No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

[tonysoprano]

Rockie.
If you are privy to it, can you tell me how many pilots are on the list of complainants at the present hearings? Regarding a vote, past or present, the general consensus I'm getting on the line is that most (including the old guys) don't want 60+ and the small number that does has a very limited and conditional acceptance of it. I could be wrong but I'm willing to bet my money that a vote today would be in favour of 60. Remember the WAWCON survey that ACPA put to us prior to the last negotes? The 60+ thing was not at the top of the majority of the group in that survey. I'm not sure how any labor group leaders can fight for something its majority don't even care for. Perhaps if they present it with the options and strings attached, some might change their mind. I'd certainly be curious as to how this would be implemented. Maybe it might change my mind too. But for now, everything I've seen and heard, has not been very encouraging to the big picture of our future.

[Lost in Saigon]

I heard that there is about 100 pilots that have filed. But there are lots more who still have not filed for one reason or another.

Even so, it only takes ONE to make it a human rights issue.

[tonysoprano]

I heard that there is about 100 pilots that have filed.

That's what I was trying to tell Rockie.

Even so, it only takes ONE to make it a human rights issue.

I agree. That's the way it should be in some cases. I'm not so sure our case should fall under that statement.

But there are lots more who still have not filed for one reason or another.

Lots?

[Rockie]

I don't know how many people have filed complaints, but people can only file a complaint once they are actually retired. Saying only 100 people support 60+ ignores the people who are still currently working, and that's a lot of people. I've flown with people who are against 60+, but when I explain to them they will not get a full pension unless they work to 65 they get that pensive look like they've never considered that before. That's how I know that we as a group aren't very good at seeing beyond the next bid.

[tonysoprano]

I've flown with people who are against 60+, but when I explain to them they will not get a full pension unless they work to 65 they get that pensive look like they've never considered that before. That's how I know that we as a group aren't very good at seeing beyond the next bid.

I suspect those who won't get a full pension are not coming up for retirement in the near future. I say that because AC has hired some older people recently but have a few years to go yet before they retire. Maybe they are just interested in surviving today while saving for tomorrow. Most guys I talk to are not going to rely on our pension (myself included) and are putting money away for age 60 through other means. Also, many who were hired at AC late in life came here already in possession of a pension from somewhere else and don't really care about a full pension from AC. The dynamics are widespread and it's hard to get a consensus but I still believe the majority don't want to go beyond 60. Majority, however, is not part of this decision. Neither was contractual, binding arbitration. To most of us, that didn't go down to well.

[DocAV8R]

Mandatory Retirement has ended in most jurisdictions in the civilized world.- Almost all provinces from BC east, the Comonwealth- Great Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, even Cathay... Even federal employees are not subject to Mandatory Retirement. Transport Canada ended Age 60 decades ago and that is why we do Medicals every 6 months unlike our US counterparts. ICAO, Transport Canada, the FAA and most Airlines all agree that safety is not an issue ( - even Air Canada conceded this in VK).

You can fight kicking and screaming as ACPA MEC and the Against AGE 60 group have done wasting Union and Air Canada money, which by the way, you get to pay for. They are poisoning the environment instead of protecting all pilots rights and working to unify and strengthen the group. Maybe that's what AC wants- Bust the Union. What if the MEC are just playing into their hands to get nice fat desk jobs in Management, once they succeed in that? There is no doubt- AGE 60 IS GONE. It only remains a figment of ACPA's imagination. Thousands of pilots in Canada are entitled to go past 60- Every other Carrier in Canada and most of the world and there are thousands.

We as a group should get sensible and work to implement this as quickly and painlessly as possible. That is where the efforts should be- instead of this divisive behavior which makes everyone suffer.
10 Pilots are retiring every month- some may want and will be entitled to stay. Not many I suspect, but Canadian Law is ( as will rapidly be made clear,) going to give them the option.

No one has said that they can disregard ICAO and remain PIC's forever unless flying domestically. ICAO rules would have let GV remain flying as an FO even before Nov 2006.

ALPA is fighting the OVER/Under rule. But with augmented flights, what is the chance that the relief pilot will be over 60? This is a rule that is easy to accommodate.

There is no point picking on 1 or 100 of the Over 60 guys- this rule was going to change. The infighting is non-productive and will cost millions to no defensible purpose. The pension will be better off with more pilots not collecting and continuing to pay into it. The Airline will be better off- that was the main reason Cathay, BA, SW, Jazz and others have implemented the change.

The pilot group will benefit even if they don't realize it now.
Yes - it will take a few months more to advance, but not years as has been erroneously advertised. Losing the Cargo and Flying to Jazz has done far more damage. The many cases ACPA has fought and lost will cost all pilots and the union more than accommodating the few who want to keep their jobs.
Pilots will be able to maximize their pensions. The average age of hire being 34 or 35 now- Believe me it will be a concern even to the new guys when they get to Pensionable age.
You never know what may happen or how you will feel in he future. We as humans are not capable of that. It may be that you want to retire early, at 55, at 60, at 65 or whatever. Wouldn't it be nice to have the choice, assuming you still like your job, are fit and able. No one is forcing anyone to stay. Leave early if you want.
Everyone says we voted for 60- It was imposed on us, just like the foolishness this union is subjecting us to now. It is not rational to say because we took a job that we accepted and agreed with some rule, that is actually not in the OP or Collective Agreement, but only appears in the Pension Manual. How many of you knew and agreed with every word dictated to you? The only way anyone could appeal was to first be discriminated against and then file a complaint.

