FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

[quote] Rockie wrote:
How can you have the [i]same[/i] career [i]plus[/i] an extra five years and earn less? Is there some kind of magic going on here?

Fanblade wrote:

No magic. Just the clash of a very deeply ingrained preconceived expected result, with reality. You did say prove it. Three times in one post I believe.

You have two choices now.

1) figure out why your preconceived expection was in error.

Or

2) Declare Fanblade is performing witchcraft, form a mob, and burn him at the stake for blasphemy.
[/quote]

Quotes not working for me for some reason

-Declare Fan blade is performing witchcraft - done
- Form a mob - in progress

I'm kinda curious to see how much traction you can get. It will speak volumes.

And no MTK, I don't think the issue is moot. It is Germain to the topic of financial harm. Were you harmed if you did financially better than virtually everyone who follows you? Were you harmed if you did equal to everyone who proceeded you?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Fanblade on Sun Dec 07, 2014 5:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Now I think I understand Fanblade. You aren't losing and you know it, you just aren't gaining as much as people senior to you like I've already mentioned several times and it pisses you off. So much in fact you characterize it as a loss when you know perfectly well in real dollars every level of the pilot group will make more than before in the course of their career. Well, here is an explanation that you may not be aware of that will bring you up to speed on that.

In 2006 senior Air Canada management knew that mandatory retirement at age 60 was inevitably ending. I know this because one of them told me so. In 2006 the ACPA MEC knew that mandatory retirement at age 60 was inevitably ending. I know that too because one of them told me so at around the same time as the management guy. So if everybody knew it was ending why did ACPA fight so hard spending your money, exposing you to so much potential liability, and dooming you to five years seniority stagnation without any effort to mitigate the inevitable consequences that you are erroneously calling a "loss"?

The only possible explanation is that they wanted to delay the rule change as long as possible to drop as many people off the top before it happened to climb everybody as high on the list as they could before the list stagnated.

It was a choice they made knowing that they were trading one for the other. It was a choice the pilots made wittingly or unwittingly by supporting ACPA. They could have acted proactively as so many people futilely urged them to do to mitigate the so called "losses" you keep misrepresenting, but they didn't. The pilots didn't.

The inequity you misleadingly call "losses" are there by ACPA's choice, the pilot's choice, and your choice by not insisting ACPA address it before the law changed.

You gained seniority by stalling the end of mandatory retirement as long as you could and you will be better off financially both in terms of career earnings, and if you're like the vast majority of other people hired in the last 15 years in retirement income as well. Your whining about the flip side of that situation you helped bring about is wasted on me and everybody else who tried to prevent it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:Now I think I understand Fanblade. You aren't losing and you know it, you just aren't gaining as much as people senior to you like I've already mentioned several times and it pisses you off. So much in fact you characterize it as a loss when you know perfectly well in real dollars every level of the pilot group will make more than before in the course of their career.
Nope. I stand by everything I posted. You are very very misinformed. Worse yet, making no effort to correct it.

But keep going. The witch hunt has only begun. If you don't understand something it must be an illusion, a trick or a slight of hand, right?

Still curious how many takers you will get. Surely there are at least a few math inclined individuals in this place.

Anyway. I recognize in life there are some people who will never listen no matter what is put before them. Not that they cant. They simply won't. When you run into those people you have to accept the situation as it is. Pointless.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Norwegianwood
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Norwegianwood »

Let me ask a question.........

If all pilots hired prior to Dec 2012 signed on knowing the "normal retirement" day was the first day of the month following their 60th birthday, why then are they (all of you) not retiring and the pilots hired after Dec 2012 then retire at age 65!

I only ask this because............

