Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Brick Head]

DocAV8R,

I have no idea when mandatory retirement became part of the CA nor does it have any relevance.

If you have ever voted yes to a collective agreement renewal you have endorsed the CA in its entirety. Even on the off chance that you have never voted yes to a CA it doesn't matter. You chose to join a collective bargaining group. By doing so you gave up your right to bargain with your employer as an individual. Collectively your bargaining group has endorsed, and re endorsed the CA, in its entirety, for decades.

In an average career, individuals will have endorsed mandatory retirement roughly 10 times before they themselves are forced to retire.

What seems so odd, to me at least, is individuals who have actively endorsement the practice of mandatory retirement of those senior to them, then all of a sudden cry foul when it is their turn.

[ACAV8R]

Well put Brickhead.

[Rockie]

The collective agreement takes a back seat to human rights, and this is clearly a human rights issue unless you've been living under a rock.

Every employee group in this country that has a pension and a retirement age has been forced to change. That change has been forced either by similar HRTC rulings, court rulings or jurisdictional legislation enacted because society recognizes the human rights aspect of the issue. It escapes me how our pilots continue to think our contract takes priority over this.

Mandatory retirement based on age no longer fits in Canadian society, and in my opinion it is a childish waste of energy to blame individuals when it is our entire society that is driving the change.

[Brick Head]

The collective agreement takes a back seat to human rights, and this is clearly a human rights issue unless you've been living under a rock.

Every employee group in this country that has a pension and a retirement age has been forced to change. That change has been forced either by similar HRTC rulings, court rulings or jurisdictional legislation enacted because society recognizes the human rights aspect of the issue. It escapes me how our pilots continue to think our contract takes priority over this.

Mandatory retirement based on age no longer fits in Canadian society, and in my opinion it is a childish waste of energy to blame individuals when it is our entire society that is driving the change.

Rockie,

Of course you are correct. No one thinks the contract takes priority over this. The contract must follow the law. If the law changes so too must the contract.

But that wasn't the question being asked. The question was. When have we as individuals, ever had a say on mandatory retirement? It was asked because we hear over and over again people claiming they didn't agree to mandatory retirement. The fact of the matter is they did. Many, many, many times.

I hope you are starting to realize that your own group may be shooting itself in the foot here. Will someone challenge a contractual change, post age 60, as discriminatory? If you win that argument, then the CHRT logic for not applying section 15(1)(C) of the CHRA fails, because it is based on finding alternative means that do not infringe on the charter, to protect the deferred compensation system. If you prove those alternative means are not a reasonable limit on the charter, which you very well might do (They do not have a special exception within the CHRA like Mandatory Retirement), your group will, from your own actions, create reason to quash the latest ruling.

If your group continues to pursue a solution that just eradicates mandatory retirement and the deferred compensation system with it, then you may very well be creating a very long time frame to final resolution. But of course that is your choice to make.

[Rockie]

The question was. When have we as individuals, ever had a say on mandatory retirement? It was asked because we hear over and over again people claiming they didn't agree to mandatory retirement. The fact of the matter is they did. Many, many, many times.

Brickhead, you are way too smart to use that argument. A contract cannot be broken up into little tiny pieces to be voted on separately so you are always going to disagree with sections of it. In 2002 we agreed to unpaid training days. Does that mean everyone in principle supports unpaid training? Does that mean we then had no moral right to change it?

A contract voted in favour of by the majority does not mean the majority agree to everything in the contract. Moreover, since this is a case of individual rights the majority vote does not count.

[Rolex]

I agree with Rockie who wrote:

A contract voted in favour of by the majority does not mean the majority agree to everything in the contract. Moreover, since this is a case of individual rights the majority vote does not count.

I voted against every contract due to items I did not agree with in them, but have been stuck with the results nevertheless. I never agreed.

