Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Rockie]

On another note, anyone got an idea when the 65 rule will come into effect at AC?

August 28th, 2009. But for some inexplicable reason the company and union don't realize it yet.

You can't really call it an age 65 rule either because the only thing that's been established is that it is not 60.

[Brick Head]

Brickhead wrote:

we have individuals before the CHRT, driving the agenda, who are bent on not just ending mandatory retirement, but also destroying our current deferred compensation system

This once again is proof of more of the lies being spread by our untrustworthy Union MEC fear-mongering and vilifying the guys who want to continue to enjoy their chosen careers for whatever personal reasons they have. The Fly Past 60 group is not out to destroy the Pension Plan. That is pure rubbish.

DocAV8R,

Either you are not reading my posts or I am doing a very poor job of getting the point across.

The requests of the Fly past 60 group, if implemented, will destroy the deferred compensation system. The collateral damage will be smaller pensions for everyone except those that already have their best 5 years in.

PLEASE READ. For a better explanation read the previous pages.

-The deferred compensation system exists (exclusively) to end load compensation for the purpose of increasing pension. Been doing it for decades.

-The benefits of the deferred compensation system come with a requirement to pass the benefit on, at a specific time, BECAUSE failure to do so turns the deferred compensation system into a system of transferring compensation.

-Not retiring at a specific age (unless other means are employed to protect the deferred compensation system) will result in an end to deferred compensation. Allowing senior individuals access to a junior members deferred compensation will not be acceptable. AKA something along the lines of status pay will be required.

-Status pay will result in a significantly lower best 5 years.

-A significantly lower best 5 years equals lower pensions for all those that retire under the new system.

-Asking to stay beyond 60, with full seniority rights, is asking the CHRT to end deferred compensation systems. Effectively labeling them discriminatory. The end result from that is lower pensions for all those that follow. I don't want to cast aspersions on everyone here. I doubt most who are before the tribunal have connected the dots with respect to the consequences of what they are asking. For two reasons. ACPA's silence and the fly past 60 groups unwillingness (conveniently) to even accept that the issue exists.

Ask yourself a question here. Because it is key to the debate.

How many airlines in Canada have deferred compensation systems? I come up with just us. Most others have single types, status pay or no pension. Don't know much about Transat.

With all that said. The latest ruling is pretty clear. The CHRT has no intention of forcing an end to deferred compensation. What they want is the respondents to find a way, other than mandatory retirement, to protect the system.

The next big question therefor is. Will these "other means of protecting the deferred compensation system" be considered an acceptable limit on the charter? If the answer is yes we move forward on that premise. If the answer is no the latest ruling will be overturned.


As for speed? Your kidding right?

The CHRT failed to apply the law. The ruling is attempting to change the CHRA. The ruling effectively eliminates section 15 (1)c. The CHRT can not do that. The best they can do is set in motion a process that leads to change. Which they have now done.

Unless parliament acts to amend the CHRA, which I doubt, this will take a very long time to wind through the courts.

Had we just had the CHRT come out and say 65 is the new normal age of retirement, we would not be in this situation. The system could have been protected at the age of 65 instead, with some transitional measures. Unfortunately, we are now watching evolution of the CHRA.

Ask Darwin. Evolution is slow.

[DocAV8R]

Brickhead,

Your eloquent and nicely packaged statement would easily fool a number of readers. However, BS is still BS no matter how it is packaged, but I do understand how the propaganda process works.

A few pilots staying a few years longer doesn't destroy the whole machine. You seem to be confusing age with seniority. On that note, may I point out that Ross has been number 1 since at least 2005. Chris Pulley started when he was (teething) but got on the seniority list (like Ross) when he was 18, (with a CPL and no higher education to my knowledge) and they have been and will be reaping the benefits for some time. They will have more years than any of the Fly-Past 60 guys and don't need to worry about full Pensions, (unless it all implodes in bankruptcy due to poor management).

There is nothing stopping the old system from keeping on just as it is. There is nothing the Fly-past 60 guys are doing or asking for that will force "status pay".

We don't get paid more for our seniority or age. All pilots on the same aircraft with 13 years of service get the same pay, depending what they bid. Many chose to retire on smaller equipment, with the ability to make lifestyle choices all along the way. No one is suggesting that anyone be compelled to stay past 60, and realistically few will chose to. You stated that you won't for a start.

