Fed Ct Overturns Tribunal Dismissal of Age 60 Complaints

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

//edited by Sulako to remove the offensive stuff. Which leaves nothing left. Next time's a ban.

[lot lizard]

Just a couple of honest questions;

!. Why would anyone want to stay on past 60 when you have a nice pension (now in surplus...) waiting for you when you walk out the door?
2. Why not spend the time and capital to negotiate an incentive for early retirement?
3. If the pilot group came up with a rotating or socialized seniority system, how many would really want to come back?
4. With the way the industry has changed in the last 15 years, why would you want to stay?
5. If you knew this day was coming, why not plan for it?

I retired at 50 and there is nothing better than enjoying life when your young. I do miss some things about airline flying but I had a great run and I'm very satisfied.
I looked at contract flying as something to do part time but realized I would rather fly for fun.
If you retire at 65, you life expectancy is going to be very short doing this job. Enjoy your life living.
How many times can you do the same trip to LHR, FRA or CDG, go to the same hotel, pub and restaurant? At least at EK, the cabin crew were very nice to look at

[accumulous]

Just a couple of honest questions;

!. Why would anyone want to stay on past 60 when you have a nice pension (now in surplus...) waiting for you when you walk out the door?
2. Why not spend the time and capital to negotiate an incentive for early retirement?
3. If the pilot group came up with a rotating or socialized seniority system, how many would really want to come back?
4. With the way the industry has changed in the last 15 years, why would you want to stay?
5. If you knew this day was coming, why not plan for it?

I retired at 50 and there is nothing better than enjoying life when your young. I do miss some things about airline flying but I had a great run and I'm very satisfied.
I looked at contract flying as something to do part time but realized I would rather fly for fun.
If you retire at 65, you life expectancy is going to be very short doing this job. Enjoy your life living.
How many times can you do the same trip to LHR, FRA or CDG, go to the same hotel, pub and restaurant? At least at EK, the cabin crew were very nice to look at

First of all could you please holler at Mr. Cruise up above you there and tell him to stop stereotyping people over 60. Everybody's getting sick and tired of the age discrimination. Tell him to loosen his tie or something,

There are as many reasons for wanting to work as their are individual people. A good place for you to find the answer to you great questions would be to canvas the 100 or so AC pilots who are not going to retire at 60 this year. Another good source sample would be to canvas the American Airlines pilots who at last report have 7 times as many pilots over 60 as there are under 40. You'll find hundreds of individual reasons.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

In a sense, therefore, it is difficult to assimilate how a regime already favouring older workers would be described as discriminatory because at age 60 it cut off the continuation of that generous situation. Termination at that age was intrinsic to the functioning of the collective agreement which based payment out at older ages on effort put in at younger ages.

Canadian law is blind to the system Air Canada pilots have been working under. It doesn't matter, and never mattered, if Air Canada pilots don't think mandatory retirement is discriminatory...Canadian law does.

Why is that so hard for people to understand even now?

Not quite. Canadian law is subject to judicial review and it is the responsibility of the judiciary, amongst other things, to ensure that the law is applied fairly and justly. This judge seems to be musing that perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 60 is fair and just in this case. None of us (and I'm not an AC pilot so I'm unaffected - although I do have an opinion) can say definitively what the law is until this is ruled on by the Supreme Court. Undoubtedly that is where this will end up eventually.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

Is Ray Hall now moderating the forum? Sorry to be a downer on the all the high-fives going on.

Geez, getting banned from here would be like a badge of honour !

Here's to hoping that the Tribunal review, the subsequent Judicial Review, and the the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, and possible SCC appeal take several more years!

[Old fella]

Mods et al. If I may suggest, why not migrate this thread to a private forum with login/password access maybe under a sub folder Air Canada and let the keen contributors who have a profound interest – blast away. This is a very good forum with thought out topics present by/responded to by interesting/knowledgeable individuals. Just my viewpoint, to that end this thread adds nothing to the overall theme on the aviation industry with the constant debating ad nauseum.

[accumulous]

In a sense, therefore, it is difficult to assimilate how a regime already favouring older workers would be described as discriminatory because at age 60 it cut off the continuation of that generous situation. Termination at that age was intrinsic to the functioning of the collective agreement which based payment out at older ages on effort put in at younger ages.