I believe if the research is done, that one will find that mandatory retirement is not in the Ops Manual and does not appear in the Contract even now except in reference to the Pension Plan where it first appeared in the 80`s around the time of Stevenson, who did not lose his case, was reinstated and then was bought off during the appeal.

Canada changed its Charter of Rights and Freedoms in response to the States eliminating mandatory retirement for its workers in 1978. The FAA maintained the licensing rules to appease American Airlines in a rather shady deal that you can research easily on the net. Transport Canada was more progressive and did not put a limit on licensing in Canada in the early 80`s. Also, When some of us started, Air Canada was a crown corporation this did not change until 1988. We were Federal employees and mandatory retirement was eliminated for federal employees in 1986. Look at the dates, and figure it out yourself.

I believe that only Air Canada (60) and formerly Air Canada Jazz (65) have mandatory retirement of the almost 1000 aviation operators in the country.

When some of us started flying, no women were in the cockpit. It was called a cockpit. No one over 27 (I believe) could be hired. There was a height minimum and maybe even maximum. No medical accommodations were made. Pensions were supposed to be 70% of our pay. As a Crown Corporation, there was no risk to pensions or total job loss due to CCAA. Many things were different. Changes we did not vote on nor agree to happened many times. We took pay cuts and reduced hours to prevent layoffs.

Many things being said of the Fly-past 60 guys are unfair and frankly wrong. Even if Vilven came back and Kelly came back now they would not be 1 or 2 on the seniority list. More people support the choice to work longer than are sticking their heads over the parapet and risking vilification by the few of you who continue to spew inaccuracies in this and other forums and who print the propaganda under the ACPA letterhead.

There are individual rights and a Union by law cannot negotiate against the law.

[Brick Head]

I voted against every contract due to items I did not agree with in them, but have been stuck with the results nevertheless. I never agreed.

Brickhead, you are way too smart to use that argument. A contract cannot be broken up into little tiny pieces to be voted on separately so you are always going to disagree with sections of it.

Rockie and Rolex,

First off let me state that none of the stuff below, applies to a contract that contravenes the law. Can't do that. If the law changes then the collective agreement must as well.

But to state you never agreed to mandatory retirement, is only displaying that you don't understand what collective bargaining is. Or are you now saying you want the labor code changed too???????????

It is not that I don't see the difficulty in creating change within a union. I get the points, and agree there is plenty of truth in the reality of the comments, but your opinions have no basis in the labor code. It would not be practical to vote on a CA line by line. Every time the membership votes they vote on the entire CA, not just the amendments. The CA is then resigned as a whole, by the representatives, for the new period.

Tomorrow 51% can choose to undo mandatory retirement. It then applies to everyone no matter which way they voted. In a union there is no individual rights. You forgo them when you join. It is a condition of membership. Not having a full understanding of this does not free you from having the law applied.

The membership is free to change direction, on any issue, at any time, if the majority so chooses. There is no such thing as being locked into a decision forever. Don't like it? Seek to change it.

It does not matter if little is in the CA about mandatory retirement. In fact it wouldn't matter if not a single word spelled it out. The reason? The labor code again.

Past practice- A particular working condition, benefit or custom that has been in existence and deeply ingrained over a period of time such that it is regarded as a part of the whole agreement and, therefore, enforceable by arbitrators.

As it stands though there is plenty of mandatory retirement documentation. The contract makes reference to a pension document. No, it is not physically in the contract if that was your point. But the concept of Past practice makes that point irrelevant.

So stop with the "I didn't agree to mandatory retirement" malarkey. By law, yes you did. In fact you have done more than that. Multiple times you have participated in the imposition of mandatory retirement on others.

[Brick Head]

More people support the choice to work longer than are sticking their heads over the parapet and risking vilification by the few of you who continue to spew inaccuracies in this and other forums and who print the propaganda under the ACPA letterhead.

Now who is calling the kettle black?