Damage to our best 5 years was far worse when we sold out the Cargo contract- 100's of positions - all wide-bodied jobs. Damage to the new-hires was far worse when we allowed Jazz to take over the majority of small jet flying. Jazz has grown like crazy. The bottom guys have been stalled as well as over 200 Jazz pilots have parachuted in front of them onto the Seniority list. Jazz is now talking about getting 5 737's. (See Jazz post.) We won't even talk about Canadian- a bad deal for everyone. Good management and proper planning to grow the airline is what we need to Max our 5 best years.

Trying to say that 100% of the pilots will stay until they die is nonsense. The few that do stay as long as 5 or 10 years will be rare and when averaged among the 3000 plus pilots won't even be noticeable on anyone's planned progression. It is simple math.

No changes to seniority or pensions nor deferred compensation are needed nor being forced upon us. Trying to scare everyone with such nonsense is just bad propaganda.

[F-16]

DOCAV8R,

I love your statistics.... It's like me saying on 50% of the flights the F/A's screw up our meals. How about you prove your statistics? You can't, and unfortunately, the worst case scenario has to be planned for because the moment one, two, or more people stay past 60 it creates a domino effect.

More people will have to stay past 60 to re-capture what was lost. Our system has age so intertwined, that it is impossible to find any balance. Read what Brick Head is saying.

How can you say you don't get more for age or seniority? If you were only making $38,700 with all the new hires since 2005, then I stand corrected - but we know you weren't. The current system does have the junior guys taking it on the chin... PG, extra A320 discount, flat salary, etc.

If there are any changes, know that precedent has already been set elsewhere.... Bottom of the list at 60, equal pay for equal work (status pay) and rotating bidding system - wiping out seniority, and even lay-offs from the top of the list.

The junior people are already being discriminated against, so the question is why haven't you said/done anything about it?

By the way... even with good planning and management, there is a limit to the growth potential of the company and so that isn't the magic dust that will fix everything as you allude to. People have to walk out the door at the appropriate time...

[yycflyguy]

F-16,

Would you like me to add your name in my discrimination against junior pilots at Air Canada? It is going to state how unfair the seniority system is for flat pay, position group pay, less vacation time, pay progression, inability to bid desired base and that equal pay means we should have been compensated at a 777 FO rate. I figure there are around 600 pilots that have been subjected to the same conditions of discrimination. All that heartache just for being hired in the past 5 years!!

Oh, CATSA and the GTAA will be included in my lawsuit too.

[Brick Head]

Doc08R,

You can deny reality. But you will not be able to escape the consequences of denying reality.

Passing the benefit on at a specific age is a basic tenant of the deferred compensation system. Without it the system ends. That simple.

I get that you don't, or perhaps refuse, to see this but your actions are threatening a labor practice that has been embraced for decades. Thought to be so important (larger pensions) that protection for it was enshrined in the CHRA, because it helps those that have aged. Section 15 (1) c.

Read the ruling. The CHRT is clear. Section 15 (1) c was not used because there are other ways, in their opinion, of protecting the deferred compensation system without using mandatory retirement. This can also be stated as, there are other ways to end load a specific age, (pass the benefit on) for the purpose of pension benefit, without using mandatory retirement.

By the way, before you yell......THAT IS DISCRIMINATION. I will warn you that if that is correct, which it very well might be, then the CHRT errored in its latest ruling because they refused to apply 15 (1) C on the belief other measures can protect the system. If those measures can't? If a specific age can't be end loaded? If the benefit can not be forcefully passed on at a specific point? They pooched it.

[bcflyer]

The bottom guys have been stalled as well as over 200 Jazz pilots have parachuted in front of them onto the Seniority list.

Can you please elaborate on exactly how the 200 Jazz pilots parachuted IN FRONT of guys already on the Seniority list?

[DocAV8R]

FYI

Tagline
Lancaster House Lancaster House On-Line





Home About Lancaster House Contact Us Site Map
Headlines
E-Bulletins
Lancaster Online Database
Leading Cases Online
Directory of Arbitrators
Books & Services
Conferences
Audio Conferences
Supreme Court Watch
International Labour Law
Labour Ministries, Boards & Tribunals
Links
Legislation
Employment Opportunities



Headlines Continued
Mandatory retirement disapproved, loophole closed in federal Act


Reversing an earlier decision, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act allowing mandatory retirement at the "normal age of retirement" is an unjustified breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Tribunal refused to give effect to the mandatory retirement of Air Canada's pilots at age 60. Both the airline and the Air Canada Pilots Association have said that they will appeal the ruling.

