Age 65 Ruling
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
For those of you who are debating that the issue is money and progression, I would like to go on record and say screw the money and/or progression, there are some of us who simply do not want to work beyond 60, that simple, nor do we want to risk being forced to do so because someone wants the rules changed to suit them.
Standby for new atis message
-
Old fella
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am
- Location: I'm retired. I don't want to'I don't have to and you can't make me.
I think you are on to something Mr. Strappe. Most of the,like me, 60+ I know(there are many, including AC pilots) want to/did say F--- it. New shiny airplanes with all the usual automation, different destinations start to look the same. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.. err stripes is the theme...Jaques Strappe wrote:For those of you who are debating that the issue is money and progression, I would like to go on record and say screw the money and/or progression, there are some of us who simply do not want to work beyond 60, that simple, nor do we want to risk being forced to do so because someone wants the rules changed to suit them.
Yea pension + retirement
"severe pilot shortage"?
We are talking about the same country are we not?
AC will never find themselves with difficulty crewing aircraft and if it becomes challenging for them they could raise the entry pay from $38K to maybe $55K or $60K and the problem will go away.
"severe pilot shortage" is a really weak argument for them to consider warming to this particular issue.
Saving some (underfunded) pension money because people die sooner is a much stronger arguement.
They don't really care who's collecting the $200K+ at the top (a new guy or someone who's been there for 15+ years) they would probably prefer to find a way to stop paying so much for someone doing so little.
IMHO
CANADA... "severe pilot shortage"
Perhaps a raise in entry level pay would bring a few of the 100s if not 1000s of us back from abroad where we are actually earning a living?
We are talking about the same country are we not?
AC will never find themselves with difficulty crewing aircraft and if it becomes challenging for them they could raise the entry pay from $38K to maybe $55K or $60K and the problem will go away.
"severe pilot shortage" is a really weak argument for them to consider warming to this particular issue.
Saving some (underfunded) pension money because people die sooner is a much stronger arguement.
They don't really care who's collecting the $200K+ at the top (a new guy or someone who's been there for 15+ years) they would probably prefer to find a way to stop paying so much for someone doing so little.
IMHO
CANADA... "severe pilot shortage"
Perhaps a raise in entry level pay would bring a few of the 100s if not 1000s of us back from abroad where we are actually earning a living?
-
Jaques Strappe
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1847
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:34 pm
- Location: YYZ
Because you run the risk of being told "sure you can retire at 60 if you like but the bar has been raised to 65, therefore you will incur a penalty for leaving sooner."Four1oh wrote:why can't someone choose to work til 65 and if they don't want to work that long, retire sooner?? Am I missing something here??
This is one example of why it needs to be a negotiated thing within the CA. It will happen. sooner or later and like a previous poster said, better to have some input and influence to the inevitable change.
Anyone who thinks that without negotiation, the pension will provide for retirement at both 60 and 65 probably believes it when a guy calls and says he is from Transport and is here to help.
Standby for new atis message
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
The issue is not about human rights at all. If a tribunal, or judge decides that mandatory retirement at 60 is a violation of a party's human rights, then by logic mandatory retirement at 65 is also a violation of said rights, as is 70, 75, and 80. Human rights are not voided by age, thus this becomes a huge ruling if it is followed through. Imagine , if you will, that set retirement ages are all abolished due to the human rights arguement. We would see policemen , firemen, teachers, flight attendents, Air Traffic Controllers all working into their 70's , or even 80's by their rights... Not a pleasant thought after all. Therefore, any tribynal or judge ruling on retirement ages must keep the greater good of society in mind.
Are we better off with the aged in positions of great responsibility? Do we have cognition tests that can catch failing mental performances? Can are reaction times be measured? How will the elderly ATC controller react to a rapidly changing picture? ....All things to think about.
Are we better off with the aged in positions of great responsibility? Do we have cognition tests that can catch failing mental performances? Can are reaction times be measured? How will the elderly ATC controller react to a rapidly changing picture? ....All things to think about.