If you took the time to read my posts you would realize that I do not oppose working past the age of 60. I endorse it based on the latest CHRT ruling. As the CHRT says. Why infringe on a constitutionally protected right when there are "alternatives to mandatory retirement that effectively preserve the benefits of the deferred compensation system?" I also believe most who have read, and understand the ruling, think along the same lines. I have heard with my own ears, that sentiment come out of the Age 60 committee. The quote was something along the lines of. Not a problem as long as no one junior is harmed.

The misinformation/vilification has not been from the individuals seeking to work past 60 either. It has been exclusively from those individuals who seek both an end to mandatory retirement and the eradication of the deferred compensation system, for their own benefit, in the name of human rights.

I must say though your comments are correct. People are afraid to stick their head over the parapet for fear of vilification. That is a shame. I wish they would speak up. There are many people I am sure who would just like to work past 60. Do not want to take something that belongs to someone else. Who just want to get on with implementing something that is workable and fair. I and I believe most on my side are like minded. I know I am.

Unfortunately we have individuals before the CHRT, driving the agenda, who are bent on not just ending mandatory retirement, but also destroying our current deferred compensation system.

Those individuals will be opposed indefinitely which is quite unfortunate for the more reasonable individuals wishing to stay.

[JayDee]

Brickhead, Rolex etc ,

It's too bad the ACPA forum isn't adult enough to withstand the above discussion which I think is the best I have seen to date. Well Done.

The ACPA MEC is scared silly to allow open discussion of this issue because of (1) they are in so deep at this point in order to save any resemblance of credibility they have no choice but to continue the folly regardless of how much of a losing proposition it is (leadership at it's worst) and (2) a few loud mouth Junior members who simply can't see the forest for the trees. The ACPA General Custer routine is becoming tedious to say the least.


About the only person who was contributing anything of use to the discussion was Ray Hall and they booted him ( and Vilven) off the forum at the first feeble opportunity. The MEC has totally emasculated the forum with their actions.


The only losers here will be the pilots.

JayDee

[DocAV8R]

We will all be seeing this end very soon.

The FAA are allowing domestic pilots over 65 in Canada, as it complies with ICAO as domestic airspace. Canada and the US do not have an over /under rule. 777 RP's are fully trained- there is no BFOR. All 998 other air carriers in Canada do not have problems with over 60 pilots. And contrary to popular belief many have pensions and unions. ALPA supports over 60 Pilots. It is contrary to Canadian Law and the final word will come down shortly. Air Canada is prepared for that. Only the ACPA Union keeps up the false pretenses that this fight has not been long lost and that it will all be over in a few months no matter how they think they can delay it. No Judicial Review will change the final outcome. To think otherwise is meer foolishness.

Merry Christmas!

[DocAV8R]

Brickhead wrote:

we have individuals before the CHRT, driving the agenda, who are bent on not just ending mandatory retirement, but also destroying our current deferred compensation system

This once again is proof of more of the lies being spread by our untrustworthy Union MEC fear-mongering and vilifying the guys who want to continue to enjoy their chosen careers for whatever personal reasons they have. The Fly Past 60 group is not out to destroy the Pension Plan. That is pure rubbish.

I don't believe that it is anyone's intention to destroy the Pension Plan and the evidence is clear that pilots flying past 60 would only strengthen the Plan. They won't collect for as many years and they will continue to pay into the plan until the reach full pension. The math is clear that the Pension will be ahead financially for each pilot who doesn't collect the Pension for a year. It is pure rubbish to say staying past 60 will destroy the Pension Plan. It is far more likely that CCAA will destroy it. Nothing is guaranteed in life. We may all have been better off being given the money up front to invest as we saw fit- "Money now is better than money later" and a "Bird in the hand...." Air Canada knows that it will be better off financially, just as most Airlines in the world that have raised Retirement Age Limits for the sole purpose of saving money.

