FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

[Rockie]

I don't need to read your post again.

If every single pilot at Air Canada works to 65 now there will be absolutely no movement on the seniority list for 5 years (all other things being equal). No one will retire, and if everything else stays the same no one will be hired. Your seniority number will not change for 5 years nor will your relative position on your fleet. It's a five year freeze.

At the end of those five years everything starts up again at exactly the same rate it was before because pilots will once again be forced to retire.

Nothing else changes in this theoretical scenario except you have worked five years longer. With the exception of those five years plugged into the middle your career progression is exactly the same as it was before, but now those five years are in addition to what you would have made had you been forced out at 60. No loss - it's a net gain of five years career earning and lucky you if you're already in a seat that pays well. In reality however it's even better, because some pilots ahead of you will retire before age 65 who likely wouldn't have gone before 60, affording you even better advancement than you would have had before. Of course this depends on you flying to 65 yourself. If you choose to go at 60 you will take a hit, but then it will be your choice.

As for the pension, people who would have only gotten 25-30 years of pensionable service will now get 30-35 and their pension income will be increased commensurately. There are a lot of those people as you know. I am one of them.

[Fanblade]

I don't need to read your post again.

If every single pilot at Air Canada works to 65 now there will be absolutely no movement on the seniority list for 5 years (all other things being equal). No one will retire, and if everything else stays the same no one will be hired. Your seniority number will not change for 5 years nor will your relative position on your fleet. It's a five year freeze.

At the end of those five years everything starts up again at exactly the same rate it was before because pilots will once again be forced to retire.

Nothing else changes in this theoretical scenario except you have worked five years longer. With the exception of those five years plugged into the middle your career progression is exactly the same as it was before, but now those five years are in addition to what you would have made had you been forced out at 60. No loss - it's a net gain of five years career earning and lucky you if you're already in a seat that pays well. In reality however it's even better, because some pilots ahead of you will retire before age 65 who likely wouldn't have gone before 60, affording you even better advancement than you would have had before. Of course this depends on you flying to 65 yourself. If you choose to go at 60 you will take a hit, but then it will be your choice.

As for the pension, people who would have only gotten 25-30 years of pensionable service will now get 30-35 and their pension income will be increased commensurately. There are a lot of those people as you know. I am one of them.

Wrong,

Do us all a favour. Before pontificating on the financial impact of the group as a whole go do some random samples. You don't seem to have a clue as to impact.

You appear to have two flaws in your thinking.

Problem 1) The major one. You claim the impact is only 5 years at max. It is clear you haven't put much thought into this. It is a 5-600 hundred number deficit , in my example for 25 years, from age 35-60. From age 60-65 the seniority deficient slowly reduces back to zero. It's an average of just under 32k/ year for 25 years. And NO I did not apply anything to extrapolate the time value of money. If we did that we would end up with a number much higher yet.

To put it another way? Pilots will trail by 5 years for over a couple of decades. The extra 5 years waiting for a WB captain position introduces the greatest loss. The next largest is the extra 5 years waiting for a 320 CA spot. The third largest is the 5 extra years waiting for a WB FO spot.


Problem 2) The earnings between age 60 and age 65 are off set by lost pension income. Really the recouped earnings are about 50cents on the dollar.

So if your going to pontificate like a subject matter expert, I suggest you actually know what you are talking about. Some of the pilots you are talking down to will work to 65 for less earnings than they would have earned by age 60 as a result of the change.

We have accepted this. The rules changed and winners and losers were created. It's life.

What we don't have to accept is someone blowing smoke up our butt desperately trying to tell us how good it is for us. It's not good for us. A few senior benefit financially, perhaps those hired at an older age, and the rest lose by varying degrees. That's the math.

[Rockie]

Your logic is flawed. My theoretical example of nobody retiring for the five year period is the worst possible scenario and all it does is place a five year plug into everybody's career during which they still earn a living in their respective seat. After that five year period elapses career progression continues again at the same rate it did pre-2012. Saying there is a seniority hit of any kind is simply incorrect because the seniority list is fixed. No one can jump over the other.

