Rumors of AC hiring soon, any truth?

[yycflyguy]

What are they going to do to me? Make me work past 60? Laughable at best.

Actually, it is likely that they will fire you. That is the appropriate company response to any workplace harassment particularly related to race, religion, gender, or age.

Ever talked to one of the naughty boys that gets written up for sexual harassment? Tsk tsk. Slap on the wrist. Go to a meeting. Ever hear a FA talk about how "young" the FO/RP is and if he has just received a licence? Ever hear how the Red side was robbed of thousands of dollars by the Blue side? What is done about all these examples of harassment? SFA.

YYC, They built and contributed many of their years for the company you are so feeling entitled about. They have put up with a lot and experienced more forks in the road that you only have heard or read about. They shouldered it all. If they wanna fly...let em fly. It's only fair. Don't worry I'm sure there is a lot (Like myself) that when 55 hits I'm gone and they are gone. Selfish? Not from my viewpoint. You should be thanking these guys for getting or giving your a$$ a place to sit with the benefits you enjoy today and hey, you might even learn a trick or two from their experience

Brutha, I know you are from the Teal side so I will cut you some slack regarding pay progression and equipment bidding when the only advancement for your guys is from Right side to Left side. I wont talk about how your ESOP differs from our DB program. I won't talk about how your compensation pays you more today as you don't have a remuneration deferred system based on seniority. I won't talk about how in the past 11 years those that have "shouldered" it all has resulted in 25-35% pay reductions across the board with a serious degradation in work conditions and how the pilot group is negotiated with by the company (read: respect). The reason that myself and anyone else in the past 5 years has been hired is due to the fact that the retirement age was 60, although I would like to think that my personal qualifications had something to do with it too. I wont mention the thousands of dollars in career advancement will be lost to every single member below the seniority number of those wanting to return. Where were they with this complaint when they were junior moving up through the system? Oh, it benefited them, so they said nothing. That ma brutha is the definition of selfish.

So, back to hiring. Great news guys! After you get hired you can fly til your aneurism crossing 30 West puts you face down in your casserole at the tenderfoot age of 89!

There was some mumbling about filling a void left by JAL in the Asia/Pacific market but speaking with management, that idea was kiboshed as plans to increase out of YVR are unjustifiable as the JAL presence has not diminished in YVR

[HavaJava]

After you get hired you can fly til your aneurism crossing 30 West puts you face down in your casserole at the tenderfoot age of 89!

According to most industry studies on lifespan vs. retirement age, these guys will be lucky to make 70. Actually, that's one of the silver linings for the rest of the pilot group as these guys will be drawing on their pensions for a shorter time which should help secure the pension for the rest of us.

[HavaJava]

GDIP, on the other hand, may go the way of the dodo

[JayDee]

What are they going to do to me? Make me work past 60? Laughable at best.

Actually, it is likely that they will fire you. That is the appropriate company response to any workplace harassment particularly related to race, religion, gender, or age.

Ever talked to one of the naughty boys that gets written up for sexual harassment? Tsk tsk. Slap on the wrist. Go to a meeting. Ever hear a FA talk about how "young" the FO/RP is and if he has just received a licence? Ever hear how the Red side was robbed of thousands of dollars by the Blue side? What is done about all these examples of harassment? SFA.

Ever hear about the DH'ing 737 FO who wore his wings upside down and effectively told the operating Captain to go stuff it? If you ever run into him ask him how much it cost him !

[yycflyguy]

Lol. No, but I want to hear it! Obviously a Blue v Red thing.

Time off for naughty behaviour is pretty different than being terminated. Just ask the probationary pilot that created waves all through training and then knocked off the autopilot to hand bomb while the Captain was on break and the FO in the lav. She was "terminated" and now sits in the right seat of the bus.

[yycflyguy]

[Lost in Saigon]

That "Boeing Study" is garbage and has been disproven many, many, times but it just won't go away....

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/em ... /Rumor.pdf

[JayDee]

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/lesafe.html

[Jaques Strappe]

That "Boeing Study" is garbage and has been disproven many, many, times but it just won't go away....

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/em ... /Rumor.pdf

The only "Boeing Study" that is being posted is yours and I would agree, it is garbage and obviously written with a purpose in mind. Many independent studies from various professions around the world have all come up with alarmingly similar data when it comes to comparing mortality with retirement age.

