Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[Old fella]

Does this mean there will be 70 yr old Senior Citizens up front in the A320/EMB90 going into YYT when the gales of November come slashing.........

[Cat Driver]

I am all for retiring at 65, just like every other airline in the world pretty much. I don't care if you take as discrimination or not. At that age you are not on the ball as you once were like when you were 50 or 55 for that matter.

I just love reading these kind of statements.

Generalizations show a lack of knowledge about a subject, so Old Fella let me point out something that is fact for your edification.

I retired the same month I turned seventy, at that time I held an unrestricted air display authority in Europe and was still actively flying in the air show circuit in Europe.

Based on the fact I had to pass the same flight tests as any other air show pilot to hold the license to fly in said airshow circuit would it not stand to reason I could have passed a recurrent ride in a large jet?

Or do you think that flying a big jet takes special talent?

[Raymond Hall]

I just love reading these kind of statements.

I can see your humour, but I have serious problems reading that individual's statement because the statement and those like it demonstrate clearly how deeply rooted the systemic problem of age discimination actually is. It is a matter of perception, not a matter of reality.

I have had a number of pilots, who, like yourself (I believe) were in their 70's, contact me about the possibility of regaining their jobs at Air Canada. One of the most remarkable was a pilot who is currently employed by Boeing, who was involved in the certification project for the 787.

Fully competent, fully licensed by the FAA, and fully discriminated against by the current Air Canada 40-somethings, because of his age. But those younger pilots who are critical of his competency (which is not in question) will have no issue getting into the aircraft that he helped to certify by doing the flight testing on--the aircraft that they would love to fly--even though he did that work after he turned 70!

[Rockie]

I'm to lazy to read all the topics on this crap.

I know many people older than 60 who would love to continue flying and are perfectly capable of it...plus they're not lazy.

Come to think of it maybe that's why they want to continue working.

[Cat Driver]

Yes Ray the myopia that seems to be so prevalent within the pilot group in general leads one to wonder how low the requirements really are IQ wise to become an airline pilot.

I was fortunate to have had a very rewarding career both as a pilot and an aircraft mechanic and from my experience in both fields the flying part is child's play knowledge wise compared to flying them.

I have taught many airline pilots the finer skills of flying at the edge of an airplanes performance envelope and I found their flying skills and all around knowledge to vary from excellent to down right scary......taking into consideration the fact they are actually flying the public around in high performance jets.

When one uses age as a measurement of ability one should think of Bob Hoover who was one of the best in the world and flew flawless routines well into his eighties.

In closing I would like you to know I admire your efforts on behalf of the flying fraternity and wish you all the best.

[DrBoeing]

I'm to lazy to read all the topics on this crap.

So basically any AC pilot can fly till they die.. Am I correct on this? If so, wow. Those that do must be realllly financially messed up.

I am all for retiring at 65, just like every other airline in the world pretty much. I don't care if you take as discrimination or not. At that age you are not on the ball as you once were like when you were 50 or 55 for that matter.

Wow, with logic like this they actually let you in a flight deck.
In one sentence you condone age discrimination by thinking that those over 60 are too slow to hold the position but in a previous line you admit to being to lazy to read the topic, YIKES!!!!!
I am 50 years of age and I can dance circles around a mess of 20 somethings. As long as those people you think should be sent to pasture can pass the medical, let them fly!
What is your logic going to be next, something along the lines of the movie Logan's Run, once you hit a certain age you are exterminated!

[Raymond Hall]

I have taught many airline pilots the finer skills of flying at the edge of an airplanes performance envelope and I found their flying skills and all around knowledge to vary from excellent to down right scary......taking into consideration the fact they are actually flying the public around in high performance jets. When one uses age as a measurement of ability ...

Age has never been and, in my view, never will be, a reasonable proxy for competency. I have had pilots at age 59 try to kill me, and I have had pilots at age 25 try to kill me. There is no valid way to distinguish the two groups, save for their thinking processes, commitment to detail and professionalism, versus the lack of same. Age has been, at best, only marginally relevant to the outcome, in all cases.

Regardless, in the circumstances of these issues before the Tribunal and the courts, all of that is moot in any event. Either a pilot is competent, or he / she is not. Transport Canada decides that. So the issue is one of collective bargaining versus human rights legislation. Which take precedence? That question is a legal one, with a foregone outcome, as I see it.

[Cat Driver]

The only outcome will be forced retirement based on age alone will be as dead as the dodo bird.

What I find difficult to understand is Air Canada's and the ACPA's head in the sand position on this.

The position of a lot of the younger pilots can be attributed to a combination of hope and ignorance.

[Les Lavoie]

What I find difficult to understand is Air Canada's and the ACPA's head in the sand position on this.

That makes two of us wondering about AC's and ACPA's stand on this, considering the obvious. Could it be wrongly placed pride ? Plain stupidity does not enter into the equation because of the shear number of minds involved.