You and many others think it's only the people at the top of the list benefitting, but in reality everybody is benefitting. It's just that as you go down the list to lesser paying seats those people are benefitting less, but everybody is still benefitting. Nobody is losing unless they choose to retire before they are required to.

Somebody disagreeing with your logic is not pontificating either...it's disagreeing.

[Fanblade]

Your logic is flawed. My theoretical example of nobody retiring for the five year period is the worst possible scenario and all it does is place a five year plug into everybody's career during which they still earn a living in their respective seat. After that five year period elapses career progression continues again at the same rate it did pre-2012. Saying there is a seniority hit of any kind is simply incorrect because the seniority list is fixed. No one can jump over the other.

You and many others think it's only the people at the top of the list benefitting, but in reality everybody is benefitting. It's just that as you go down the list to lesser paying seats those people are benefitting less, but everybody is still benefitting. Nobody is losing unless they choose to retire before they are required to.

Somebody disagreeing with your logic is not pontificating either...it's disagreeing.

its not a five year hit in pay progression. It's a 5 year delay in pay progression over a an entire career.

We can disagree over opinion. We can't disagree over a math. When it comes to math one is right and one is wrong.

2+2=4. You can't simply disagree with it. Well you can but you would look silly. What you need to do is disprove it if you believe 2+2 does not equal 4.

Go ahead. Prove this is just a one time 5 year delay in pay progression. Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.

[Rockie]

Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.

I've actually said many times you will be 5 years behind in career progression...it's odd that you haven't seen that. What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that after that 5 years your career progression continues again at its normal pace and...here's the important part...you can work five years longer to replace the five years progression you lost while the same guys retire ahead of you as they would have under the old rules. In 2017 at the end of this five year period you will be at the same position on the seniority list or better than you were in 2012, and when you are age 60 you will be at the same position on the seniority list or better as you would have been at 55 under the old system, and you get to work another five years if you want. Get that?

In other words you get the same career plus the five years your career was stalled in your current seat at your current pay. How did you miss that basic arithmetic?

[Fanblade]

Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.

I've actually said many times you will be 5 years behind in career progression...it's odd that you haven't seen that.

I have seen you say it. I just haven't seen you enter it into your logic.

What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that after that 5 years your career progression continues again at its normal pace....

I'm not ignoring it at all. Just accurately pointing out that although a normal “pace" resumes, that pace stays 5 years behind for an entire career. The aggregate impact becomes very large. The more junior you are the worse it gets. To the point some people will actually work longer for less career pay as a result.

It's a fact. It's the same as 2+2=4.

In other words you get the same career plus the five years your career was stalled in your current seat at your current pay. How did you miss that basic arithmetic?

You just never stop. You keep trying to limit the financial impact to 5 years.

It's five years behind for an entire career.

Two very different things.

[Rockie]

Prove that 10 years from now I won't be still 5 years behind that progression.

That depends on how many years you have left on your career. You will be 5 years behind until you turn 60, then if you so choose you can work another 5 years that you couldn't before and erase that 5 year delay. That will leave you with your same career you would have had before plus the 5 years you are spending in your current seat.

Just accurately pointing out that although a normal “pace" resumes, that pace stays 5 years behind for an entire career.

Not your entire career...only until you are 60 then you gain it back in the next 5 years. You will retire at 65 in the same place or higher on the seniority list as you would have at 60 under the old rules. How many times and how many different ways do I have to point that out before it registers? You like proof...prove me wrong that your seniority at 65 will be less than it would be at 60 under the old system.

[Fanblade]

You will retire at 65 in the same place or higher on the seniority list as you would have at 60 under the old rules. How many times and how many different ways do I have to point that out before it registers? You like proof...prove me wrong that your seniority at 65 will be less than it would be at 60 under the old system.

Deflect, defer, confuse, muddy.

Yes,

Five years longer to arrive at the same place on the seniority list. That is not, and has not been in dispute. Please stay on topic.

As a reminder to you.

If a pilot chooses to go to 65 they will make more than they would have not only in career earnings, but also for the majority increased retirement income as well. Longer time earning a great living, and more pensionable time resulting in a better pension. Simple arithmetic if you care to look at it.