Canadian law is blind to the system Air Canada pilots have been working under. It doesn't matter, and never mattered, if Air Canada pilots don't think mandatory retirement is discriminatory...Canadian law does.

Why is that so hard for people to understand even now?

Not quite. Canadian law is subject to judicial review and it is the responsibility of the judiciary, amongst other things, to ensure that the law is applied fairly and justly. This judge seems to be musing that perhaps a mandatory retirement age of 60 is fair and just in this case. None of us (and I'm not an AC pilot so I'm unaffected - although I do have an opinion) can say definitively what the law is until this is ruled on by the Supreme Court. Undoubtedly that is where this will end up eventually.

You make a good point. If you thought the Age 60 Committee was brilliant, followed by the Jonestown executive massacre over the AC contract, followed right up by Final Offer Selection, and if you thought that was, er, final, well the thrills just keep on a-comin.

By now the entire airline community in North America knows that if you lock us in a room with a paint roller, you can come back in ten minutes and yep, we will have painted ourselves into a corner. Never mind that nobody else on the planet does things like us. Never mind that Parliament abolished Mandatory Retirement because it was outright age discrimination, done and dusted.

What ACPA wants to do now is visit the Federal concept of discrimination, and get it overturned.

Then the next part gets really interesting because the senior pilots over 60 can all pack up and go home and the next thousand or so guys approaching age 60, and it's a big demographic, can all stop buying shoe shine. The junior guys can all slide up the list briefly and out the door at 60 under the watchful eye of the new hires, with nobody in the entire organization maxing the pension, because when the Federal Government abolished limits on the discrimination on ACs age of hiring back in the 1980's it upset the entire pension scheme versus age. The pension scheme in and of itself has been discriminatory on the basis of age for the past 30 years.

ACPA is now going to take the union dues of all 3000 pilots, hand it over to a lawyer in a manila envelope, and instruct the guy to put an end to their careers. It will only take a couple of junior guys and a lawyer to change the locks on the building. And when they get near the top, the next new hires of the day will be there to ensure the locks are changed again.

The MEC needs to just lean forward slowly and carefully right now and grasping their King by the head, just lay it down on its side because they just paid a Federal Court Judge to wax their own careers.

Checkmate.

[Norwegianwood]

Well said!

[TrailerParkBoy]

Here's a simple fix for this mess:

It seems everything, especially at Air Canada, seems to clasp on to the term "Grandfather Clause". So just ask yourself this; when you were hired, what was the retirement age understood when you accepted your new career? If it was 60, then the grandfather clause takes effect! Problem solved!

Now if the government says in 2010, there is no mandatory retirement age, then if you were hired with that being the policy, then good for you. You can now fly til you die!

[accumulous]

Here's a simple fix for this mess:

It seems everything, especially at Air Canada, seems to clasp on to the term "Grandfather Clause". So just ask yourself this; when you were hired, what was the retirement age understood when you accepted your new career? If it was 60, then the grandfather clause takes effect! Problem solved!

Now if the government says in 2010, there is no mandatory retirement age, then if you were hired with that being the policy, then good for you. You can now fly til you die!

Excellent thinking.

Grandfather goes, grandson stays, although the wording looks prima facie discriminatory so you'd have to dream up a different set of relatives.

That should effectively wipe out roughly 1 billion, 350 million dollars ($1,350,000,000) in collective career earnings potential that Parliament handed each and every one of us when they abolished age discrimination. That would easily top all the previous contractual losses via ACPA combined, by a thundering huge margin. Nicely done.

[TrailerParkBoy]

Here's a simple fix for this mess:

It seems everything, especially at Air Canada, seems to clasp on to the term "Grandfather Clause". So just ask yourself this; when you were hired, what was the retirement age understood when you accepted your new career? If it was 60, then the grandfather clause takes effect! Problem solved!

Now if the government says in 2010, there is no mandatory retirement age, then if you were hired with that being the policy, then good for you. You can now fly til you die!

Excellent thinking.

Grandfather goes, grandson stays, although the wording looks prima facie discriminatory so you'd have to dream up a different set of relatives.

That should effectively wipe out roughly 1 billion, 350 million dollars ($1,350,000,000) in collective career earnings potential that Parliament handed each and every one of us when they abolished age discrimination. That would easily top all the previous contractual losses via ACPA combined, by a thundering huge margin. Nicely done.

Perfect...but then we would have to abolish the 16 yr age limit for someone to get their PPL since that sound discriminatory also! I've seen a 12 yr old fly just as good as anyone else!