Fighting this dead issue is only costing the Airline, the Union, and each pilot more each day. I estimate that this fruitless waste of time and resources has cost about $2600.00 for each Pilot in ACPA and is going up about $2.50 a day for each of us for each day it is dragged out by ACPA. It is costing the Airline more. It is time we tell our union to quit wasting our resources and save it for what will benefit us and for fights we can win. Haven't enough of our valuable dollars been wasted?

With the average age of new hires at 35, they too will want the option to be able to maximize their Pension when the time comes. How many have calculated it in tomorrows dollars? Finding a way to secure the future may be a better use of everyone's efforts than propagating untruths and picking on our Seniors. We will all come to realize that they have done us a favour when our time comes. Mandatory Retirement is passé in the civilized world. It is time to face it. We will have a choice in the future.

[yycflyguy]

You conveniently missed the point that with another 5 years some guys that were going to retire off more junior equipment now will be retiring off higher paying, more senior equipment that stresses the pension.

Nothing will change anytime soon.

[Rockie]

You conveniently missed the point that with another 5 years some guys that were going to retire off more junior equipment now will be retiring off higher paying, more senior equipment that stresses the pension.

Nothing will change anytime soon.

What happened to everyone's career being destroyed? Now your making it sound pretty attractive.

[yycflyguy]

You conveniently missed the point that with another 5 years some guys that were going to retire off more junior equipment now will be retiring off higher paying, more senior equipment that stresses the pension.

Nothing will change anytime soon.

What happened to everyone's career being destroyed? Now your making it sound pretty attractive.

You must have a part time job with the National Enquirer with that sensational statement. Never said careers would be destroyed. I stand by my guns that it is unfair that the same guys that reaped the benefits of prior guys leaving at 60 are the same ones who say it is discriminatory now. The company is starting to see that age 65 or whatever the benchmark becomes is going to COST them money, not save them in the long run like they initially thought. The company loses, the juniors that have career progression stalled for up to 5 years lose and it looks like I lost a friend in Rockie... it's ok though, even without maximizing my pension, I will be out the door at age 60, why? Because it is what I signed up for. Some might call it integrity. Besides that, I have gander ideas for my 60+ career than falling face first into my casserole at 30W.

[Rockie]

The company is starting to see that age 65 or whatever the benchmark becomes is going to COST them money, not save them in the long run like they initially thought.

How will it cost them money?

it's ok though, even without maximizing my pension, I will be out the door at age 60, why? Because it is what I signed up for.

A grand statement, and an easy one to make right now. Perhaps you should wait until you're 60 before committing yourself though.

[yycflyguy]

The company is starting to see that age 65 or whatever the benchmark becomes is going to COST them money, not save them in the long run like they initially thought.

How will it cost them money?

it's ok though, even without maximizing my pension, I will be out the door at age 60, why? Because it is what I signed up for.

A grand statement, and an easy one to make right now. Perhaps you should wait until you're 60 before committing yourself though.

Because now the computer programs have run their various scenarios and they (Air Canada) see that the number of guys that would retire on more senior equipment exceeds the number of guys that would work their 5 best years on their same (junior) equipment and it results in greater stress in the pension than if they stuck to the age 60. It took them awhile but, suddenly, shit, it is going to cost more money.

How do you think they (AC) will respond to an age 60+ that costs them more money. Yup, it will come in the form of more recessions by the pilot group in the next round of negotiations.

As far as me retiring at age 60, no problem. You will be invited to my Colombian villa to surf, dive, snorkel, drink mojitos and slam Colombian nice, nice any time you like and I will give you a big man hug for working at the same place that provided your lucrative retirement (when YOU wan it) that will make make you borderline uncomfortable.