NW
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

This kind of denial is why our pilot group gets dictated to by events and other people possessing a firmer grasp of reality. We are the architects of what Fanblade erroneously calls an unjust "loss", and he's unfortunately not alone in his complete lack of understanding on how we got here or the consequences of our own actions. There are still people who mistakingly think the FP60 group is suing all the rest. They have no understanding of the human rights tribunal, the nature of the complaints or the actual history of how this all transpired. If asked most of our pilots still do not understand or accept that mandatory age based retirement is a human rights issue, and they still have no clue of the actual and potential consequences of their choices on this issue since 2006. It's not likely ACPA will educate them either.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Morry Bund »

Fanblade wrote:There is the issue of accuracy that has meaning to me. But closer to the litigation at hand, the Federal courts rulings look as if they may be looking at this. Not to change my lot in life of course. That's done. Rather to look at how much financial harm really took place for the litigants against the backdrop of what happened everywhere else as a result of the change.
The court is looking at this, but not for the reason that you suggest.

The union put forward the proposition that the potential loss in career income expectations to the junior pilots as a result of ending mandatory retirement is a bfor, a bona fide occupational requirement. The tribunal rejected that proposition, but the federal court overturned the tribunal decision on that point. In overturning the tribunal's decision the court used over 100 pages of its 150 page decision to work around Supreme Court of Canada precedent on bfor stating the exact opposite.

The question as to whether potential career income loss qualifies as a bfor is a legal question, not a factual question. Either it does or it doesn’t.

If it does not qualify as a bfor, nothing about the potential loss to the income of the junior pilots is relevant to the decision that the court has to make, regardless of how much the potential loss may be.

To you, the issue is obviously one of fairness. I'm OK with that. However, to the court the issue that must be decided is not about fairness. It is about whether the round peg (loss of career income expectation) fits into the square hole (bfor exemption), because the legal determination that the court must make will have ramifications far beyond anyone involved in this case alone.
---------- ADS -----------
 
777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul »

BFOR Please go to the FP60 website to see the excellent easy to follow with your finger graph, that Raymond Hall produced for everyone, and I do mean everyone, to follow. It is a work of art, and it does not allow any misunderstandings, as to what is legal and what is not.

If.....BFOR was legally available to acpa, then, acpa, would have used it, to stop the company, (AC) and itself, (assuming acpa knows itself) from allowing the pilots to fly past 60, after the rule change came into effect in Dec 2012. They could have maintained the discriminatory age practice of forcing every pilot to go at 60, instead of the new ICAO rule, (NOV 2014) at age 65. BUT they did not! But why you say???

But wait.....

acpa did not use the BFOR rule, when the Federal Government changed the rule. (Dec 2012 in effect) They accepted the rule change period. AC, and acpa totally uncontested, with open arm's, the rule change, and DID NOT challenge the rule change. If....acpa had that legal tool available to them, (BFOR) then ask yourself, why did they not use it to keep the forced retirement at 60?? It was good enough to get rid of the 200 members in good standing, (FP 60 Coalition) so it should be good enough to force every pilot to retire at 60, as the legal BFOR definition, allows the law to be circumvented, by the very nature of the definition of BFOR.

Answer:

acpa, the select group inside of it, (numerous MEC's over many years) and others that were riding on their coat tails, have rolled the dice, gambled that they would get rid of 300 to 500 pilots, off of the seniority list, so they could "jump ahead" on the new rule change. AND they did. Has worked so far. The legal errors were unbelievable, they could only be considered as back door, out the front door results. The blind scales of justice, NOT.

Now, acpa is not using the BFOR to fight the rule change, they accepted the rule change, but.....they do not accept, that they should not be able to use the BFOR tool, to fight the 200 pilots who were ALL members in good standing, paying huge union dues, (max dues) for years, in the grass roots union. What a JOKE! You either have it, or you don't.

Either you have the legal right to use BFOR, or you don't. It is not a floating law, that can be used, or docked somewhere convenient, when not needed, and or NOT wanted. Either it is under the spot light, and legal, or it is in the dark, and not legal.

Hopefully, the Federal Court of Appeals, with 3 judges, will be able to grasp the huge legal errors that the Federal Court inserted into to its award, allowing acpa, the last ditch effort, to use the BFOR argument. If you read the BFOR qualifications, acpa is not even in the same universe when it comes to qualifying for BFOR. Interesting that AC does not qualify, yet acpa thinks as a union, and not an employer, that they can use the distorted FC ruling, (that award, must have come as a surprise, even to acpa) to stop the FP60 group, solely, to benefit a select group.

