equipment bid

[Rockie]

I agree. As Martin said part of this could simply be pre-negotiation posturing. But to be honest though most of it is probably real economic reality. Regardless, laying off someone making what you make for a year costs more in retraining costs so nothing will happen immediately, and a lot can happen in a year. Plus take it from me, the long view has you with an Air Canada seniority number that is good for life. You have a long and fruitful career ahead of you despite the worst the next year or two can dish up, and I doubt it will be as bad as you fear.

[Dockjock]

Plus, there's nothing like a good, hard downturn to crank up the early retirements.

Rockie has got me thinking about ways to shape the inevitable, as it were. Can't say I agree with the whole "surrender and help write the treaty" philosophy per se, however.

-Choice of fly to 60 and have an indexed pension, or continue on and not.
-Over 60, reserve only.
-Can't change equipment.
-In the event of a surplus, over 60 laid off first.

Some of those choices could potentially have a positive effect on those that choose to play by the existing contract.

[Rockie]

Dockjock

You have crossed a rubicon and helped out your own future simply by thinking about it. Nothing is impossible except the status quo.

[rudder]

Layoffs cannot be economically justified unless it can be reasonably expected that they will be for a duration of at least 2 years. In other words, the cost of implementing the layoffs needs to be offset by sustained payroll savings. The layoffs in the early 1990's were likely implemented using this rational. It remains to be seen if that same argument can be made today. Would likely take a further schedule reduction on the order of 15%.

[the original tony]

thankyou very much for the replies.
It does set my mind at ease a little more than the worst scenarios possible.
There will soon be another mouth to feed so not just myself to think about!!!
Thanks again

Tony

[Dockjock]

I think that the ability to lay off those over 60, at the top of the seniority list, would reduce the nominal 2 yr window required to make it economically feasible to lay somebody off, because it reduces the capacity on the largest machines immediately. There would be no requirement for a large downbid training plan as senior pilots would not be bumping into junior equipment.

In a downturn, capacity is slashed and routes are downgauged. Theoretically, the most flexibility is actually required at the top of the pyramid, not on the smallest machines. Today, AC is not talking about parking EMJ's because of economic concerns, it is talking about 767's (ignoring the age of each fleet for the sake of argument). If a company like AC had the ability in a sharp downturn to drop 20 777 captains, 20 767 captains, and 20 320 captains (all over 60) on a few months notice, it makes the company quite a bit more nimble and able to respond to crises; and it would make this whole debacle a bit more palatable to those at the bottom who not only experience stagnation in a regular market, but in the event of a surplus might actually lose their job so one of those greedy buggars over 60 can buy another boat.

Furthermore, if over-60's were restricted to reserve status only, it would sure place into sharp relief one's commitment to the job 'for the love of flying' as they all say, and not just because those at the top work the least, for the most money, on the best flying, all holidays off, and the best vacation time. Reserve generally blows at AC, and I'm sure almost nobody would be upset about giving that away to somebody else. Come to think of it, as far as vacation goes the over-60 crowd could also be limited to last choice for vacation, too.

But I'm sure most of this is a pipe dream. In reality they'll win, stick around on their terms taking the best jobs, the most money, the best holidays, the best rosters and so forth. Wouldn't want to infringe on your "rights" now, would we...

[yycflyguy]

If the over 60's were the first to be furloughed in a downturn, the financial savings to the company would be such that they would be crying about empty pockets and financial duress MUCH quicker than they do today. They would effectively be ending the flying careers of 62, 63, 64 year olds anytime there was a hiccup in the economy. Furloughing 1 expensive 777 Captain is the equivalent of furloughing 4 position group pilots. You don't suppose that company management would abuse this do you?

I love the reserve only and bottom bidding on vacations idea though.

[Dockjock]

Laying off a pilot who is already in their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th overtime should be considered inconsequential to the pilot. As for the multiplier effect one 777 captain equalling the jobs of 4 EMJ F/O's in terms of layoff numbers...bonus! As far as I can tell, there is no reason the order of layoffs could not be changed.

This would have the added benefit of increasing the bargaining leverage of the pilot group overall. Companies use the threat of layoff to influence bargaining, knowing that the group typically most affected in layoff are the ones least able to afford it- the lowest paid. So they threaten, knowing a large number of scared, poor saps will more than likely vote in favour of status quo in order to keep food on the table. It would certainly give strength to those at the bottom to vote their wishes instead of their fears, knowing there were 50 pilots over-60 that would be the first to go (thus potentially saving layoff for as many as 200 at the bottom).

Anyhow it's an interesting thought exercise.

[BLZD1]

These ideas to me means we are discriminating against people over 60. Making them sign contracts and laying off out of seniority can cause allot of problems. I can see the lawsuits now!