[DocAV8R]

YYCFLYGUY wrote:

the juniors that have career progression stalled for up to 5 years

More Bunk to scare the troops with pure fantasy. Please check the math. The above statement would require that 100% of the employed pilots stayed an average of 5 more years with no one leaving early, no one going at 60, 61, 62, 63 etc. No one dying. This year alone we had at least 2 pilots die in their 40's, in accidents and otherwise. You claim you won't stay a day past 60, as we know the majority won't who will have reached their max pension. We already have many people leaving early, jumping ship, off on long term medical leave. In fact, the average time of those leaving early is now 5 years. By the time most reach the age they can retire only a few, a relatively small percentage will stay for whatever reasons. Maybe 1-2 years to max their pensions. Maybe because they love their jobs, love to fly, have kids in school and don't want to move to Korea- whatever. The possible personal reasons are many. Numerous studies have shown though that the ones who want to stay are the better skilled, healthier, most productive employees and are good for the company to have around.
Given a small percentage staying a short average time, spread over in excess of 3000 pilots- most won't even notice the bump in the road in their progression, and heck- as you say- they may even get to fly bigger equipment someday. You also suggest they will get bigger pensions- what hardship is that?
Besides-There is no "entitlement to progress" in the airline- as we have witnessed numerous times in our careers, but don't worry, we will anyway. It may be delayed now by a month or two. The trade-off being that we can chose to stay an extra year or two and max our pension and maybe even fly bigger planes. YIPPEE!

Secondly, 777 are smaller and weigh less than the 747- so how are all these guys going to retire on larger equipment.- Oh yes, the company plan is to decrease the aircraft size to RJ's, so no one gets to fly the big equipment saving loads of money. Total rubbish...

Anyone who stays one year longer- collects pension for one year less over their lifetime. This fact erases any possible costs to the pension even if the final pension may be a little more. It also means that the pilot pays into the pension for one more year- strengthening the pension plan making it more secure for everyone else.

For everyone that stays one year longer, the company will save the training costs that year, and it estimates to be about $300,000 at 7-8 courses at an average of $38,000 each. That is more than than pay of even the most senior guy and the extra they would be putting into any pension. DO the math!

it will come in the form of more recessions by the pilot group in the next round of negotiations.

That is always a favorite company line just before negotiations. We need concessions....- see here are the BS facts.....and the pilots always give in and then management gives itself huge multimillion dollar bonuses at the great job they have done fooling the troops into becoming one of the poorest paid major airlines in the world. I have seen these flawed experiments, done using wrong assumptions and missing important facts. Garbage in = Garbage out. Well done!

You are bright enough to know that the rubbish you spout makes no sense and you are hoping to fool the rest of us into running scared. "Big brother- the ACPA MEC needs to save us" from this horrible fate of having choice when we finally may be able to retire. They are so wise..... Doom and gloom....Freedom of choice is not allowed...communism must rule......We know better than everyone else.....The propaganda machine must continue to control the minds....knowledge is power,and we can't give up power....keep rolling out the nonsense and they will all be fooled.....

Lets Get REAL here. No matter what propaganda the UNION spouts, or even if it hurts a bit, THE DEAL is done. Look around - Mandatory Retirement is HISTORY! Freedom of choice will prevail and the courts will confirm that sooner than later. We will survive it. Get Over It!

[DocAV8R]

Mercer Report

Mandatory Retirement Legislation Quashed

Last updated: 28 October 2009 Written by: Marcel Théroux



In Vilven v. Air Canada et al (Vilven), the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) has held that Air Canada’s mandatory retirement policy must be rewritten. The CHRT has found that the mandatory retirement saving provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) is unconstitutional. This decision will interest all employers dealing with an ageing workforce.
The History of the Dispute

Under the CHRA, it is not a discriminatory practice to terminate the employment of an individual who has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions. This is the so-called “saving” provision. At Air Canada, pilots must retire at age 60. In Canada, about 56 per cent of airline pilots, in the relevant similar positions, have retired by age 60. The CHRT and the Federal Court (Trial Division) agreed that the normal age of retirement for airline pilots is 60 and that the saving provision, read by itself, justifies the retirement policy.