The End Of Mandatory Retirement in Ontario
Issued: December 8, 2005
Updated: December 19, 2006

* Employer/Employee Pension Plans
* Benefits
* Workplace Safety and Insurance System

When did the new rules against mandatory retirement take effect?
Mandatory retirement (in Ontario) ended on December 12, 2006.

Could I be penalized for retiring at or before the age of 65?
The legislation amended the Ontario Human Rights Code and other legislation so as generally to prohibit employers from forcing employees to retire merely because they are 65 or older. It does not prevent employees who want to retire from doing so.

Ending mandatory retirement should not result in people being penalized if they choose to retire at or prior to the age of 65. Rather, older persons will be able to choose for themselves how long they wish to remain in the workforce, based on their own lifestyles and circumstances, so long as they are capable of performing their jobs.

Can I be forced to work past the age of 65?
Ending mandatory retirement should not result in people being penalized if they choose to retire at or prior to the age of 65. Rather, older persons will be able to choose for themselves how long they wish to remain in the workforce, based on their own lifestyles and circumstances, so long as they are capable of performing their jobs.

Can employers still offer early retirement incentives?
Yes. Employers can continue to use early retirement packages as an incentive to promote voluntary exit from the workplace.

Can an employer terminate or force an employee to retire?
An employer is not able to end an employee's employment merely because that person has reached a certain age, unless being younger than that age could be shown to be a bona fide occupational requirement.

Have an employer's termination obligations changed?
The government is not planning to change the severance pay exemption that applies in certain cases where an employee receives an actuarially unreduced pension.


Has an employer's duty to accommodate an individual employee's disability changed?
No. The duty to accommodate obligations under the Code remain the same. Older workers will not be subject to a lower standard of accommodation than other protected groups.

How will this initiative affect collective agreements?
Collective agreements are not exempt from a prohibition on mandatory retirement. As a result, as of December 12th, 2006, mandatory retirement provisions in collective agreements will be unenforceable, and employees in unionized environments cannot be forced to retire at a specific age.

[rudder]

ACPA is not the employer. The biggest mistake being made right now is that AC is continuing to terminate pilots at age 60. The employer will have to be held financially liable for 100% of any damages levied in the remedies phase for delaying compliance with the ruling.

[tonysoprano]

ACPA is not the employer. The biggest mistake being made right now is that AC is continuing to terminate pilots at age 60. The employer will have to be held financially liable for 100% of any damages levied in the remedies phase for delaying compliance with the ruling.

To the best of my knowledge agreements between unions and employers are binding and when there is a dispute between them one side puts in a grievance and the process then goes to an arbitrator. In this case there was no dispute between union and company. In fact it was one of the few parts of the contract that both sides never disputed. It worked well for both sides. Now both sides will inevitably be at odds as to how this will get administered. Hence my term "shit disturber". Not what we need on top of the other fish we're trying to fry. The color game is working well, still. Once again, thank you Mr. Chretien. Thank you Mr. Collinette.

[rudder]

AC had no problem complying with the original ruling in 2007. So why the difficulty complying with the ruling from the same body in 2009? As I said, ACPA is not the employer and the collective agreement does not trump the law. Yes, there is an appeals process (JR). However, delay in compliance will not simply be treated as water under the bridge.

[DocAV8R]

It is my understanding that ACPA is forcing AC to continue this fight, even so much as threatening job action if they had not continued the delaying tactics. I may be wrong. But both the union and AC know that they will eventually lose. The law has changed. The delay game is just to prolong the pain and escalate the costs as much as possible, in my considered opinion. No one will win, and everyone loses. What kind of an unintelligent game is that?

Where is the common sense? Too bad we can't convince our union to quit the foolishness and start to figure out the best way to implement the change. Don't you feel that that is the best use of the limited money, time and other resourses? Shouldn't the union be trying to encourage a cohesive group, rather than assume there is 100% support for this idiocy? Certainly, I have heard a significant number of dissenting opinions, and suspect that there is a significant number who would like to have the option, or think it would be fair for others to have the option to continue in their chosen employment at least until they have maxed their pension. There are many reasons one may chose to continue to work. Even those of you who are arguing against it may have a change of heart when it actually happens to you. Some people actually like their jobs and would rather do that than occupy a desk at ACPA.

I do not believe that the MEC speaks for the majority, and I do not feel that the information, and facts have been presented to the group honestly and fairly. Certainly the one and only vote was not clear, most didn't even vote and of those that did as I recall it was certainly less than 50% of the total number- closer to 30 as I recall. Did the voters know that every other airline in Canada and most of the world does not have a mandatory age of retirement? Did they know that most provinces were eliminating mandatory retirement at 65? Did they even know that Transport Canada does not have a mandatory age of retirement for pilots? Did they know that no one was asking them to be forced to work past 60, only that they would be given a choice?