The Facts:

The case arose when two Air Canada pilots who had been forced to retire at age 60, George Vilven and Robert Kelly, complained that this constituted discrimination in employment on the basis of age. Vilven, a First Officer on the Airbus 340 aircraft, was forced to retire in September 2003, while Kelly, the Captain of an Airbus 340, went into mandatory retirement in April 2005. Their forced retirements were in accordance with the mandatory retirement provisions of the collective agreement in effect between their union, the Air Canada Pilots' Association (ACPA), and Air Canada. In their complaints, both men sought reinstatement as active pilots.

The Arguments:

The pilots relied on section 3(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), which prohibits discrimination based on, among other things, age, but Air Canada invoked s.15(1)(c) of the Act, which allows an exception in the case of age if "an individual's employment is terminated because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position of that individual."

In response, the pilots argued that the exception in the CHRA was invalidated by the guarantee of equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15(1) of the Charter provides that "[e]very individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

Judicial History:

Initially, the CHRT ruled that the provision in the Act allowing mandatory retirement did not violate the guarantee of equality rights in s.15 of the Charter, but the Federal Court disagreed. Left for decision was the question of whether the breach of the Charter was a "reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free democratic society," as permitted by s.1 of the Charter.

The Decision:

In an August 28, 2009 decision, the Tribunal has ruled that it is not.

In this regard, the Tribunal held that Parliament's goal – allowing mandatory retirement to be negotiated in the workplace – was not sufficiently pressing and substantial to warrant the infringement of equality rights. It noted: "The experts who testified in the present case agreed that the link between mandatory retirement and the benefits that were traditionally associated with it is not as strong as it was once thought to be. There is no dispute that in jurisdictions that have abolished mandatory retirement, deferred compensation systems, seniority and other such socially beneficial systems have survived."

The Tribunal observed, as well, that "it is now clear that the workforce is aging and many individuals need and want to work past the mandatory retirement age. In light of this fact, it might be argued that preventing, rather than permitting age discrimination beyond the normal age of retirement has become a pressing and substantial need in society." Also, mandatory retirement was not "rationally connected" to Parliament's objectives. To quote from the decision:

[O]ne anomaly of the "normal age of retirement" rule as noted by the Federal Court in Vilven, is that a dominant actor in the industry such as Air Canada, can set the mandatory retirement age for the entire industry. As a result, employees of smaller companies within the industry who have not negotiated mandatory retirement in exchange for wage and pension benefits may still be subject to the mandatory retirement age set by the dominant player in the industry. So, for example, Jazz Airlines could take advantage of the "normal age of retirement" set by Air Canada and impose mandatory retirement at age 60 upon its pilots.

And, most importantly, mandatory retirement was not a minimal impairment of equality rights since "[f]ar less intrusive options can be contemplated." The Tribunal stated:

For example, as is the case in other jurisdictions, one option would be to permit mandatory retirement arrangements that constitute a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) under ss. 15(1)(a) and 15(2) of the CHRA. …

Concerns about the application of the BFOR test to mandatory retirement have not hindered other jurisdictions both internationally and in Canada, from adopting this method of justifying mandatory retirement. In the majority of Canadian provinces – Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario – mandatory retirement is not permitted unless it constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement. Similarly, in Australia, New Zealand and the United States mandatory retirement is only permitted if it is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement. …

The Tribunal found that "[f]ar less intrusive options can be contemplated:"

For example, as is the case in other jurisdictions, one option would be to permit mandatory retirement arrangements that constitute a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) under ss.15(1)(a) and 15(2) of the CHRA. …

Concerns about the application of the BFOR test to mandatory retirement have not hindered other jurisdictions both internationally and in Canada, from adopting this method of justifying mandatory retirement. In the majority of Canadian provinces – Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario – mandatory retirement is not permitted unless it constitutes a bona fide occupational requirement. Similarly, in Australia, New Zealand and the United States mandatory retirement is only permitted if it is justified as a bona fide occupational requirement. …

Moreover, as the Tribunal found, "the negative effects of the infringement of depriving individuals of the protection of the Act outweigh the positive benefits associated with s.15(1)(c)."