This is simply false. Many pilots ( think junior) will work five years longer to age 65 for less earnings than had there been no change to mandatory retirement. This will happen because the younger you are the more time you will spend trailing your earnings potential by up to 5 years.

We are seeing hiring in the twenties again. 30 plus years trailing your income by 5 years or an estimated average of 32k/year is approaching a million dollars of lost income by 60. That can not be recouped in 5 years by working to age 65, as working past 60 means you forgo your pension income.

If you cut that number in half to an estimated 15k per year loss every year over a 30 year career, you approach a cumulative 500k income loss by age 60. This individual would break even by 64. They will work 4 years longer for no extra compensation.

I think 15k/ year in lost income is a very low estimate considering a 5 year delay. But nonetheless it proves a very important point.

Everyone who follows will work longer to achieve the same compensation. That includes you Rockie. Some will be unfortunate enough to work longer for less compensation.

Anyway I have had enough butting my head against this wall. I get it. You like the change. You have obviously figured out this financially benefits you.

Good for you.

Forgive me if I find your comments specious. I mean really, trying to tell people that working longer for the same compensation is good for them.

[Rockie]

Still not getting it.

This will happen because the younger you are the more time you will spend trailing your earnings potential by up to 5 years.

That's true, but you get 5 years more that you didn't get before bringing you back to your original place plus the 5 years you spent during the stagnation. Really, that's not too hard to understand is it? No pilot will spend a day less in a higher position than they would have before. The 5 years is fixed for your career but you get it back from 60 to 65. What is so hard to figure about that? Plus you haven't answered my question. Prove you will retire at a lower seniority at 65 than you would have at 60 under the old system. If you can't, that means you spend as much time in every level of seniority after this 5 year wait is over as you would have before. That means as much earnings plus the 5 years. Prove me wrong...

Admit it, your issue is not being able to retire at 60 with the same seniority as before, and you're trying to frame the argument without admitting it. You know that working to 65 will actually increase your lifetime career earnings and quite probably your retirement income unless you are already going to get 35 years service.

[777longhaul]

Fanblade and others:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE AGE 60 RULE, READ IT AGAIN.

The age discrimination age rule change, affected over 880,000 Canadian's. (Federal Government numbers) it did not affect just you.

The age rule was changed, because......it was discriminatory, period. Suggest you read the CHRC submissions again. The age rule (by the Federal Government) change was not, repeat, was not challenged by AC or acpa. Ever ask yourself, why it was not challenged by them?

Your POV is on the wrong mountain, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has caused your situation,(s) to change. Rockie, is correct, you have a much better world than before. If you want to go before 60, or any other age, that you think is magic, then take it, nothing, stopping you or anyone else. Give AC 12 months notice, and off you go.

Very interesting, that the so called union, acpa, did an IVR vote, (only once) and proudly said that the AC pilots, wanted the age 60 rule to stand, because the majority of the pilots that voted, (NOT the majority of ALL the pilots, as they never ever had that number) said that they all wanted to go at 60, YET, the reality has set in, and very few pilots are going at 60, so WHERE is the trumped up acpa majority now?

Take your issue up with acpa, they sold you out, so that a select group, of the acpa inside, could get further up the ladder, before the Federal Government changed the age discrimination rule.

The FP60 group, has not finished in court yet. But, now, due to many factors, few, if any of the group will ever be back, because of the new ICAO rule of age 65. So your world won't be changed by the FP60 group, but the courts might....decide to do something about the blatant discrimination that was clearly leveled at the 200 pilots who were forced out. ALL that acpa had to do, was file a grievance for each pilot, (just like all the other unions did, for their members in good standing, at AC) and the issue would be over, as the vast majority of the 200 pilots would now be retired.

Guess we will have to wait and see what the Federal Court of Appeals, with 3 judges, has to say about the law. Seems very strange, that AC accepted ALL the other union's, members back to full employment, BUT they (AC)would not accept the pilots back. That seems, a wee bit discriminatory just on that fact alone. Ask yourself, why.....why would AC get acpa to sign up for 50% of ALL the liability, and then fight to drag this issue, out, (AC has lost all of its appeals) and then not fight the rule change, what do you think, is AC's end game? Who is going to get shafted? It all depends on the FCA.

