No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision

[Rockie]

No surprise the union doesn't see the irony in leading the fight to perpetuate discrimination against their own members for ten years, then miraculously growing a set of ethics and morals to scold the pilots for doing precisely what they led them to do. A public admission that they were wrong, that they failed their membership, and that they regret their actions seems the least they could do under the circumstances.

No...I'm not holding my breath.

[tailgunner]

Rockie,
For the sake of the rest of us, please do.
Cheers

[Rockie]

YOU...are funny. That's the best rebuttal I've ever heard on any topic

[WhatThe?]

"NO CLEAR WINNER IN FCA MANDATORY RETIREMENT DECISION"

I completely disagree...

I believe we are all winners, because no matter what inane topic is posted, we all get to READ pages and pages of dribble from the FLYpast60 crowd...yea!

Keep up the good work guys; and remember under no circumstance should you enjoy your retirement that you previously worked hard to get.

I have to go and live my life... see you in another 6-months.

[Understated]

"
I believe we are all winners, because no matter what inane topic is posted, we all get to READ pages and pages of dribble from the FLYpast60 crowd...yea!

Well, "WhatThe?", literacy is obviously not one of your trump cards. How's that for 'drivel', as opposed to 'dribble'?

[Raymond Hall]

Stay tuned. The Supreme Court of Canada is now deciding the Leave to Appeal application.

[Brick Head]

Stay tuned. The Supreme Court of Canada is now deciding the Leave to Appeal application.

Stay tuned. My financial advisor is reevaluating my ability to retire at 60. Looks like widebody captain has been put off until 58-59 ish. My pension reduction hit is accordingly.

I'm far from alone. Crap there is hundreds of us I think. The reality just starting to sink in. Bid after no movement bid. Don't get me wrong, expansion is great for hiring, but it is doing nothing for those seeking their best 5 years who are currently 50+.

Thanks for all you do Ray.

[Rockie]

You're aware the law changed Brick Head, and that Air Canada pilots past or present had no control over it? I know you think the country revolves around your career expectations but it really doesn't.

[pigboat]

Stay tuned. The Supreme Court of Canada is now deciding the Leave to Appeal application.

Hello Ray,

Could you give us your best Guess as to when they will render a decision? A few days, months or impossible to predict.

Regards!

[rudder]

Stay tuned. My financial advisor is reevaluating my ability to retire at 60. Looks like widebody captain has been put off until 58-59 ish. My pension reduction hit is accordingly.

I would take a closer look at the math. You will probably take a bigger hit if you leave with just 30 years of earned entitlement in the plan calculated at WB Capt earnings for FAE rather than the maximum entitlement of 35 years calculated on NB Capt earnings or a split between the two.

If the 35 year entitlements are based on NB Capt vs WB Capt rate then there will be a differential but is it really enough to affect quality of life in retirement?

Obviously years over 35 do nothing unless those years affect the FAE calculation (see above).

[yycflyguy]

Obviously years over 35 do nothing unless those years affect the FAE calculation (see above).

... and yet, that's the demographic that has decided to stay. 35+ years of service and still going!

[pigboat]

Gents,

We are fast approaching an era where very few pilots, if any, will ever reach 35 years of service. Many will not reach 25 years service in the future.( much smaller pension) The best 5 years of earnings are very important to pension calculations and there is a very big difference in cash payout between a full 35 year pension and a 25 year payout regardless of the best 5 years of pay calculation. Few will ever see a 35 year career that was fairly common in the past. Hiring ages have increased significantly this last decade. A 22 year old new hire is a very rare case anymore.

The career continues to change radically. Pensions are under constant attack by the Company.

[AirMail]

I dunno pigboat, a lot of 20 something youngn's at Encore and Jazz that'll be at perspective mainlines soon. In 30 some years retirement will be 70. So easy for them to get 40 yos.

[pigboat]

I dunno pigboat, a lot of 20 something youngn's at Encore and Jazz that'll be at perspective mainlines soon. In 30 some years retirement will be 70. So easy for them to get 40 yos.

