Want To Be a Star?

[vic777]

A couple of things I think you are incorrect about. First is your opinion that changes cannot be made until the final axe on this issue is dropped. We can begin to change our pay system anytime our contract is opened for negotiation, such as now. We also should change our pay system even if mandatory retirement was not an issue because it is the most stupid and ridiculously obsolete pay system out there. It is also the fundamental cause of all the angst over this issue, not the fact people want to work longer.

Rockie ... don't expect any contract changes that are not approved by the ACPA "elite". There will be no changes that adversely affect the ACPA "elite".

[Localizer]

Localizer...Why are you worried about Bill C-481 ( your concern is evident). ACPA apparently has this entire situation completely under control. They have done nothing wrong and continue to do nothing wrong and therefore have not put the membership at any risk what-so-ever. Relax....even if an election isn't called and the bill passes ....ACPA has got you covered!

No worries on this end .. Just thought i'd state the obvious .. ACPA doesn't have me covered .. ALPA does; and from the sounds of things on this thread .. ALPA might be covering you one day.

Cheers.

[vic777]

...and from the sounds of things on this thread .. ALPA might be covering you one day.

Too bad ALPA or the "Blue" negotiators weren't covering us for the last two rounds of negotiations.

[43S/172E]

A Readers Comment from PPrune and I do not care about the retirement issue but you have a P/R mess on your hands. Get a better spokesperson fast!

As a retiree, still flying at 73, I just cant figure why these folks want to keep flying for the SAME outfit, are they frightened to leave the big corporation "womb" and afraid of demonstating their skills under a different culture? If this chap joined at 21 he really hasnt seen anything outside of Air Canada, a fine place to work and fly for sure but there is lots to be seen on the "outside". Since I retired I have been endorsed on three types not flown before and enjoy going to sim to demostrate that at least some of the grey matter still works, having said that I do intend to pull the pin fairly soon and am busy training my relpacement.Some of the most rewarding flying done since leaving "Big Red" has been charity work, flying Cancer patients for treatment, sure puts things in perspective when one feels hard done by, maybe he should try somthing like this for a change of scene.

[Brick Head]

Although I find this incredibly embarrassing for myself, Air Canada pilots and the profession.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Napoleon Bonaparte

[jjj]

Discrimination!! Ha

Let's look at some numbers. if we get to go to 65, which will not happen it will be fly till you die because 65 is just as discriminating as 60, and I still decide that I would like to enjoy freedom 60 I lose out on $380,000 not to mention my best 5 would be on a less played aircraft so my pension would drop from $127,000 to 96,000. If I live to see my 85th year I will have lost $775,000 in pension and $1,155,000 total. If I stay till 65 I will earn an additional wait for it $33,000. Thanks for those extra five years of service just to get a measly $33000.

Now let's look at the GREED. As I mentioned not all have the green eyed envy some got hired on later in life and are not going to be able to reach that top aircraft which gets them the top pay and top pension so I can see the fight they are fighting. however most of the crowd is not in that boat. These guys like Ennis got hired on at the age of 21 and have enjoyed 39 years in this business (a year at #1 and 4yrs in the top 10) all without having to go up north and dig sh%t holes or fly in -40 without the front heater working and drag their family from sh&t pay to sh&t pay to finally make it to Air Canada to make a grand total of $38000 the first year and $43000 the second with a wife 2 kids and a mortgage. No he did it sitting in mom and pops place rent free till he had enough money to buy a place on his own which only cost an average of $90,000 not $300,000 which is today's rate.

He also had the benefit of all the other guys leaving in front of him so he could get this #1 spot for as long as he did. Now that they are all gone these guys think that they can have their cake and eat it too as well as mine!!!! and stagnate my career be god knows how much. These guys want to eat their young all because they think a contract that they have signed to year after year and said nothing about till it's their turn to go is discriminating.

Your sad sir.

Bush Pilot,

Are you suggesting that you are entitle to a little more and those at the top are entitle to a little less because you have had a tougher road in your aviation career?

[Rotten Apple #1]

While the articles won't affect the legal outcomes of the various mandatory retirement challenges, it does seem to be a miscalculation by the FP60 group (if it was a group decision) to choose the #1 seniority guy to profile. To this outside observer, it seems like pouring salt in an open wound.