[eep...2 Green]

Fanblade and others:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE AGE 60 RULE, READ IT AGAIN.

The age discrimination age rule change, affected over 880,000 Canadian's. (Federal Government numbers) it did not affect just you.

The age rule was changed, because......it was discriminatory, period. Suggest you read the CHRC submissions again. The age rule (by the Federal Government) change was not, repeat, was not challenged by AC or acpa. Ever ask yourself, why it was not challenged by them?

Your POV is on the wrong mountain, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has caused your situation,(s) to change. Rockie, is correct, you have a much better world than before. If you want to go before 60, or any other age, that you think is magic, then take it, nothing, stopping you or anyone else. Give AC 12 months notice, and off you go.

Very interesting, that the so called union, acpa, did an IVR vote, (only once) and proudly said that the AC pilots, wanted the age 60 rule to stand, because the majority of the pilots that voted, (NOT the majority of ALL the pilots, as they never ever had that number) said that they all wanted to go at 60, YET, the reality has set in, and very few pilots are going at 60, so WHERE is the trumped up acpa majority now?

Take your issue up with acpa, they sold you out, so that a select group, of the acpa inside, could get further up the ladder, before the Federal Government changed the age discrimination rule.

The FP60 group, has not finished in court yet. But, now, due to many factors, few, if any of the group will ever be back, because of the new ICAO rule of age 65. So your world won't be changed by the FP60 group, but the courts might....decide to do something about the blatant discrimination that was clearly leveled at the 200 pilots who were forced out. ALL that acpa had to do, was file a grievance for each pilot, (just like all the other unions did, for their members in good standing, at AC) and the issue would be over, as the vast majority of the 200 pilots would now be retired.

Guess we will have to wait and see what the Federal Court of Appeals, with 3 judges, has to say about the law. Seems very strange, that AC accepted ALL the other union's, members back to full employment, BUT they (AC)would not accept the pilots back. That seems, a wee bit discriminatory just on that fact alone. Ask yourself, why.....why would AC get acpa to sign up for 50% of ALL the liability, and then fight to drag this issue, out, (AC has lost all of its appeals) and then not fight the rule change, what do you think, is AC's end game? Who is going to get shafted? It all depends on the FCA.

I have close relationships with folks, and their families, that were discriminated against as their age approached a magic number. After a long career they were told that they were no longer acceptable as employees. Many of them had fought in WW2. It is my intent to see them compensated (their estates if they have passed on) for this oppression. Some could still hold medicals well on into their 90s. As you were active during this time I will count on your support. Of course you will contribute to the financial support for these families (as the success of this initiative is a forgone conclusion) beyond what those that oppose this would deem reasonable (I expect this number to be in the hundreds of millions) - because you and I view this issue as we do.

[Rockie]

As you were active during this time I will count on your support.

I'm sorry but being active at that time doesn't earn my support in anything. Facts do.

[Morry Bund]

I have close relationships with folks, and their families, that were discriminated against as their age approached a magic number. After a long career they were told that they were no longer acceptable as employees. Many of them had fought in WW2. It is my intent to see them compensated (their estates if they have passed on) for this oppression. Some could still hold medicals well on into their 90s. As you were active during this time I will count on your support. Of course you will contribute to the financial support for these families (as the success of this initiative is a forgone conclusion) beyond what those that oppose this would deem reasonable (I expect this number to be in the hundreds of millions) - because you and I view this issue as we do.

There is a difference. In the situation that you cite there was no legal exemption to the mandatory retirement provision. Here there was. Mandatory retirement was conditional on age 60 being the normal age of retirement. Since 2006 the FP60 group has continually asserted that age 60 was not the normal age of retirement. As a result, forced mandatory retirement was in violation of the law. This past January, the Federal Court said that the Tribunal erred in excluding the majority of airline pilots in Canada (WestJet etc.) from the group that is used to determine what the normal age of retirement was.

Put the WestJet, Air Transat, Skyservice and a few other airline pilot groups in the comparator pool and Air Canada pilots, the only ones who were still forced out at age 60, are no longer in the majority. In other words, the termination of employment of these pilots did violate the law, whereas the ex-military personnel that you cite above had their employment terminated in accordance with the law.