[rudder]

The only "Boeing Study" that is being posted is yours and I would agree, it is garbage and obviously written with a purpose in mind. Many independent studies from various professions around the world have all come up with alarmingly similar data when it comes to comparing mortality with retirement age.

If an indivdual believes that there is a link between age at retirement and life expectancy then that individual should consider the personal decision to plan for an early retirement. This 'one size fits all' crap is what precipitated this whole mess in the first place.

[yycflyguy]

The "Boeing" study does not mention pilots. Simply Boeing employees.

[HavaJava]

No one is saying that this "retire late/die early" theory is going to be used as an argument to try to stop people from working past 60. I couldn't care less when these guys kick the bucket.

Rather, it's a silver lining for those of us who may have have our careers stalled by greedy pilots ahead of us. The shorter amount of time they draw on their pensions, the more secure it will be for the rest of us.

[Lost in Saigon]

The only "Boeing Study" that is being posted is yours and I would agree, it is garbage and obviously written with a purpose in mind. Many independent studies from various professions around the world have all come up with alarmingly similar data when it comes to comparing mortality with retirement age.

YYCFLYGUY posted a graph from the very popular "Boeing Study" which has been proven to be totally flawed. Even the original author of the "Boeing Study" has admitted that fact. I simply posted a link to a Boeing document that says the study was garbage. (my words).

More info on longevity:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7523/995?ehom

Results Subjects who retired early at 55 and who were still alive at 65 had a significantly higher mortality than those who retired at 65 (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.73).


What is already known on this topic
There is a widespread perception that early retirement is associated with longer life expectancy and later retirement is associated with early death

No consensus has been reached on the comparative survival or mortality of people who retire early or late

What this study adds

Early retirement at 55 or 60 is not associated with increased survival

Employees who retired at 60 had similar survival to those who retired at 65

Differences in mortality could not be attributed to the effects of employee's sex, year of entry to the study, or socioeconomic status


In summary, employees who retired at 55 had a significantly increased mortality compared with those who retired at 65.

[yycflyguy]

That's the beauty of statistics and studies. You can spin them however you want to support a case you wish to make. Lies, damn lies and statistics. Look at medical studies, they are infamous for having breakthrough studies supporting their research only to be refuted by the next study.

I try to live by the "everything in moderation" view, including moderation .

[Bede]

from Am. J. Epi. 2008;167:561–569

Investigation of the health effects of retirement and age at retirement is limited, but the issue is particularly important given the pressure for an increase in the retirement age in Europe. In the Greek segment of the European Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study, 16,827 men and women enrolled from 1994 to 1999 were either gainfully employed or had retired from such employment at enrollment; had not previously been diagnosed with stroke, cancer, coronary heart disease, or diabetes mellitus; and had complete information on important covariates and documented survival status as of July 2006. All-cause and cause-specific mortality in
relation to employment status and age at retirement (among retirees) was analyzed through Cox regression models, controlling for potential confounders. In comparison to subjects still employed, retirees had a 51% increase in all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval: 16, 98). Among retirees, a 5-year increase in age at retirement was associated with a 10% decrease in mortality (95%confidence interval: 4, 15). Findings were more evident for cardiovascular than for cancer mortality, whereas, for injury mortality, there was no evidence of association. Results indicate that early retirement may be a risk factor for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in apparently healthy persons.

[Jaques Strappe]

The only "Boeing Study" that is being posted is yours and I would agree, it is garbage and obviously written with a purpose in mind. Many independent studies from various professions around the world have all come up with alarmingly similar data when it comes to comparing mortality with retirement age.

If an indivdual believes that there is a link between age at retirement and life expectancy then that individual should consider the personal decision to plan for an early retirement. This 'one size fits all' crap is what precipitated this whole mess in the first place.

Rudder

You are correct. People should plan for their retirement. Personally, I was planning to be gone at 55 with a pension reduction. Now I may be forced to go to 60 to avoid further penalties as a result of this "fly till ya die" campaign. Why would anyone want to do that? There is more to life than airplanes and ex- wives. I personally do believe there is a link between age of retirement and mortality, particularly for pilots who regularly fly at high altitudes, cross numerous time zones and constantly put the body in a state of fatigue. This "one size fits all crap" as you put it, was democratically voted on and previously negotiated. What is happening now, is quite the opposite. I have no vote, or at least someone is trying to tell me that my vote and the vote of the majority of the pilots at Air Canada no longer means anything. Collective bargaining is just that, bargaining on behalf of the entire group, not just a select few. If someone wants to work past 60, then fine but it had better not be at the expense of someone else.