Perhaps a balanced information package, and another vote are in order. But that would require fairness- Is ACPA capable of that? I doubt it. Just my opinion.

[turbo-beaver]

ACPA is named as a respondent in this litigation and will be responsible for a portion of the damages. They are a party to this agreement and are doing everything in their power to drag this litigation out, but the unfortunately every pilot in the Association is being dragged along for the ride down this slippery slope. The Association members of the Age 60 committee are like religious zealots now......I have no idea of what they have been drinking but to believe in a mantra that takes our group back 70 years when they would not even allow women into the flight deck is just plain stupid, IMHO.
They will lose this litigation as surely as they would if they were fighting to keep anyone that is not white out of the cockpit. And, the pilots that have supported this group, will have to pay the piper when the gavel comes down the final time. Just watch the pilots endeavor to distance themselves from this Association when this happens. The costs will be in the millions and, of course depending on the final decisions, someone will have to ante up.
The ACPA forum, just before it was shut down, warned of a 'bloodbath', should this happen. Well, personally, I don't think I would want any member of my family in a mixed cockpit, after this litigation is over......at least not until the bills are all paid. Hope ACPA has some good insurance......

[Rockie]

How will this initiative affect collective agreements?

Collective agreements are not exempt from a prohibition on mandatory retirement. As a result, as of December 12th, 2006, mandatory retirement provisions in collective agreements will be unenforceable, and employees in unionized environments cannot be forced to retire at a specific age.

Granted, this is taken from Ontario and our industry is federally regulated. But one by one all jurisdictions are stepping into line on this and it should be painfully obvious to all that no collective agreement will ever take precedence over law.

The writing is on the wall in 10 story high letters, and the fat lady has been singing her lungs out on this issue for some time now. Age 60 is D-E-A-D, and the sooner our union stops wasting time and money, and driving the wedge even deeper in our pilot ranks the better. To me this is serious enough to warrant de-certification and seek representation by a union with a better handle on reality.

[DocAV8R]

Another example of how it has been handled effectively:

Excerpts from the BC experience of Eliminating Mandatory Retirement

Globe and Mail Excerpts
January 31, 2007
VANCOUVER -- A new poll suggests a majority of British Columbians don't want their employers to have the right to tell workers when to retire.
The experience of other jurisdictions suggests the change can be made without major upsets to the economy, Mr. Clift said.
"No one needs to reinvent the wheel -- there are lots of examples of what needs to be done. We just need to get on with it."
Since mandatory retirement was abolished in the United States in 1987, the average retirement age has increased by about two years, indicating that many employees still chose to retire even though there is no requirement.

Vancouver Sun Thursday, 22 February 2007
There's nothing to stop them from abandoning mandatory retirement tomorrow if they were at all interested in simply doing the right thing by their employees.

CUFA/BC News Release
April 25, 2007
The introduction of new legislation will end mandatory retirement in British Columbia by January 1, 2008.
Bill 31, the Mandatory Retirement Elimination Act , makes changes to the Human Rights Code to eliminate provisions that allowed forced retirement at age 65. The bill also allows for the continuation of benefit plans past age 65, but permits those plans to offer different levels of coverage for older workers.

Mandatory Retirement Myths
Written by Robert Clift
Friday, 23 June 2006


MYTH: Mandatory retirement allows older workers to retire with dignity, rather than be forced out because of poor performance

THE FACTS: The “retire with dignity myth” is based on two faulty assumptions: that older workers will want to continue to work even when they are not adequately performing their duties and that poor work performance is dependent on age. Older workers are no different from other workers. The vast majority of them take pride in their work and want to do their jobs well. It’s shameful to assume that a significant number of older workers will try to hang on to their jobs even though they are performing poorly. It is also important to remember that poor performance is not a problem limited to older workers. Businesses have to deal with poor performing employees of all ages. Employers should have respectful and effective means of dealing with poor performance and apply those means fairly, regardless of age.


MYTH: If we eliminate mandatory retirement then people will be forced to work longer

THE FACTS: The “forced to work myth” is based on the assumption that if mandatory retirement is eliminated then the federal government and pension plan trustees will raise the minimum age of pension eligibility (which is now 60 for the Canada Pension Plan, and can be as low as 50 for other pension plans). The pressure to raise the minimum age of pension eligibility is based on demographics, not on the presence or absence of mandatory retirement. Defined-benefit pension plans are based on certain assumptions about the life expectancy of plan members. If life expectancy increases, the costs go up. To deal with rising costs, the plan trustees have the option of decreasing benefits to retirees, increasing the required contribution from employees and employers, or reducing the number of people eligible for benefits by increasing the minimum age for pension eligibility. For example, in Japan, where mandatory retirement is alive and well, the government plans to deal with its demographic pressures by increasing the minimum age of eligibility for the public pension plan from 60 to 63 in 2007, 64 in 2010, and 65 in 2013. Because individual circumstances vary widely, it’s vital that we keep open options for retirement at a wide-range of ages with adequate pension income. It’s no less discriminatory to cut off pension eligibility to the 55-year-old who wants to retire because of poor health, than it is to force retirement a 65-year-old who is willing and able to work.