The central question in Vilven is whether the saving provision is itself compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This involves a two-step legal analysis. Firstly, is the saving provision discriminatory? If discriminatory, can the government establish that the provision is a reasonable limit, “justified in a free and democratic society”? In 2007, the CHRT decided that the saving provision was not discriminatory. The Federal Court overturned that decision, found discrimination and sent the matter back to the CHRT to consider the second step of the analysis.



The CHRT released its decision on August 28, 2009. It has found that the saving provision cannot be justified and that it cannot be applied. In addition, it held that the mandatory retirement policy could not be saved as a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). Accordingly, the airline’s mandatory retirement policy violates the CHRA and must be modified. The nature of the modifications and the remedies to be granted to the complainants are to be decided in a further hearing before the CHRT.
The Decision

The CHRT used the multi-layered analytical framework set down by the Supreme Court of Canada in constitutional cases. In so doing, it distinguished that Court’s seminal 1990 decision in McKinney, finding that the factual and social context had changed. The CHRT accepted expert evidence to the effect that Canada was facing skill and labour shortages. It also accepted that, by 2010, 70 per cent of the net increase in working age population from 2000 would be in the 55 to 64 age group and that, by 2020, all the net increase would be in that group. The CHRT held, therefore, that permitting mandatory retirement is no longer a pressing and substantial social need; preventing mandatory retirement may now be.



Both the airline and the pilots’ union next argued that retirement at age 60 is a BFOR. In deciding that issue, the CHRT relied on another complex analytical framework penned by the Supreme Court, the so-called Meiorin analysis. To establish a BFOR, it must be shown that the complainants cannot be accommodated without causing undue hardship for the employer, and for the union and its members as well. The CHRT held that the defenders of the mandatory retirement policy had not shown that allowing the complainants to continue working, albeit under modified working conditions, would cause undue hardship.
Accommodation

It is the CHRT’s discussion of accommodation that pushes the boundaries of the mandatory retirement debate. The CHRT heard evidence of the standards imposed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO standards required, before November 2006, that captains over 60 not fly internationally, although there was no age limit for first officers. After October 2006, captains under 65 can fly internationally, provided that one of the other pilots is under 60.



The airline called evidence of the effect on its business of allowing pilots to fly after age 60, while complying with the ICAO standards. The CHRT found that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate undue hardship for the airline. It pointed out that the evidence set out a number of conclusions, without setting out the factual underpinnings of those conclusions. For example, the airline’s expert testified that accommodating the older pilots would result in materially lower “quality monthly schedules” for certain pilots. The CHRT noted that no evidence was led to as the meaning of the quoted phrase or as to the reasons for expert’s opinion.



Neither could the union show undue hardship to its members. The union had argued that accommodation would impose a significant and unreasonable cost on pilots under 60. The CHRT found support in the evidence not of a denial of career progression and the associated salary increases, but only of a modest delay.



To show an example of successful accommodation, the CHRT pointed to changes to the employment relationship that had been made by another airline in order to reconcile the abolition of mandatory retirement at age 60 and the ICAO standards. In the words of the CHRT, “nstead of forcing workers to retire at a certain age, the parties can agree that at a certain age, the terms and conditions of employment will change”.
The Order

The complainants had asked for reinstatement, restoration of seniority and service and damages for lost income as well as for lost benefits. The Canadian Human Rights Commission asked for significant revisions to the employer’s mandatory retirement policies. The CHRT indicated that it needed further evidence and submissions before deciding upon suitable remedies. It remains seized of the matter for this purpose.
Comment

Vilven is instructive not only for the fact that it strikes down certain parts of federal human rights legislation but also for its discussion of the need to accommodate the older worker by making appropriate changes to the employment contract, including the collective agreement. Accommodation of the older worker is an issue in all jurisdictions where mandatory retirement has been abolished. In the words of airline’s own expert witness, “[w]e are being pushed into a new world here and we are going together in this, so we have to make it work for everyone”. In a world where mandatory retirement no longer exists, the need for creativity in employment solutions is of prime importance.

