equipment bid

[Rockie]

Firstly, it won't be unlimited. The retirement age will be based on convention which is 65. Second, your seniority rights won't be violated because no one will be forcing you to retire before anyone else. You will still be able to end up on the same airplane you would have before. You may have to stick around another five years to do that, but if you decide to still go at 60 that will be your choice. Since this is coming you should be concerned about protecting your right to go at 60 without losing out anything instead of denying other people their right to go to 65. And they will have the right to go to 65, I just think you guys should be more proactive about protecting yourself for that eventuality.

[Dockjock]

It has to be. They are arguing a rights issue, not renegotiating the contract. This is a case against the idea that fundamentally, it is discriminatory ie. a violation of HUMAN RIGHTS to be made to retire purely because of age.

In that context (which is the context when dealing with the HRC) you must take one of two positions, a) A collectively negotiated retirement age is not discriminatory because one enjoys several benefits throughout one's career as a result of that or, b) It is a violation of one's rights as a human to be forced to retire purely because of age.

There is no c) with the HRC. Or rather, there shouldn't be because it exposes this case for what it is, an end-run around the contract, between negotiating periods, by a tiny minority of greedy a-holes, using the HRC as a distraction because they know it will work.

But of course we know in reality, the HRC's reality, "fundamental" issues easily morph into "conventions" as Rockie assumes. Yes of course it is a human rights violation to be made to retire because of age, (but only if that age is 60)...now on you go till 65 but when you reach that AGE, you must retire. Because everyone else does. Never mind that "everyone else" at your own company, for the last 70 years in the history of your company, has retired at 60. Precedent is selective. It is so utterly, pathetically, obviously ridiculous and self-serving an argument it has to work.

[BLZD1]

Also consider, if these pilots prove they have been discriminated against they will be suing AC and ACPA for damages. That is the hidden agenda of the retired guys wanting to fly past 60. So my union dues will be paying for this and I will not be able to retire at 60 with out a bigger penalty on my pension.

I vote no!!!

[Rockie]

It's funny to listen to you guys call the over 60 people greedy. The bottom line is you want to retire at 60 with seniority number 100 instead of 125, and you will deny the other 25 the right to work till 65 to get it. You are no better than them.

This will be decided by the CHRT who doesn't care what seniority number you have when you retire. This will shock a lot of you, but it is not your right to retire with X number of people above you on the seniority list. There are a million things that could change that and this is only one of them.

[BLZD1]

If you do not make widebody Capt. your pension is smaller. I understand that! So I will have to work to 65 to get my same pension I would have got at age 60. Rookie give us a solution that will make both groups happy and I will vote Yes. I am not trying to be rude. I just want a way I will not get hosed if I retire at 60.

[Rockie]

If you do not make widebody Capt. your pension is smaller. I understand that! So I will have to work to 65 to get my same pension I would have got at age 60. Rookie give us a solution that will make both groups happy and I will vote Yes. I am not trying to be rude. I just want a way I will not get hosed if I retire at 60.

Excellent question, and I sincerely congratulate you for being the first in my experience to ask it. I posted it earlier but here it is again.

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007%20AL ... elease.pdf

ALPA realized that this was coming whether they liked it or not, so they drew up a list of "must haves" that they secured guarantees in principle for from the government and industry. No one else bothered to read it but I encourage you to. Our situation up here in Canada may call for slightly different priorities, but that's for the bigshots to decide. The one thing I do know is that standing in front of this freight train hoping to stop it will not go well for the pilots of Air Canada. Better to direct it in a way best for us.

[Lost in Saigon]

If you do not make widebody Capt. your pension is smaller. I understand that! So I will have to work to 65 to get my same pension I would have got at age 60. Rookie give us a solution that will make both groups happy and I will vote Yes.

I think it is too late for that. You won't get a chance to vote on anything. The wheels are in motion now and it will be decided without anyone’s input.

If the decision is made to get rid of mandatory age 60 retirement, that part of the contract will be in contravention of the laws of Canada and will immediately be null and void.

I imagine there could be appeals, but guys will immediately start working past 60. Just as they do now in the USA ever since they signed the bill.

[Martin Tamme]

It has to be. They are arguing a rights issue, not renegotiating the contract. This is a case against the idea that fundamentally, it is discriminatory ie. a violation of HUMAN RIGHTS to be made to retire purely because of age.

I don't want to rehash all of the arguments that were presented in front of the Tribunal, but denying someone a right based on age is not always discriminatory, if it benefits the collective. For example, throughout the various provinces, one cannot drink until one reaches the ages of either 18 or 19. Is that discriminatory? The Government is actually denying one a right based on age.

