Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[Inverted2]

I'd hate to see what your benefit premiums are going to go to if you have pilots in their late 60's or 70's drawing on short/long term disability. Everyone will eventually get sick and lose their medical permanantley. You'll end up with guys in nursing homes in palliative care still on the seniority list refusing to retire. Why not just go to 65 like everyone else and be done with it already! You never hear all this crap at other companies whos pilots retire at 65.

[Understated]

Why not just go to 65 like everyone else and be done with it already! You never hear all this crap at other companies whos pilots retire at 65.

Good suggestion, but unfortunately, the genie is already out of the bottle.

What is before us now is not a question of what is "optimal" but what is "legal". This issue differs markedly from normal labour relations disputes, with their inevitable tradeoffs and compromises, simply because no-one can mediate the statutory rights given by Parliament. While the majority may agree to accept such a practical solution, that solution is now outside the bounds of the complaints of "individuals" that are currently before the Tribunal and the courts.

Not only that, but Parliament is in the process of making those rights totally unlimited, with its pending total repeal of the mandatory retirement exemption to discrimination on the basis of age.

[vic777]

You'll end up with guys in nursing homes in palliative care still on the seniority list refusing to retire.

No one lasts long under Canadian Palliative care, as they up the morphine dose daily.

[Morry Bund]

Why not just go to 65 like everyone else and be done with it already! You never hear all this crap at other companies whos pilots retire at 65.

As I see it, it is largely a cultural issue.

[Rockie]

Why not just go to 65 like everyone else and be done with it already! You never hear all this crap at other companies whos pilots retire at 65.

Perhaps you haven't heard but this is a human rights issue, and it isn't up to pilots to limit their own rights. If Air Canada wants to limit pilots to 65 then it's up to them to successfully state the case to the CHRT for BFOR. Really, the process has only been stated here 300 times already so you should know this.

[Inverted2]

Human rights yes, but we are talking about flying large pieces of metal through the air at hundreds of miles per hour with hundreds of people lives in your hands. You have to draw the line somewhere in professions like this. I don't think there is any manditory retirement for people greeters at Walmart though!

[Rockie]

Human rights yes, but we are talking about flying large pieces of metal through the air at hundreds of miles per hour with hundreds of people lives in your hands. You have to draw the line somewhere in professions like this. I don't think there is any manditory retirement for people greeters at Walmart though!

Transport Canada mandates medical and competency tests which are enough to satisfy them whatever the age. The line you want to draw has much more to do with when you want people to retire than when they should retire for health and competency reasons. Your Walmart comment makes this obvious.

Like ACPA and the Air Canada pilots you fail to let the facts of the situation dictate how you deal with it. If you and they dealt with this issue realistically things would be much different right now.

[vic777]

Transport Canada mandates medical and competency tests which are enough to satisfy them whatever the age. ...
Like ACPA and the Air Canada pilots you fail to let the facts of the situation dictate how you deal with it. If you and they dealt with this issue realistically things would be much different right now.

U da Man Rockie! Do you get tired always answering the same ill informed questions? What's your best guess for the soonest that a FlyPast60 Captain will operate an AC flight?

[Rockie]

No I don't get tired of it, because hopefully somewhere there is at least one pilot giving this issue more objective thought as a result. I'd say no more than 13 months from now we will have our first 60+ Captain operating Air Canada flights if the federal government has anything to say about it...and they do.

[Raymond Hall]

I'd say no more than 13 months from now we will have our first 60+ Captain operating Air Canada flights if the federal government has anything to say about it...and they do.

Bill C-13 is goes to Third Reading on Monday, at noon. It could be in the Senate Tuesday, and receive Royal Assent by the end of the week.

[rudder]

I'd say no more than 13 months from now we will have our first 60+ Captain operating Air Canada flights if the federal government has anything to say about it...and they do.

Bill C-13 is goes to Third Reading on Monday, at noon. It could be in the Senate Tuesday, and receive Royal Assent by the end of the week.

Ray,

Obviously the enactment of the provision of the Bill that applies to mandatory retirement will trigger questions about practical application and phase-in. I further presume non-retroactivity.

What have you heard and what impact, if any, do you believe that this will have on air carriers that attempt to perpetuate age 65 mandatory retirement for pilots? Do you believe that a credible argument can be made for BFOR for post-age 65 pilots due to ICAO standards?

[yycflyguy]

No I don't get tired of it, because hopefully somewhere there is at least one pilot giving this issue more objective thought as a result. I'd say no more than 13 months from now we will have our first 60+ Captain operating Air Canada flights if the federal government has anything to say about it...and they do.

I'll take that bet!

[vic777]

I'll take that bet!

No need, ACPA placed a heavy bet for you ....