-
Ryan Coke2
- Rank 3
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:45 pm
JS, I see a problem with your assumption that if your co-workers are allowed to continue on to 65, then that will automatically affect pension eligibility.
While I appreciate your concern, the pension eligibility issue is the one that is related to collective bargaining. It is essentially seperate from the ability to continue on to 65 if you so choose. The company can't alter the full pension eligibility age except through the collective bargaining process.
You have inextricably attached the two parts of the issue, saying no to the one side by claiming that will cause a more critical loss, that should not necessarily occur, and in fact is the part that should be controlled through the contract process.
While I appreciate your concern, the pension eligibility issue is the one that is related to collective bargaining. It is essentially seperate from the ability to continue on to 65 if you so choose. The company can't alter the full pension eligibility age except through the collective bargaining process.
You have inextricably attached the two parts of the issue, saying no to the one side by claiming that will cause a more critical loss, that should not necessarily occur, and in fact is the part that should be controlled through the contract process.
-
Glen Quagmire
- Rank 4
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:32 pm
- Location: YYZ
Tailgunner, that is something that surprisingly no one has brought up yet. 65 is just as arbitrary as 60 when arguing from a human rights position. Arguing from a human rights position could set a precedent that leads to no mandatory retirements for airline pilots at all, you simply have to quit when you cannot pass a medical or a check ride.
What also seems to be ignored is the fact that certain jobs require special skills, skills that unfortunately deteriorate with age. It certainly is not a human rights issue to have mandatory retirement for firefighters and military fliers. Question is do airline pilots fit into that group or not?
I understand that life expectancy has risen over the years which is a main point of argument for the over 60 crowd as to why retirement age should move along with it. But are advances in medicine and health merely prolonging our lives or are they also allowing us to maintain a higher level of mental and physical activity later in life. If mental and physical attributes are fading as we age just as they did fifty years ago then that should be more important to the debate. Just because we are living longer doesn't mean we are able to maintain higher levels of adroitness longer as well.
I know at Jazz most people aren't very happy about having to chose between flying to 65 to get a full pension and retiring at 60 thus taking a big hit on the pension.
What also seems to be ignored is the fact that certain jobs require special skills, skills that unfortunately deteriorate with age. It certainly is not a human rights issue to have mandatory retirement for firefighters and military fliers. Question is do airline pilots fit into that group or not?
I understand that life expectancy has risen over the years which is a main point of argument for the over 60 crowd as to why retirement age should move along with it. But are advances in medicine and health merely prolonging our lives or are they also allowing us to maintain a higher level of mental and physical activity later in life. If mental and physical attributes are fading as we age just as they did fifty years ago then that should be more important to the debate. Just because we are living longer doesn't mean we are able to maintain higher levels of adroitness longer as well.
I know at Jazz most people aren't very happy about having to chose between flying to 65 to get a full pension and retiring at 60 thus taking a big hit on the pension.
HA
The HRT has indicated that they will respect the right of the Association, acting on behalf of the members, to negotiate a fixed age of retirement.
As we know, in their ruling they indicate that at the time of the complaints, at 80% of the major airlines, the normal age of retirement is 60. The fly past 60 coalition seems to think that once this passes on the other side of 50%, they will win their fight to go past 60.
Tribunals, appeals, etc. aside, this may not be the case. The federal labour board cannot touch and will allow for items that run contrary to the labour code in Canada - ie. Vacation time, etc., as long as they are freely negotiated between an individual or association acting on behalf of the individual and the company. An individual can freely, negotiate away their rights if they so choose.
Now in the case where a complainant argues that an association has violated his rights because while representing that employee, they "freely" negotiated those rights away, we have an interesting situation.
That employee consented to have the association work/act/negotiate on their behalf. If they choose not to be apart of the association, they could leave and not take part, however, things would not change because the working rules and structure would still be negotiated between the company and a union/association.