Or how about our pilot medicals? I just turned 40, and now have to do my medicals every 6 months. What is so different between now and last year? Nothing, except that I am one year older. So why must I do it every 6 months, when someone who is under 40 does it once a year? Or how about the fact that one cannot attain an ATPL under the age of 21. Isn't that discriminatory?

If the Collective Agreement stated that male pilots will make 20% more than female pilots, then I can see a case of discrimination. But that's not the case here; the discrimination is applied evenly, because everyone reaches 60 one day.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with the case that was in front of the CHRT. Our laws actually say that age is not a discriminatory factor as long as the 'norm' is applied. The big hang-up is on the definition of what is normal. For example, the average age of retirement for an Air Canada pilot is not 60, but is less than 60 (some took early retirement, which brought this average down). Neverthelss, there is a financial penalty if one decides to retire prior to 60.

Air Canada argued that the comparator group should include worldwide legacy carriers when determining the normal age of retirement. ACPA opposed this view. The plaintiffs are now filing a Judicial Appeal, agreeing with ACPA, that the CHRT erred when they used the worldwide legacy carriers as a comparator group. If the plaintiffs win, it would mean that ACPA also wins. If the plaintiffs lose, it would mean that Air Canada wins. Confusing, isn't it?

Nevertheless, there is no rush to make any hasty decisions at this time. Who says that 65 is the normal age, if it can be shown that the normal age is 62 (FYI, at the present time, 60 is still the normal age - based on 50% + 1 of legacy carriers' retirement age)? There will always be time to negotiate with the Company should the CHRT get a second chance to change their verdict.

[Martin Tamme]

If you do not make widebody Capt. your pension is smaller. I understand that! So I will have to work to 65 to get my same pension I would have got at age 60. Rookie give us a solution that will make both groups happy and I will vote Yes.

I think it is too late for that. You won't get a chance to vote on anything. The wheels are in motion now and it will be decided without anyone’s input.

If the decision is made to get rid of mandatory age 60 retirement, that part of the contract will be in contravention of the laws of Canada and will immediately be null and void.

I imagine there could be appeals, but guys will immediately start working past 60. Just as they do now in the USA ever since they signed the bill.

That is not entirely correct. Please refer to questions 69 & 70 of the WAWCON survey. If the pilots want an age other than 60, it will be negotiated in 2009.


However, if the pilots want the status quo, then we will have to wait for the wheels of justice to turn. Who knows, at the pace it is presently going, it could take another 10 years.

P.S. I doubt that the CHRT will rule that pilots will be granted to fly past 60 if there are any appeals. Anyways, the dispute involving the second round of pilots in front of the Tribunal won't happen for quite some time from now. Remember, we still have the Court of Appeals and the SCC after the Federal Court decision in the Vilven & Kelly case (which hasn't even been scheduled yet).

[BLZD1]

Rookie,

So by what you are saying we will have to change our pension rules completely. We will have to change how we bid for aircraft types and work skeds. We will have to change all the works rules relating to seniority. As it is now these pilots that work an extra 5 years will have a higher paying job, better work conditions (ex. days off, vacation), better pension and better choice of A/C to fly.

So to fix this. This would mean we would have to go to a years of service pay (same pay for all aircraft type. Capt / FO). Lotto for vacation and days off. The union or the Company give us our skeds, meaning everyone works 14 -18 days of the month and seniority means nothing. This would also mean any junior Capts would loose there Capt's seats because the top 50% of pilots would all be Captains due to years of service pay and work conditions would be the same for everyone. Seniority means nothing like Westjet! (I am not saying that is bad just a complete different system with only 1 aircraft type.)

That link does not offer and solutions to any of the problems we as a group would face if the age changed to 61 or greater. So I will ask a again, what do you suggest in fixing these issues to make it fair for everyone who wants to work till 60 without loosing money or work conditions. I do not know the answer. Also if we re-negotiate a whole new type of contract with the company do you think we will loose a lot of stuff they spent the last 75 years plus fighting for?

I do!!! Find a fair and equal way to do this and I am in. I do not think they can personally. We are still fighting over Red and Blue.

Do you think some of the retired guys will sue AC and ACPA for discrimination if this is found in there favor?




Sorry for the bad grammar it is late!

[Lost in Saigon]

Nevertheless, there is no rush to make any hasty decisions at this time. Who says that 65 is the normal age, if it can be shown that the normal age is 62 (FYI, at the present time, 60 is still the normal age - based on 50% + 1 of legacy carriers' retirement age)?

It is my understanding that both the European Union and the USA have now gone to 65. That represents an awful lot of Legacy carriers.

Are you sure 60 is still "Normal"?

[tonysoprano]

Are you sure 60 is still "Normal"?