[Raymond Hall]

I further presume non-retroactivity. What have you heard and what impact, if any, do you believe that this will have on air carriers that attempt to perpetuate age 65 mandatory retirement for pilots? Do you believe that a credible argument can be made for BFOR for post-age 65 pilots due to ICAO standards?

Good questions, and I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge and ability, without being argumentative.

There is no “phase-in,” and no retroactivity. The legislation takes effect all at once, 365 days following the date of Royal Assent, and will apply to all employees in the federal sector, including airline and other transportation industry employees, telecommunication employees, and financial industry employees such as tellers.

The legislation makes no reference to any age whatsoever, so age 65 is toast, so far as a general prohibition is required, unless the BFOR argument can be sustained. Blanket age restrictions have been upheld in a number of professions, notably for policemen and firemen, on the basis of BFOR, but neither of those professions have a separate licensing body that certifies competency on a recurrent basis, as Transport Canada does for us, that (ostensibly) takes competency and safety risk out of the employment question.

Given that Transport Canada has no maximum age restrictions on pilot licensing, and given that there soon will be no exemption to the CHRA for mandatory retirement based on age, the age of 65 is no direct legal impediment to continuing working as a pilot.

Having said that, however, as we all know, the current ICAO restrictions preclude pilots-in-command from operating international flights if they are over age 65. The member states that adhere strictly to the ICAO restrictions (such as the USA) simply do not recognize the licenses of pilots-in-command over age 65, so those pilots cannot operate flights in their airspace when acting as PIC. As well, a large number of Air Canada flights presently use USA alternates for destinations.

There is nothing in the ICAO standards, however, that deals with employment law. ICAO does not and cannot say that the airline must terminate a pilot’s employment. It simply says that the pilot cannot act in that capacity when over age 65. So the door is open for anyone to do as both George Vilven and Neil Kelly did, continue working after age 65 as First Officers.

Can Canadian pilots continue working as Captains, when over age 65? Air Canada put forward some fairly persuasive arguments why it could not function—almost all domestic flights cross into USA airspace at some point. Even YVR-YYC goes outbound near BLI. YVR-YYJ goes through USA airspace. YYZ-YVR and YYZ-YHZ both traverse USA airspace. And of course, almost all international flights do as well, either through Alaska or Maine, the continental USA or Hawaii. So that is a real impediment to expecting to continue to work as a Captain at Air Canada after age 65. That BFOR argument, in my view, rates a high probability of success. Pilots at other airlines that fly only in the North may not have this problem.

I have been told that there are complaints before the Commission filed by pilots at other Canadian airlines about their existing employment restrictions of age 65. I have no way of verifying that information, due to Privacy Act restrictions, at least until those complaints are referred to the Tribunal, when they become public.

[SilentMajority]

Raymond,

Do you feel the passage of the Mandatory Retirement Repeal legislation will have any effect on the current age discrimination cases before the CHRT?

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond,

Do you feel the passage of the Mandatory Retirement Repeal legislation will have any effect on the current age discrimination cases before the CHRT?

Legal effect, no, other than limiting the number of them. The legislation is prospective, not retrospective, and the issues have already been clearly defined many times before the Tribunal and the courts. All that is left is some more wrangling about whether prior terminations were legal or not, and if not, how to finish litigating and/or settling the remaining outstanding complaints.

Psychological effect on the parties and/or the active pilots? Perhaps. So many people have been in denial for so long of this change ever taking place that there will have to be an adjustment to the fact that the end of forced retirement at age 60 is actually set in law with a specific date of coming into force.

The real problem now becomes, how do we ever mend the damage we did to own cohesiveness by the paths we chose to get where we are?

[Rockie]

No I don't get tired of it, because hopefully somewhere there is at least one pilot giving this issue more objective thought as a result. I'd say no more than 13 months from now we will have our first 60+ Captain operating Air Canada flights if the federal government has anything to say about it...and they do.

I'll take that bet!

I didn't place a bet for you to take. My opinion from the start has been based on an unbiased assessment of the facts, not a random throw of the dice.

What are you basing your bet on besides a fervent desire to win?

[Bored]

Don't Pilots over 60 operate within Air Canada almost every month? You are only retired at the END of the month you turn 60 so technically, a pilot who turns 60 on the second can, and does, operate for an entire month while over the age of 60. Of course, the guys with a birth date of the 31st don't get to operate any flights while over 60. More of the arbitrariness of the whole issue.

[Lost in Saigon]

GOOD POINT!

[TheStig]

No I don't get tired of it, because hopefully somewhere there is at least one pilot giving this issue more objective thought as a result. I'd say no more than 13 months from now we will have our first 60+ Captain operating Air Canada flights if the federal government has anything to say about it...and they do.

I'll take that bet!