Should this employee ever try legal action against the company/association because their rights are being violated, then any decision against the association would undermine the ability of this association to function properly within its legal rights as a union.
As the ability to function is lost by the union, there would be no point to its continuation and its demise would occur.
The end result is such that the workers will have lost their fundamental right to unionize and negotiate collectively to obtain an agreement that the majority approve of.
This is a fundamental part of the labour law in Canada and goes hand in hand with the Human Rights of the affected workers.
So in this case, the Human Rights of thousands of workers will be violated so that the Human Right of one worker will be upheld...
Unfortunately this will not hold, and this is why the HRT will walk in step with the federal labour code and continue to support the right of the association to negotiate items such as a fixed age of retirement with a company on behalf of its members.
If you undermine the functionality of a union or association, you risk drastically altering the employment landscape in Canada for the worse - ultimately affecting the Human Rights of workers to earn a basic living with fair treatment among other things.
A whole can of worms.
As we know, in their ruling they indicate that at the time of the complaints, at 80% of the major airlines, the normal age of retirement is 60. The fly past 60 coalition seems to think that once this passes on the other side of 50%, they will win their fight to go past 60.
Tribunals, appeals, etc. aside, this may not be the case. The federal labour board cannot touch and will allow for items that run contrary to the labour code in Canada - ie. Vacation time, etc., as long as they are freely negotiated between an individual or association acting on behalf of the individual and the company. An individual can freely, negotiate away their rights if they so choose.
Now in the case where a complainant argues that an association has violated his rights because while representing that employee, they "freely" negotiated those rights away, we have an interesting situation.
That employee consented to have the association work/act/negotiate on their behalf. If they choose not to be apart of the association, they could leave and not take part, however, things would not change because the working rules and structure would still be negotiated between the company and a union/association.
Should this employee ever try legal action against the company/association because their rights are being violated, then any decision against the association would undermine the ability of this association to function properly within its legal rights as a union.
As the ability to function is lost by the union, there would be no point to its continuation and its demise would occur.
The end result is such that the workers will have lost their fundamental right to unionize and negotiate collectively to obtain an agreement that the majority approve of.
This is a fundamental part of the labour law in Canada and goes hand in hand with the Human Rights of the affected workers.
So in this case, the Human Rights of thousands of workers will be violated so that the Human Right of one worker will be upheld...
Unfortunately this will not hold, and this is why the HRT will walk in step with the federal labour code and continue to support the right of the association to negotiate items such as a fixed age of retirement with a company on behalf of its members.
If you undermine the functionality of a union or association, you risk drastically altering the employment landscape in Canada for the worse - ultimately affecting the Human Rights of workers to earn a basic living with fair treatment among other things.
A whole can of worms.
Kick the tires and light the fires...
HAHA
Rockie,
You seem hell bent that a retirement age of 65 is inevitable. My above post is part of the reason why it won't be forced on ACPA. There are others.
For this to even have a chance in hell, as we know, more than 50% of the airlines in the world would have to have retirement ages of 65.
This is not inevitable as you like to claim.
The reasons are to follow...
First, you indicate ALPA has endorsed 65. Well, that's all fine and dandy, however consider that each MEC for each airline will still have to try and negotiate this into their respective contracts. As in Canada, the United States will respect the right of the association/union to negotiate items such as a fixed age of retirement for their members.
For this to be negotiated into their respective contracts, the members of each airline have to vote for/agree to it. Each company will also have to consent to this, and it may not be in their best interest. In fact, I would venture that most companies would choose to keep things as they are, and try and force pilots to give up something in order to obtain an age 65 retirement. We know that this wouldn't happen (pilots giving up something to make this happen).
Don't forget that the largest airline in the world, American Airlines, is represented by it's own association and supports age 60. Companies in Europe won't be going to 65 anytime soon, and same with many parts of Asia. So if it did ever happen, this magical barrier would be a LONG time coming.
