FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul »

DP, (duke point) and others:

Some minor history on the age 60 rule. Much the same happened in Canada. Google it if you are interested in facts.

NOTE: GOOOOD thing Captain Cronin wasn't over age 60, when this happened, according to your line of thinking, the out come would HAVE...... to be different, good thing, it wasn't.

From a previous post on this forum:

Supporters of the rule acknowledge that the choice of 60 is arbitrary. It originated in the 1950's, when three airlines, including American, tried to force their pilots to retire at that age, citing airline safety. After a labor arbitrator ruled against the airlines, C. R. Smith, then American's president, appealed privately to his friend, Elwood Quesada, a former Air Force general who was the F.A.A.'s first administrator.

General Quesada got the rule passed in December 1959, even though an internal memo from the agency's Civil Air Surgeon expressed concern that the agency had no ''scientific or factual justification.'' General Quesada retired a year later and joined the board of American Airlines.''I don't think anybody has ever said that there is anything magical about an age-60 limit,'' said Dr. Jon Jordan, the Federal Air Surgeon. The point, he said, was that the risk of catastrophic illness or mental deterioration rose with age and that 60 was seen as the appropriate place to draw the line.

But the rationale for picking 60 has become less supportable over the years. Aviation authorities in Europe, Australia and elsewhere that once followed the F.A.A. have raised the mandatory retirement age for their airline pilots to 65. At least two F.A.A.-sponsored studies since 1981 have concluded that there is no evidence that accident rates increase as pilots get older. The most recent study, in 1993, concluded the F.A.A. could ''cautiously'' raise the age to 63.

The older pilots say they must still pass the semiannual physical exam required by the F.A.A. They are willing to undergo other tests, like the quarterly checkups on a flight simulator now required in Britain, where the retirement age was raised to 65 four years ago.

But after its last review of the rule in 1995, the agency not only decided to maintain 60 as the cutoff, it also extended the rule to commuter planes capable of carrying 10 or more passengers, saying it would raise the level of safety. Previously, pilots of commercial planes able to carry up to 30 passengers did not have a mandatory retirement age.

Dr. Jordan said the F.A.A. could not extend the age limit because there were no data available on the performance of commercial airline pilots over 60.

But the F.A.A. has refused repeated requests to waive the rule for selected pilots in order to obtain such data because, Dr. Jordan said, the lack of data means there is no sure method to choose a test group of pilots that could safely fly past 60.

''The agency's complacent acceptance of this Catch-22 situation, particularly given that the result is the continuation of a government-imposed regime of age discrimination, seems to me to be the epitome of arbitrary action,'' Judge Patricia Wald wrote in her dissent to last year's Court of Appeals decision upholding the rule.

The pilots say that the main reason airplanes have two-member crews is so that if the pilot becomes incapacitated, the co-pilot can take over. They add that the experience gained from years in the cockpit makes older pilots actually safer.

''If you were wrongfully accused of murder, would you go out and find a first-time lawyer or get F. Lee Bailey?'' said David Cronin, 69, a former captain with United Airlines.

In 1989, Mr. Cronin drew on his experience to bring a crippled 747 to a safe landing in Hawaii in 1989 after one of the plane's cargo doors blew off, killing nine passengers. A month later, just before his 60th birthday, he was forced to retire.

Mr. Cronin and other opponents of the rule argue that the F.A.A. regularly allows younger pilots who have had heart attacks, psychological problems or difficulties with drugs and alcohol to return to the cockpit.

''I never had a day sick, never had an organ transplant, never had a drug or alcohol problem,'' said Mr. Yetman, the Professional Pilots Federation president, who flew for Southwest Airlines until he turned 60 in 1993. ''I just had an unfortunate birthday.''



History of age 60 in Canada:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6a ... %2C4028935


end post.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Stu Pidasso
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Stu Pidasso »

You entirely miss the point of how ACPA took a such an illogical and futilely different direction than all the other unions within Air Canada, to say nothing of the rest of the country. But it's nice to see that you hold the cabin crew in such high regard. I'd check my coffee carefully if I were you.

I would argue that it is you, who is missing the point. ACPA followed the wishes of the majority, not to mention the language of the Collective Agreement. Our group is substantially different that the other employees.