Remember, and never ever fing forget, acpa never had a majority vote in favor of maintaining the age 60 rule. When the minority, runs the majority, the union is not a union, it is a dictatorship, and that is what acpa has grass rooted itself into. When 200 members, in good standing, paying maximum union dues, formally request that their beloved union, file a simple grievance on EACH of their behalf's, and they (acpa) refuse to do so, there is no legal justification for that type of discrimination. There in no BFOR defense. It is plain discrimination, based solely on age, and nothing else.

Now....(are we in the sandbox together?)

AC has been denied BFOR, every time up to bat before the courts, AC got acpa to sign on the dotted line, for 50% liability, (prior to any court action starting way back when) and acpa has been given yet, again, another opportunity, to squirm around in the courts, do you think that if.....acpa wins a BFOR, and AC has been denied a BFOR, and they are in the sandbox together for 50% liability, that the courts will allow the union to have a BFOR and yet the employer, can not, even though they are 50-50 on the liability?

As Morry Bund stated, The 150 pages of the Federal Court, (one judge) issued over 100 pages devoted to building a case for acpa, (yes building it, NOT defending its legal position) telling them how to file a BFOR case, and then breaking numerous laws, to get a faint hope shot, at a BFOR defense was just plain wrong.....and illegal.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by 777longhaul on Mon Dec 08, 2014 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Fanblade wrote: Surely there are at least a few math inclined individuals in this place.
I haven't seen any math from you. I've seen 2+2=4 which I agree with and have since grade 2. I've seen a graph from you that clearly and simply proves my argument...not yours. And I've seen a spreadsheet produced by you, based on incorrect assumptions that you repeatedly used actual words to express, manipulating irrelevant numbers using unknown formulas to derive other numbers unrelated to anything. It isn't math - it's a bunch of useless numbers in boxes passed off as math. You know...garbage in/garbage out. You should be asking why your spreadsheet didn't predict the train you got run over by in 2012.

The deductive reasoning used by me and many other people since 2006 however has been validated by the actual events. We all saw the train coming just by raising our head and looking down the track, and our warnings were dismissed and unheeded. Too busy playing with excel perhaps or just plain closing your eyes pretending the train didn't really exist. Whatever...I'll stick with deductive reasoning thanks...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Thanks for the correction Morry.

However my comments were based more about the rules of introducing evidence.

Rockie,

Still working like the Tasmanian devil I see. How's the mob creation going? I only count yourself and MTK. I'd be surprised if you get many takers, but then again who knows.

I am absolutely amazed at how much your suspicions are ruling your rational. You really do believe I'm throwing some sort of conundrum at you that has a trick involved don't you. Some sort of slight of hand that you can't quite get your finger on. But your certain in must be there.

You see Rockie the concept is valid. More important than a delay in progression, is WHEN the that delay happens.

Heck you could grab a handful of pennies and teach yourself.

Lay out ten rows of pennies. Put one penny in row one. Two pennies in row two. Three pennies in row three and so on all the way to row 10.

Count the total pennies. 55

Now delay the progression at row 9 so that row ten has 9 as well.

Count the pennies on the table. 54. Count the pennies in your hand. 1. Notice no witchcraft is transpiring. All 55 pennies still accounted for.

Now delay the progression at row 5 so that row 6 has 5 pennies. Row seven has 6 pennies. Row 8 has 7 pennies and so on.

Count the pennies on the table. 50. Count the pennies in your hand. 5. Still no witchcraft going on. All 55 pennies still accounted for.

Now delay the progression at row 2 so that row 2 has 1 penny. Row 3 has 2 pennies. Row 4 has 3 pennies and so on.

Count the pennies on the table. 46. Count the pennies in your hand. 9. Still no witchcraft. All 55 pennies still accounted for.