Yes there will be many younger pilots joining AC in the next few years. The problem is that they will not be in the Defined Benefit plan. They are part of a matching contribution plan. It is a terrible plan with very LOW matching contributions that will produce a very poor pension unless MAJOR improvements are made or brought back into a DB plan.

The Company is very resistant to the DB plan or making significant improvements to the matching contribution.

New hires face a BIG challenge in pension benefits! It will be an enormous challenge for the Union to rectify.

[Raymond Hall]

Could you give us your best Guess as to when they will render a decision? A few days, months or impossible to predict.

Some applications are decided within a couple of weeks after the panel members are provided the files. Others take up to 90 days. Our Ottawa agent tells me that the average is between four to six weeks. We are now about two weeks in, so we should get some word soon.

The way the parties are advised is that they all receive a communication from the Registrar's office, usually not more than a couple of days before the decision is released, advising that the decision will be released on X date at 9:00 AM Eastern time. Then, on that date, and at that time, the decision appears on the SCC web site.

The SCC rarely, if ever, gives reasons for its decision to grant leave or to not grant leave.

[Fanblade]

Stay tuned. My financial advisor is reevaluating my ability to retire at 60. Looks like widebody captain has been put off until 58-59 ish. My pension reduction hit is accordingly.

I would take a closer look at the math. You will probably take a bigger hit if you leave with just 30 years of earned entitlement in the plan calculated at WB Capt earnings

For me? I was counting on 30ish years calculated with FAE of a WB captain. Now it will be a narrow body CA. It is a substantial enough hit that I will likely need to work longer unless I decide to downsize my retirement plans. I'm not alone. Lots have been hired in their 30's.

Not looking for sympathy. God knows that won't happen here. Just pointing out that negative impact is taking place for many many individuals. A lot of people were hoping Raymond was right. That the new average age of retirement would fall around age 62. That hope has faded to reality. With it the expected pension incomes at at 60.

[Rockie]

Just pointing out that negative impact is taking place for many many individuals.

The "negative impact" is a matter of perception. Many, many individuals see the elimination of age discrimination and the ability to work in their chosen profession longer as a positive impact. Especially our pilots thrown under the bus with the DC plan who will have to work longer.

Why do so many pilots count down the days until their retirement? Is the job really that distasteful and onerous?

[Fanblade]

Why do so many pilots count down the days until their retirement? Is the job really that distasteful and onerous?

I think 40 years is enough. Enough hotel rooms. Enough dealing with security. Enough eating poorly. Enough sims. Enough red eyes. Enough 4am wake ups on the east coast. Enough holidays away from family. Enough jet lag. Enough days feeling like crap on days off recovering from fatigue. Enough medicals. Enough seeing the same destinations over and over.


I can completely see why the poster above reacted the way he or she did. On line I hear many people lament their coming decision.

Which one do they sacrifice? Retirement income or retirement time?

A decision compounded by pre retirement income stagnation.

So yeah. I can completely understand frustration being expressed as reality starts to settle in. People feel as if something of value has been taken from them. In fact something has. And each individual has to decide for themselves what they value more. Retirement time or retirement income.

Since retirement income is inextricably linked to the quality of retirement time? Id say yeah. Some people will feel they are being forced to work longer.

So I get the frustration. I think the big difference here is perspective. How much value people are putting on retirement time. If you don't value retirement time you don't want to stop working. If you place a high value on retirement time you don't want changes made that will delay or degrade retirement. Unfortunately changes like these don't take place in a vacuum. Some win. Some lose. Your sence of winning or losing comes from where you place value.

Brick head has a sence of loss. You have a sence of gain. Your both right.

Perhaps it's time to start being a little more respectful of the loss others have been dealt?

[duranium]

Perhaps it's time to start being a little more respectful of the loss others have been dealt?

Does the word '' others '' used here include all of your confreres that your group cast out on the proverbial iceflow from 2005 till the repeal of mandatory retirement by the Parliament of Canada. ?

[Doug Moore]

Which one do they sacrifice? Retirement income or retirement time? ... So I get the frustration. I think the big difference here is perspective.