[SilentMajority]

Localizer...Why are you worried about Bill C-481 ( your concern is evident). ACPA apparently has this entire situation completely under control. They have done nothing wrong and continue to do nothing wrong and therefore have not put the membership at any risk what-so-ever. Relax....even if an election isn't called and the bill passes ....ACPA has got you covered!

No worries on this end .. Just thought i'd state the obvious .. ACPA doesn't have me covered .. ALPA does; and from the sounds of things on this thread .. ALPA might be covering you one day.

Cheers.

Localizer....I forgot...you're not part of AC.... despite your posts.
I have to be honest here....I envy you being covered by a professional association such as ALPA. It is very clear to this writer that had ALPA been steering this ship back in 2006' this diasater would never have seen the light of day. Instead it would have recognized the inevitable and started to package a plan that would work for everyone...like early retirement incentives to offset those who elected to stay on....or best 3 years instead of 5...or bring back a cost of living adjustment to the pension so that retirement close to age 60 isn't quite as daunting....to name a few.

Approximately 90% of the Flypast 60 group joined AFTER the ICAO change in November 2006. This all could have been very easily avoided.

[BLZD1]

SilentMajority,

Jazz is going though the same thing AC is going through. They have a few guys suing because they do not want to retire at age 65 as per Jazz's contract.

[Rockie]

The people viewing this as a PR campaign are wasting their time. It is strictly a legal issue that ACPA and Air Canada are without question losing.

[SilentMajority]

SilentMajority,

Jazz is going though the same thing AC is going through. They have a few guys suing because they do not want to retire at age 65 as per Jazz's contract.

Welcome to the new world. You may not recall this but prior to the early '70's flight attendants had to retire at 32 (actually had to sign on the dotted line) and could not retain their employment once they were married. As well only males were allowed to be the "in-charge." This was the widely accepted norm at the time and it only changed when someone took a long, hard look at it and decided that it was nuts.

Air Canada standing alone and continuing to push their pilots out the door at age 60 ...is nuts and it's going to change whether we like it or not.

With regard to pilots now staying past 65.....I'm afraid you have every right to point the finger at the Air Canada Pilot's Association. This would be a non-issue if they had followed along with ICAO in the fall of 2006.

[Inverted2]

Jazz pilots staying past 65 would have to be FO though and that wouldn't be much more $$$ than pension. One could argue you can stay in Canada airspace and remain left seat but so much of the flying is to the US/ in US airspace it wouldn't be practical.

[43S/172E]

Please correct me if I have the wrong figures here.

If there a 3,000 pilots at Air Canada and 150 of these want to continue flying for Air Canada is that not 5% of the total who want to continue their flying career?

Of the 5% what equipment/staus are they?

If you can only answer this in a analytical fashion please explain how Air Canada roster it's flights based on the over 60 under 60 rule?

Will this be a financial hard ship for Air Canada?

[accumulous]

The issue of forced retirements was handed over to the Feds the instant the portfolio went together for whatever Committee was going to try to stick-handle it.

We scored on our own net at the whistle and the puck has not been seen since.

We pooched this entire issue so badly, it will be entirely up to the Federal Government, because it was handed to them on a silver plate at the bell. There was not one shred of planning that went into the eventualities of this gong show.

Based on the vitriolic juvenile absurdities in the comments section of the Globe, it would not come as any surprise at all if the Human Rights Commission rents a school somewhere for all the remedial training that is going to be required for the squad of Dobermans that are presently guarding this Hindenburg.

The Association simply lost control of the ship on day 1 and, on a plate, handed it to the CHRC, CHRT, and the Federal Court, and rightly so, because that’s precisely where the puck should have gone.

It’s all water under the bridge now because it’s over with, the court rulings are in, there are already convictions on the Discrimination issue, and it will only move much further in that direction from here, and very rapidly, as we can all plainly see with the IAM, the CAW, and CUPE, who by clear example are the real brain trust in terms of proactive mentalities.

Several glaring issues stare down firmly from the courts, including the facts that:

1. AC is the only airline in North America to force retire their pilots, even after age-based hiring restrictions were declared illegal over 30 years ago.

2. Virtually 90 percent of all AC pilots cannot continue in the years of service pension stream at age 60 because of the hiring age illegalities. In fact a staggering number of pilots have to work beyond age 65 to even come anywhere close to a decent pension, notwithstanding the fact that it was proclaimed in Parliament that the vast majority of pilots are looking at a 6 figure pension, in and of itself a patently absurd statement of misrepresentation. Do the math.

