the wages and benefits of the Air Canada pilots and thousands of other federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement.

The Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) is the largest professional pilot group in Canada, representing the more than 3,000 pilots who operate Air Canada's mainline fleet.

-30-

Contact:Paul HowardDirector of Communications905-678-9008 ext. 222phoward@acpa.ca
Submitted by acpa on Tue, 08/10/2010 - 12:05.

[reality check]

"We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights."

And there you have it.

[AMM]

[4Stroke]

Yep....great twist of statistics. 82% of 1800 pilots still isn't 50% of the 3000+ ACPA pilots.

Next please....

[yycflyguy]

Yep....great twist of statistics. 82% of 1800 pilots still isn't 50% of the 3000+ ACPA pilots.

Next please....

Here is Statistical Sampling explained:

Sampling is that part of statistical practice concerned with the selection of an unbiased or random subset of individual observations within a population of individuals intended to yield some knowledge about the population of concern, especially for the purposes of making predictions based on statistical inference. Sampling is an important aspect of data collection.

[JayDee]

The ACPA MEC still thinks their contract, or a vote, or a poll or wishing upon a star can override human rights and outright discrimination on a protected age related issue. True leadership would tell the troops they fought a good battle but its time to move forward and stop fighting the inevitable.

Another colossal waste of members money fighting ANOTHER losing battle.

[Bede]

No, but it's 1476. So you think with 82% of support, you won't find 26 of the remaining 1200 supporting age 60.

[JayDee]

BEDE,

It doesn't matter if 2999/3000 voted in favor. If the one person was black, or female or ethnic or gay or an immigrant or on the basis of AGE, the rules still apply. REGARDLESS

If that one person that was discriminated against because he was Black, or female would you agree then? According the the CHRT mandate AGE discrimination carries the same weight as any other of the listed prohibitions.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/H-6/page- ... rbo-ga:l_I


(1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination regardless of what the union says. This latest poll is just another in a long line of poor leadership by the MEC.

When are the Air Canada Pilots finally going to realize they are not some untouchable group that can do as they please? No one is saying they have to like it, but it is the LAW of the country. PERIOD

JayDee

[sepia]

Jay: It's no where as simplistic as you try and make it out to be. If it was that simple it would have ended years ago. Go back and read brickhead's posts on the topic. He sums up the other side of the issue very well. Enjoy your reading.

[beast]

You cannot discriminate against yourself (or your future self) PERIOD

[beast]

by which I mean, its not actually possible, not thats its bad and illegal

[Dockjock]

Jay, the policy applies to all pilots. Please point to the clause in the pension or contract where a certain group is singled out for retirement at a different age from other Air Canada pilots. I've misplaced me own copy...

[accumulous]

There are a lot of posts on both sides of the issue and everybody has the right to their own opinion but ultimately the Tribunal will decide the issue anyway so it's a good thing it's not up to us or it would obviously never get done without having a tug of war over a snake pit.

It would be interesting to see the statistical validity of the recent poll, the validity of the sampling methods used, etc. If it is in fact a valid survey it would have been endorsed by an appropriate agency that is capable of showing that the survey adhered to all the rules of validity, etc. If anybody is aware of that endorsement it would be interesting to see it.

You would think that the survey of several years ago could not be endorsed because it was preceded by a statement of which direction the MEC wanted to see the survey go, so you could go to any survey agency and they would ultimately declare the survey invalid for that reason alone, would they not? The latest survey may in fact have been conducted according to the rules so if anybody has that evidence it would be important to see it.

As was pointed out elsewhere though, for the purposes of the Human Rights Commission if you're looking at discrimination as above, 2999 pilots could be telling 1 pilot that they're going to see to it that that 1 pilot is not going past 60 and that 1 pilot would ultimately be protected by the Act, or at least an attempt would be made at protection. If you spend a day reading the decisions of the Commissions and the remedies that are ordered you will see that they deal with individuals the latest one having been last week August 6, 2010.

It concerns 1 individual. You can see the remedy at:

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vh ... isruling=0

It deals with 1 of the prohibited grounds of discrimination and gives a pretty good insight as to how the courts handle it. There are a lot of other cases that are dismissed as not being proven and far more cases do not even make it from the Commission to the Tribunal. In fact if you look around that website, and looking at scheduling there are very few cases even scheduled for consideration. The current case did go thru the end channels though and the result should be interesting to say the least.

[Bede]

JayDee,

Nice try. The equivocation you provide is illogical and fallacious.

You signed a contract (through your collective bargaining agent) agreeing to retire at age 60. I have to brush up on some case law, but if I recall, collective bargaining rights trump individual rights, which is sometimes beneficial, and sometimes it is not. If you don't like the provisions in your contract, you can try to change the contract, or you can work for another carrier. The problem with the V&K action is that a small percentage of members have been OK with, and benefited from, the age 60 clause for their whole career. V&K did not fight for this when they were benefiting from captains retiring when they were FO's, they waited until they could no longer benefit from the status quo to serve no one else other than themselves.

You can bet this action will bite most AC's pilots at contract time. Most pilots want to retire at 60 and you can bet with the under funded pension, when contract talks come around, management will try pretty hard to ensure all pilots work until 65.

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/di ... berta.html

[JayDee]

Jay: It's no where as simplistic as you try and make it out to be. If it was that simple it would have ended years ago. Go back and read brickhead's posts on the topic. He sums up the other side of the issue very well. Enjoy your reading.

Your wrong. The rest is all just a smoke screen.