I don't drink coffee, but thanks for the advice. Don't forget that CUPE (in their twisted mind) is the group that continues to have an outstanding "work of equal value" Human Rights Case, that a F/A is equal to a Pilot. As a "group and Union" I hold them with the utmost disdain.

It isn't personal on an "individual" basis.

In my experience Ray (as a non-lawyer) most of these rulings generally follow some practicality. In this case it (could) cause massive costs to the Airline, as each retired Pilot slid back onto the Seniority list. It's not the least bit emotional for me, I just don't believe it will happen.

I would welcome our man "turbo beaver" back with a handshake, we need more guys like him.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Stu Pidasso wrote:I would argue that it is you, who is missing the point. ACPA followed the wishes of the majority,
Nope, you have that backwards. A majority of the pilots who voted that one time followed the wishes of the ACPA MEC of the day like sheep instead of using a small portion of their own brain to see if it was smart or not. Go back and read the question again.
Stu Pidasso wrote:not to mention the language of the Collective Agreement.
Collective agreements change all the time especially when changing laws make a clause in the agreement illegal. Failing to anticipate those changes when nobody else in the country does is stupid. I wish there was nicer way to describe it but there simply isn't.
Stu Pidasso wrote: Our group is substantially different that the other employees.
No we aren't, like everybody else we have to follow the law. But the attitude that we're special still prevails unfortunately. It's why we always miss the boat and get outmaneuvered.
---------- ADS -----------
 
777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul »

OK, we do this again, and again!

THERE was never, a majority vote to support the MEC's efforts to boot the FP60 pilots out of acpa, and out of AC. They, the acpa, mec, had one, and only one IVR vote, that was so lopsided it was pathetic.

These are the IVR numbers, and if you still don't believe it, go to the acpa site and look up the IVR vote results.

IVR Vote # 72- Mandatory Retirement Age 60 Rule:

3083 eligible voters

1. Yes votes 1382
2. No votes 458

PLEASE....note, there is not a majority vote from the 3083 members. FAR LESS than 50% of the pilots, voted to keep the age 60 discriminatory contract in place.

Why, did acpa, never do another IVR vote? WHAT happened to the age 60 acpa committee? Why does acpa, continue to spend millions of everyones hard earned union dues, on this long term fight, when, less than 50% of the members were even interested in it. That's a union??

The courts will decide how this ends up. What a waste, and what a great opportunity, for senior AC management, to play acpa.

AC senior management, when approached by acpa, agreed to fight this in court, with acpa, BUT ONLY IF......acpa would sign on the dotted line to be 50% liable for all costs etc. WHAT!!!!

NOW...all the other unions, at AC have avoided any significant costs, and they have working relationships, with all their dues paying members, like a union, a real union, should.
---------- ADS -----------
 
777longhaul
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:25 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by 777longhaul »

From June 2011, posted on this forum.

NOT MY POST>>

First of all when your time comes to continue employment past 60, you won’t have to apply to the CHRC for it because Mandatory Retirement will be long gone and stuffed in the same Discrimination folder as the demise of the prohibition on Hiring Age from 30 years ago, ‘Ordered’ by another Tribunal.

In addition, if you were one of the Complainants who has already filed with the CHRC, amid the rapidly growing numbers, when you received the package from Ottawa, you would clearly see that it’s all about reinstatement.

The Act of Discrimination is all about the right to be employed. The first order of business is returning to work. So everybody, by application, is looking for reinstatement.

It is entirely within the purview of the CHRT as a by-product of the reinstatement process, to decide what the consequent damages for the act of Discrimination are. You’ve already seen some examples of that. The damages may be minimal or they may be massive. Only the Tribunal will decide that. The key word is Employment. Employment is the first thing that happens. So the ‘red herrings’ that keep getting tossed out are just that – ‘red herrings’.

As for your total numbers, in the front-end loaded survey that ACPA used to try to get a reason to pour millions into a lost cause of defending Discrimination, on the backs of a few thousand pilots, around 450 pilots voiced their preference many years ago for continuing employment on their own terms. Couple that with the numbers who had already filed, and add in the numbers who are filing into the CHRC on a weekly basis, and you have a mass of humanity that approaches the sizes of the Montreal, Winnipeg, and Vancouver Bases combined.