3. Cut the charade. We all know what this is about. This is all about eradicating circa 700 senior pilots and waddling up the clean slate to a newly minted position in time to oh, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, conveniently find the time to let the retirement restriction lapse into the woodwork on the musical chairs merry-go-round. Why? See point 2. Plain as the egg on everybody’s face.

It was widely advertised that there would be circa 700 forced retirements in a 5 year period, and on this forum and in many other venues it has been widely suggested that delay of the repeal of mandatory retirement and/or reinstatement of Complainants at all costs is of immense benefit to pilots further on down the list. That fully transparent attitude of Discrimination is blatantly obvious to every Federal agency in the entire country, and you wonder why we’ve lost complete control of this issue to the Feds?

The onus is squarely on us to adhere to the laws of the land.

We are not a little wee Microcosmic Atoll somewhere with its own legal system in some mythical little Simulated Society holed up somewhere behind it’s little Wall of Madness.

When the Feds come a-knockin’ it’s time to cut with the cute games.

And they’ve already knocked, just in case the news isn’t getting through the Guardhouse to the Minions.

[Lost in Saigon]

Please correct me if I have the wrong figures here.

If there a 3,000 pilots at Air Canada and 150 of these want to continue flying for Air Canada is that not 5% of the total who want to continue their flying career?

Of the 5% what equipment/staus are they?

If you can only answer this in a analytical fashion please explain how Air Canada roster it's flights based on the over 60 under 60 rule?

Will this be a financial hard ship for Air Canada?

Most of those who want to stay past 60 are 777, 767, A330, and even some A320 Captains and First Officers.

So far they don't have to worry about the over/under 60 rule because Air Canada has no Captains over 60. Eventually Air Canada will have to roster it's crews just like all the other airlines do. What is so hard about that? How can it be a financial hardship when most other airlines in Canada and around the world allow their pilots to fly past 60?

It is actually more than 150 pilots. Many have not voiced their opposition to forced retirement at age 60 because they still have many years to go. You can not really do anything until you approach age 60. It is a fact that they would face hostility from their peers if they let their intentions be known. For their own protection they say nothing.

[vic777]

So far they don't have to worry about the over/under 60 rule because Air Canada has no Captains over 60. Eventually Air Canada will have to roster it's crews just like all the other airlines do. What is so hard about that? How can it be a financial hardship when most other airlines in Canada and around the world allow their pilots to fly past 60?

All that's required is to have the various Governments and Airlines request ICAO to drop their non -sensical over/under rule .... problem solved.

[Rockie]

Please correct me if I have the wrong figures here.

If there a 3,000 pilots at Air Canada and 150 of these want to continue flying for Air Canada is that not 5% of the total who want to continue their flying career?

Of the 5% what equipment/staus are they?

If you can only answer this in a analytical fashion please explain how Air Canada roster it's flights based on the over 60 under 60 rule?

Will this be a financial hard ship for Air Canada?

For some reason ACPA is viewing as a victory that fact that the VK JR sent the BFOR issue back to the CHRT to settle. They are positive (like they've been positive of everything else) that the CHRT will accept the argument that allowing over 60 pilots to stay will be a financial hardship to the company and make the cutoff there. But they are forgetting that the whole planet has gone to 65 and nobody else finds it a hardship living with the over/under rule. They are also forgetting that the CHRT's mandate is to prevent discrimination, and since allowing the BFOR is an exception to that mandate they will not be easily convinced. Even if they do allow it to some degree it will only be the absolute minimum required and it will not be the big rescue ACPA is hoping for.

I wonder how much money will have been spent on this by the time that particular episode is settled?

[Understated]

For some reason ACPA is viewing as a victory that fact that the VK JR sent the BFOR issue back to the CHRT to settle. They are positive (like they've been positive of everything else) that the CHRT will accept the argument that allowing over 60 pilots to stay will be a financial hardship to the company and make the cutoff there. But they are forgetting that the whole planet has gone to 65 and nobody else finds it a hardship living with the over/under rule.