[JayDee]

JayDee,

Nice try. The equivocation you provide is illogical and fallacious.

You signed a contract (through your collective bargaining agent) agreeing to retire at age 60. I have to brush up on some case law, but if I recall, collective bargaining rights trump individual rights, which is sometimes beneficial, and sometimes it is not. If you don't like the provisions in your contract, you can try to change the contract, or you can work for another carrier. The problem with the V&K action is that a small percentage of members have been OK with, and benefited from, the age 60 clause for their whole career. V&K did not fight for this when they were benefiting from captains retiring when they were FO's, they waited until they could no longer benefit from the status quo to serve no one else other than themselves.

You can bet this action will bite most AC's pilots at contract time. Most pilots want to retire at 60 and you can bet with the under funded pension, when contract talks come around, management will try pretty hard to ensure all pilots work until 65.

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/di ... berta.html

I guess the only reply I can offer to your argument is that V & K won their case and your points of view were flushed down the toilet as illogical & fallacious by the CHRT.

Both Air Canada & ACPA have publicly agreed to let them return. <<< re read this sentence again.....and again if required.
Once V&K come back, logic dictates that all those who still (legally) wish to return or stay will follow suit.

The leak in the dam will most probably soon be a flood causing it to explode before your very eyes and yet you still argue the point that the contract stated that different cement was supposed to have been used.

http://www.flypast60.com/

"For Immediate Release August 4, 2010

On Tuesday, August 3rd, George Vilven and Neil Kelly wrote to Air Canada advising that they were eagerly anticipating their reinstatement of employment, and that they were waiting for Air Canada to advise them when and where they should report for work. "

[Bede]

JayDee,

Have you been fighting for the elimination of age 60 since you were younger or only since it benefited you?

[JayDee]

Given the level of moderating lately I have no intention of getting banned by getting into a mud slinging match with you or anyone else about something that is totally irrelevant as we both know where that will end up. You will be here and I will be banned.

The realities of 2010 and beyond is the only thing thats important IMHO.

But suffice it to say I have been in favor of voluntary retirement since the mid 80's when I watched countless 747 skippers being forced to leave along with the incalculable loss of their years of experience. Don't get me wrong, not all wanted to say but to those that did it was an agonizing experience for them to be a professional one day and because of an outdated reference in an obscure document no one had ever read except those of the pension committee, they were suddenly deemed useless.

BTW: When I joined there was NO reference to retirement age in any contract as it was an arbitrary age used in pension calculations so the argument that "I signed on to...." is mute .....the last time I voted affirmative to any contract, poll or vote, Air Canada was still a crown corporation and ACPA and the present contract was only a figment (nightmare) of CALPA's imagination

JayDee

[beechjockey]

JayDee

Of course they would agree to come back, as what was probably advised to them by their council. Do you think that after all of the efforts to get the right to work past 60, they would walk away when they didn't like what was being offered. NOOOOO!! Then it would be completely obvious that the only reason they fought this thing was to make big money flying the big equipment. When told they could come back but on the EMJ, Vilven was quoted as saying he didn't like this one bit. He was then advised to change his tune so he didn't destroy the efforts that were made to try to prove to everyone that this wasn't about money or status but simply the pure love of flying.

[Say Altitude]

JayDee,

Nice try. The equivocation you provide is illogical and fallacious.

You signed a contract (through your collective bargaining agent) agreeing to retire at age 60. I have to brush up on some case law, but if I recall, collective bargaining rights trump individual rights, which is sometimes beneficial, and sometimes it is not. If you don't like the provisions in your contract, you can try to change the contract, or you can work for another carrier. The problem with the V&K action is that a small percentage of members have been OK with, and benefited from, the age 60 clause for their whole career. V&K did not fight for this when they were benefiting from captains retiring when they were FO's, they waited until they could no longer benefit from the status quo to serve no one else other than themselves.

You can bet this action will bite most AC's pilots at contract time. Most pilots want to retire at 60 and you can bet with the under funded pension, when contract talks come around, management will try pretty hard to ensure all pilots work until 65.

http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/di ... berta.html

I guess the only reply I can offer to your argument is that V & K won their case and your points of view were flushed down the toilet as illogical & fallacious by the CHRT. "

Incorrect. The arguements weren't flushed down the toilet, the CHRT didn't allow them to be presented or considered at all - including the Supreme Court case law. That's why it's going to judicial review because AC/ACPA weren't given the chance to present the whole side of the discussion. If the appeal by AC/ACPA didn't have merit at first glance, then the Federal Court wouldn't be hearing it.

Even if the pro flypast60 group don't agree with what I just wrote - please don't waste your time trying to argue with me because I'm not going to get into it. Everyone has their opinion. AC, ACPA, flypast60, and every pilot affected has their thoughts. And lawyers are only right 50% of the time. Not really sure why all of us arm chair quarterbacks try and debate this on here because really, at the end of the day (I hate that cliche') the outcome will be determined by the Federal Court of Appeals and maybe the Supreme Court if whoever loses decides to take it to the SCOC. Given the wide ranging scope of this topic outside of just AC/ACPA/V&K - I would suggest that the SCOC will be hearing this notwithstanding what the Federal Court says.

So with that said - why don't we save the discussion (and the higher blood pressure and the posting bans and the acrimony ) until the end of November or December when the Federal Court makes their judgement. Enjoy what's left of the summer. Way easier on the old ticker than getting wrapped around the axle about something we can't control nor have any influence over.