In this simulation the single penny accounts for slightly less than 2%. The impact of "WHEN" that penny is removed, varies from 2% to just over 16%.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Fanblade on Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Dockjock »

777longhaul wrote: Remember, and never ever fing forget, acpa never had a majority vote in favor of maintaining the age 60 rule. When the minority, runs the majority, the union is not a union, it is a dictatorship, and that is what acpa has grass rooted itself into.
I won't bother with the merits of the case, but to say that a majority vote was achieved. When a vote is held, only those who bother to vote get a say. The vote passed, by a majority. Just because the number of winning voters didn't exceed a majority of all eligible members doesn't mean it wasn't a majority. You have to vote to have a say, that's just how voting works.
Now back to the slagging match. Mandatory retirement was repealed (er...moved back 5 years), you won. You just didn't "get paid" which is exactly what you are accusing ACPA of doing, gerrymandering the dates. I hope you get nothing but if you do, you 200 fellas get your money or whatever it is you want, an apology, a pat on the back, a hug, and on January 21 blast off into the sun and never come back. That will be a good day.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Dockjock on Mon Dec 08, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

I see where you're confused now Fanblade, you're putting pennies in your hand when you need to leave them on the table and count them there. With five extra years service you have five extra rows of pennies unless you're also arguing that people don't get paid while waiting for those five years.

Add a row at row 1 and you have 1 extra penny. Add a row at row 10 and you have 10 extra pennies. In row 1 you still get 1 more penny for each extra row (year) you add and so on all the way to row 10. You aren't doing magic after all, just run of the mill sleight of hand to make something that's still there appear to disappear.

Of course your example perfectly illustrates what would happen if you decided to still retire at age 60 -no argument from me. But you aren't losing that money...you are voluntarily giving it up. Your choice. Nobody will listen to your complaints or buy your argument if it's your own decision to retire five years before you have to.

I like that analogy, once again like your graph it proves my argument...not yours.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:I see where you're confused now Fanblade, you're putting pennies in your hand when you need to leave them on the table and count them there. With five extra years service you have five extra rows of pennies unless you're also arguing that people don't get paid while waiting for those five years.

Add a row at row 1 and you have 1 extra penny. Add a row at row 10 and you have 10 extra pennies. In row 1 you still get 1 more penny for each extra row (year) you add and so on all the way to row 10. You aren't doing magic after all, just run of the mill sleight of hand to make something that's still there appear to disappear.

I like that analogy, once again like your graph it proves my argument...not yours.
Happy to hear you finally get the concept Rockie.

I think?

To be clear. You now accept that ,compensation to age 60 varies depending on when the progression delay takes place?

To further clarify.

If the delay takes place later in ones career, the the compensation to age 60 is impacted less than if the delay happened earlier in the career. Conversely the compensation to age 60 of an individual delayed early in their career, is greater than an individual impacted later.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Of course I get that since I've been saying it all along.

The flaw in your argument and hence your much self-promoted math, is that you have extended that principle beyond age 60 to 65 citing the losses in each year beyond 60 concluding that you still don't make it up completely even at 65. I can provide quotes if you like.

You took a finite amount of income that you would have gotten to age 60 and spread it out another 5 years further reduced in each year due to a delay in getting your next seat. In doing so you completely left out the additional 5 years pay you get in your current seat waiting for the hiatus to end.

Your calculation only works to age 60 - after that it's a totally different paradigm and your calculation is utterly invalid. Each additional year worked is an additional year's income in your current seat over and above what you would have gotten before provided you go to 65...period. There is a break even point somewhere between 60-65, but calculating that would be extraordinarily complex given the permutations for each individual pilot and countless uncontrollable influences, but again leaving before 65 is your choice and you would be voluntarily eating whatever loss you incurred so don't complain if you don't like the taste of it. And we haven't even considered the increased pension thanks to more pensionable time yet. It's ridiculously simple Fanblade.

Is your error starting to sink in yet?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1046
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:Of course I get that since I've been saying it all along.
Good. No backtracking now. You have just acknowledged that compensation to age 60 is inversely proportional to seniority. The more senior will arrive at age 60 with more compensation than the more junior as a result of the progression delay.

Excellent. I think we are almost done.