AC is no fool and they must be playing ACPA for all it's worth. Just an assumption, but if ACPA's contract comes up for a ratification vote just as the blinds close and ACPA, with AC, has to disburse big dollars for damages, does one not think that AC will have positioned itself to kill two birds with one stone that is, squeeze ACPA membership on the new contract AND run ACPA's financial reserves just about dry so they roll over. Once again, it's just an assumption but food for thought.

[Rockie]

The law has been changed and still not a peep out of ACPA. Nobody seems concerned about that.

Do they have nothing to say about it? Were the weeks and weeks of lead time not enough to prepare some kind of statement to give to their members?

ACPA led the pilots straight into this train wreck, and silence is NOT acceptable.

[yycflyguy]

The law has been changed and still not a peep out of ACPA. Nobody seems concerned about that.

Do they have nothing to say about it? Were the weeks and weeks of lead time not enough to prepare some kind of statement to give to their members?

ACPA led the pilots straight into this train wreck, and silence is NOT acceptable.

More train analogies. I love it. Perhaps you could make the "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" analogy next.

FWIW. When V-K were temporarily re-instated. The success rate was 50%. Not including the extra sessions and extra evaluations that were granted.

[Rockie]

C'mon, do you think ACPA's silence given the significance of what just occurred is appropriate? Do you think the weeks they've had is enough to prepare some kind of statement to the members?

Instead of pointless comments about choice of metaphors and utterly irrelevant training information let's hear what you think of ACPA's non-response so far. I know you have a brain, let's hear something worthy of it.

[yycflyguy]

I think the timeline and scenarios Ray posted in the thread viewtopic.php?f=31&t=78443 is reasonable. In that thread he comments that it is likely to be appealed to the SCC. IMO that process is still years away. Unless the union decides to throw in the towel (and with the next elected MEC taking office January 1st, it is NOT likely) there really is not much point to put opinions and views into print that might hurt them in future litigation. If you call up a MEC member, they will give you their opinion. I suspect that the latest development wont be addressed by the union until the next MEC meetings in the new year.

I know you have a brain

Thanks, but I have been told differently!

[Rockie]

I suspect that the latest development wont be addressed by the union until the next MEC meetings in the new year.

Too bad, because this is happening right now as are negotiations for a multi-year contract. In another thread you agree that language incorporating this change and mitigating the effects should be included in this contract, but how in the world do you expect that to happen? This requires indepth study and strategic planning not to mention an extensive information campaign so that intelligent member input can be achieved. All of this should have been done a long, long time ago because it takes a great deal of time.

So far ACPA hasn't even acknowledged that the law changed.

BTW, I've read real evidence that you do have a brain which is why I'm disappointed with that previous response. Your preference is obvious and that's your right, but reality intrudes as it was always going to do. My opinion on this matter has been rejected so many times by so many people it carries no weight, but somebody like you can actually jolt this union and membership into finally dealing with this realistically.

[777longhaul]

The SCC (Supreme Court) is NOT obligated to hear any case.

They will look at a case, and make their decision to hear, or not hear the case, it is not a given, they will even hear it.

So it is a gamble, for all parties, to think, that after the FCA, the SCC would hear the case.

When the FCA issues its decision, that will be law, regardless of which way it goes, until, the SCC may or may not decide to hear the requested appeal.

[yycflyguy]

I suspect that the latest development wont be addressed by the union until the next MEC meetings in the new year.

This requires indepth study and strategic planning not to mention an extensive information campaign so that intelligent member input can be achieved. All of this should have been done a long, long time ago because it takes a great deal of time.

I don't know. Perhaps their legal counsel HAS provided strategic planning and they are keeping it quiet. I don't know. I would like to think that this was done as well.

I have always agreed that mandatory retirement would be abolished and that, as a union, we needed to cover our asses. Time will tell how much ass has been covered.

but somebody like you can actually jolt this union and membership into finally dealing with this realistically.

Flattery will get you everywhere , but I am going to disappoint you by saying that I am just a regular line schmuck with no power, no influence and no say on the matter... other than a vocal opinion.

[Rockie]

I don't know. Perhaps their legal counsel HAS provided strategic planning and they are keeping it quiet. I don't know. I would like to think that this was done as well.

Without member knowledge or input? I thought this was supposed to be a grassroots organization? Keeping the membership 100% uninformed is not how I would choose to do things especially on this issue.

I am just a regular line schmuck with no power, no influence and no say on the matter... other than a vocal opinion.

It has to start somewhere. Believe me for every vocal person there are 200 silent ones thinking the same thing, and all it takes is a push.

[tailgunner]

EDITED - Slanderous remarks are not tollerated

[Raymond Hall]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/18 ... imination/

Tories end forced retirement, decades of ‘age discrimination’
Kathryn Blaze Carlson Dec 18, 2011 – 9:04 PM ET | Last Updated: Dec 18, 2011 11:21 PM ET

Two decades since Ottawa’s first attempt to kill mandatory retirement, the Conservative government has managed to quietly overturn legislation that has for 30 years given federally regulated employers the right to force workers into retirement because of their age.