[Rockie]

Perfect...but then we would have to abolish the 16 yr age limit for someone to get their PPL since that sound discriminatory also! I've seen a 12 yr old fly just as good as anyone else!

Minimum age limits have nothing to do with hand flying ability and everything to do with maturity and judgement.

But you knew that right?

[planeless]

Perfect...but then we would have to abolish the 16 yr age limit for someone to get their PPL since that sound discriminatory also! I've seen a 12 yr old fly just as good as anyone else!

Minimum age limits have nothing to do with hand flying ability and everything to do with maturity and judgement.

But you knew that right?

Saying someone is to young to do a job is the same discrimination as saying someone is too old to do a job.

[TrailerParkBoy]

Perfect...but then we would have to abolish the 16 yr age limit for someone to get their PPL since that sound discriminatory also! I've seen a 12 yr old fly just as good as anyone else!

Minimum age limits have nothing to do with hand flying ability and everything to do with maturity and judgement.

But you knew that right?

So labelling young people as immature and unable to make good judgment isn't discriminatory? Do you not know any mature kids? Not all are morons like Bieber!

Retirement age has nothing to do with hand flying and everything to do about "retiring" otherwise known as "maturing".

But I would suspect you know that since you are old enough to make good judgment!

But seriously, do people not yearn for Freedom 55 anymore?

[Rockie]

A lack of maturity and judgement isn't a label, it's a fact in human beings until they get older. Society doesn't consider minimum age limits for activities that require maturity and judgement that very young people lack discriminatory. Unlike forcing capable people to leave their job just because they reach an arbitrarily chosen age.

Like Air Canada pilots this is something you must eventually learn.

Freedom 55? Come on, you need to pay more attention.

[Gravol]

A lack of maturity and judgement isn't a label, it's a fact in human beings until they get older. Society doesn't consider minimum age limits for activities that require maturity and judgement that very young people lack discriminatory. Unlike forcing capable people to leave their job just because they reach an arbitrarily chosen age.

Like Air Canada pilots this is something you must eventually learn.

Freedom 55? Come on, you need to pay more attention.

When I read these threads all I think about is inherent selfishness.

I believe one of the greatest issues of our time is the inability of young people to find well paying secure jobs in their respective fields. Mature or not, if some of these guys want to keep working, go fly for some regional op who compensates a fraction of your current position. This isn't about age. It's about scoring a comfortable seat and eventually making some of the best compensation in the country. There are many mature, experienced, and qualified / capable young pilots ready to move on.

There are more factors to this than what meet the eye and we're all bias for our own subjective reasons. Some people for sure want to keep working - so keep working. You don't need to be in that role to stay active in the industry. Retiring is a part of life. Some positions require it for a variety of reasons.The golden days have and always will be limited. If the age was increased to 65, 70, it would still be a problem for those turning 64 and 69.

[Rockie]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

Mandatory age 60 retirement at AC had to change even if it were not considered discriminatory for the reasons above.

As for the current senior guys reasons for staying - that's entirely up to them. Junior guys might not like it but the simple fact is senior guys do not owe junior guys their job when they turn 60 or a reason for wanting to go beyond 60. Everybody's turn will come just like it always has.

[yycflyguy]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

That is a weak argument now Rockie.

It was a plausible excuse 3 years ago but the "miraculous" turn around in the bond and investment market that eliminated a $3.7 Billion dollar pension shortfall in less than a year shows how the corporation manipulated both the unions and the Federal Government into buying into the "Great Pension Crisis". It's not a Ponzi scheme.

Now the corporation saves on age 60+pilots delaying their pension, New Hire DC program, exorbitant penalties on those who do want out early (or in some cases, wanting out at 60 without the YOS) and the missed opportunity by the pilots to realize some of those savings in the form of salary improvements to pay into a DC program. Executive bonuses will be in excess of what a New Hire can expect from their DC plan.

[Gravol]

The majority of pilots at Air Canada would never have the opportunity for a full pension if mandatory age 60 retirement had remained by virtue of their age when hired. They forget that.

None of the pilots being hired now will be able to retire at age 60 unless their DB pension fund is reinstated.

Mandatory age 60 retirement at AC had to change even if it were not considered discriminatory for the reasons above.