You’ll also notice that the Age 60 Committee has resigned en masse. When they find replacements who are willing to spend thousands of hours in and out of court and millions of dollars of your union dues fighting an utterly lost cause, it will likely coincide with the return of the second wave of wrongfully displaced Pilots.

You’ll clearly notice when the next round of Orders comes down that the first item on the list will be Employment. In concert with that, Penalties for depriving individuals of their right to Employment under the Charter, do flow from acts of Discrimination, and rightly so. The examples of that are all public and available for viewing on site.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

Stu Pidasso wrote:Don't forget that CUPE (in their twisted mind) is the group that continues to have an outstanding "work of equal value" Human Rights Case, that a F/A is equal to a Pilot. As a "group and Union" I hold them with the utmost disdain.
The CHRT dismissed that complaint. The union applied for judicial review and the Court dismissed the application. That ended the complaint. The decision of the Court is found at:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/201 ... ODQAAAAAAQ

You may find it interesting to note that the Court continues to assign most of its human rights cases, as it did in this instance, to Justice Anne MacTavish. Why? She spent several years, prior to being appointed as a judge, as the Chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, deciding these very types of cases on behalf of the Tribunal.

On the Court, she issued two of the key decisions in our Vilven-Kelly dispute.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

Stu Pidasso wrote:In my experience Ray (as a non-lawyer) most of these rulings generally follow some practicality. In this case it (could) cause massive costs to the Airline, as each retired Pilot slid back onto the Seniority list. It's not the least bit emotional for me, I just don't believe it will happen..
Neither did Canada Post, prior to the judgment awarding damages of over $200 million against the Corporation in their pay equity dispute. The appeal was dismissed orally by the Supreme Court of Canada in under 15 minutes. One of my associates was a lawyer there, representing the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and he told me later that he was stunned with the speed and finality of the favourable decision.

I agree with you, that the Tribunals and the Courts do attempt to find some practicality. But look at it as a speeding ticket. You didn't see the "construction zone" sign and you were travelling at the regular speed limit, along with all the cars beside you. The fact is that you were speeding through the zone, given the zone restriction. Ticket issued, fine doubled. Fair? Maybe yes, maybe no. But your ability to pay has zero impact on the decision of the court reviewing the case.

Here, in these cases, there is a huge number of binding precedent cases that the Tribunal and the courts are legally bound to follow. The cases are not favourable to those who disregard the purpose, intent and operation of the human rights legislation. Nothing new there. That is clearly one of the factors that must be considered by anyone choosing to roll the dice and travel that path, aside from their legal advice.

It is one thing to get advice confirming that it is possible to delay the ultimate decision. It is entirely another to get frank, candid legal advice with respect to the probability of ever being held fully accountable, financially, for the consequences of the chosen decision.

Lawyers can only give a certain amount of advice. None of the advice that any lawyer ever gives is based upon a 100% certainty of outcome. Some decisions are beyond the scope of the issues on which they are qualified to advise. Strategic decisions call for leadership and a willingness to confront the facts, in addition to the law, while acknowledging that facts change and the law changes.

Maybe that is asking too much. But some of us didn't think so, back in 2006, when we had to choose on which side of the fence we would ultimately wish to be seated, when the final decision was rendered.

[You may wish to track some of my posts from that period.]

Time will tell.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Stu Pidasso
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:55 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Stu Pidasso »

Thanks for that Ray, I must have missed the CUPE ruling, common sense prevailed. I continue to believe no one will be re-trained - pretty sure you and I have a bottle of Scotch on that one.

As for "Damages" start throwing a dart at a board - anything is possible. There are plenty who believe the end game for many of the FP60 crowd was a money grab.

We've successfully beat that horse to death.

Cheers
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Stu Pidasso wrote:We've successfully beat that horse to death.
Not exactly. The Air Canada pilots are liable for financial penalties in the millions thanks to their earlier decision to blindly follow the direction of a few ACPA representatives, so no, this horse is not nearly dead as much as you and many others would like it to be.