The section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that permitted mandatory retirement was officially repealed by the government’s Budget Implementation Bill, which received Royal Assent last week. Now that the budget bill is formally on the books, the country’s 12,000 federally regulated employers will no longer be able to force their 800,000 employees into retirement beginning December 2012.

“This was an overnight success after 20 years of lobbying,” said Susan Eng, a vice-president at CARP, Canada’s largest national organization representing seniors. “They buried it in the larger budget bill, and this is one time where I’m glad they did.”

All Canadian jurisdictions, with the exception of New Brunswick, have now abolished mandatory retirement, although there are some exceptions in some provinces for particular occupations. The latest budget bill means employers in federally regulated industries such as banking, transport, and communications will be allowed to continue working beyond the typically mandated ages of 60 or 65.

Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have promised to repeal the provision, but either an election or excessive lobbying by employers and unions meant bills continuously died on the Order Paper. David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, catapulted the issue into the spotlight in 2004, when he challenged the status quo by calling mandatory retirement a “silly policy.”

A move that would have once sparked controversy went off last week without much ado — a signal, Ms. Eng said, that “there has been a sea-change in public values on the issue of forcing people to retire people before their time.”

“We’re not born with date stamps saying our fitness for work expires at 65,” David Langtry, acting chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said in a statement. “Age discrimination is age discrimination, pure and simple.”

The commission has called for the repeal of mandatory retirement provisions since 1979, and in 2009 the tribunal ruled that mandatory retirement provisions in Air Canada’s collective agreement with its pilots’ association violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Air Canada has estimated that between 2009 and 2013, nearly 20% of its 3,000 pilots will hit their mandatory retirement age of 60.

Air Canada pilots have been among the most vocal opponents to mandatory retirement provisions, and their cause has migrated from the tribunal to the Federal Court of Appeals, which is slated to reach a decision early next year that could affect pilots turning 60 before the December 2012 coming-into-force date.

Raymond Hall, the Winnipeg-based counsel for the group of pilots challenging the provision in the courts, said the government’s bill is welcomed — but too little, too late.

“When I sent out an email to my 200 clients, I got 15 emails from pilots asking, ‘I’m turning 60 before next December, so what will happen to me?’” he said. “My answer was that Air Canada might be able to continue its practice.”

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents 600,000 workers across the country, has long opposed the end of mandatory retirement. The union’s Air Canada Component did not respond to an interview request late Friday, but the union’s main website says ending mandatory retirement means workers without adequate pension coverage will never have the option of retiring.

“Mandatory retirement does not guarantee that workers get an adequate retirement income,” the union says. “Without mandatory retirement, governments and employers will always look to us to work longer as an alternative to providing adequate pension plans.”

Economists have argued that killing mandatory retirement will help mitigate labour shortages as the Baby Boomer population ages. They point out, too, that the longer a person works, the longer they pay income taxes into increasingly cash-strapped government coffers.

“The Conservatives promised this in their pre-election budget and during the campaign, so rather than engage all that controversy they just got it done,” Ms. Eng said. “Everyone has had their full say more than once over the course of many years. What else was there to say? Do it, or don’t do it.”

[FADEC]

North Korean Government News reported with great grief this morning that "The Glorious Leader" died on Saturday.

Mandatory Retirement ended four days ago, a truly hot issue for many members, and ACPA hasn't mentioned it?

[Stu Pidasso]

A whole lot - about nothing.

Reminds me of the old joke; "What do you call 50 dead lawyers at the bottom of the Ocean?"

No offence Raymond, you are a Pilot first.

There was previously, no law; now there is, law.

Air Canada will move forward and ACPA will capitulate. Up until now ACPA represented the majority, against a "special interest" group.

Frankly, I think they did an admirable job.

[FADEC]

North Korea is considered the most secretive regime on earth; it took them two days to reveal that their "Glorious Leader" had died.

ACPA has not commented on the momentous change to Mandatory Retirement in four days; what does this say about the openess of this "Grass Roots" Organisation?

[morefun]

It says that ACPA will never accept the fact that Kim Jung-ill died, regardless of the facts...

[ratherbee]

They're too busy re-arranging deck chairs on the "TA2" to comment on Age60. Meanwhile, still polling the members on what they really want in a contract - this polling hasn't stopped since 2008. The good news is no strike for now AC, as the leaders struggle to come up with a plan that doesn't look like a surrender, but watch out for our bag tags and red lanyards.

[Stu Pidasso]

ratherbee - at least give them a chance.

Unless you are truly happy earning less money than 12 years ago and are willing to fly a Widebody / Heavy Jet, for embarrassingly low wages with obscene working conditions?

All the while every other (unskilled) employee around this nuthouse marches ahead.

Riding on our backs.