[Dhc6to8]

Dear Jaques Strappe,
That is a very important part of aviation that you mention (flying and mortality).... I was recently in the Lufthansa crew center in FRA and I had a look at the notice board that lists all of the recent deaths of current and former service staff.... all there was were Captains who died of either a heart attack on the golf course 6 months after retiring with 60, leukemia at 67, skin cancer at 65, prostate cancer at 62, brain tumor at 66.... scary stuff... it is hard to describe the feelings I had when I read the notices... the notices listed the entire career and each and every one of these poor chaps were all long haul pilots for LH. The other side of the notice board were F/A#s who also passed on from similar sicknesses and they flew long haul for the last 30 years.... I am not sure if this is completely true, but the Lufthansa notice board also had a comment that Qantas has no living retired long haul Captains above 70 years of age. I firmly believe that long haul flying for a career severely affects mortality... I can see the friends of mine who are the same age, and are extremely sports active and fly long haul and ultra long haul.... they look half dead and grey in the face and always complain about being constantly tired..... so, why the hell do these jokers at AC want to fly until 65... any sane pilot should want to retire at 55 or 60 and enjoy what years they have left.... what is the point of earning all that money if you are not going to be around to enjoy it?
Crazy to want to fly until 65.... better to retire at 60, buy a pitts and fly it until you are 65....
6to8

[JayDee]

Dear Jaques Strappe,
That is a very important part of aviation that you mention (flying and mortality).... I was recently in the Lufthansa crew center in FRA and I had a look at the notice board that lists all of the recent deaths of current and former service staff.... all there was were Captains who died of either a heart attack on the golf course 6 months after retiring with 60, leukemia at 67, skin cancer at 65, prostate cancer at 62, brain tumor at 66.... scary stuff... it is hard to describe the feelings I had when I read the notices... the notices listed the entire career and each and every one of these poor chaps were all long haul pilots for LH. The other side of the notice board were F/A#s who also passed on from similar sicknesses and they flew long haul for the last 30 years.... I am not sure if this is completely true, but the Lufthansa notice board also had a comment that Qantas has no living retired long haul Captains above 70 years of age. I firmly believe that long haul flying for a career severely affects mortality... I can see the friends of mine who are the same age, and are extremely sports active and fly long haul and ultra long haul.... they look half dead and grey in the face and always complain about being constantly tired..... so, why the hell do these jokers at AC want to fly until 65... any sane pilot should want to retire at 55 or 60 and enjoy what years they have left.... what is the point of earning all that money if you are not going to be around to enjoy it?
Crazy to want to fly until 65.... better to retire at 60, buy a pitts and fly it until you are 65....
6to8

Personally I prefer to believe proven medical studies about longevity rather than a few chosen pictures on an airline crew room wall. http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/lesafe.html

Of course some have died of all the causes you suggest. But so has the rest of the population. I would venture to say that for every pilot that dies at 67, there are probably 10 other that die at 82, mainly because of the health conscious lifestyle they developed over their career to make it to retirement age in the first place.

I agree, any sane pilot would love to fly off into the sunset in a Pitts Special at age 55, but you are making an awful lot of assumptions in your thinking. To begin with, statistics say that if you have arrived at 60 relatively healthy which retiring pilots usually have, one can expect to live on average another 20 years.

(1) If Air Canada had a SECURE pension I don't think too many pilots would go beyond 60. Do you really think the Top Hat will survive the next CCAA?

(2)If there wasn't such a harsh penalty applied (3% / yr) because one doesn't attain 35 years I don't think many pilots would go beyond 60

(3) If there was Indexation to cover future inflation I don't think many pilots would go beyond 60. Factor 20 years of inflation into your non indexed pension vs the predictable rise in the cost of living and you will be surprised at the dismal results. Hydro alone is going up 10% this year. Oil is being forecast to rise another 18% by years end. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate1-.html

Ontario will soon apply the HST, another wanton tax grab by the politicians. No matter where you look...costs just keep rising.