The Tribunal stated:

[T]he evidence is clear that depriving people who are the normal age of retirement of protection under the CHRA produces significant deleterious effects. Both experts agreed that mandatory retirement arrangements are hard on people who need to work, for whatever reason, past the normal age of retirement. In particular, those who enter the workforce later in life or who have taken breaks from paid labour face considerable hardship when forced to retire. These workers do not have the time to amass significant pension benefits and may face a particular burden if they have to retire at a certain age. Professor Carmichael testified that this group is made up predominantly of women who have spent the early part of their career out of the labour force raising children, and immigrants who came to Canada as older adults. These individuals are thrust back out into the job market after they have been forced to retire.

As the Tribunal commented, "one of the most disturbing aspects of this provision was the one first noted by the Court in [the present case]: it allows employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of age so long as that discrimination is pervasive in the industry."

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the mandatory retirement policy at Air Canada breached the anti-discrimination provision of the CHRA since the company did not provide for accommodation, or establish that accommodating pilots above age 60 would impose undue hardship.

On this point, the Tribunal concluded: "The objections of younger pilots to accommodating older pilots are based on the view that younger pilots will not be able to enjoy the benefits of seniority if the older pilots are not forced to retire. This objection has not been established on the evidence…. In the circumstances of this case, insisting that the absolute preservation of a younger pilot's seniority takes precedence over the continued employment of his or her older colleagues amounts to making a purely age-based – and therefore arbitrary – value judgment about the relative worth to society of the work performed by each age group. And about the relative importance of employment to each age group."

Finding that "the complaints of Mr. Vilven and Mr. Kelly have been substantiated," the Tribunal deferred a decision on remedies pending a further hearing to consider evidence as to the implications of various options.

Both Air Canada and the pilots' union have said they are applying to the Federal Court of Canada for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. The union said in a September 28 statement that most of its members favour retirement at 60 and that "[w]e believe the tribunal erred at law by ignoring Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process."

Comment:

While legislative provisions allowing mandatory retirement have been repealed in most jurisdictions in Canada, a number of jurisdictions maintain exceptions where age is a bona fide occupational qualification (as it is, for example, for firefighters), or where a bona fide pension plan exists. (See Lancaster's Pension and Benefit E-Bulletin, March 20, 2009, Issue No. 75.) The BFOQ exception is not likely to be challenged under the Charter, but it is likely only a matter of time before a Charter-based challenge is mounted against the bona fide pension plan exception.
Vilven and Kelly v. Air Canada
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Grant Sinclair, Chair and Karen Jensen, Member
August 28, 2009

Read the full text of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision in Vilven and Kelly v. Air Canada.

Go Back to Homepage Top
© Copyright 2009 Lancaster House. All Rights Reserved.

[spaz]

There is no 'forced retirement'.

Air Canada has, to date, not forced anyone to retire at age 60.

Each Air Canada pilot, as part of a Collective Barganing Unit has chosen to retire at age 60 every time, as a group, a contract was voted in that negotiated the retirement age at 60.

This is an important distinction vs. the Government or an employer forcing retirement.

The ongoning judicial review will pit labour law (in this left-leaning semi-socialist country) against the 'rights' of an individual (as percieved by a flawed CHRT ruling).

What do you think trumps in Canada? Collective barganing rights? Or a sketchy ruling on the rights of an individual.

Remember, no one is saying you can't fly past 60, and no one is saying you can't fly at Air Canada past 60. The fact is that as a Collective Barganing Unit we have decide to retire at 60. To change that, all we have to do is negotiate it into our contract, the company couldn't stop us.

We don't get to negotiate any other part of our contract as individuals, and that's A-OK with Canadian labour law. The same applies to this negotiated retirement age.

We can fly past 60 if we want, all we have to do is convince the pilot group to negotiate it into a contract and vote that contract in.

So, labour and contract law vs. a disputable CHRT ruling. We'll see.

[Rockie]

There is no 'forced retirement'.

Air Canada has, to date, not forced anyone to retire at age 60.

Each Air Canada pilot, as part of a Collective Barganing Unit has chosen to retire at age 60 every time, as a group, a contract was voted in that negotiated the retirement age at 60.

This is an important distinction vs. the Government or an employer forcing retirement.