It is the violation of the law that results in liability. The issue before the courts is not a moral issue, it is a legal one. That legal issue will be determined very soon.

From what I hear on the line, very few of the active pilots who will be forced to deal with the financial consequences of the outcome will be prepared for its significance. It has been ongoing for so long with so many twists and turns that very few have even a basic grasp of the key questions involved, let alone any sense of the financial impact of losing at this final stage of the process.

Emotion has continually trumped logic on this issue and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so again in the coming months, when the chickens finally come home to roost.

[Rockie]

Emotion has continually trumped logic on this issue to date, and there is no reason to believe that it will not do so again in the coming months

Truer words have never been spoken. The sad part for me is our inability as a group to predict the obvious future here. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but it was nevertheless obvious to me. Not a great testimonial to our intelligence as a group.

[Fanblade]

Fanblade and others:



Your POV is on the wrong mountain, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has caused your situation,(s) to change. Rockie, is correct, you have a much better world than before. If you want to go before 60, or any other age, that you think is magic, then take it, nothing, stopping you or anyone else. Give AC 12 months notice, and off you go.
.

777longhaul,

You are doing the same deflection as Rockie. At the outset of my comments I stated the legal aspect aside. My observation was narrowly focused on the compensation consequence of this change. Nothing else.

Does this change impact career compensation from hire to age 60?

The answer is yes. Almost everyone is negatively impacted in varying degrees. This impact increases from zero at the top of the seniority list to possibly approaching 3/4 of a million for a junior member with a 30 year career ahead.

Does this change impact career compensation from hire to age 65?

The answer is yes. During the transition to age 65 some benefit and some lose. Those at the top of the seniority list could potentially gain 1/2 a million in career compensation (salary - lost pension). While others in the middle will break even. ( work longer for the same compensation) and the more junior may never break even. ( work longer for less compensation.)

What happens after the transition? IE all the individuals hired after Dec 2012.

They will make less by age 60. All of them. Pay advancement stretched over a longer time line is the reason. At age 65 these individuals will be lucky to have broken even with the compensation they would have received had this change not occurred.

The end result after transition?

Everyone will work to 60 for less compensation than they did prior to Dec 2012. (Same work for less compensation.

Some working past 60 will re coup their lost compensation before age 65. (Work longer for the same compensation)

Many will work past 60 and will never break even by 65. ( Work longer for less compensation)

From a purely compensation perspective? This change is not in the best interest of the group as a whole.

It is simply undeniable.

From a junior perspective.

Those at the top are fighting over the spoils of this change. It is easy to see why as these spoils are rather large. Those spoils are actually the lost income of the junior demographic as company payroll didn't change. All that changed was distribution. The ironic thing is that the losers, the ones who missed cashing in on the junior demographics lost income, are now suing the junior demographic because someone else got the spoils. Someone else had the right lottery ticket. A bunch of rich people, fighting with other rich people, over money originally earmarked for someone else not nearly as affluent as them.

From this perspective I can see why the Federal Court has started looking at concepts such as undue hardship and substantive discrimination. Human rights legislation is important for us all. The courts should not allow it to be used as a means to transfer wealth from one generation to another.

[Rockie]

Everyone will work to 60 for less compensation than they did prior to Dec 2012.

True

Some working past 60 will re coup their lost compensation before age 65.

True

Many will work past 60 and will never break even by 65.

Patently false

Everybody can retire at age 65 at the same seniority level or higher than they would have before. You can retire at 65 and everybody who would have gone before you at age 60 will still go before you at age 65. Prove me wrong.

Because of that you will still spend the exact same amount of time (or more) in the seats above you that you would have spent before therefore making the same money as before. Prove me wrong.

You will also spend five more years in your current seat making the money you are now in addition to what you would have made before. Again...prove me wrong.

We are essentially on a 5 year hiatus of moving up the seniority list. If a recent new hire had 30 years left of their career progression to age 60 before, when this hiatus is over in 2017 they will have 30 years of exactly the same career progression to age 65 - plus this past 5 years. That's because the seniority list is fixed and we still have forced retirement at age 65 instead of 60. Basic logic that makes a mockery of ACPA's financial impact study.

