Repeal of Mandatory Retirement Bill Passes Second Reading

[bcflyer]

It won't be all savings if this "new world order" comes to be. Think of all the senior F/A's, rampies, CSA's etc who will be able to continue working. These people are at the very top of their payscales and will cost the company alot of money if they don't have to retire. (no newbies at the bottom of the scale while the senior dogs at the top pay scale keep working) There is alot more at risk than people may think....

[vic777]

It won't be all savings if this "new world order" comes to be. ... There is alot more at risk than people may think....

There is no "if". The "new world order" is a certainty. There is nothing "at risk". The game is over. Employees will be working longer and retiring at an older age, period, case closed, end of story. Management could take pay cuts and give up their bonuses , to cut costs. AC and ACPA must find solutions. It's ACPA's job to raise the benefits to the Pilots. This must be done, within the parameters of the new reality. There is no increase in Pilots costs, there is a decrease .... the fleet size remains the same ... overall Pilot costs are down ... training is down ... pension costs are down as Pilots work longer and retirees are pensioned for fewer years. ACPA should figure out how many hundreds of millions these Pilot savings are ... and get it for the Pilots. Is there anybody in ACPA, who has any idea how much AC will save on Pilot costs due to "the new world order"?

[MackTheKnife]

Is there anybody in ACPA, who has any idea how much AC will save on Pilot costs due to "the new world order"?

With the apparent vacuum at the top of the ACPA head shed, is there any body in ACPA that even cares?

[pilotidentity]

"The defining characteristics of the baby boomers have been their sense of self-importance and limitless entitlement".

Lets have the courage to think of the others coming behind us.

[accumulous]

The defining characteristics of the baby boomers have been their sense of self-importance and limitless entitlement.
Lets have the courage to think of the others coming behind us.

A couple of small groups HAVE had the courage. Enormous courage.

The first group ensured that age was not a restriction to getting hired. In the highly competitive world of preparation for a career in aviation, it can take a lot of years to get the required qualifications to be there when the timing is right. Pilots well into their forties and beyond can be there, thanks to a few to dared to stand up to a seemingly overwhelming force aligned against them.

The second group has now seen to it that the career path is wide open at the top, like every other pilot in all of North America.

Entitlement?

Until recent rulings by the powers that be, there was NO entitlement for the vast majority of pilots currently on the list, in either hiring or career duration parameters.

‘Special’ interest groups in ‘special’ parts of the seniority list have always managed to summon huge resources to fight anybody who would even dream of realizing their individual rights to a career path of their choosing as afforded them by Parliament.

Entitlement?

The ‘Special’ interest group sense of entitlement has gone so far as to include using the dues of the huge number of pilots that have had no representation whatsoever, through the guise of 'democratic' process.

Utilizing the resources of the very pilots who want have the right to choose their own individual retirement terms as provided for them in the Charter, numbering well into the many hundreds, a number, for illustration purposes, equal to far more than the population of the entire Montreal and Winnipeg bases combined, and almost as high as the entire population of the Vancouver base. That's a lot of resources for the taking.

Nice trick if you can pull it off.

How much courage does it take to tackle a group that will even sewer their own pension prospects in a quest to prevent others from achieving their individual rights?

It took a HUGE amount of courage to go up against Kamikazes in previous engagements, as those guys were only fueled for a one way trip, and they were totally committed to one purpose.

We’re seeing that again in a different arena and it’s just as scary and make no mistake, it required a LOT of courage to take it on.

The ridiculously sad sequel to it all is that like all the other senseless battles that have gone before, long after the last Kamikaze augers in, EVERYBODY including the completely unrepresented hundreds and hundreds of pilots, will be picking up the tab.

[Raymond Hall]

A couple of small groups HAVE had the courage. Enormous courage.

For many of us it was not courage that was required. It was vision. It simply came down to logic and strategic vision. As I said in another post, from the time that I first became involved in this issue it was obvious to me that the constraints of the mandatory retirement exemption were outside of the Association's power to overcome. Hence, in the long run it was not in the pilots' best interest or in ACPA's best interest to pursue that option.