[popo]

just go an retire at 60 and get an instructing job, i am sure your experience will be valuable in that area.
90 % of the skippers i fly with bitch and complain all day and when it is time to go they don't want to leave???


You sign til 60...then what?? you want to stay to make top dollars picking your sched??
make some room for the junior guys..this is how you got there in the 1st place.

what your pension is not enough??? stay with the same wife and it will all be fine...don't buy a nice car and a flat screen TV...
Get a life beside flying. that's all.

[windowseat]

just a quick question, not to poo poo the 60 rule debate, but,
in all reality what are the odds of a new bid coming out sooner than the 6 months and lay offs happening?
i just started a few months back and not too many behind me.
Brutal way to finish line indoc on the 767 and be told about layoffs. and more 67's being parked. Rats!!
thanks for any input, i know it's anyones guess,
but almost everybody knows more about this than i.........
best of luck to all in the business, AC and all.

Tony

Experience has shown that there will be a reduction bid with many slated for layoffs prior to the contractual negotiations. This is to place pressure on the pilot group to accept concessions. Nevertheless, although many may see themselves designated as surplus, it will only be a paper exercise. In reality, they will remain on until the 2009 Summer/Fall bid (after negotiations), which will show an increase again.

Experience has shown this??? Isnt it more the case that contract negotiations fall within the economic cycle (boom-bust-boom-bust, etc from an earlier post). In the early 90s, there was a recession, and yes, contract negotiations occurred at that time, and pilots were laid off. But from 95 to 2000, the economy was growing and there were three rounds of negotiations, 96, 98 and 00, each time there was no surplus of pilots showing on the equipment bid. In 2003/2004 ac was in ccaa and yes pilots were laid off.....2006, no pilots were laid off, and in 2009, well, who knows what a 'bust' will bring if it is a 'bust'...

[Rockie]

As far as I can tell, there is no reason the order of layoffs could not be changed.

That is until the company decides they need fewer of your planes on the ramp and lay you off out of seniority. The perfect situation for them is laying off entire crews as they drop airplanes. Get rid of one aircraft and lay off 8 Captains and 8 FO's. No training costs at all. I don't think you want to go there.

[Dockjock]

Just thinkin outside the box, Rockie. But I didn't suggest layoff out of seniority at random, which you're right, I wouldn't want to go there. I suggested if you're over 60, and a surplus is showing, those guys should get the axe. Gotta say I'd be pretty choked to get benched for 2 years or more while another guy took a couple more laps 'for the love of it'. MY rights would be nowhere to be found, of course. I'm just a young'un so I should just shut up and like it, right?

Rockie: Do you think it will be possible to change the contract in any meaningful way, to mitigate the effect on those under 60, without said changes also being challenged under age discrimination legislation?

[Rockie]

Just thinkin outside the box, Rockie. But I didn't suggest layoff out of seniority at random, which you're right, I wouldn't want to go there. I suggested if you're over 60, and a surplus is showing, those guys should get the axe. Gotta say I'd be pretty choked to get benched for 2 years or more while another guy took a couple more laps 'for the love of it'. MY rights would be nowhere to be found, of course. I'm just a young'un so I should just shut up and like it, right?

Rockie: Do you think it will be possible to change the contract in any meaningful way, to mitigate the effect on those under 60, without said changes also being challenged under age discrimination legislation?

Mitigate...yes. Eliminate...no.

I can understand why guys like you might be miffed at the possibility of someone above you on the list staying another 5 years. It will after all screw up your plans a little. But this right to work to 65 isn't something that will be negotiated, it will be Canadian law. Over 60's will enjoy not only the same rights you have but will have about 30 years seniority over you, so if you think you're going to just take that away without a fight you should do some rethinking. Your rights are not being impeded at all since you will have the same right to work beyond 60 as everyone else. As for your right to retire at 60, maybe it's a phenomenon of youth but you don't even have a right to your job let alone retirement. It is an overinflated and misplaced sense of entitlement that it is your right to retire with the same expectation as you have today. As I mentioned earlier there are a million things that can change that and this over 60 thing is not the worst of them by far.

There is a happy middle ground that will satisfy everyone here, and I am hopeful we will find it. Although our maturity in other things effecting seniority, and therefore your retirement expectations (mergers) are an embarrassing disgrace as far as I'm concerned. The one thing you should keep in mind though is that although you feel pretty strongly one way today, events happen in life that could completely reverse your position ten years from now. If people were smart they would take the long view and put in place safeguards for retirement at 60, but keep their options open for going beyond. The old saying "be careful what you wish for" applies here.

But you have at least accepted the possibility which is light years more realistic than 95% of the rest of the pilots. For that I congratulate you.

[. .]