Call it penance for complete lack of foresight....
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

dukepoint wrote:Do individuals served by those of "advancing age" have rights to be considered? According to Mr. Hall, no. ...
Could a 65 year old fireman drag my 225 pound carcass from a burning aircraft as easily as someone 20 years junior? .
You are telling us that you are overweight?
dukepoint wrote:Do I have the right to have someone capable of that feat serving at the local fire department? Would the public at large be better served by having individuals in positions where physical and mental prowess were important, like being in command of a large airliner?
I just turned 65 and I just beat the crap out of my 22 year old son playing tennis. I have a BMI of 24, a resting pulse rate of 55, and blood pressure of 104 over 65. How about a match?
dukepoint wrote: Ever hear the old saying, " you can't teach an old dog new tricks?" For most individuals, at 60, the body and mind enter an accelerated downhill slide that began 30 years prior. There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one.
I welcome you to attend any of my upcoming hearings before the Federal Court of Appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada. I welcome any suggestions that you might have about my cognitive agility there. Maybe I do need help, given my age, if your suggestions have any merit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Raymond Hall on Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

dukepoint wrote: There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one.
I agree with you as far as physicality goes, but the mental capacity shown by our pilots has been embarrassingly wanting in many more issues than just this one regardless of their age. Especially regarding this issue. Wanton stupidity is the only phrase appropriate in my mind...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

dukepoint wrote:There is no way that any individual could honestly say that at 60, they are as mentally, and physically capable as they were at 30. Not one. DP.
I agree. My mental capacity, fortunately, is not at age 30. I am very happy now that I am not making the same stupid mistakes that I made then. When I think back I really have to wonder, Was that me? God help me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

Stu Pidasso wrote:As for "Damages" start throwing a dart at a board - anything is possible. There are plenty who believe the end game for many of the FP60 crowd was a money grab. We've successfully beat that horse to death.
Yes and no.

I can't speak with regard to the motivation of those whom I represent. When I left, five years ago now, I attempted to keep my Jeps up to date, getting copies of the amendments in the expectation that I would be back before long. It was never about the coin.

There was a large number of my contemporaries who couldn't wait to retire. The only reason that they didn't retire early was the huge adverse impact on their pension earnings that defined their income for the rest of their lives, should they take early retirement. We could easily have found a trade-off to allow those individuals to leave, allowing those of us who loved our jobs to stay, with zero impact on the junior pilots. But nobody seemed interested in exploring those options, notwithstanding the changing factual situation with respect to the normal age of retirement in the industry.

I truly missed doing what I did for over 40 years, and I couldn't understand why my leaving was someone else's choice, not my own. I still miss my job, and if I was permitted to, I would be back in the Vista building tomorrow morning doing the retraining. I honestly feel that I am even more qualified now to go at that job, than I was when I left. Age has its benefits, and fortunately for me, I have had no health issues--touch wood.

I even refused to accept the retirement plaque, with the aircraft, in the expectation that I might still fly again.

The fact remains that the legal fallout is still some time off. I truly hope that the consequences of this litigation doesn't disturb the great future that the existing members of the Association still have. But the fact is that the litigation is not going away. It is a chapter that must be closed. It is not a money grab for the majority. It is a reconciliation for the life that should have been, absent discrimination.
---------- ADS -----------
 
TheStig
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by TheStig »

Raymond Hall wrote: The fact remains that the legal fallout is still some time off. I truly hope that the consequences of this litigation doesn't disturb the great future that the existing members of the Association still have. But the fact is that the litigation is not going away. It is a chapter that must be closed. It is not a money grab for the majority. It is a reconciliation for the life that should have been, absent discrimination.
Stu Pidasso wrote: In my experience Ray (as a non-lawyer) most of these rulings generally follow some practicality. In this case it (could) cause massive costs to the Airline, as each retired Pilot slid back onto the Seniority list. It's not the least bit emotional for me, I just don't believe it will happen.
I'm with Stu (also as a non-lawyer) the big question is harm. Absent retirement at 60, Raymond, your career earnings and date of hire would have been tremendously delayed, and looking back at how wages have failed to keep up with inflation you'd have been forced to work well into your 70's to break even. Even the Arbitrator that overturned the previously ruling noted that Mandatory retirement at 60 was done for the benefit of the group as a whole, not to discriminate against any individual. The only pilot actually harmed by mandatory retirement would have only been the first one, everyone else has benefitted from those who retired before them.

