Age 65 Ruling

[29chev]

Its not the average of your last 5 years but your best 5 years...often the last but not always....

[Brick Head]

You are absolutely correct. Important too for those who are now retiring but had their best 5 prior to CCAA.

[pilotbzh]

Kick them out at 60, that should be valid for Jazz, Westjet and Transat to.
If you couldn't save for retirement by 60 they won't be able to by 65 anyways.

Who would want to work all they life...get a fu--ing life. go fishing and eat kraft diner to compensate...It will taste the same than salmon after 60 anyways...............

[Old fella]

....35 years is required service for a max pension with a 2% reduction for every year less than 35. The term penalty in our pension is reserved for retiring before 60. It is also 2%/year. They are compounded for an individual retiring at 58 and 30 years of service for example. "

Thanks for the info. In my case(not an airline employee), I took a pension unreduced at 60 yrs with 28 yrs of service - which is 56% of my best 5 years which were the last five yrs. My understanding is at 60 yrs your pension is unreduced (no age penalty) or if 55 yrs old and with 30 years of pensionable time, same applies. The magic number has to equal 85 yrs combined.

As a current pensioner, you would be surprised in the amount of money you do take in as you are in a lower tax bracket, do not pay into association dues, ditto for CCP and UI. Speaking of CCP, you can apply for that at a reduced rate at age 60 yrs old. That is why many of us old goats with similar age and length of service find it attractive to get out rather than continue working. In my particular case, I would be working beyond 60 yrs old for $300.00 per month (aprx). I did like/enjoy my former job but not to that extent and it is certainly not hard to pick up some little part time position doing something you enjoy outside of aviation.

Incidentally, to the point on this particular thread, I do know some AC pilots in my age bracket and many have/will leave and had no desire to go beyond 60 yrs old if they could see themselves clear (no large depth load/divorce settlements/business failures and the like).

[Four1oh]

wow. I hope that I won't need to work past 60, but I sure as hell want the option. Is this based on seniority? The issue came up last year over at Westjet, and we supported the guys getting booted at 60, and WJ did their best to accommodate while the US got their shit together. But I guess that's the difference, as our scheduling isn't senority based, and neither is the equipment.... (so far anyways )

[. .]

WestJet's upgrades are based on vacancies though. At some point WJ's massive expansion will grind to a halt and upgrades will be VERY slow based on your very young roster. At that point it might become more of an issue.

[Ryan Coke2]

I guess the thing to me though is that I don't have a right to force another person to retire solely for my own personal benefit. If an arbitrary number like 60 is OK, why not push for 55? That would help upgrades and seniority for junior members even more.

Another co-worker should be able to retire when they wish to, based on their own needs and wishes. The only issue after that is safety. Is there a compelling safety reason to force madatory retirment at 60? Recent evidence is going strongly against that.

[Glen Quagmire]

There is a simple solution to all of this, put it to a vote. Let a democratic process choose what is best for each company, not each individual but the pilot group as a whole. I am not a big fan of special interest groups and this "age 65" lobby reeks of special interest. I have had this age 65 discussion with almost every person I fly with and I would say most if not all want to retire at 60, actually most would rather retire at 55.

The goal posts are shifting but it's up to the pilots as a group to keep them from doing so, if as a group that is what they want. To use the same metaphor the salary goal posts have been shifting as well. Just because goal posts are moving doesn't in fact mean they are moving in the right direction.

[circlingfor69]

I agree

[Lost in Saigon]

Majority Rule is sometimes like Mob Rule.

The rights of the individual sometime outweigh the wishes of the majority.

[circlingfor69]

I agree that sometimes the wishes of the few outweigh that of the majority. But in this case where people are WILLINGLY taking a job knowing the the retirement age is mandated it is an ABSURD position to now say they are being discriminated against!!! Nobody is putting a gun to your head and saying " You must work for AC". If you need to work past sixty don't bitch about AC violating your human rights! GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!

[Jaques Strappe]

Many pilots being hired now are in their 30's and even 40's. These pilots will not retire with a full pension if they retire at 60.

Correct, and they know this going in. Changing the goal posts mid game is not exactly the answer unless, it is negotiated via the collective agreement.

Interestingly, at least one of the named individuals was hired at AC practically out of flying school and had plenty of time to max out his pension and then some! If he felt it was an issue, why wait till now to make a fuss? Oh, perhaps it was because he was enjoying the movement up the list along with the list of aircraft endorsements, longer than my arm.

I am sorry, we all knew the gig going in, it is like flat pay and you base your decisions accordingly. The world is changing and perhaps the retirement age will be increased to 65 but that is something that should be done within the collective agreement and voted on by the membership. Going about it this way just demonstrates the "Baby Boomer" it is all about me, mentality.

Some senior guys really spoil it for their fellow pilot. The latest being the cargo disbursement. Some of the senior guys do not feel it should be shared evenly throughout the group, rather, the senior guys should be getting a larger portion. Well, that is one argument but I am sure that a guy on flat salary could use the money a lot more than the guy making 200 grand. Just my opinion. Pilots complain about many things but the most likely person to have is hand in your back pocket is not management, or the government, sadly, it is your fellow pilot.

True professionalism!

[Lost in Saigon]

Here is the way I look at it:

The right to work is a basic human rights issue and age discrimination is is convered covered under human rights.

To put it all in perspective, just substitute "visible minority" or "person of colour" in place of "age 65".


EXAMPLE:

"That black pilot knew that when he was hired he would never be promoted to Captain. Why is he trying to change the goal posts now."