MYTH: Mandatory retirement is necessary for employers to plan their staffing needs

THE FACTS: The elimination of mandatory retirement will only slightly complicate human resource planning.

[DocAV8R]

The FAA opinion:

"Experience Counts"
Marion C. Blakey, Washington, DC
January 30, 2007
National Press Club

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me. And I bring greetings from Secretary Peters. We’re delighted to have the National Press Club focus on transportation and aviation. You know, there’s a Latin phrase, carpe diem, that tells us to seize the day. It’s used a lot, and it’s really an admonition to make the most of the moment, to make sure that opportunity is not lost. But sometimes, it’s not all that easy.

First, a rough spot or two. When Alexander Graham Bell was trying to sell the telephone, the Postal Service and Western Union turned him down. The Swiss invented the digital watch, only to reject something that “didn’t have gears.” Texas Instruments and the Japanese, however, thought the digital watch just might catch on.

There are successes. On the low-tech end, a fellow by the name of Earle Dickson, a cotton buyer, had the idea to put little pieces of cotton on surgical tape. His employer, Johnson & Johnson, seized the day.

Aviation has had more than its share of those kind of moments. I’d have to say that the Wrights are at the top of that list. Going from bicycles to wings is a huge leap, and not just in technology. Certainly Burt Rutan would have to be considered someone who didn’t let the moment pass. He believed the timing was right to show that the common man has a place in space. I was there in the Mojave when he did it with Space Ship One. At a significantly lower altitude, Vern Raburn and his Eclipse and Peter Maurer and his Diamond D believe it’s time to change point-to-point travel.

Today is another one of those “seize the moment” days — for commercial aviation, the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA. It’s time to close the book on Age 60. The retirement age for airline pilots needs to be raised. So, the FAA will propose a new rule to allow pilots to fly until they are 65.

This has been a long time in the making. About a couple of months shy of 47 years, in fact. But who’s counting? Well, I can say with certainty that these days, everyone’s counting. And each one of them has my email address.

More than most, though, this is an issue that requires context, so bear with me while I take you all back in history. Fact is that even in the 1950s, pilot retirement age was a bone of contention. When the airlines back in the day were forcing pilots to retire, the union took legal action. Arbitrators ruled for the pilots each time.

In what still is a matter of debate as to why the government made Age 60 the limit, American Airlines prevailed on the FAA for a rule. Perhaps it was the strike that occurred. Maybe it was just a move to get beyond the issue. The man in charge at American, C.R. Smith, wrote to Pete Quesada, the administrator at the time. He wrote, and I quote: “It appears obvious that there must be some suitable age for retirement.”

That was February 1959. Less than four months later, June 27 to be exact, the Federal Aviation Agency drew a new line in the sand and issued a proposed rule titled “Maximum Age Limitations for Pilots.” When you’re 60, your career as an airline pilot would be over.

In what today would be considered warp speed — less than nine months — it became the law of the land. The basis for the decision was safety — that the safety of air commerce was indeed in the public interest. That’s hard to argue. The FAA said that using older pilots is a safety concern. As people age, their skills degrade.

That’s the history. And that is why we’re here today. It’s now a different day and age. The issues of experience, harmonization, and let’s face it — equity — all have to be addressed.

Since I’ve come to the agency, one of my big areas of emphasis has been global harmonization. It’s a big sky, and unless it’s a seamless sky, we all lose. If you have rules that directly controvert that principle, especially a rule that becomes increasingly more difficult to defend, it’s time for a change.

Let me read a letter I received about two months ago from a pilot on the West Coast. I’m quoting here: “I assert that my skills and experience enhance aviation safety and thus serve the public interest. I have over 26,000 hours without violations and am an FAA-certified check airman on the Boeing 747-400. I hold an ATP, current gold seal flight instructor, flight engineer … In addition, I have a first class medical certification with no limitations.”

I’ve got to tell you, on its face, he’s making the right point. This is a guy you want flying your plane. Yet, he’s about to time out in our system.

There are another two stories worth repeating. One in particular, you all know. When John Glenn joined a space shuttle crew at age 77, he proved that there’s a place in space for experience. And for those of you who remember the Sioux City crash in 1989, the United Captain, Alfred C. Haynes, saved 186 people that day. He flew a DC-10 that had lost hydraulics, using a throttle to make turns. Somewhat like taking the steering wheel off your car and trying to steer with the gas pedal. At the time, Captain Haynes was 59. I’m standing here today to tell you that it was a sad day when Captain Haynes turned 60. This rule drew a line in the sand and aviation lost heroes like Captain Haynes because of it.

So ICAO’s move to allow a pilot under 65 to continue to fly was the right thing to do. The Joint Aviation Authorities in Europe already made the step, too. And in the interest of harmonization, it’s time for us to do so as well. The rule we intend to propose will be parallel to the ICAO standard — either pilot or co-pilot may fly up to age 65 as long as the other crewmember is under 60. It is our intent that this new rule will apply to pilots who have not yet reached 60 by the time the rule goes into effect.