Good question. Many at AC seem to want to stay in the game by returning as sim instructors or look for work elsewhere where they can still fly. In my experience though, most of the guys I talk to coming up for retirement, can't seem to wait. They look forward to leaving and starting a new life. There's no doubt in my mind these guys have the ability to keep going physically and mentally but their hearts are not in it anymore. And, given the nice little pension that awaits them, why not go and enjoy it? I have no problem with going to 65. Just give me a choice and don't penalize me.

[Lost in Saigon]

Are you sure 60 is still "Normal"?

Good question. Many at AC seem to want to stay in the game by returning as sim instructors or look for work elsewhere where they can still fly. In my experience though, most of the guys I talk to coming up for retirement, can't seem to wait. They look forward to leaving and starting a new life. There's no doubt in my mind these guys have the ability to keep going physically and mentally but their hearts are not in it anymore. And, given the nice little pension that awaits them, why not go and enjoy it? I have no problem with going to 65. Just give me a choice and don't penalize me.

Well said. I too have noticed that most guys nearing 60 can't wait to retire. Most of them have 30-35 years or more. That is because they were hired in their 20's. Even so, there are some who are financially secure, but still love their job, and would like to continue flying.

Guys hired more recently will only have 20-25 years (SOME much LESS). I am quite sure that they would like to have the option to go to 65 or retire at 60 provided there is no penalty.

[Rockie]

BLZD1

For future reference, it is R o C k i e, with a C.

You make an awful lot of assumptions, none of which I think will happen. The framework ALPA put in place of course contains no details of how it will actually be implemented. It only lays down some fundamental principles that all party's have agreed to adhere to. The details will require long work by creative minds to hammer out. And I must stress, some sacrifice from both sides of the issue. But don't make the mistake thinking you will get a vote on over 65 or that you will have anything to say about it. It will become law and we will have to comply.

I can think of all kinds of ways that this will work out, but as I said it will take some sacrifice on both sides. If you cling to this notion that you have some enshrined entitlement to retiring with the same expectation you entered this company with then you will lose. A million things can change that including our favourites bankruptsy and merger. This over 60 issue is nothing compared to them so I don't see why everyone has their knickers in a knot. The only way you will lose your right to retire at 60 when this develops is if you guys totally drop the ball, which so far you have.

You cannot possibly win this over the long term, and the only thing you're accomplishing by challenging it is delaying the inevitable. The comparitive points Martin brings forward like medical and drinking age are entirely different cases. One is driven by increased medical risk with age, which is being challenged by the over 60 movement by the way, and the other has to do with legal responsibility. They have no similarities at all. The world is going to 65 and Canada will be the odd man out if they don't. Do you really think that will happen?

[Lost in Saigon]

The world is going to 65 and Canada will be the odd man out if they don't.

Canada has no requirement for a retirement age. ALL airlines in Canada allow their pilots to work past 60 .

ONLY Air Canada does not.

[Rockie]

Very true. It's not like there's no precedent and the world is going to collapse.

[BLZD1]

Rockie,

Sorry I did not mean to spell your name wrong.

I think if we could get some answers to some of those questions it may be feasible. I have not heard one way that makes it fair for everyone. All I have heard is that this going to be forced on us eventually. I agree with that, hopefully not till we have allot more dialogue about it. The courts will force this dialogue eventually. There is allot of talk in the flight decks these days about this subject so in my op-ion it has already started. I still think we should oppose this as long as we can till we can get some answers on how this could be done fairly. I have no problem in taking a hit as long as if they do as-well!

[rudder]

AC will be an age 65 airline. It is not a question of if but when.

Issues to consider:

- if the max accrued benefit in the pension is 35 years of service, what is the point in staying beyond 35 years?

- post age 60 pilots (even post age 55 pilots) have a higher incidence of medical disability. Who will assume these costs? Can these be offset by pension funding savings?

- crew pairing issues. No 2 (3?) post age 60 pilots can be paired. Who will forfeit their schedule bidding rights to be compliant?

[Lost in Saigon]

- crew pairing issues. No 2 (3?) post age 60 pilots can be paired. Who will forfeit their schedule bidding rights to be compliant?

Post age 60 pilots CAN be paired together. It depends on which countries they fly to.

Question: Which countries don't allow over 60 pilots but DO allow the ICAO rule of "1 over 1 under"?

I think France may be one of the few countries left in this position.

[Martin Tamme]

It is my understanding that both the European Union and the USA have now gone to 65. That represents an awful lot of Legacy carriers.

Are you sure 60 is still "Normal"?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,214 ... 29,00.html

Lufthansa Pilots Bring Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Three Lufthansa pilots have become the first to sue under Germany's new anti-discrimination legislation. The pilots are fighting Lufthansa's policy which requires pilots to retire once they turn 60 years old.