Hi Fanblade,

From my perspective (having been force-retired) ... the big difference is ... everyone now has a choice, and that's not a bad thing. Pre FP60, there was no choice, the clock rolled past 60 and you were punted, willing or not. By the way, for a number of us force-retired guys, retirement income (based on Final Average Earnings) was sacrificed long ago at the alter of mergers. Mergers created the conditions that caused a number of pilots to retire from the right seat with well in excess of 25 years service. Wide-body captaincy? Gone at the stroke of a pen. So it was not all wine and roses for your predecessors who, faced with mandatory retirement at age 60, also had to lament and work with what fate had dealt them.

Frustrations? There will always be frustrations. As you so succinctly put it, if one values income over retirement then one continues to work and if one values retirement over income then one retires. The AC pilot of today has that choice and I see that as a good thing.

Fly safe,

Doug

[Rockie]

Why do so many pilots count down the days until their retirement? Is the job really that distasteful and onerous?

Perhaps it's time to start being a little more respectful of the loss others have been dealt?

Seriously Fanblade?

[Old fella]

Mr Fanblade....

If I may add to your, what I would consider, a reasoned opinion is an item of age. What I mean by that as we get older (I am 65), our days are more precious. Let’s be reasonable as guys my age, it isn’t a rate of climb, tis a rate of descent into the six foot hole that is steering us in the face. I am sure you, like me know of many who didn’t see the fruits of a retirement due to serious illness and subsequent death or worse still a sudden death. They worked 30-40 yrs. dealing with the shit-string good/bad of life, finally time comes by to drop it all and live quietly- and then bang they are checked out of life permantely. That what’s on the minds of old goats like me who are still kicking, other stuff is irrelevant.

[Fanblade]

Frustrations? There will always be frustrations. As you so succinctly put it, if one values income over retirement then one continues to work and if one values retirement over income then one retires. The AC pilot of today has that choice and I see that as a good thing.

Fly safe,

Doug

Doug,

Choice is a good thing usually. In this instance you are choosing to ignore the fact that the choices listed above can come at the expence of others retirement income or retirement time.


That choice only increases the frustration in those who value retirement time.

Is that a good choice your making? Does it help the situation? By acting in such a way were you part of the solution a decade or more ago? Or part of the problem?

Refusing to see this issue from the other guys perspective is why this was never resolved in a timely manor. Why it took a law change and over a decade of litigation.

Those comments are not directed just at you Doug. Your just one of the few I think might actually do some contemplation on it.

I'm going to duck out of the line of fire now. Once again I found myself lured in by Rockies caustic remarks. I told myself I wouldn't do that. It's like banging your head against the wall.

Cheers everyone. You too Rockie.

[Rockie]

Once again I found myself lured in by Rockies caustic remarks.

Sorry, I get a little testy at being accused of disrespectful behavior to others. It might surprise you Fanblade that I was one of the people delayed in their career progression and am fully aware of the effect this change had. I just look at the big picture.

[Doug Moore]

Doug,

Choice is a good thing usually. In this instance you are choosing to ignore the fact that the choices listed above can come at the expence of others retirement income or retirement time.


That choice only increases the frustration in those who value retirement time.

Is that a good choice your making? Does it help the situation? By acting in such a way were you part of the solution a decade or more ago? Or part of the problem?

Refusing to see this issue from the other guys perspective is why this was never resolved in a timely manor. Why it took a law change and over a decade of litigation.

Hi Fanblade,

(Conveniently) ignoring fact developed intransigence in both camps. Both sides were part of the problem and a refusal on the part of both sides "to see this issue from the other guy's perspective" ensured that this was destined to play out the way it did. There are no clean hands here. The issue that was most difficult for me to accept was ACPA's immaturity as a union body. It had an in-house dispute, yet not only did it it refuse to acknowledge the writing on the wall (in terms of pending legislation and the manner in which all the other AC unions were responding to mandatory retirement); it took sides thereby ensuring our journey down the path to litigation (and on which you working stiffs are still travelling and paying for). In any event, this dog is dead and like you, I'm outta here!

Cheers,