Now lets consider the issue of why ICAO even raised the standard age of retirement to 65 - it's because of the looming "pilot shortage."
Anyone in aviation has probably heard that story for the better part of their careers. This is the first and largest myth of aviation. Why? Because in North America there will never be a pilot shortage, and when it comes to the rest of the world, don't forget about the MCC/MCL - the new standard by ICAO, the Multi Crew License.
From zero time to airline pilot in record time to get an ass in a seat. Never has it been so easy to qualify an individual to fly an airliner from OTS - the CADET scheme doesn't even come close timewise. So the supply of pilots will continue and may increase. Companies such as CAE, Flightsafety, etc. will jump on this and push it forward in leaps and bounds.
So then there will be no need to go to 65 other than the reason of penion losses, which would be answered by my first point about how ALPA could ever get the different MEC's to negotiate a contract that included an age 65 retirement. Since ALPA has not been able to, and will not be able to control or influence the MCL, as the supply grows, so shrinks this arguement for bumping up the retirement age.
Then of course, there is the fact that 65 is a number, and as such is also discriminatory.
Finally, don't forget where the biggest requirements for pilots in the world is going to be - China. We all know their record on Human Rights. What they say goes, and if they say 60 for retirement, that is what will go.
Even if every US carrier and ALPA went to 65, they would not dent the percentage of pilots working for carriers around the world that would leave at 60, and so this ratio would not cross that 50% barrier.
So when you say that it is inevitable that ACPA will be forced to incorporate an age 65 rule, I say that you are mistaken once again.
You seem hell bent that a retirement age of 65 is inevitable. My above post is part of the reason why it won't be forced on ACPA. There are others.
For this to even have a chance in hell, as we know, more than 50% of the airlines in the world would have to have retirement ages of 65.
This is not inevitable as you like to claim.
The reasons are to follow...
First, you indicate ALPA has endorsed 65. Well, that's all fine and dandy, however consider that each MEC for each airline will still have to try and negotiate this into their respective contracts. As in Canada, the United States will respect the right of the association/union to negotiate items such as a fixed age of retirement for their members.
For this to be negotiated into their respective contracts, the members of each airline have to vote for/agree to it. Each company will also have to consent to this, and it may not be in their best interest. In fact, I would venture that most companies would choose to keep things as they are, and try and force pilots to give up something in order to obtain an age 65 retirement. We know that this wouldn't happen (pilots giving up something to make this happen).
Don't forget that the largest airline in the world, American Airlines, is represented by it's own association and supports age 60. Companies in Europe won't be going to 65 anytime soon, and same with many parts of Asia. So if it did ever happen, this magical barrier would be a LONG time coming.
Now lets consider the issue of why ICAO even raised the standard age of retirement to 65 - it's because of the looming "pilot shortage."
Anyone in aviation has probably heard that story for the better part of their careers. This is the first and largest myth of aviation. Why? Because in North America there will never be a pilot shortage, and when it comes to the rest of the world, don't forget about the MCC/MCL - the new standard by ICAO, the Multi Crew License.
From zero time to airline pilot in record time to get an ass in a seat. Never has it been so easy to qualify an individual to fly an airliner from OTS - the CADET scheme doesn't even come close timewise. So the supply of pilots will continue and may increase. Companies such as CAE, Flightsafety, etc. will jump on this and push it forward in leaps and bounds.
So then there will be no need to go to 65 other than the reason of penion losses, which would be answered by my first point about how ALPA could ever get the different MEC's to negotiate a contract that included an age 65 retirement. Since ALPA has not been able to, and will not be able to control or influence the MCL, as the supply grows, so shrinks this arguement for bumping up the retirement age.
Then of course, there is the fact that 65 is a number, and as such is also discriminatory.
Finally, don't forget where the biggest requirements for pilots in the world is going to be - China. We all know their record on Human Rights. What they say goes, and if they say 60 for retirement, that is what will go.