Note: The facts re numbers above are incorrect and as of 2006 are shown to be closer to 70 % with no retirement age or 65 years versus only Air Canada with less than 30% of Canadian pilots.
ICAO does not govern domestic airspace and allows pilots to fly to 65 as Captains. Canada and the US have no over/under rule. BFOR is not available for a defense.

Clearly- AGE 60 is over and done.

[Rockie]

In Titanic terms, the RMS Mandatory Retirement at 60 hit the iceberg in 2006 when ICAO changed the rule. The outcome from that moment on was inevitable and irreversible for anybody looking at it without blinders on. The ship officially sank on August 28th 2009. The crew of our particular ship unfortunately is still sticking their thumb in the hole and telling the passengers everything is going to be fine.

Still awaiting confirmation from ACPA that things have changed.

[Martin Tamme]

So given the recent CHRT ruling, can the Air Canada flight attendants now go till 80+?

ACPA is not preventing the flight attendants from working past 65. So what's the holdup?


(Sorry. Rethorical question just to show that this issue is much bigger than us lowly pilots and big bad ACPA. Besides, what does the 2006 ICAO ruling have to do with Air Canada Flight Attendants wishing to work past 65?)

[Rockie]

When did we start talking about flight attendants? For that matter, why are we talking about flight attendants?

[Jaques Strappe]

Numerous studies have shown though that the ones who want to stay are the better skilled, healthier, most productive employees and are good for the company to have around.

Can you provide us with a reference to these studies?

[Martin Tamme]

We are talking about Flight Attendants, because last August the CHRT did not make a decision in a vacuum. They basically made their own law when they stated that having a mandatory age of retirement for any federal regulated company is illegal (even though the Code allows for it).

As such, it also removed the age of retirement for flight attendants - no longer do they have to retire at the normal age of retirement, which is 65 for the industry. If this were a done deal, then why aren't the other employee groups going beyond 65?

The reason is because it is not (a done deal). The Federal Court will have no choice but to overturn the CHRT's decision, because the CHRT cannot make new law; they can only enforce the current law. That is why there is a push in Parliament to change the current law (as the title of this thread so nicely highlights), because everyone knows (even though they won't admit it) that the CHRT overstepped their jurisdiction.

Looking at the big picture, it doesn't matter what ACPA does. When the CHRT ignored the law, it affected a whole lot of other people & businesses besides us pilots. The Courts will overturn it, and place it in Parliaments lap to deal with.

[Rockie]

If this were a done deal, then why aren't the other employee groups going beyond 65?

No FA's have contested mandatory retirement yet at the HRTC, so no ruling has been made on whether or not the age discriminatory practice of forcing someone to retire at 65 can be "saved" by it being either the normal age or a BFOR. A ruling on that has been made with regards to the pilots.

Once the legislation currently working its way through parliament banning mandatory retirement in federally regulated industries passes, it will apply to pilots, FA's, mechanics, rampies and every other employee group in the airline industry. Nothing is stopping the company from seeking a ruling for them on normal age of retirement or BFOR though, but the company and the union have already lost that fight wrt the pilots and age 60. It remains to be seen if they attempt to get a ruling for pilots at some other higher age like 65 (something I have suggested they should have been preparing to do all along). It doesn't say much for their foresight that they haven't considered it yet.

The Federal Court will have no choice but to overturn the CHRT's decision, because the CHRT cannot make new law; they can only enforce the current law.

The HRTC did not make new law, they acted completely within their mandate in determining what constitutes age discrimination. And age discrimination has been illegal for a long time. The company has been breaking the current law against age discrimination since August 28th, 2009.

[Inverted2]

Why would anyone want to work past 65 anyway? Take your pension, be a people greeter at walmart if you're bored. I heard there is an FA in the US working that is approaching 80! I think 65 is plenty late to retire. It would be a non-issue for pilots. I don't think the the travelling public would want to get on an airliner with a 69 year old pilot.

On another note, anyone got an idea when the 65 rule will come into effect at AC?