Why the change? First, medically speaking, there are no scientific studies to say, “Don’t do this.” In fact, as we’d all agree, medical science is in the place where we’re all living longer and healthier. And that includes the cockpit.

Back in 1959, the average lifespan in the U.S. was 69 and a half. Today, it’s more than 77. And if there’s a group of employees in better shape than airline pilots, generally speaking, they’re not coming to mind right now — well, maybe the Bears and the Colts.

Plus, there’s the added protection of a medical exam every six months specifically tailored to aviation, conducted by a professional who’s specifically trained to address the kind of medical conditions that’d affect the ability to fly.

For the doubters among us, there’s also the check ride. Every six months, these folks are tested by a taskmaster who makes damn sure that the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. Our check airmen are the cream of the crop in the pilot community and their job is to make sure that all pilots are up to the job. Given our safety record — we’re in one of the safest periods in history — I’d have to say that the pilots and those who check their performance are getting it done.

There’s a major equity angle to this issue as well. Under our current rules, we will have captains older than 60 carrying Americans on foreign carriers originating overseas, from countries such as Canada, Australia, Israel, Japan — about three dozen countries overall. They’ll be coming here, picking up Americans, and then flying them elsewhere. So you have to ask: It’s safe to fly with foreign pilots on our shores, but it’s not safe with our own?

It’s not as if we don’t have some experience with this, because in fact, we do. Back in 1995, when the agency brought small commuter operators up to the same standards as the majors to form “one level of safety,” we allowed about 200 pilots over the age of 60 to continue to fly, grandfathered in for about four years. There were no medical events, no safety events, nothing to show that group couldn’t fly above age 60.

And now, I’d like to turn to the most compelling reason. Like the pilot on the West Coast who wrote me the letter, the fact of the matter is that there’s a heckuva lot of experience behind those captain stripes, and we shouldn’t have to lose it as early as we do. I want our older captains to be around longer to help the younger pilots rising up through the ranks.

A pilot can learn a lot just by seeing how the experienced vet handles a situation that they may only have seen in simulation. Simulators are great for training, but there’s no substitute for real life, encountering all different weather systems, different mechanical or technical problems that bring their own unique challenges, sometimes in combination. All of that leads to what I call “airmanship,” decision making, the pilot skills that make our system so good. When you think back over recent years, there have been very few accidents, but almost all of those that have occurred have turned on human decision-making.

So with all of this said, a procedural question arises, and I think it’s a fair one: Why don’t you just put the new retirement age in place today, right now? After all, there are pilots out there every month who turn 60 but want to keep flying. The answer is simple. We can’t. And it wouldn’t be the right thing to do.

Except in very limited circumstances, such as an urgent safety issue, the Administrative Procedure Act governs and it requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking be issued before any final action can be taken. The public, the industry, individual pilots need to have the opportunity to comment, and we have an obligation to listen and consider the data and opposing arguments before making a final decision.

This is how the rulemaking process works — deliberative, purposeful. And there are a lot more requirements to be met than in Pete Quesada’s day, so it takes time. When it’s something you want right away, it’s a hurdle. But when it’s something over which there’s honest debate, it’s one of the key ways the strength of our aviation system was built.

Now, there are some strong feelings out there about the retirement age, and it’s going to take time, and I want to particularly thank a number of people who have already put a great deal of time into these deliberations. You see, for help with this, I established an aviation rulemaking committee — we call it an ARC — made up of representatives of the airlines, pilot unions, a group representing pilots over 60 and the aero-medical community. I asked them to review the situation and make recommendations. And even though they could not come to consensus, they produced a thoughtful report that I found very helpful. I want to particularly thank the co-chairs, Captain Duane Woerth of ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association and Jim May of the Air Transport Association for their yeoman’s work.

And I must tell you, one reason for announcing our decision to move forward months in advance of the actual NPRM being published is I’m going to ask the ARC for a bit more help in collecting data so that we get the details of the proposed rule as close to right as possible. And in that regard, I’m grateful that the new head of ALPA, Captain John Prater, has agreed to step in as co-chair to finish the analysis. And shepherding this all along is Nick Sabatini, our Associate Administration for Aviation Safety, and an FAA staff, a number of whom are here today.

Now, finally, let me touch briefly on another matter of global harmonization. Recently, the European Union proposed legislation that would put international flights into a European emissions trading scheme without the consent of their governments. Many countries around the world, including the U.S., view this unilateral approach as unworkable and unsustainable under international law.

It is directly counter to everything ICAO stands for. It goes against the efforts of ICAO to develop agreed international guidance for use in emissions trading. Through the European SESAR plan and our NextGen efforts, we’re seeking to dramatically improve the efficiency and environmental performance of our air traffic systems, taking advantage of proven technologies and practices such as RNP, ADS-B and RVSM. Unilateral moves weaken the foundation for collaboration, harmonization. Trying to impose a “one size fits all” solution on a complex issue in a global industry is a recipe for failure. Unilateral moves are a step back. Let me leave it at that.