Rockie,

Maybe you'll change your mind too. If someone new doesn't have a right to their job, what makes someone who's 60 have a right to hold onto theirs?

[Rockie]

Rockie,

Maybe you'll change your mind too. If someone new doesn't have a right to their job, what makes someone who's 60 have a right to hold onto theirs?

Soon, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will say so. That trumps your opinion and mine.

The word "right" is used too liberally around here. The CHRT will simply say you cannot force someone to retire at age 60. If Air Canada were to go out of business where is our "right" to a job then? If Air Canada merges with another carrier and we get bumped down 300 numbers where is our "right" then?

The "rights" you and others keep referring to are negotiated seniority rights which are very different than human rights. The CHRT will say you cannot force someone to retire at 60 because of age discrimination. We will then have to implement it. There is talk here of nullifying seniority rights for over 60's to satisfy someone's retirement expectations with 20 years less seniority. But where does that stop? Once the precedent is set that seniority doesn't rule in all cases the door is open for all kinds of changes based on the wishes of the majority. The majority of whom aren't very senior.

[tailgunner]

Rockie..I have been trying to follow your logic and it seems to always fall short in a few areas.
Firstly, A negotiated and agreed upon agreement under the collective agreement rules allows for Everyone to be treated equally. It is between two willing parties whom have agreed too binding rules of employment. If you carefully read the tribunals response I beleive you will find reference to that.
Secondly, If 60 is found to be discriminatory, then by all reason 65 is. I think this is a very slippery slope that even the tribunal will not go down. If they rule in favor of the past 60 crowd, then they will rule for the past 65 crowd, and the past 70- crowd...This is far bigger than a human rights tribunals' scope. The ruling will be passed on to Parliment and I cannot see that going very quickly.
Thirdly, It is not the right of the past 60 crowd to work beyond their limit. They signed on knowing the rules of the game BEFORE hand. Now they want the rules changed to ensure their financial gain. Most would work Within the system to argue for change if they see fit. However, there are always a few , when things do not go their way, who run for litigation. They are the people who sue because they spilled their hot coffee....they sue when they make bad choices, they sue when they cannot have their way.They run and hide behind their lawyers when their arguments fall on deaf ears.

[Al707]

Hear hear!

[Lost in Saigon]

Rockie..I have been trying to follow your logic and it seems to always fall short in a few areas.

Firstly, A negotiated and agreed upon agreement under the collective agreement rules allows for Everyone to be treated equally. It is between two willing parties whom have agreed too binding rules of employment. If you carefully read the tribunals response I believe you will find reference to that.

Secondly, If 60 is found to be discriminatory, then by all reason 65 is. I think this is a very slippery slope that even the tribunal will not go down. If they rule in favor of the past 60 crowd, then they will rule for the past 65 crowd, and the past 70- crowd...This is far bigger than a human rights tribunals' scope. The ruling will be passed on to Parliment and I cannot see that going very quickly.

Thirdly, It is not the right of the past 60 crowd to work beyond their limit. They signed on knowing the rules of the game BEFORE hand. Now they want the rules changed to ensure their financial gain. Most would work Within the system to argue for change if they see fit. However, there are always a few , when things do not go their way, who run for litigation. They are the people who sue because they spilled their hot coffee....they sue when they make bad choices, they sue when they cannot have their way.They run and hide behind their lawyers when their arguments fall on deaf ears.

All three of your points are way out to lunch:

1) Negotiated and Agreed Upon means NOTHING if it is viewed as discrimination by the
laws of the land

2) The CHRT will decide and then enforce the "Normal Retirement Age" Nothing
else. There is no slippery slope.

3) "Signing On" to a discriminatory practice doesn’t over ride the laws of the land.

[Rockie]

Lost in Saigon is exactly right

1. A negotiated agreement has to fall within the laws of the land. Consider for example if the flight and duty time regulations are reduced to 12 hours. Our negotiated contract as it stands allows us to go far beyond that, but it would have to change to comply with the law. If the CHRT considers it discriminatory to force retirement at 60, then contract or not anybody who wants to work beyond 60 must be permitted to.

2. The CHRT based their ruling on the "normal" retirement age for airline pilots which was 60 at the time the first case was brought forward. That age is going up to 65, so at some point the CHRT will have to say age 65 is normal and forcing retirement below that is discriminatory. That eventual outcome is glaringly obvious for anyone without blinders on.

3. The argument about knowing what the terms were when we signed on is completely without merit. You knew what your pay was. You knew what the flight and duty times were. You knew a whole bunch of things that you would like to see change in your favour and will gladly accept, so you can't bring that argument forth only when it suits you. I've said it before but will repeat it, the only constant is change. If the CHRT says forcing retirement at 60 is discriminatory, which they will eventually, then the rules have changed and there is not a damn thing anybody on either side of the debate can do about it. We will simply have to accept it and figure out a way to comply.