Even if every US carrier and ALPA went to 65, they would not dent the percentage of pilots working for carriers around the world that would leave at 60, and so this ratio would not cross that 50% barrier.
So when you say that it is inevitable that ACPA will be forced to incorporate an age 65 rule, I say that you are mistaken once again.
Kick the tires and light the fires...
hahaha
Rockie,
Tell you what, you want to talk past 60?
First you lead the charge to get rid of the pay group completely, restore DC9 rates for the EMB and make the 5% additional cut on the domestic A320 fleet go away.
You knew what you signed up for. SO did every single new hire.
Tell you what, you want to talk past 60?
First you lead the charge to get rid of the pay group completely, restore DC9 rates for the EMB and make the 5% additional cut on the domestic A320 fleet go away.
You knew what you signed up for. SO did every single new hire.
Kick the tires and light the fires...
yes,yes(it's called sim), and probably the same as other controllers.tailgunner wrote:Are we better off with the aged in positions of great responsibility? Do we have cognition tests that can catch failing mental performances? Can are reaction times be measured? How will the elderly ATC controller react to a rapidly changing picture? ....All things to think about.
Perhaps an experienced controller wouldn't put himself into a situation that would cause mayhem. I don't know about the rest of you, but some of the most important skills I've learned were from flying with 'old guys'.
indeed, why would a perfectly capable 59 year old suddenly become useless at age 60? apply 64 and 65, or 69 and 70. Is the average 2007 65 year old in better shape mentally and physically than the average 65 year old from 1940? Many people say yes. Ever heard the term "60 is the new 40"? I sure have.
I think, especially with all the boomers retiring(I'm gen x,btw) the demographics will drive the issues. It's already happening actually
Drinking outside the box.
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
F16,
Someone with some percentage numbers. Excellent and informative.
Thank you for the contribution.
Jaques,
When I said the issue is all about pay and progression I was just trying to break down harm into a simple definition. The intent wasn't really to say that is all that matters.
pay & progression = pension
pay & progression = schedule
pay & progression = vacation
pay & progression = salary ect. ect. ect.
So what I was saying is pay and progression affects everything. Any adverse affects on pay and progression produces harm.
Perhaps I should have explained it that way to begin with? Or maybe the statement is just too pragmatic?
Rockie,
I give the Age 60 Coalition too much credit? Oh no! I hope I didn't come across that way to everyone. My opinion of the Coalition is quite contrary to the word "credit".
What I was trying to point out is that the Age 60 Coalition, or anyone else for that matter, who refuses to acknowledge harm, is fanning the flames of hostility that I am sure you have felt at times. An absolute refusal to acknowledge harm to fellow colleagues, when it so obvious, on the part of the over 60 group impedes discussion.
Four1oh,
Do you live in the same seniority entrenched system we do?
Someone with some percentage numbers. Excellent and informative.
Thank you for the contribution.
Jaques,
When I said the issue is all about pay and progression I was just trying to break down harm into a simple definition. The intent wasn't really to say that is all that matters.
pay & progression = pension
pay & progression = schedule
pay & progression = vacation
pay & progression = salary ect. ect. ect.
So what I was saying is pay and progression affects everything. Any adverse affects on pay and progression produces harm.
Perhaps I should have explained it that way to begin with?
Or maybe the statement is just too pragmatic?Rockie,
I give the Age 60 Coalition too much credit? Oh no! I hope I didn't come across that way to everyone. My opinion of the Coalition is quite contrary to the word "credit".
What I was trying to point out is that the Age 60 Coalition, or anyone else for that matter, who refuses to acknowledge harm, is fanning the flames of hostility that I am sure you have felt at times. An absolute refusal to acknowledge harm to fellow colleagues, when it so obvious, on the part of the over 60 group impedes discussion.
Four1oh,
Do you live in the same seniority entrenched system we do?