(4) If during their careers they had been allowed to contribute to RRSP's like the rest of the Canadian populace to protect themselves they just might be able to buy that Pitts you refer to....but they weren't...they were tied to a system that promised a good pension only to find it "on the ropes"

(5) Divorces happen - it's a fact of life. If the pathetic Canadian legal system didn't automatically default to screwing the male gender, the country might not be in the pension crisis they are heading toward. And if you happen to be an easy target like an Airline Pilot..hang on to your britches !!

Everything looks rosy when your only scratching the surface and dreaming about what "used to be" but when you are faced with some simple realities it quite another story.

JayDee

[Jaques Strappe]

JayDee

You bring up some really good viewpoints. No doubt, there are valid arguments from both sides of the fence. There is hopefully some middle ground somewhere which will accommodate those of us who have been spending our entire careers planning to leave early and also those of us who wish to stay. I believe someone has a document floating around which predicts that the average retirement age would probably only rise from 60 to 62. Not sure if that is true or not.

You bring up two points I would like to comment on:

(1) If Air Canada had a SECURE pension I don't think too many pilots would go beyond 60. Do you really think the Top Hat will survive the next CCAA?

You could not be more bang on, yet we as a pilot group constantly give up benefits and pay at every negotiation in an effort to protect this fictitious holy grail. Do I think the Top Hat will survive the next CCAA? If history is any indicator, it will but at a huge expense to our existing pay and benefits.

(4) If during their careers they had been allowed to contribute to RRSP's like the rest of the Canadian populace to protect themselves they just might be able to buy that Pitts you refer to....but they weren't...they were tied to a system that promised a good pension only to find it "on the ropes"

This option has always been available to us but as stated above, we as a pilot group somehow figured that a defined benefit pension plan based on general revenues from the airline was bullet proof and worth sacrificing almost anything for. We walked away from Victor Li in favor of Robert Milton over this! I have wanted out of this DB plan since the day I joined the airline and first flew with Lorne Davidson. ( who has been actively voicing his concerns over this pension for almost 20 years now ) It is nothing more than an RRSP full of worthless airline stock ( it relies partially on general revenues ) and will become the death of the pilot group, yet we have brought it upon ourselves. I shudder to think about what dollar value could be placed on all the benefits and pay given up over the years by the pilots in an undying effort to keep this dinosaur alive. And we still continue to do so while we sit and watch most other dinosaur DB plans around us die of extinction. Somehow ours is different and will magically survive?

Perhaps, if we had gotten rid of it years ago and received better pay as a result, we would have been in that Pitts by now. However, this is a downfall of collective bargaining and I am not about to launch a law suit to recover my lost money and screw the rest of the pilot group in the process.

This is all just my opinion of course, so take it as just that and we all have different accounts of what is important.


As to the original question of this thread. I heard from a management guy on my last pairing that we will hopefully be out of the surplus situation by the end of the summer. Hiring will of course be affected by this retirement thing.

[cdnpilot77]

Perhaps, if we had gotten rid of it years ago and received better pay as a result, we would have been in that Pitts by now. However, this is a downfall of collective bargaining and I am not about to launch a law suit to recover my lost money and screw the rest of the pilot group in the process

I am not an AC pilot, don't claim to be an expert in anything, a low timer and unemployed at the moment, so really I have no right to have any opinion on this whatsoever, but there seems to be a decent points of view on both sides of this discussion and I am fascinated by the different viewpoints.

I obvioulsy have no inside information so maybe I have missed something along the way that would sway my personal opinion to one side or the other. However, some were able to make it happen, literally, under the current system. So this argument is not without its flaws IMO.

http://www.billcarteraerobatics.com/thepilot.html

[Jaques Strappe]

cdnpilot77

Well avcanada is a great place to get differing opinions! Having different opinions is great so long as they are conveyed respectfully which is sometimes a challenge from the anonymous viewpoint behind a computer. However, I have been enlightened in the past by a viewpoint put forward by someone else, that I would never have considered before.

As for the Pitts, everything is relative and a Pitts S1 can be bought for less than a used car. I was simply using it as a metaphor to illustrate the fact that most pilots at Air Canada are earning less today than they were 10 years ago as a result in part, of trying to save a dying pension. In fact, some have made the connection that due to the possibility of losing a portion of the pension, we may have to work beyond 60.

My viewpoint is and has always been, take your money now and plan for the future rather than give it up and hope for the future.