In closing, with respect to Age 60, let me emphasize that the retirement issue strikes a real chord and elicits strong emotions on both sides. I read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month that particularly struck me. I’m going to quote a pilot mentioned in the article:

“When I started,” he says, “the World War II guys were still flying.” He’s talking about the senior pilots in the 1960s. “They were chain smokers, drank hard liquor, never exercised. Now, almost no one does those things. Plus, we get random alcohol tests. We have to pass rigorous physicals twice a year from doctors who specialize in aviation.”

As I see it, he’s precisely on point. We’re moving forward because it’s a change whose time has come. The objections of the past don’t cut it anymore. This is the right thing to do. Experience counts, it’s an added margin of safety, and at the end of the day, that is what counts. Isn’t it?

###

[beast]

i find it hilarious how the supporters of fly past 60+ spend great amounts of time arguing that mandatory retirement is unethical and evil and discriminatory to old people (oops, pardon me - i meant "people of age") and then propose age 65 retirement as a suitable alternative. morons

The only reason age 65 was introduced in the US was because of the looming pilot shortage PERIOD
A lot easier than raising wages and improving working conditions to attract young people

Unfortunately, the negative effect this will have on the job market and prospects for young pilots will only serve to worsen what will be a crippling labour shortage in about 10 -15 years time.

so, when it happens - just remember, i called it

[Rockie]

i find it hilarious how the supporters of fly past 60+ spend great amounts of time arguing that mandatory retirement is unethical and evil and discriminatory to old people (oops, pardon me - i meant "people of age") and then propose age 65 retirement as a suitable alternative. morons

The only reason age 65 was introduced in the US was because of the looming pilot shortage PERIOD
A lot easier than raising wages and improving working conditions to attract young people

Unfortunately, the negative effect this will have on the job market and prospects for young pilots will only serve to worsen what will be a crippling labour shortage in about 10 -15 years time.

so, when it happens - just remember, i called it

Age 65 will come about as a BFOR due to ICAO and international regulations. If you read the post previous to yours you will see why age 65 was implemented in the USA, the pilot shortage being only one of the reasons. It is a speech by none other that Marion Blakey who happened to be the FAA administrator at the time, and I doubt you have better insight than her on this issue. If you don't want to take the time to read the whole speech the US moving to 65 can be summed up in the following exerpt.

That’s the history. And that is why we’re here today. It’s now a different day and age. The issues of experience, harmonization, and let’s face it — equity — all have to be addressed.

And you'll just have to explain how allowing people to work longer will worsen a crippling labour shortage. Normally a labour shortage means you don't have enough people to fill the available positions. According you to each person who stays beyond 60 is one too many. Please explain.

[DocAV8R]

The Law Speaks Across the Country- Time to Quit Fighting and Make It Work

IN DEPTH
Aging population
Mandatory retirement fades in Canada
Last Updated: Thursday, August 20, 2009 | 4:11 PM ET
CBC News
Across much of Canada, mandatory retirement has been given the pink slip.
On July 1, 2009, Nova Scotia became the latest province to enact legislation to amend its human rights code and end the practice. As of that date, workers in the province are no longer forced to quit when they turn 65.

"People choose whether to retire or not for many reasons, based on their own lifestyle, circumstances and priorities. Today, people are living longer and have more active lives," said Graham Steele, who was at the time the acting minister responsible for the Human Rights Act,
"Many want to continue working, as they still have a lot to contribute," he said in a release on June 30.
That was certainly the thinking in other provinces — such as British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, and Ontario — when they moved in the past few years to eliminate mandatory retirement.
...
On the other hand, if you want to retire at 65, nothing in the legislation will stop you from doing so
....
Regional breakdown of retirement rules
Province or territory Retirement rules
Nunavut No mandatory retirement age.
Northwest Territories No mandatory retirement age.
Yukon No mandatory retirement age.
British Columbia Law to eliminate mandatory retirement took effect Jan. 1, 2008.
Alberta No mandatory retirement age.
Saskatchewan Law to eliminate mandatory retirement took effect November 2007.
Manitoba No mandatory retirement age.
Ontario Law to eliminate mandatory retirement took effect Dec. 12, 2006.
Quebec No mandatory retirement age.
New Brunswick No mandatory retirement, but companies allowed to enforce it under "the terms or conditions of any … retirement or pension plan."
Nova Scotia Law to eliminate mandatory retirement took effect July 1, 2009.
Prince Edward Island No mandatory retirement age.
Newfoundland and Labrador Law to eliminate mandatory retirement took effect May 26, 2007.
...
Freedom 65? Not for all
Bankers love the concept of retirement, especially around the run-up to the February RRSP season.
Sure, many people don't like their jobs and want to retire if they can afford it. Just six per cent of workers continue to work full-time after age 65 and the average retirement age in Canada is 62.
Why should that six per cent, opponents of mandatory retirement ask, be forced out of their jobs merely because they have turned 65?

It has been shown that those with the most education tend to enjoy their work and are reluctant to be turfed out. And many people want to keep working for a variety of other reasons, including because they enjoy the office camaraderie, sense of purpose or routine.
Sometimes it's a case of economic survival.
...