The ongoning judicial review will pit labour law (in this left-leaning semi-socialist country) against the 'rights' of an individual (as percieved by a flawed CHRT ruling).

What do you think trumps in Canada? Collective barganing rights? Or a sketchy ruling on the rights of an individual.

Remember, no one is saying you can't fly past 60, and no one is saying you can't fly at Air Canada past 60. The fact is that as a Collective Barganing Unit we have decide to retire at 60. To change that, all we have to do is negotiate it into our contract, the company couldn't stop us.

We don't get to negotiate any other part of our contract as individuals, and that's A-OK with Canadian labour law. The same applies to this negotiated retirement age.

We can fly past 60 if we want, all we have to do is convince the pilot group to negotiate it into a contract and vote that contract in.

So, labour and contract law vs. a disputable CHRT ruling. We'll see.

Well then, if nobody is forced to retire what's this whole hullabaloo about anyway? All those guys who filed a complaint only had to vote against the contract and say "I'm not retireing just yet", and they could continue on after they turned 60. Thanks for clearing that up.

[joebloggs]

I heard recently that 25% of Air Canada pilots between 58 and 60 are on GDIP, and of the Jazz pilots working over 60 50% are on GDIP. Pension benefits or not, this is a bad scene, and should not go through.

[spaz]

Rockie, you remind me of why I never come on here anymore.

Give things a re-read. To retire past 60 there would only have to be a majority vote in favor of a contract that included retirement past 60, there's nothing stopping that..........except the will of the pilot group.

The point is that you don't get to make individual choices as part of a Collective Barganing Unit. These guys want something different than the majority. Too bad for them, labour law doesn't allow for that.

[Rockie]

Rockie, you remind me of why I never come on here anymore.

Give things a re-read. To retire past 60 there would only have to be a majority vote in favor of a contract that included retirement past 60, there's nothing stopping that..........except the will of the pilot group.

The point is that you don't get to make individual choices as part of a Collective Barganing Unit. These guys want something different than the majority. Too bad for them, labour law doesn't allow for that.

This isn't a case of individual choice, this is a case of individual rights and age discrimination. Mandatory retirement based on age is discriminatory in this country, and age discrimination is against the law. Contracts cannot violate the law even if 100% of the people vote for it.

Substitute "sex" for "age" before the word discrimination. If 100% if the pilots decided they didn't want women flying Air Canada airplanes do you think that would be permitted? Now substitute "race" for "age", would it be permitted if we didn't allow Pakistanis to work at Air Canada? How about no Protestants or Buddists?

Forcing someone out of their job based solely on their age is discrimination. Every jurisdiction in this country is agreeing on that and making it illegal. Do you really think the majority wishes of our pilot group carry any weight in this case? What if everybody decided people with the name Spaz could never upgrade? Does majority rule then?

You might not like hearing reality shoved in your face so you turn away and refuse to listen, but that's the way it is. Get used to it.

[spaz]

For the record, I would never fly with someone named Spaz.

Remenber Rockie, this is just getting started, there will be years of legal wrangling ahead, save some of your hot air for the long haul.

But, maybe we'll meet someday and I'll explain it to you, princess.

I've done my posting for 2010, I'm now going to enjoy my excellent life.

[Rockie]

Remenber Rockie, this is just getting started, there will be years of legal wrangling ahead,

We'll see.

But, maybe we'll meet someday and I'll explain it to you, princess.

Quit flirting you big brute...

[WF9F]

OK. The greedy click wanna stay past 60.Fine, enjoy the Paygroup as an RP or EMJ FO. That should give you another court case to occupy your time.

[Rockie]

OK. The greedy click wanna stay past 60.Fine, enjoy the Paygroup as an RP or EMJ FO. That should give you another court case to occupy your time.

Yes actually. Any drop in working conditions or pay based solely on age will land this pilot group back in front of the HRTC before you can say WTF? We would all be much farther ahead if people stowed the anger and actually gave this some rational thought.

[WF9F]

So you just wanna stay senior,have the best vacation , best schedule, best pay(and all because of those before you moving on).Just get everybody else to suck it up and all will be good,right? Come on, just say yes, we all know that is the truth. Don't go politically correct on me, just tell it like it is.

[Rockie]

So you just wanna stay senior,have the best vacation , best schedule, best pay(and all because of those before you moving on).Just get everybody else to suck it up and all will be good,right? Come on, just say yes, we all know that is the truth. Don't go politically correct on me, just tell it like it is.