-
tailgunner
- Rank 7
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:03 pm
I am not going to get deeply involved in a debate over psychological testing however.... Sim evaluations are not a good tool in measuring a persons pyschological and mental cognition with regard to aging.As we age we rely more heavily on our past experiences to get by. (" I've seen this a thousand times"), however the ability to proces rapidly changing parameters does reduce with age. This effect that this has in the cockpit is under study. Aging pilots may still retain a very high level of manual dexterity, however their ability to gather information rapidly may be reduced..( " how do you get this FMS programmed ")... In a two crew enviroment the level of support given to the aging pilot may also be hard to determine. Other crew members may be heavily taxed in trying to make up for the cognitive shortcomings of the aging pilot. This level of support, which can mask short comings needs to be fixed if testing is really to be trusted. So by merely suggesting a quick sim. eval. in order to determine cognitive ability is a bit elementary. Another factor involved is social peer pressure. " Bob is a good guy, he's been with us for 30 years, he only has 2 more rides with us , lets just keep him flying into easier airports and with sharp f/o's...." Anyways, I am enjoying the debate......
I think what you're describing is a handicapped person, not an oldtimer. 
How many LOFT sessions have you done? SIM is a very good indicator of how fast you can think on your feet, both in the Ride scenario and LOFT. Just my opinion. I won't argue the 'old dog' and 'new tricks' but for a guy who's been flying the same plane at the same company in a similiar environment for years can probably do the job. We all have our shortcomings, so what's wrong with putting a young hotshot, stick and rudder guy next to the grizzled oldtimer with more experience in his little finger than that Hot shot could even dream about? Sounds like a great match to me.
How many LOFT sessions have you done? SIM is a very good indicator of how fast you can think on your feet, both in the Ride scenario and LOFT. Just my opinion. I won't argue the 'old dog' and 'new tricks' but for a guy who's been flying the same plane at the same company in a similiar environment for years can probably do the job. We all have our shortcomings, so what's wrong with putting a young hotshot, stick and rudder guy next to the grizzled oldtimer with more experience in his little finger than that Hot shot could even dream about? Sounds like a great match to me.
Drinking outside the box.
Re: HAHA
There is a worldwide pilot shortage that is only getting worse. If you doubt it contact ICAO and ask them. They have all the numbers and speak to all the operators and governments across the planet, which is why they now endorse 65. Please don't believe me, call them. If you think Canada is isolated from this you are mistaken. The ruling makes specific mention of the normal industry retirement age which was sixty when the two individuals retired which is why they lost. When that changes, and it will change, someone will challenge it and presto bingo the retirement age will be over sixty. You can shut your eyes to it all you want but personally I would rather be prepared. The reason I want to be prepared is so no one on the property before it changes is adversely effected. How successful we are at ensuring that depends entirely on how well prepared we are for it. Sticking our head in the sand is not preparing.F-16 wrote:Rockie,
You seem hell bent that a retirement age of 65 is inevitable. My above post is part of the reason why it won't be forced on ACPA. There are others.
For this to even have a chance in hell, as we know, more than 50% of the airlines in the world would have to have retirement ages of 65.
This is not inevitable as you like to claim.
The reasons are to follow...
First, you indicate ALPA has endorsed 65. Well, that's all fine and dandy, however consider that each MEC for each airline will still have to try and negotiate this into their respective contracts. As in Canada, the United States will respect the right of the association/union to negotiate items such as a fixed age of retirement for their members.
For this to be negotiated into their respective contracts, the members of each airline have to vote for/agree to it. Each company will also have to consent to this, and it may not be in their best interest. In fact, I would venture that most companies would choose to keep things as they are, and try and force pilots to give up something in order to obtain an age 65 retirement. We know that this wouldn't happen (pilots giving up something to make this happen).
Don't forget that the largest airline in the world, American Airlines, is represented by it's own association and supports age 60. Companies in Europe won't be going to 65 anytime soon, and same with many parts of Asia. So if it did ever happen, this magical barrier would be a LONG time coming.