The Lufthansa pilots, who filed their suit on Monday, believe they should be able to work until they're 65, assuming there's a younger co-pilot in the cockpit. Lufthansa allows this set-up on Cityline, its daughter airline which flies within Europe.

The company, however, has defended this practice. There's a big difference between two-hour and 15-hour flights, Lufthansa spokeswoman Amelie Lorenz said.

But age alone doesn't determine a pilot's fitness on long flights, according to the plaintiffs' attorney, Ekkehard Helmig. The captains had tried to resolve the issue for the past two years, Helming told the Tageschau television program.

New law prohibits descrimination

Anti-discrimination legislation became law in Germany this summer. It prohibits employers discriminating against the handicapped or based on religious beliefs or homosexuality. It also specifically prohibits age discrimination to try and prevent the widespread practice among German businesses of forcing out aging employees.

During the first day of the lawsuit against Lufthansa, the two sides were asked to see if they could come to some type of an agreement. They couldn't.

This means the court will re-convene in March with a ruling. The case is seen as a test for the new anti-discrimination legislation. Its outcome will guide other German labor groups who want to challenge perceived age discrimination.

--------------------------------------------------------------


...AND THE RESULT

http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/15200739762.htm

FRANKFURT (AFX) - A German court ruled that it is legal for Deutsche Lufthansa AG to force its pilots to retire at age 60.

Three pilots had filed a complaint with a labour court in Frankfurt, citing a breach of Germany's laws against discrimination and demanding that the maximum retirement age be pushed to the age of 65.

The court said that the age limit is based on the legitimate goal of ensuring 'the bodies and lives of the crew, passengers and people in the areas over which airplanes fly.'

The age limit is appropriate and necessary, the court said.

[Rockie]

That ruling was a year ago Martin and was based on the percieved health risk of pilots over 60. Given what's been happening since then and continues to happen I bet there would be a very different outcome today. Just as the next CHRT challenge here in Canada will have a very different outcome.

BLDZ1

I applaud your openmindedness on this issue. The questions in your mind are necessary and must be answered sooner or later. Sooner is much better. The problem is ACPA is making no effort to find the answers because they are engaged in a singleminded yet futile effort to stop age 65 based on a ridiculous and utterly predictable opinion poll that will not change the outcome one iota. It's possible they know they will lose eventually, and if that's so they aren't doing their membership any favours by encouraging this myth that they can win.

[Martin Tamme]

That ruling was a year ago Martin and was based on the percieved health risk of pilots over 60. Given what's been happening since then and continues to happen I bet there would be a very different outcome today. Just as the next CHRT challenge here in Canada will have a very different outcome.

That ruling was in March 2007; 6 months after ICAO (November 2006) and at the exact same time as Vilven & Kelly. The point was that the majority of legacy carriers are still 60 as of today. Will they change in the future? I don't know. However, the CHRT ruled that it is not illegal if Air Canada pilots are forced to retire at the 'norm'. They based the norm on the retirement age of worldwide legacy carriers. That age is presently still 60, and doesn't appear to be changing in the near future - it may be a different story in 10 years from now.

If the Federal Court upholds the CHRT's decision, then Air Canada pilots will have to wait until the 'norm' (based on worldwide legacy carriers) exceeds 60 or until the pilots vote to change it themselves as part of the contractual negotiations. If the pilots want it changed, they will direct the MEC to do just that. This is presently being ascertained, as you put it, via a ridiculous and utterly predictable opinion poll .


P.S. Yes, BA recently raised their age from 57 to 60. I believe Cathay is still 55. Air France 60. SAS 60.

[Rockie]

What's required here is leadership, not a poll that a kindergarten kid could predict and will have no influence on the CHRT. There is a gaping hole in this argument that no one seems interested in seeing. That trubunal ruling was based on age 60 being the norm which is obviously and irrevocably changing worldwide? And what are we doing to prepare ourselves for the day forced retirement at age 60 becomes illegal?

Answer: Nothing.

We're just shovelling money down a fruitless well and denying the reality about to hit us in the face.

[the original tony]

sorry to keep beating a dead horse, or dying............
what would be a safe number to have under you as the 2009 deadline approaches?
Obviously more is better, but what is semi safe? 10% a hundred?
Just trying to guage if i should be looking for a new job in the interim.
My prob. will just be reaching a year. Good i think....
Again thank you for any and all responses.

Tony

[Lost in Saigon]

sorry to keep beating a dead horse, or dying............

There is really no way of knowing. All I can say is hang in there, and don't stress about something that might never happen.

If it does happen, there will be lots of guys who will be there to help you out.