[F-16]

Lost and Rockie,

Not totally correct... If two parties freely negotiate an agreement that circumvents the laws of the land, then there's really nothing the government can do.

For example, if AC and ACPA negotiated that pilots would get no vacation in a year at all, and it was voted on the by the membership and passed, then no member who was upset, would have a leg to stand on if they wanted to complain.

The labour board couldn't touch it, because it has freely been negotiated between the two parties. However, if AC said we're not giving anyone any vacation, then the government could step in.

I know the above is obviously unlikely, it was just to illustrate the point.

[groundtoflightdeck]

Just to touch on the legal side of it.... in BC (and I imagine other provinces) labor laws cannot be waived. Ie/ a contract that agrees to work for less than minimum wage is a void contract, in that, it was never a contract. The labor code is often very rigid so that it cannot be circumvented.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

You are arguing points that are already resolved through the CHRT ruling, as if they will change.

Please go back and read it.

They have already spoken on the matter. Yes I know it is under appeal. But unless Vilven/Kelley win on appeal the present ruling stands.

The ruling states the normal age of retirement of Air Canada pilots is the average of a group of legacy carriers to a maximum of 65.

The ruling states it is not a discriminatory practice to have mandatory retirement as long as it abides by the statement above.

When will pilots at AC be able to work past 60?

When the average dictates or the members choose to change. End of story. The HRT has spoken. It is done.

What will the age change to?

We, the membership, in negotiation with Air Canada choose. Might go straight to 65. Might go some where in between. Might create a formula to follow the legacy carrier average. Nothing, absolutely nothing, within the ruling limits, ACPA's, or any other unions right to negotiate mandatory retirement, as long as it is the normal age of retirement for similar work.

I caution you about just assuming staying past 60 will entail full seniority rights. That any loss of seniority rights would automatically be considered age discrimination. Both Air Canada and ACPA spent an enormous amount of time and resources throughout the CHRT making sure their right to negotiate and determine how the collective pie is divided, remains intact.

Again, nothing, absolutely nothing, within the ruling limits ACPA's right to divvy up the collective pie as they see fit. The only thing that changed was AC pilots now have a special definition outlining what will be considered normal age of retirement. That's it.

To repeat, unless something changes on appeal, when and to what age pilots at Air Canada can work is already determined. The "when" is based on the legacy average going over 60. The "what age" is based on that average to a max of 65. In what capacity they work in past 60 is the only thing left to be determined.

The next question to answered by the courts?

Is it age discrimination to change seniority rights for those staying past 60 if, the sole purpose of the change is not age related, rather to ensure the collective pie is divided equitably? Obviously the amount of payroll doesn't get larger after this change. The only thing that changes is distribution.

Does a union have the right to negotiate distribution?

Does the CHRC have the jurisdiction to take away a unions right to negotiate distribution if the purpose of the change has nothing to do with a discriminatory practice but is solely based on equality?

Think about this.

If it is not age discrimination, but rather all about a unions right to collective bargaining, then the HRC has no jurisdiction on the matter.

[Lost in Saigon]

Lost and Rockie,

Not totally correct... If two parties freely negotiate an agreement that circumvents the laws of the land, then there's really nothing the government can do.

I am not talking about Labour Law such as vacation, company supplied meals, or other working conditions.

Discrimination, whether it be age, race, sex, religion, or ?, can not be negotiated and agreed to in a contract and be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Do you honestly think that if ACPA and the company decided to make an agreement saying that all pilots over 45 years old, (or non-Caucasian pilots, or female pilots, or Catholic, or homosexual, take you pick.) could not hold the position of Captain, that that would be OK?
(I know the above is obviously unlikely, it was just to illustrate the point)

Discrimination is the key word here.

What I said was: "Negotiated and Agreed Upon means NOTHING if it is viewed as discrimination by the laws of the land."


That still holds true so you see I AM totally correct.

[Lost in Saigon]

If it is not age discrimination, but rather all about a unions right to collective bargaining, then the HRC has no jurisdiction on the matter.

But is IS all about age discrimination and the HRC does have jurisdiction .

The CHRT decided that Vilven and Kelly were not discriminated against because at the time of their retirement, the age for the world's Legacy carriers was 60.

BUT, there are two really big problems with that.

1) Canadian Human Rights are not based on what happens in other countries around the world.

2) Even if it was, since Vilven and Kelly retired, the average age of retirements has constantly been changing. I doubt anyone really knows what it is right now.

If Vilven and Kelly should lose their apeal, there are dozens of other pilots who have filed cases, and they are sure to win because the retirement age in Canada (and around the world) is no longer 60.