Retiring earlier, living longer

In recent years, there has been a sea of change in attitudes to public pensions and the very concept of retirement.
When the age of 70 was selected in the early 20th century as the age of eligibility for a government pension, life expectancy was about 60.
...

The meaning of happiness
...
One man who took advantage of this arrangement said it finally answered for him the question "What is happiness?" "Happiness," he said, "is working at a job you enjoy for which you are vastly overqualified."

[beast]

Its pretty simple Rockie - i don't have a problem with people in general working past certain ages- whatever

the problem arises when a certain group of people operating in a closed system suddenly decide to change the rules to benefit themselves, after lifelong careers enjoying the benefits that the original rules provided

The fact of the matter is - and this CANNOT be debated:

The group that is protesting age 60 retirement went their whole careers enjoying a progression of seniority that was predicated on the fact that people ahead of them on the seniority system were leaving at age 60 (The actual age is meaningless - they were leaving at a specified time, and thats whats important) So now, that they're enjoying the top of the seniority list...Well, Nowww...the rules have to change because this is just so unfair

You can't change the rules after you've been playing the game for 35 years

If you think it no longer makes sense in today's world, fine - change the retirement date - for all pilots hired from tomorrow on - thats the fair way to do it, so that everyone knows what the deal is when they sign on

oh, and DocAV8R - this isn't a typical job, and the issues we're facing are not those of the general populace, thank you
I couldnt care less if every chair warmer at the local TC office wants to play solitaire until they die and have to be carried out in a bag, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here

[bcflyer]

The pilot group will benefit even if they don't realize it now.
Yes - it will take a few months more to advance, but not years as has been erroneously advertised.

I've heard this mentioned a few times on this thread by those that support working longer but I can't seem to get my mind around it. I was under the impression that to move up a seniority based list you had to have either expansion or retirements. We definitely don't have any expansion and now the retirements could be delayed by up to 5 yrs. Can someone please explain to me how I will only be delayed by a few months?

Pilots will be able to maximize their pensions. The average age of hire being 34 or 35 now- Believe me it will be a concern even to the new guys when they get to Pensionable age.
You never know what may happen or how you will feel in he future. We as humans are not capable of that. It may be that you want to retire early, at 55, at 60, at 65 or whatever. Wouldn't it be nice to have the choice, assuming you still like your job, are fit and able. No one is forcing anyone to stay. Leave early if you want.

If you leave early will you be penalized for it? As it stands, if you work till 60 you get everything that is owed to you. If they move it to 65 and people decided to go at 60 instead will there be a hit?

[DocAV8R]

Beast and BcFlyer-

I feel for you. It hurts anytime you have to wait, or get hit with what you perceive as a roadblock. Trust me I know. - The pay-cuts taken to prevent lay-offs of junior guys, losing the Cargo, losing flying to Jazz, bankruptcies, mergers with the resultant loss of seniority, pay-cuts to keep the airline flying while management gives themselves Millions in bonuses, never taking the pay hits, CALPA unions who make deals behind our backs- to get cushy management jobs, 9/11/, SARS, numerous recessions, etc, etc. We always seem to be hit with some change and it doesn't ever seem to benefit us. I agree wholeheartedly! None of us enjoy any negative impact on our careers; however, minimal it may or may not be. Certainly none of us could predict the future, our financial picture, or how we may feel in the future. You may not understand that you cannot do this, but it is unfortunately part of what makes us human.

Whether we like it or not, this change is a result of a change in law and society as a result of all the unfair treatment of the past. You don't understand this yet, though maybe someday you will. The rest of the civilized world has accepted this and changed.

Yesterday The CKY judicial review put another nail in the coffin of mandatory retirement.

http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/20 ... bqb252.pdf

You asked for us to provide you with a source about the minimal impact that I and others have referred to.- Please read it for yourself.

Time's up!: mandatory retirement in Canada
By C. Terry Gillin available to read free online - especially page 171, 172

http://books.google.ca/books?id=x1wOJSi ... q=&f=false

You should also Google search Jonathan R Kesselman Mandatory retirement for more information.

Yes- Unfortunately- in the end the rules apply to all jobs- even if yours is special. The sooner ACPA accepts this, quits dividing the group, and gets on with doing it's job by representing each and everyone of its members, and works out the best arrangement possible, as every other Airline in the country and most of the world has done, the better. It is crazy to waste everyone's time and money fighting this issue, which is already a done deal. Mandatory retirement is DEAD!

It matters not who is for or against it or who started it. There was a wave of change throughout the civilized world against age discrimination. It is bizarre that we are the last to join the civilized and accept it. Talk of "Blood Baths" over this is blowing the situation way out of proportion. Many will see it as temporary pain for long term gain. Some of these men only want to be able to top up their pension to 35 years. Believe it or not many of them were not hired at AC before they were 25. Integrating the few over 60 guys back into the seats will be an easy relatively painless procedure if done properly, as others retire. Now we need to see if our union can do anything properly.

BC FLYER WROTE

If you leave early will you be penalized for it? As it stands, if you work till 60 you get everything that is owed to you. If they move it to 65 and people decided to go at 60 instead will there be a hit?