The truth is I'm probably junior to you or at least within spitting distance. For sure my own career progression will be just as impacted as yours so please stop with the greed thing.

[Brick Head]

Yes actually. Any drop in working conditions or pay based solely on age will land this pilot group back in front of the HRTC before you can say WTF?

Who the heck engaged Rocky again? Put up your hand, which one? Back away from the keyboard.

For everyone other than Rockie.

Actually yes we can change working conditions past a specific age. And yes it is already being done elsewhere. Even the latest ruling suggests it in one section, and gives examples in another.

What Rockie won't except is that the latest ruling hinges on exactly what he says can't be done. That being. Finding another way to protect the differed compensation system with other means than mandatory retirement.

The basic tenants of the Deferred compensation system are:

1)End loading of compensation to target a specific age for the purpose of a larger pension benefit.

2)The responsibility/requirement to pass on the benefit at that specific age. Without this tenant the system implodes. Why? It is simple. If people do not pass on the benefit at a specific point they begin taking someone elses deferred compensation.

So the CHRT says the deferred compensation system can be protected by other means than mandatory retirement. Therefor using mandatory retirement to protect the system is no longer a reasonable limit under the charter.

Okay. So what would these other means look like that protect the system? The CHRT doesn't say because it is not part of their jurisdiction. That would be up to the respondents to negotiate.

But now Rockie wants those other means declared discriminatory as well. What he doesn't realize is that he is actually arguing that the CHRT error in its latest ruling. If there is no other means to protect the deferred compensation system that are not discriminatory? Then the CHRT, by their own admission, will have erred in believing other means could protect the system.

So for the sake of everyone sanity stop engaging him. His slant on this is poorly informed and not good for anyone. It raises the blood pressure of those who are junior and helps label the post 60 crowd greedy. For which I have trouble believing, most who want to stay past 60, really want to harm those junior to them.

One of two things are about to happen.

There is the slow route.

-The appeals courts will agree with the CHRT that there are other means to protect the system, other than mandatory retirement. Therefor mandatory retirement is not a reasonable limit under the charter. The respondents will then be required to negotiate those other means.

Then there is the very slow route.

-The appeals court will agree with Rockie's view of what is, and what is not, discrimination and state those other means are discriminatory. Therefor the system can not be protected without mandatory retirement. In this case the latest ruling will be struck, and we will all be sent back to the CHRT to start all over again.

[Rockie]

Who the heck engaged Rocky again?

This issue effects me and I have something to say about it. If you don't like it...tough. Feel free to read something else.

I don't know how you equate "other means" of protecting deferred compensation with permitting a different type of age discrimination. Age discrimination is a pretty simple concept, and any suggestion put forward that discriminates will be rejected. Plain and simple.

Perhaps you're stuck in the past. Maybe what they meant by protecting it is extending it to a higher age? Who knows? In any event mandatory retirement based on age is out. O - U - T...out. Figuring out how to implement it is our problem, and it may require a completely different compensation scheme. I don't think the HRTC cares that much how we do it because that is not their problem.

[yycflyguy]

Yes actually. Any drop in working conditions or pay based solely on age will land this pilot group back in front of the HRTC before you can say WTF?

Who the heck engaged Rocky again? Put up your hand, which one? Back away from the keyboard.

I thought it was funny.

[Max111]

Hi All,

Just heard a rumour...that Hell has frozen over !! Could it be ??

Max111

[hithere]

Can you elaborate?

[Rockie]

There is a financial impact study on the ACPA website that is garnering a bit of attention. It is very difficult to pick out relevant information because it approaches the issue from many different angles, but it makes the situation look very bad for junior pilots who according to the study will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It even implies they will make less money by working longer

Of course what no one is asking is:

1. Who did this study?
2. What their instructions were when given the tasking to produce it?
3. What assumptions they used as a baseline and for their projections?

It's obvious to me one of the baseline assumptions is that everyone will advance to the next higher seat as soon as it becomes available. What else could they work from? That one assumption renders the study incorrect from the start, and makes any further projections totally worthless. Any other assumptions they make only further skew the results into irrelevancy.

I suspect the study is an exercise in wishful thinking on ACPA's part because it supports their case that most of the pilots will suffer from this ruling. At worst it is a deliberate effort to inflame the membership.