I'm not interested in debating skills and competency, the two individuals who ended up on 777 courses a couple of years back proved results can vary greatly. I've had the pleasure and displeasure of flying with a number of seniors discount eligible pilots in the last 1.5 years who have reinforced that notion.

I've read about how the sky is falling for almost a decade now, with the threats of imminent returns and massive financial settlements only to see the FP60 group achieve nothing, you'll have to excuse those of us who don't believe this time is any different. For all the talk of missed opportunities to create gains for the pilot group, my recollection of the events was that the FP60 group maintained an all or nothing stance at every single chance to deal with this situation.

I'm not going to be back to defend my opinion against the numerous posts no doubt to follow. Quite frankly we're never going to change each others opinion and I've said my piece.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

TheStig wrote:I'm with Stu (also as a non-lawyer) the big question is harm. Absent retirement at 60, Raymond, your career earnings and date of hire would have been tremendously delayed, and looking back at how wages have failed to keep up with inflation you'd have been forced to work well into your 70's to break even.
Not so. The evidence is that the impact on one's career progression would be about nine months delay. No big deal.
TheStig wrote: The two individuals who ended up on 777 courses a couple of years back proved results can vary greatly.
Correct, especially when one of them medicals out with a problem that could affect anyone, including twenty-year olds.
TheStig wrote:I've read about how the sky is falling for almost a decade now, with the threats of imminent returns and massive financial settlements only to see the FP60 group achieve nothing…
One of my favourite quotes is that of the Chinese leader, Zhou Enlai, who, when asked his opinion of the main lessons of the French Revolution, replied, “It’s too early to tell…”

Another of my favourite quotes is that of C. Northcote Parkinson: “Delay is the deadliest form of denial.”

I don’t believe that Chicken Little got it right. The sky is not falling. But I do believe that the chickens have yet to come home to roost.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Vsplat
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:08 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Vsplat »

Raymond Hall wrote: Not so. The evidence is that the impact on one's career progression would be about nine months delay. No big deal.
Just a question on your math. Given how the flow to senior positions at Air Canada has just about stopped completely and that cessation has been assigned to the change in retirement numbers, even with bids looking ahead another 12 months, how does that equate to a nine month delay? The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change.

What change are you associating with a nine month impact?

Vs
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Vsplat wrote:
Raymond Hall wrote: Not so. The evidence is that the impact on one's career progression would be about nine months delay. No big deal.
Just a question on your math. Given how the flow to senior positions at Air Canada has just about stopped completely and that cessation has been assigned to the change in retirement numbers, even with bids looking ahead another 12 months, how does that equate to a nine month delay? The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change.

What change are you associating with a nine month impact?

Vs
Vs,

I found this comment highly questionable in hindsight as well.

There was a large number of my contemporaries who couldn't wait to retire. The only reason that they didn't retire early was the huge adverse impact on their pension earnings that defined their income for the rest of their lives, should they take early retirement

Tried to find it but gave up. Somewhere in the mountain of posts it reveals this 9 month delay estimate was part of an expert witness testimony. Raymond?

Anyway Vs I would agree with you the expert's crystal ball looks a little foggy. Based on what has happened so far and my very questionable math. The new normal age of retirement will be a maximum of 64 and a minimum of 62.5. 64 is based on everyone not retiring at 60 goes to 65. Probably not likely. 62.5 is based on normal retirement numbers starting on the next bid. Not likely either.

Best guess so far. 63.x. How close to 64 it gets will depend on how fast retirements escalate in the next 12 months. If they don't? It will be darn close to 64.

The 9 month claim looks to be debunked. On the other hand you never know what quasi- clever logic may be employed to re-bunk the debunked.