The only proper way to deal with the inevitable change, in my view, then and now, was to embrace it, to get out in front of it and to restructure our own work environment and collective agreement in order to not only manage the issue, but to share some of the economic benefits to be realized by the implementation of the impending changes.

ACPA obviously did not share that vision. Perhaps it still doesn't.

I will candidly say, however, that even if it did not require courage, it did require resources, both financial resources and organizational resources.

In hindsight it is obvious that one pilot alone could never have taken on Air Canada and ACPA together and obtained reinstatement, no matter how determined he might have been, given their intent to either prevent this or to delay it for as long as possible, no matter what the cost. No pilot alone could have the resources to do that.

[sepia]

Courage? A 20 year old farm boy from Yorkton storming the beach in Normandy is courage.

[accumulous]

Courage? A 20 year old farm boy from Yorkton storming the beach in Normandy is courage.

Good point, but he didn't have to watch his back.

[Understated]

In hindsight it is obvious that one pilot alone could never have taken on Air Canada and ACPA together and obtained reinstatement, no matter how determined he might have been, given their intent to either prevent this or to delay it for as long as possible, no matter what the cost. No pilot alone could have the resources to do that.

As I see it, there are three different aspects of this. First, there is the realization that the "normal age of retirement" is a moving target. Once ICAO moved off age 60, the writing was on the wall for ACPA. Try as it might to avoid the inevitable, in 2006 it was time for ACPA to honestly and forthrightly re-examine the legal merits of the status quo and re-inform its members about the game-change that was about affect its ability under the statutory exemption to prevent changes to its sacred age 60 limit.

Second, there was this pesky "Charter" problem. Nobody really got the picture on that (perhaps most pilots still don't have a clear view of the implications of it) until the Tribunal, on the strong decision of the Federal Court, got its mind around the nature of the ball game. Who raised that issue? George Vilven. Vision. And now another dozen unions representing tens of thousands of members in all sorts of professions, inside and outside of the aviation industry, are in the queue behind his original Charter challenge at the Tribunal, not opposing the change, but supporting it.

Third, there is this small "legislation" problem. The federal jurisdiction was an island alienated in a sea of cultural change that had rejected mandatory retirement for all sorts of reasons. How long could anyone realistically expect the federal government to uphold the status quo on mandatory retirement? The government introduced a Bill in 1992 to repeal the exemption. Separately, the very same SCC judge who wrote the McKinney decision in 1990 upholding the mandatory retirement provision that ACPA holds so dearly chaired the CHRC Review Panel in 2000 that recommended abolishing mandatory retirement. The real question then was why did it take until 2009 for another Bill to come before Parliament to put this exemption provision out of its misery? So Bill C-481 should come as no surprise. And unanimous acceptance of the Bill, with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice speaking in favour of it should also come as no surprise either. It's over.

So where was ACPA on all of this? Teamed up with Air Canada, saying: Deny. Deny. Deny.

Vision...

[accumulous]

The one thing that emerges from all this is that we are in dire need of an overall Steering Committee. The engines appear to be cranking out the horsepower, what we need now is a rudder.

Steering Committee Definition:

Advisory committee comprised usually of high level stakeholders and/or reputed experts who provide guidance on key issues such as company policy and objectives, budgetary control, marketing strategy, resource allocation, and decisions involving large expenditures.

Most successful professional organizations utilize a somewhat independent body of advising experts who have the expertise to determine courses of action BEFORE pushback.

We have a long history of taking on the exact wrong end of the legal stick. Find the right course of action, then put us on precisely the opposite end of that. Lawsuits and litigation continue to pile up against the association that didn’t need to be pursued in the first place when other solutions were readily available for the benefit of the entire membership.

Now the retirement issue orders are either here or forthcoming, and general mandatory retirement in the federally regulated sector itself is being canceled, and it appears that control of the retirement parameters for pilots is being handed solely to the courts for no logical reason whatsoever at massive cost.

That doesn’t mean that future issues can’t be handled in more efficient ways. We just need to take examples from some of the major successful corporations and learn how to apply them.

Has there ever been a somewhat independent expert Steering Committee to point the way for all these issues before they light the burners?