No one wants penalties, if one wants to leave at 60- It should remain as is. AC can always offer early retirement packages as it has in the past to those who want to leave before 60. Now, there just should be a choice- you can chose when it is best for you to retire given your individual circumstances. The rest will depend what our union negotiates for us- won't it? Why ask for penalties and unfair deals for the over 60's that we may need to live with when we get there. We need a voice of reason. Certainly, that is not what is the issue before the courts. Nothing stays the same. Who knows if AC will even be in business when we want to retire? However, that has nothing to do with this question at this time. The world has changed and we may as well accept it and move on.

[Rockie]

The fact of the matter is - and this CANNOT be debated:

The group that is protesting age 60 retirement went their whole careers enjoying a progression of seniority that was predicated on the fact that people ahead of them on the seniority system were leaving at age 60 (The actual age is meaningless - they were leaving at a specified time, and thats whats important) So now, that they're enjoying the top of the seniority list...Well, Nowww...the rules have to change because this is just so unfair

You can't change the rules after you've been playing the game for 35 years

The first part is right and cannot be debated, but the second part is not right. You can change the rules after 35 years. Furthermore you should change the rules anytime it is necessary to keep pace with changing demographics and societal standards.

While some people may be temporarily delayed in career progression as a result of this change it is a tiny, insignificant blip in the overall scheme of things. Think about the reasons why the retirement age needs to change.

1. Our pension was designed around 25 year old new hires achieving 35 years of service for a full pension. New hires are now 35 years old on average according to the company's own figures, and will never have the opportunity for a full pension even if the retirement age goes to 65. Either our pension has to change or the retirement age does.

2. We live longer than we have in the past. This is going to put even more pressure on our pension than already exists because there will be many more of us drawing on it for a much longer period of time. If we want to keep our existing pension we are going to have to do something different. So again, we can either greatly increase how much we pay into the pension when we are working, or we can work longer.

3. We are healthier than we were in the past. we are able to keep our medical status longer not only because we are healthier, but because of recent dramatic changes in the our ability to keep our medical. Pilots today are getting their restricted medicals back after having heart conditions, diabetes and even minor aneurysms. This is what will allow us to work longer, and is also why we might want to work longer.

4. In today's society the nails are irrevocably being driven into mandatory retirement's coffin. While you can heap all the blame on the individuals currently forcing the change, the fact is if it wasn't them it would be someone else. Because this change is going to happen (has happened) and there is absolutely nothing anyone at ACPA or Air Canada can do to stop it.

Increasing the age is the correct thing to do from a demographic and societal point of view, and will eventually be seen in that light once people get past their immediate inconvenience. The fight to prevent this has already been terribly divisive, costly and futile. Continuing to fight it will make it much, much worse and will be just as futile.

[bcflyer]

DocAV8R,

Thanks for the link to Terry Gillins book preview, however I believe that using their examples in the context of Air Canada is flawed.

They do indeed mention that abolishing mandatory retirement would only slow advancement of junior workers by 4 months. However their studies are based on a mandatory retirement age of 65 not 60. In fact all the evidence contained in the preview that I saw was based on age 65. Obviously this alone is enough to slew the results dramatically.
Gillins book goes on to say that there were signifigantly larger impacts in jobs that have high pay, high job satisfaction and low physical demands. (sounds alot like being a wide body skipper to me...) It also states that the delay to younger members could be longer in certain industries and as well as "during a transition period from a situation with mandatory retirement to a new steady state without one."
All this adds up to one thing.. Nobody can say for sure that junior pilots will only be affected by a few months. In fact based on the evidence you provided it would appear that it will be dramatically more than that.

[Rockie]

If everybody stayed to 65, wouldn't that mean that everybody wanted to for some reason or another? How does that square with the vote they held 3 years ago?

[DocAV8R]

MAKING THE BIG LEAGUE

Winston Churchill: At 65, he became British prime minister in 1940

Harriet Doerr: At 74, she published her first book, the best-seller Stones for Ibarra, in 1984

Mahatma Gandhi: At 77, he led India to independence in 1947

Ayatollah Khomeini: At 76, he returned to Iran to head up the Islamic government in 1979

Nelson Mandela: At 75, he was sworn in as the first post-apartheid president of South Africa in 1994

Paul Martin: At 65, he was sworn in as prime minister of Canada in 2003

Grandma Moses: At 80, she got the first big breakthrough of her folk-art career with her one-woman show in 1940

Ronald Reagan: At 69, he became U.S. president in 1981

Mother Teresa: At 69, she won the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize for her humanitarian work

NO STOPPING NOW

[bcflyer]

If everybody stayed to 65, wouldn't that mean that everybody wanted to for some reason or another? How does that square with the vote they held 3 years ago?

It has nothing to do with guys WANTING to stay till 65, it will become a matter of guys HAVING to stay till 65. Our pension is based on our best 5 yrs. 3 yrs ago everyone retired at 60 so people planned their position bidding based on the senior guys (aka the top paying positions) leaving at that age. If guys start staying till 65 then the people behind them will have to make a decision. Either take a smaller pension or stay till the senior guys leave so they can reach the top payscale.