What are you basing your bet on besides a fervent desire to win?

Rockie, yycflyguy feels confident taking that bet because for a large portion of the past decade the FP60 group has made several similar statements, and all the banter on this forum and others isn't going to make Godot show up any sooner.

From FlyPast60.com

Friday, April 30th, 2010.

Victory! The mountain has been surmounted—age 60 at Air Canada is all but gone.

[Old fella]

The vast majority of people my age(60 yrs and over) - and I don't care who you work for - will get out if they can see themselves clear. After 30+ years of doing the same thing, the shine is tarnished and time for some "by your leave", kiss my arse" and I am out of here. That is human nature amongs us old fools and I suspect the old fools at AC think along those lines, at least the ones I know certainly do.

Every year we hear of gents who we worked with/knew/had fun with, fall prey to illness beyond their control and will not enjoy the fruits of their 30++ working years in their later lives. How sad!!!!

[Rockie]

Rockie, yycflyguy feels confident taking that bet because for a large portion of the past decade the FP60 group has made several similar statements, and all the banter on this forum and others isn't going to make Godot show up any sooner.

From FlyPast60.com

Friday, April 30th, 2010.

Victory! The mountain has been surmounted—age 60 at Air Canada is all but gone.

That quote is from an update announcing two 60+ individual's reinstatement. They would still be working if not for an incorrect BFOR ruling that will soon be overturned because the person who made the ruling did not comply with the Supreme Court requirement in making it.

Age 60 has also been all but gone since well before April 2010, it's just been a matter of when ACPA runs out of wiggle room. But the end result is as inevitable today as it was when this whole saga started. Once the government bill passes the Senate then the 365 day clock starts ticking. I'm pretty confident of the timeline since it's the federal government driving it. To me betting against that is even more foolish than this whole exercise has already been to date.

[tailgunner]

Rockie, not quite correct. BFOR did not prevent the two individuals from being, or remaining reinstated...
50% of them failed to make it out of the simulator building with a rating in hand despite being given more than a few extra sim sessions.

[yycflyguy]

Rockie, yycflyguy feels confident taking that bet because for a large portion of the past decade the FP60 group has made several similar statements, and all the banter on this forum and others isn't going to make Godot show up any sooner.

From FlyPast60.com

Friday, April 30th, 2010.

Victory! The mountain has been surmounted—age 60 at Air Canada is all but gone.

That quote is from an update announcing two 60+ individual's reinstatement. They would still be working if not for an incorrect BFOR ruling that will soon be overturned because the person who made the ruling did not comply with the Supreme Court requirement in making it.

Age 60 has also been all but gone since well before April 2010, it's just been a matter of when ACPA runs out of wiggle room. But the end result is as inevitable today as it was when this whole saga started. Once the government bill passes the Senate then the 365 day clock starts ticking. I'm pretty confident of the timeline since it's the federal government driving it. To me betting against that is even more foolish than this whole exercise has already been to date.

Why waste your talents flying the EMJ when there must be a position for you at CHRT or even the SCC to make bold statements such as obvious errors of any previous judgements that is against the flypast60 opinion.

13 months for full re-instatement? The law has to be implemented, all appeals exhausted including BFOR, probable argument before the SCC, the company has to show a bid with openings, the returning pilots must undergo full courses, full line indoctrination, full medicals... under 13 months? Fahgetabouit. Someday in the future, yes. Probably with a date drawn in the sand. Those who retired on or after date "x" will be allowed to return. That would be the sensible solution, but none of this has been sensible. If I recall, the success rate for the first round of returnees was only 50%.

[Morry Bund]

13 months for full re-instatement? The law has to be implemented, all appeals exhausted including BFOR, probable argument before the SCC, the company has to show a bid with openings, the returning pilots must undergo full courses, full line indoctrination, full medicals... under 13 months? Fahgetabouit.

When we talk about many not having a clear view of the facts, you, sir, definitely qualify.

There are two different scenarios at issue here. The first, being the repeal of mandatory retirement, will come into effect on or before December 1, 2012. That means that those pilots scheduled to be retired that month will be able to remain employed.

The second scenario deals with the upcoming Federal Court of Appeal decision on the Charter that is likely to be released late January, but in any case will be out by March. If ACPA loses its appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal will issue the declaration of invalidity that the Federal Court declined to order last February. That will be effective not only for those due to retire, but for all of those who have already retired and are before the Tribunal or the Commission.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that if ACPA files an appeal of the loss at the Federal Court of Appeal, that delays the process until the Supreme Court of Canada hears the case. Not so. The Federal Court of Appeal decision will be binding and take effect immediately.

A good number of those pilots are currently working and qualified, others are simulator instructors, meaning they also are qualified. Result: rapid reinstatement. Long before 13 months.