Now lets consider the issue of why ICAO even raised the standard age of retirement to 65 - it's because of the looming "pilot shortage."
Anyone in aviation has probably heard that story for the better part of their careers. This is the first and largest myth of aviation. Why? Because in North America there will never be a pilot shortage, and when it comes to the rest of the world, don't forget about the MCC/MCL - the new standard by ICAO, the Multi Crew License.
From zero time to airline pilot in record time to get an ass in a seat. Never has it been so easy to qualify an individual to fly an airliner from OTS - the CADET scheme doesn't even come close timewise. So the supply of pilots will continue and may increase. Companies such as CAE, Flightsafety, etc. will jump on this and push it forward in leaps and bounds.
So then there will be no need to go to 65 other than the reason of penion losses, which would be answered by my first point about how ALPA could ever get the different MEC's to negotiate a contract that included an age 65 retirement. Since ALPA has not been able to, and will not be able to control or influence the MCL, as the supply grows, so shrinks this arguement for bumping up the retirement age.
Then of course, there is the fact that 65 is a number, and as such is also discriminatory.
Finally, don't forget where the biggest requirements for pilots in the world is going to be - China. We all know their record on Human Rights. What they say goes, and if they say 60 for retirement, that is what will go.
Even if every US carrier and ALPA went to 65, they would not dent the percentage of pilots working for carriers around the world that would leave at 60, and so this ratio would not cross that 50% barrier.
So when you say that it is inevitable that ACPA will be forced to incorporate an age 65 rule, I say that you are mistaken once again.
In reference to your other post, there are a whole host of issues that need to be addressed and the ones you cite are only a partial list. But since you mention it, you knew what the pay and working conditions were like when you signed on so according to your logic you have no right to want to change any of them...right? Or are you just being hypocritical?
oooh
Rockie,
Hypocritical? I think not. I didn't complain, just said that will be the starting point for all new hires if there ever were any age 65 talks.
Actually, I was fully informed of the pay on all machines in all years, including the flat salary, and knowing all the details, I still took the job and am glad I did.
Brickhead has exposed you for it, that the fly past 60 crowd continues to change their arguement and twist things around to make them appear to be the victims.
Your tactics won't work.
Hypocritical? I think not. I didn't complain, just said that will be the starting point for all new hires if there ever were any age 65 talks.
Actually, I was fully informed of the pay on all machines in all years, including the flat salary, and knowing all the details, I still took the job and am glad I did.
Brickhead has exposed you for it, that the fly past 60 crowd continues to change their arguement and twist things around to make them appear to be the victims.
Your tactics won't work.
Kick the tires and light the fires...
http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALPA ... 0&Tabid=73Four1oh wrote:Anyone know how the big boys in the US are handling this situation?
This is how a group of pilots who aren't in serious denial deals with it.
Re: oooh
I'm a little confused about what it is Brickhead has exposed me for. I'm not part of the coalition and I wasn't aware that I had any tactics. Maybe you could enlighten me?F-16 wrote:Rockie,
Hypocritical? I think not. I didn't complain, just said that will be the starting point for all new hires if there ever were any age 65 talks.
Actually, I was fully informed of the pay on all machines in all years, including the flat salary, and knowing all the details, I still took the job and am glad I did.
Brickhead has exposed you for it, that the fly past 60 crowd continues to change their arguement and twist things around to make them appear to be the victims.
Your tactics won't work.
And since you were fully informed of what you were getting into with Air Canada and aren't in the least hypocritical you'll be voting against any future increase in salary or working conditions. I admire your integrity.
hmmm
Rockie,
You may not be apart of the coalition, but you are part of the problem. People detracting from the association for their own gain. It defeats the whole purpose of having a union/association.
Also, if I were to vote in favour of a pay increase, it would not be hypocritical in any way. Why? Because pay increases (even small ones) are a generally accepted and negotiated item when it comes to contract time.