As for the current senior guys reasons for staying - that's entirely up to them. Junior guys might not like it but the simple fact is senior guys do not owe junior guys their job when they turn 60 or a reason for wanting to go beyond 60. Everybody's turn will come just like it always has.

As usual thanks for the polite response rocky. I do see what you're saying and most certainly appreciate your points.

Can you clarify further the first part of what you wrote? You're saying that the new guys hired @ mainline today will not have a chance anyway at securing the higher tiers with security? Explain further. I'm looking at this from an overall economic point of view as well; where there are only so many jobs which need to be cycled. When is enough enough? While true, they can work til their hearts content, it doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

[Ah_yeah]

a)Those that have the ~300K/yr part-time job will now enjoy it until they...um, can't
b)Those that were "forced" to leave said position as agreed upon are so, so angry.
c)Those that have to wait longer now just wish those in a) and b) would finally admit it's all about the money. We might actually be able to solve something with that admission out of the way.

[accumulous]

a)Those that have the ~300K/yr part-time job will now enjoy it until they...um, can't
b)Those that were "forced" to leave said position as agreed upon are so, so angry.
c)Those that have to wait longer now just wish those in a) and b) would finally admit it's all about the money. We might actually be able to solve something with that admission out of the way.

A) First of all it's not even close to being a 300k a year job. Secondly it's not a part time job. The job is based on block hours per month. The Court's most recent document clearly shows the depth of misunderstanding. But it's not their fault. Everybody works the same number of block hours, even new hires. Loads of pilots like working more days for less hours per day close to the home base time zone. So the junior pilot get-off-the-list because you're working 9 days smoke screen doesn't even come close to telling the real story. It's not the Court's fault they don't understand the real story. They can only read what's in front of them. On this next go-around they'll have the real numbers. If you want to work 9 days a month, then bid overseas. The big airplane will pay you what the small one does. In fact if you take a look down through the seniority list bid awards for the last 30 years you'll see what a huge percentage of pilots bid lifestyle rather then the bucks. That will all be shown. It's all there for presentation. What's left is discrimination for many easily demonstrable reasons.
B) Those who were forced to leave the position haven't been forced to leave it yet. For now they've been temporarily suspended by a group of junior pilots pending the outcome of the present deliberations. If it plays out the way it's heading, we can all meet at the bar at age 60 because we'll all be out of a job at the same time. It's all part and parcel of ACPA's chronic contractual suicide policy.
C) No, it's not all about the money. It's about the right to work at one's chosen profession free from discrimination. Canadian Parliament put an overwhelming end to forced retirement through the elimination of Age Discrimination and unlocked the door for almost a million federally regulated employees junior and senior by handing them a completely open ended career. There are a ton of AC pilots who by virtue of the Courts removing age discrimination as applies to the age of hiring, 30 years ago, would have to work until the age of 75 to come close to maxing their AC pensions, never mind 60.
The real numbers clearly show the junior pilot smoke screen at work. It is remarkable that Parliament has ended age discrimination for all federal employees by ending age discrimination, and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else. Perhaps you are right though, instead of having an open-ended career that would boost your lifetime earnings and pension income by huge numbers, maybe the best solution would be to get the courts to return you to your previous situation.

[TheStig]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

[accumulous]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

Watch the optics - you're not supposed to be over it for at least 5 years. In fact, when Parliament abolished age discrimination your argument was that you wouldn't ever be getting over it because nobody had the right to go past 60 including yourself. It's going to be a real challenge in court getting all the worms back in the can that's been open for about 8 years.

[TrailerParkBoy]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

If a pilot retired a few years ago, he/she can easily go fly for Sky Regional or Air Georgian since they are looking for experienced pilots! I mean if it's not for the salary but yet the right to fly til you die, I'm sure they would love to fly for those companies!

[teacher]

and essentially the lone holdout is a group of junior pilots at AC, and nowhere else.

We are SO over it and I'm not sure why ACPA and AC aren't either.

Above the law they are!

Accumulous, Noregianwoord, Teacher; mandatory retirement no longer exists at Air Canada, your statements suggest otherwise. It's been accepted by the pilot group junior and senior. Pilots haven't been forced to retire since Dec 2012. This is about whether those pilots who retired before the law changed should be able to come back.

Ah, OK, thanks for the clarification. In my opinion than I would hve to say if you retired prior to the law changing than you stay retired. If you hit the age after the law changed than you could stay. That was the position at Jazz.