Correct, Rockie. What is worse is that they have failed to advise their members that the Tribunal's decision on the BFOR as a result of the referral by the Federal Court is applicable only to Vilven and Kelly. Why? Unilke the Charter issue that is based on a question of law, the BFOR issue is based almost entirely on evidence. Facts. And when the Vilven-Kelly evidence was heard, ICAO had not yet come out with its clarification that the over-under rule would be satisfied if only one of the First Officers on augmented crews was under sixty. That clarification came in February, after the evidence closed in January.

At argument, in March, 2007, the Coalition brought a motion to introduce that evidence into the hearing, but the Tribunal refused the motion, agreeing with Air Canada and ACPA that the case was closed and that the evidence was not admissible.

In the Thwaites hearing in 2009-2010, the new evidence was introduced, and as a result Air Canada's models for crewing that were again submitted were shown to be totally flawed by reason of the fact that the models did not account for "either" First Officer under sixty satifying the ICAO over-under requirement. Its models required "both" First Officers to be under 60. So their BFOR argument was shredded.

Let's assume that they were able to argue that the over-under rule would present operational difficulties (that no other airline in the world has complained about since its introduction in November, 2006). How do you get from that finding to the finding of undue hardship? The law requires "accommodation" to the point of undue hardship. It puts a positive duty on the employer to manage the issue to the point where it becomes financially very, very difficult. Undue hardship? Not on the evidence before the Tribunal, as I read the transcripts.

[vic777]

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

It's sad that the people who you have most in common with, are your enemies. Are you going to FlyPast60?

[Janszoon]

1. AC is the only airline in North America to force retire their pilots, even after age-based hiring restrictions were declared illegal over 30 years ago.

Why do people keep saying AC is the only airline to force-retire people?? The only difference with the other airlines is that they force people out at 65. It's still age discrimination, yes?

[A330]

What a PR disaster. The Canadian public will now be watching with interest to see if this arrogant turkey ( pun intended ) with continue to fly past 60. What a poor choice to represent this movement to fly past 60; he is reason enough to vote this down. I think it's best for him to move to Turkey after all.... Hired at 21! And now trying to garner sympathy, to the tune of a 10k a month indexed pension. Unfortunately the Canadian public sees this individual as an extension to the widely held view of an arrogant entitled employee group. This will not help one bit.

Talk to a retired United airlines pilot and ask him about his pension?

[Rockie]

Why do people keep saying AC is the only airline to force-retire people??

They don't say that. Air Canada is the only airline to force retire them at 60.

What a poor choice to represent this movement to fly past 60; he is reason enough to vote this down.

Really? Millions of provincially regulated workers and over 800,000 federally regulated ones will not agree with that statement.

For several years now I've been saying that ACPA will eventually pull its head out of its ass and try to establish a BFOR of age 65, which I now realize is wrong. They will still try and establish a BFOR of age 65 but it won't be because they pulled their head out of their ass. It'll be because every other door they tried got slammed in their face leaving that door the only one left. Rather than through good judgement, planning or responsible management, they will have been herded there like so many cattle to the only gate left open.

[vic777]

Why do people keep saying AC is the only airline to force-retire people?? The only difference with the other airlines is that they force people out at 65. It's still age discrimination, yes?

Yes of course it's still age discrimination. Competency should be based on Sims and medicals. Some would leave at Forty, others would stay past Seventy. Invest in that treadmill.

[MackTheKnife]

43S/172E,

I would bet the farm all these comments are a result of an initiative from the AC pilots PRIVATE forum to try and discredit the FlyPast60 movement.

The only thing achieved was to bring discredit to a once proud profession by showing how ignorant and immature they all are by lies, half truths and innuendo.

Congratulations. Once again AC pilots denigrate themselves in the public eye through sheer stupidity.

MTK

[Janszoon]

Why do people keep saying AC is the only airline to force-retire people??

They don't say that. Air Canada is the only airline to force retire them at 60.

Yet...

1. AC is the only airline in North America to force retire their pilots, even after age-based hiring restrictions were declared illegal over 30 years ago.

I know you've been reading ALL of these posts, and I know you have seen people allude to comments such as: "the other airlines all retire their pilots at 65, why doesn't Air Canada? AC is so behind the times! It's illegal!" But the truth is, what the other airlines do is also age discrimination. That's what I'm pointing out, that this isn't only about Air Canada, it's about all the airlines that force-retire people.

This isn't a simple issue of Air Canada catching up to what the other airlines do, this is way beyond that. This involves everybody. There will be no more forced retirement, at 60, at 65, at any age. Big changes ahead.