Pretty extreme, yes, but age 65 is really no different.

[Sage]

Here is the way I look at it:

The right to work is a basic human rights issue and age discrimination is is convered covered under human rights.

To put it all in perspective, just substitute "visible minority" or "person of colour" in place of "age 65".


EXAMPLE:

"That black pilot knew that when he was hired he would never be promoted to Captain. Why is he trying to change the goal posts now."

Pretty extreme, yes, but age 65 is really no different.

Not really. Age is something common to everybody...it does not discriminate against any group. It's a blanket rule and it covers everybody.

[Lost in Saigon]

Age is not common to everyone. We are not all the same age.

Some of us are under age 60, and some of us are over age 60.

I dread being forced to stop flying one day just because I had a birthday.

It has nothing to do with money. SOME of us actually like our job and look forward to going to work. That is why I became a pilot.

Those who want to make as much money as possible, in as short a time as possible, don't really love their job anymore.

[Rockie]

I guess the thing to me though is that I don't have a right to force another person to retire solely for my own personal benefit.

Wow. What a breath of fresh air. Air Canada could use about 3000 more of you.

[Rockie]

I am not a big fan of special interest groups and this "age 65" lobby reeks of special interest. I have had this age 65 discussion with almost every person I fly with and I would say most if not all want to retire at 60, actually most would rather retire at 55.

You're being a little selective, if not hypocritical, on your definition of "special interest group" are you?

[ivanhoe]

Age is not common to everyone. We are not all the same age.

Some of us are under age 60, and some of us are over age 60.

I dread being forced to stop flying one day just because I had a birthday.

It has nothing to do with money. SOME of us actually like our job and look forward to going to work. That is why I became a pilot.

Those who want to make as much money as possible, in as short a time as possible, don't really love their job anymore.

I'm with you. Everyone here seems to think this is all about money and how long they will HAVE to work. That says a lot about where they are coming from.

They fail to realise where the likes of you and I are coming from. I have worked long and hard to get a job like this and although there are some days that are a PITA , I truly dread the day someone says I can't do it anymore. Thankfully WestJet is progressive and will allow us to fly to 65. I hope to possibly fly a half schedule at some point (another progressive WestJet option) , but I hope to keep my hand in it as long as possible.

To each his own. Just don't shove someone elses expectations down MY throat.

[. .]

To each his own. Just don't shove someone elses expectations down MY throat.

They aren't someone else's expectations, they should have been your expectations when you signed on. It's not like this is has suddenly been changed.

[ivanhoe]

To each his own. Just don't shove someone elses expectations down MY throat.

They aren't someone else's expectations, they should have been your expectations when you signed on. It's not like this is has suddenly been changed.

True enough but how many of us would have turned down the dream job because of a retirement issue 30 years down the road.

An argument can also be made that the expectations are constantly in flux due to the collective agreement. When you signed on did you expect the same pay and work conditions for the next 30 years? Of course not.

These conditions are constantly changing and evolving and many of the reasons that the age 60 rule was originally implemented no longer exist.

[dirtbiker]

People who want to continue at AC never stop talking about their right to fly past 60. They fail to acknowledge the rules that were and still are in place regarding this. It is so lame to go on about rights and disregard the responsibilties. It has been the responsibilty of AC pilots to leave at 60 and make way for the pilots junior for the entire existence of the airline.

[Four1oh]

until now.... or the near future, that is.

[Jaques Strappe]

Here is the way I look at it:

The right to work is a basic human rights issue and age discrimination is is convered covered under human rights.

To put it all in perspective, just substitute "visible minority" or "person of colour" in place of "age 65".


EXAMPLE:

"That black pilot knew that when he was hired he would never be promoted to Captain. Why is he trying to change the goal posts now."

Pretty extreme, yes, but age 65 is really no different.

What a good analogy! I hear what you are saying loud and clear but could one also use that same analogy but replace "age 65" with "pilot in pay group"?

Just being devils advocate, of course

[WF9F]

It is not that they can't work after 60, they can , just not at AC.
If the ruling would have changed it should have been from that moment forward, meaning if you were hired the day the rule changed then you can go to 65. Then the whole matter of guys wanting to go at 60 would come up again because there would more than likely be some early retirement panalty for going at 60. It would not be simply "I am going to 65 with nothing else changing". There would be sweeping changes to our contract if this had of went through.Not for the better IMO.
To me and many others it is simply guys wanting to enjoy seniority,(at the cost of junior members advancement) making top bucks and and getting the best schedule(as little work as possible).Greed in simpler terms plain and simple.You can deny it until the cows come home but that is the basis for all this over 65 at Air Canada.

[Rockie]

To me and many others it is simply guys wanting to enjoy seniority,(at the cost of junior members advancement) making top bucks and and getting the best schedule(as little work as possible).Greed in simpler terms plain and simple.You can deny it until the cows come home but that is the basis for all this over 65 at Air Canada.

It would be very easy to say that you want to force people out at age sixty because of your greed would it not? It's been said many times here that there are many, many reasons why people might want to continue with Air Canada until over sixty. But there's only one reason why you don't want them to.

Airline pilots flying to over sixty is inevitable. Instead of squandering time and money trying to stop what cannot be stopped, we should be focusing our efforts on implementing it in such a way that no one at Air Canada prior to any agreement being signed is penalized in any way if they choose to retire at sixty. This can be done in a way that no one loses if we're smart enough about it...but it will be done whether you like it or not.