All we need to do now is is determine if in all cases, senior/ Junior, the lost compensation to age 60 is recoverable by working to age 65. To do that however we need an actuary to quantify the compensation loss to age 60 for each seniority range as a result the progression delay. Then compare that number to the compensation gain post age 60 by continuing to work.

About that compensation gain past age 60. I am using the word compensation versus salary for a reason. Past 60 you need to pick which compensation you want. Either your pension or continue to work and collect a salary.

I assume when you speak of recovering lost compensation by continuing to age 65, you are defining recoverable compensation as salary minus the pension you could have taken. For example a person who could collect a 20k/year pension, but chooses to continue working for 50K/year. Are you defining recoverable compensation as 50K/year or 30K?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Fanblade wrote:Good. No backtracking now. You have just acknowledged that compensation to age 60 is inversely proportional to seniority. The more senior will arrive at age 60 with more compensation than the more junior as a result of the progression delay.
I've been acknowledging that for years including in this thread, nothing new here.
Fanblade wrote:All we need to do now is is determine if in all cases, senior/ Junior, the lost compensation to age 60 is recoverable by working to age 65. To do that however we need an actuary to quantify the compensation loss to age 60 for each seniority range as a result the progression delay. Then compare that number to the compensation gain post age 60.

No you do not need an actuary. I've shown you several times how after this hiatus everybody's career post 2017 will be identical to what their career would have been post 2012 under the old system provided they go to 65. You cannot prove otherwise and in fact haven't even tried. If their career is identical so will the pay once this hiatus is over. Because of the fixed seniority list and fixed retirement date once the wait is over every pilot will spend as much time in each seat, ending up with the same or better seniority as they would have before. Prove they won't.

Same career = same compensation. Then you add whatever you made during the hiatus. Prove otherwise. Show me on your graph how the careers differ once it picks up again after the hiatus. Pick any spot on the green line and track straight across to the red line. Same seniority - same length of time on in any particular seat - all the way from the top to the bottom. The space in the middle equals whatever you are making in your particular seat for the five years.

Retire earlier than 65 and it becomes more complicated but again, your choice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8075
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

I'll tell you what Fanblade, I'm going to assume for now that you're right and that the loss of compensation continues to 65 and in fact is never recovered for junior pilots. But I grudgingly admit I'm not a math whizz and useless at spreadsheets so if you'll indulge me perhaps you can explain it in terms I can understand. So how about leading me there through some simple questions. To start:

If everybody works to 65 and everything else being equal, is any pilot's career different from 2017 to 65 than it would have been from 2012 to 60? If so, what is different?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Dockjock »

At least we've moved to the point where it is acknowledged that we must now work past 60. If we must, how is it a choice. I can now "choose" to substitute 2012-2017 earnings for my 2032-2037 earnings. Airbus FO, and year 1, 2 captain for...wait for it...5 yrs of 12-yr B777 captain. Those years still exist, but they are now in 2037-2042. Some choice.
Having said that, I accept that this is now the law. I just don't see how anybody is due any compensation for it changing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Understated
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Understated »

Fanblade: Here is how I see your assumptions.

First, you have correctly summarized that there would be a loss of income for the first five years from 2012. Everyone gets that. As Rockie states, after five years everyone's seniority that has been frozen, assuming no retirements, starts to move again, picking up where it was in 2012 with advancement in seniority and pay identical to what it would have been, absent the freeze, as the senior pilots gradually move off the list, just as they would have in 2012 without the change in the maximum age.

As I see it, however, you are counting a loss in income from 2017 onward not in relation to where the pilot would have been, absent the freeze, but in relation to the pilots who are still on the list ahead of that individual. You assume that because they are still there and that the individual is earning less than the pilots above him or her, that there is a continuing loss of income. But there isn't any loss from that point onward, as the seniority (and income) progresses exactly as it would have, absent the freeze for five years.

The correct frame of reference is found not by looking at where one is in relation to the pilots ahead on the seniority list, but instead, in relation to where one would have been on the seniority list, absent the freeze. That translates simply to a five year delay in seniority and income progression, at a fixed income level, with the progression in seniority and pay being identical from 2017 to retirement, assuming that one stays to age 65, as it would have been from 2012 to retirement, assuming that one stays to age 60.