Having said this, negotiating a change to the retirement age isn't a generally accepted and negotiated item, nor will it be.
You may not be apart of the coalition, but you are part of the problem. People detracting from the association for their own gain. It defeats the whole purpose of having a union/association.
Also, if I were to vote in favour of a pay increase, it would not be hypocritical in any way. Why? Because pay increases (even small ones) are a generally accepted and negotiated item when it comes to contract time.
Having said this, negotiating a change to the retirement age isn't a generally accepted and negotiated item, nor will it be.
Kick the tires and light the fires...
Re: hmmm
You have blinders on my friend, and this unwillingness to see the future and deal with it intelligently is going to cost you and a lot of other people your ability to retire at 60 the way you planned. I'm not your enemy, you are.F-16 wrote:Rockie,
You may not be apart of the coalition, but you are part of the problem. People detracting from the association for their own gain. It defeats the whole purpose of having a union/association.
Also, if I were to vote in favour of a pay increase, it would not be hypocritical in any way. Why? Because pay increases (even small ones) are a generally accepted and negotiated item when it comes to contract time.
Having said this, negotiating a change to the retirement age isn't a generally accepted and negotiated item, nor will it be.
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Re: hmmm
Rockie,Rockie wrote:
You have blinders on my friend, and this unwillingness to see the future and deal with it intelligently is going to cost you and a lot of other people your ability to retire at 60 the way you planned. I'm not your enemy, you are.
Your whole premise that failure to act now will result in less control later is absolutely flawed. This is the same flawed argument the coalition is making in an effort to get coworkers to just give into their demands. Hmmm
The fact of the matter is that quite the opposite is true. Acting now, without knowing fully where this might, or might not, end up is ludicrous. Acting now without knowing fully our legal responsibilities and rights, since they are under attack and possibly subject to change, is a sure fire way to loose control or create unexpected liability later.
Because we are not dealing with one entity here, making changes now would actually make the situation worse. While you might be reasonable and maybe willing to strike a deal that is equitable for everyone there are others who are not willing. They want reinstatement back to their former position end of story. They will just challenge any changes made, that do not allow for all the contractual rights they had, before their 60th birthday. In fact they will likely claim we are acting to usurp their rights while the situation is before the courts. Acting to prevent full seniority entitlement post age 60. That would look like we feel we are are guilty of something wouldn't it? So what would acting to change retirement age do? It would just create more litigation. Muddy the waters further, and increase the chances of liability down the road.
You don't make decisions in an aircraft without doing your best to understand all the consequences of your actions. Why do expect ACPA to throw away that logic when it comes to this?
Acting slowly, as the courts clarify ACPA's rights, and the responsibility it has to those post 60, is the only way to make the best decisions possible, which will allow for continued control over our collective fate.
-
Brick Head
- Rank 8
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm
Re: hmmm
The CHRT nor the courts can change our pension plan nor do they seek to do it. Our pension is a collective agreement issue. If staying beyond 60 ever becomes an option, a change to retiring with no penalty at 60 can only happen through collective bargaining.Rockie wrote:this unwillingness to see the future and deal with it intelligently is going to cost you and a lot of other people your ability to retire at 60 the way you planned. I'm not your enemy, you are.
There are only three ways the potential to retire at age 60 can be harmed.
Air Canada's financial well being. bankruptcy.
Collective bargaining with Air Canada.
Individuals staying beyond 60 and reducing the pensions of those who want to retire at 60.
-
Gurundu the Rat
- Rank 5
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:59 am
Fly past 60? No problem. Wait, there is a problem. What if your FO is also past 60? I guess thats a no go. How about if we compromised and allow the 60-65s to fly as FO? They get to fly past 60, and the others get to progress up the ranks and get their 5 years in on the widebodys before they turn 60 and can retire without penalty. Just a thought. What do you guys think?
GTR
GTR