[Fanblade]

Everyone will work to 60 for less compensation than they did prior to Dec 2012.

True

Some working past 60 will re coup their lost compensation before age 65.

True

Many will work past 60 and will never break even by 65.

Patently false

Everybody can retire at age 65 at the same seniority level or higher than they would have before. You can retire at 65 and everybody who would have gone before you at age 60 will still go before you at age 65. Prove me wrong.

Because of that you will still spend the exact same amount of time (or more) in the seats above you that you would have spent before therefore making the same money as before. Prove me wrong.

You will also spend five more years in your current seat making the money you are now in addition to what you would have made before. Again...prove me wrong.

We are essentially on a 5 year hiatus of moving up the seniority list. If a recent new hire had 30 years left of their career progression to age 60 before, when this hiatus is over in 2017 they will have 30 years of exactly the same career progression to age 65 - plus this past 5 years. That's because the seniority list is fixed and we still have forced retirement at age 65 instead of 60. Basic logic that makes a mockery of ACPA's financial impact study.

Rockie,

For the last time. It is not just a 5 year hiatus. It's five years behind for an entire career. It really is unfortunate that you refuse to sit down and actually work a projection. As you know I used 600 numbers behind until age 60. Then 475 at 61. Then 350 at 62 and so on. You suggested 500 numbers. That is fine, sit down and figure it out. It will be less of a loss than I projected. Your projection might even break even by 65 as mine was only out by 150k. Either way working 5 years longer for the same compensation isn't exactly a benefit now is it.

Curious. Has your side hired an actuary to get valid data on the compensation impact? Judging by the submissions to the courts, I would say no. Looks like you want this information buried. Trying to have this information removed as evidence. Correct?

I did take Morry's advise. Only being here a few years I really didn't have a clue what was going on from the legal perspective.

Anyway I now understand why you so vehemently want to under play the financial impact. It's not the inability to understand is it Rockie? It's just strategy.

[Raymond Hall]

Has your side hired an actuary to get valid data on the compensation impact?

For the record, Rockie is not now and never has been a member of the Fly Past 60 Coalition. He is simply a line pilot who has been following this issue for years and who, in my view, has no axe to grind. He, like others in his seniority grouping, are adversely affected in the short term (only) by the repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption that occurred in December, 2012.

[Rockie]

For the last time. It is not just a 5 year hiatus. It's five years behind for an entire career.

No - no - no. You will retire at the same seniority number or higher than you would have before. How could you not? Your place on the seniority list will not change. It's a 5 year hiatus and when it's over the retirements resume just as before. How could it not?

As you know I used 600 numbers behind until age 60. Then 475 at 61. Then 350 at 62 and so on. You suggested 500 numbers.

I never suggested 500 numbers because you cannot use any numbers, it's a false premise. The seniority list is fixed, you haven't lost any seniority, and you will retire with the same or better number than before. How could you not?

Curious. Has your side hired an actuary to get valid data on the compensation impact? Judging by the submissions to the courts, I would say no. Looks like you want this information buried. Trying to have this information removed as evidence. Correct?

I am not part of the FP60 group and probably have not much more seniority than you. I am suffering the same hit you are but because I recognized the financial impact study for the worthless propaganda that it was and used my own brain I know that I, and everybody else will be much better off for several reasons including financial.

[Fanblade]

Perhaps a picture would help Rockie?

Interesting the big gun just showed up as well.

Anyway. A bit rudimentary and not intended to be accurate. Just intended to paint a picture for you.

Everything between the red and green lines represents lost compensation as a result of seniority loss at a specific age.

As you can see ending your career at 65 at the same seniority number you would have at 60, has no correlation to cumulative compensation. Moreover the loss is not limited to five years. It is the entire career. It is specifically this reason that the losses get so large over time. It also is the part you vehimantly oppose as being correct. Convenient.

As for ACPA propaganda? I don't know the assumptions that went into their projection, and the devil is always in the details, so I can't comment. However the concept is spot on.

Happy to hear the courts are taking the impact into consideration.