So what we have then is a five year delay in seniority and income progression, with five years added to the career at a fixed rate of income, plus the same income that would have previously been earned to age 60, that is now earned to age 65. The difference is simply five more years of salary at a flat rate.

The incorrect frame of reference leads you to assume a continuing, compounding loss of income, where there is none.

Having said that, there is a potential for loss of income. That potential loss would occur if one does not stay to age 65. That is because if one leaves before age 65, not only does one not get the salary for the final years foregone under age 65, but one also loses on the seniority progression that could impact on the equipment assignment and corresponding pay rates in the final years, as well as on the income used to calculate the pension payments, being the best 60 months.

The net loss for leaving before age 65 is the sum of: lost income for the number of months under age 65, the difference in pay rates resulting from not reaching the highest-rated equipment that one would have flown up to age 65 plus the potential adverse effect on pension income (all negatives), all balanced off against the surplus resulting from the five additional years of stagnant salary earned between 2012 and 2017. For each individual, the net effect in lifetime income will be different, depending on age, seniority, years of service at the chosen retirement date, and the number of months of employment foregone between age 60 and 65, with one further proviso.

When an individual elects to retire, he or she receives pension income. If one keeps working when one could have retired, pension income obviously doesn't enter into the equation. Although additional years of service and higher pay levels may result in higher annual pension payments and survivor benefits during the period of retirement when retirement actually begins, the pension and survivor benefits will be earned for a shorter period of time. The income earned while working beyond age 60 therefore should be netted out against the amount of the pension not being paid during that period. Other considerations include non-monetary factors, such as health, lifestyle and quality of life.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Morry Bund
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:32 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Morry Bund »

Dockjock wrote:I accept that this is now the law. I just don't see how anybody is due any compensation for it changing.
The fact is that they are not due any compensation for it changing.

But they are due compensation for the fact that before the human rights act exemption was repealed in 2012, the exemption was conditional on age 60 being the normal age of retirement for airline pilots in Canada.

Sometime after the year 2000 but not later than the year 2005, age 60 was no longer the normal age of retirement for airline pilots in Canada. As a result, after 2005 those pilots whose employment was terminated by reason of the age 60 restriction in the contract had their employment wrongfully terminated.

Neither Air Canada nor ACPA did any assessment, after 2005, to determine what the normal age of retirement for pilots in the Canadian airline industry actually was. They simply blindly forged ahead with the status quo, even though it was apparent that all of the other airlines in Canada had ended mandatory retirement at age 60 for pilots.

It is because their employment was wrongfully terminated that they are entitled to compensation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
dukepoint
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:40 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by dukepoint »

The fact is that they are not due any compensation for it changing.

But they are due compensation for the fact that before the human rights act exemption was repealed in 2012, the exemption was conditional on age 60 being the normal age of retirement for airline pilots in Canada.

Define "normal age of retirement". What "defining moment" in Canadian aviation history are you using to determine this "sometime before 2012" date? It's rather important.

Sometime after the year 2000 but not later than the year 2005, age 60 was no longer the normal age of retirement for airline pilots in Canada. As a result, after 2005 those pilots whose employment was terminated by reason of the age 60 restriction in the contract had their employment wrongfully terminated.

Geez...that's pretty vague.....sometime after but not before......hope you're not using that arguement in front of a judge.

Neither Air Canada nor ACPA did any assessment, after 2005, to determine what the normal age of retirement for pilots in the Canadian airline industry actually was. They simply blindly forged ahead with the status quo, even though it was apparent that all of the other airlines in Canada had ended mandatory retirement at age 60 for pilots.

Air Canada was supose to just blindly follow which other Canadian airlines leed in extending the agreed upon retirement age? Jazz??? Westjet??? Are you aware of the reason it was changed at these carriers and under what circumstanses???

It is because their employment was wrongfully terminated that they are entitled to compensation.

We'll see what they're entitled to....however if any of these arguements are used.....good luck.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”