My eyes are still rolling after realizing the logic used to justify the statement that no one has been harmed by the change in retirement age.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raymond Hall
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:45 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Raymond Hall »

Vsplat wrote:Just a question on your math. Given how the flow to senior positions at Air Canada has just about stopped completely and that cessation has been assigned to the change in retirement numbers, even with bids looking ahead another 12 months, how does that equate to a nine month delay? The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change. What change are you associating with a nine month impact?
Until the contract was changed, effective December 15, 2012, there was no way to accurately predict how the dust would settle. Nine months is the number that came from expert testimony at the Tribunal hearings, and it was based on a number of inputs, including those from other sectors where mandatory retirement was abolished.

Are there any hard numbers available yet on the 19 months, post-abolishment? Numbers, not guesses.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

Vsplat wrote:The common feedback from the inside is more like 3 to 5 years, with the greatest impact likely in the first 5 years post change.
The nine months was based on historical precedences and is likely skewed in our case by the 1 year notice Air Canada imposed on retirements. That eliminates everybody who says "I'm done" and retires at the end of the month because now everybody has to plan very far ahead. I also know people who have to work a couple of years longer unwillingly to get the same pension they would have gotten at 60 thanks to the new conditions that have nothing to do with the FP60 group.

After five years there will be no impact at all since everybody has to go at 65 and the list will progress at the same rate it did before this change. Maybe even faster since a lot more people will be able to retire before the new "mandatory" age with a full pension than before.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Fanblade »

Raymond Hall wrote:
Are there any hard numbers available yet on the 19 months, post-abolishment? Numbers, not guesses.
What I posted above is not a guess. Its factual based on CMSC reviews. The average age will be between 62.5 and 64.

Trying to narrow it down further after only 19 months would be a guess.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Lt. Daniel Kaffee
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:43 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Lt. Daniel Kaffee »

Raymond Hall wrote:
I can't speak with regard to the motivation of those whom I represent

It is not a money grab for the majority.
Which is it? If you don't know their motivation then you can't make your last statement!

BTW, a third party with zero interest in this issue told me that a spontaneous utterance by one of your clients at their respective cottages that the pilot told him in no uncertain terms that he had no interest in returning to work, he was only hoping for a cash payout

PS... I love the statements about how great CUPE and the other unions have been about the forced retirement issue. That's a shallow analysis of the issue. The reason that CUPE and other unions had little resistance to ending age related retirement is because they all have job structures that resemble a pilot group that had status pay and job status that doesn't doesn't depend upon seniority anywhere near the same as a formula pay based pilot group. Not even close. If the 1:50 change had occurred just prior to the end of age based retirement I bet young CUPE members would be up in arms.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Doug Moore
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:44 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Doug Moore »

After reading the comments above of that “dude” dukepoint, one can’t help but wonder from what knowledge base, wisdom or experience level he so emphatically postulates that “FP60 is a cash grab, pure and simple”. Well no, dude, for me it’s not, and never has been. And what do you know about flying past 60 anyway? Are you 60+ and know of what you speak or are you a 20-30-40 something who believes that he has all the answers and just likes to spout off about it?

This dude has the brass to ask if anyone has ever heard the saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks,” implying, no, coming right out and saying that we all have a “best before date”. And of course he has the answer: ask any doctor! Hey dude: you can’t teach an old dog a new trick because he has already seen and done them all. Of course for the young pups, every trick is a new trick and it is often the more cheeky and overconfident ones that go running to the old dog thinking that they’ll show him a “new” trick. The analogy to flying airplanes, dude, is that the old dog, were you to notice and possibly grant the respect he has earned, is wearing a sweaty T-shirt that says something along the lines of “been there, done that, kiddo”.

So it’s “tough enough dealing with the geriatric shopping club”, is it? No interest in being a “flying babysitter” is there? Can’t imagine doing a V1 cut on a hot day in Hong Kong with a rusty “returning” 64 year-old? You sound like you’ve made up your mind already - have you? Oh wait. You’ve insulted pretty well all of your senior peers but you have made an exception for sim instructors. Be honest now, this generosity has been extended only because you know you’d lose that leg wrestle with a 68 year-old. That would be embarrassing now, wouldn’t it.

Left seat, right seat or center seat: if a pilot is sitting there then they are either qualified or in training. If you have a problem with babysitting, take it up with your Chief Pilot. If you’re worried about a V1 cut take it up with your Chief Pilot or better still, get out of the seat as it would appear that your attitude towards your fellow pilot will be more of a hindrance than a help in dealing with any problem that might arise in the cockpit.

I understand the unhappiness with FP60. I get the unhappiness with the slowdown in retirements and attendant slowdown in advancement. You are not the only one who has suffered at the hand of unpredictable change. Some of us who have gone before you have gone through events that ground a career to a halt, and not just for a few years. I’m not suggesting that because others before you have suffered that it is now your turn to suffer, I’m simply saying that life happens. Change happens, and it can happen in spite of you or to spite you. How you embrace it is your choice. Lashing out is always an option, albeit a vain and unproductive one.

What I don’t get is the vitriol, the bitterness and the contempt that still seems to prevail to this day. It doesn’t have to be this way today and it didn’t have to be this way 10 years ago, but here we are. You are your union and your union chose to fight change. And now it would appear that there is a real possibility that this is going to cost your union (that’s you) some serious coin. You don’t have to like it, but it’s time some of you put on your Big Boy pants, took a good look in the mirror and moved on.

I don’t know who you are dukepoint but my name is posted for all to see. When I was still working I spoke out often on this forum for the right to continue flying past 60, such as my comments here: http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 56#p667956 That said, while I’ve now been retired 6+ years; I’m not now and never have been a member of the FP60 group. But when you bad-mouth them, you bad-mouth me. We’re all pilots and we should be able to show some respect for each other. One day, you too will be an old fart.

By the way, while there are those that do, I for one don’t enjoy a 6-figure pension, and there are many more like me, so how about you put that paintbrush away?

For Lt. Kaffee (I get the feeling that FP60 is your Col Jessep), it would not surprise me in the least that there might be those in the FP60 group who hope for a cash payout. I would ask: “So what?” Kaffee: “I want the truth!” Jessep: “You can’t handle the truth!”

Son, we live in a world that changes. You weep for the loss of forced retirement at age 60 and you curse the FP60 group. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what FP60 knows. …. Sorry, couldn’t resist, I loved Jack Nicholson in his role as Col. Jessep. But back to reality, the regrettable fact is that there are extremists on both sides that have so poisoned the well that they want to “stick it” to the other side. ACPA, with the power granted to it by some of its members (such as yourself and dukepoint I suspect), did its best – and with some success - to “stick it” to the hundreds of members (of which I was one) who were approaching forced retirement over the last 10 years. That damage is done and today, one is left with a very bitter taste in one’s mouth after having suffered not only the failure of your own union to represent you, but for them to also use your own dues to “stick it” to you. Any desire for a cash payout today by individual FP60 members should come as no surprise, least of all to someone such as you.

Had more mature minds been in control of this issue at ACPA from the get-go, I believe that most of the damage and animosity that has flowed from this mess could have been avoided. What's done is done and it’s long past time to move on and behave as a united group with a common front against the employer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
MackTheKnife
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:54 am
Location: The 'Wet Coast"

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by MackTheKnife »

How anyone can actually read Doug's former post,

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 56#p667956

and still not fathom what this struggle is all about and has always been about, and how it could / should have been handled, then there's simply no reason for further discussion.


Mr Kaffee; The unions stalling tactics have achieved their desired end result to the point where almost everyone is either over or approaching 65.

From this standpoint ACPA has won, you should be grateful your strategy was successful. It's too bad nobody in ACPA circa 2006 thought past this point of no return.

What did you honestly expect your friends friend, or any of us to say now that the only justice left is compensation? Is it your expectation that 200 litigants give every one a group hug and a high 5 for a job well done and then roll over and become sacrificial lambs on the ACPA alter after being denied justice for 10 years?

MTK
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by MackTheKnife on Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it !!!
TCAS II
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 12:12 pm

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by TCAS II »

It's sad to see such bitterness between pilots as a group. I suppose Unions aren't unions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: FP60 update Federal Court of Appeals

Post by Rockie »

TCAS II wrote:It's sad to see such bitterness between pilots as a group. I suppose Unions aren't unions.
Not this one at any rate...not by a long shot.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”