[rudder]

The engines appear to be cranking out the horsepower, what we need now is a rudder.

I'm flattered but I am not sure that even I could get all of the ACPA ponies pulling in the same direction at the same time. Still, I applaud your suggestion. In my opinion, The AC pilots achieved the most collectively and were more respected when they existed within and, for the most part, lead the CALPA structure. Perhaps that was because there was balance to every debate or perhaps because ideas and initiatives were better vetted before they saw the light of day.

Boutique unions are by their very nature isolationist. Even hiring a cadre of external advisors is not going to help if their belief is that they are being paid to tell their client that they are always right.

I believe that the AC pilots should return to the professional and industrial fold and sit at the table with the other legacy pilots who are dealing with all of the same concerns. Will that happen? Not likely, but for all of the wrong reasons.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

It's over. So where was ACPA on all of this? Teamed up with Air Canada, saying: Deny. Deny. Deny.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but...

[ywger]

The first speaker in the video from page 1 of this thread said something interesting. To the effect that some circumstances in the area of national defense and 'international transportation activities' warrant a mandatory retirement policy. If you wish to see for yourself, fast forward to 4:58 into the vid.

It seems to me that this bill is aimed at those companies which use mandatory retirement when there aren't such complex and unresolved issues, such as "when is a pilot too old to fly?", and "what do we do with pilots who are too old to act as PIC into certain countries". The issue, as it pertains to pilots, is as political as it is legal. There will be no black or white in the outcome - more shades of gray in the long term TAF.

As usual, the 'new reality' will be wrapped up in the legal framework of the bill, and will likely offer options to certain employers (such as Air Canada). I won't be surprised if it allows these 'special cases' to use their discretion when addressing some of the aforementioned unresolved issues related to age and mandatory retirement.

Once this gets to the high courts, there will be room for the justices to interpret the spirit of the law, as well as the spirit of our (ACPA's) retirement policy. Now if we can get some pension reforms, maybe people will feel a little more relaxed about retiring.

Cheers

[Understated]

As usual, the 'new reality' will be wrapped up in the legal framework of the bill, and will likely offer options to certain employers (such as Air Canada). I won't be surprised if it allows these 'special cases' to use their discretion when addressing some of the aforementioned unresolved issues related to age and mandatory retirement. Once this gets to the high courts, there will be room for the justices to interpret the spirit of the law, as well as the spirit of our (ACPA's) retirement policy.

Is there no end to your denial? What is it going to take to persuade you that it's over? A deduction from your wages to pay the damage assessment? An over-age 60 Captain on your crew?

Keep on dreaming. Keep on making the lawyers wealthy with our union dues. Keep on the path of dividing the members of our union by fighting the inevitable, rather than moving on.

You have no-one to blame for your consequences but yourself.

[bcflyer]

Keep on the path of dividing the members of our union by fighting the inevitable, rather than moving on.

You have no-one to blame for your consequences but yourself.

I'm going to guess that you are on a wide body working with senior guys because where I sit (junior narrow body fleet) this issue has united the members more than anything that has happened at Air Canada for quite some time!

[Norwegianwood]

Dam the torpedos, full steam ahead.............

[Understated]

...where I sit (junior narrow body fleet) this issue has united the members more than anything that has happened at Air Canada for quite some time!

Go ahead, enjoy your unanimity. Let's check back in a month or so to see how united the pilot group is then.

[Rockie]

From today's ACPA age 60 committee release.

"If we are unable to maintain our right to collectively bargain a contractual retirement age based on a new, court-imposed landscape, we may want to re-evaluate our entire collective agreement including the formula wage model, the value placed on seniority within the model and our post-employment deferred compensation package. The present system has been designed to provide the best value to us during our last years of employment prior to retirement. The objective has been to allow pilots the opportunity to maximize their pensionable earnings in return for retiring at the normal contractual age of 60. If the membership comes to the resolution that this system is no longer acceptable, collectively we have the means to amend the collective agreement to ensure a more equitable distribution of the value of the economic "pie"."

I just don't get it. Why does ACPA persist in this fantasy that someone is taking away their right to collectively bargain a retirement age? Don't they realize they will always be free to negotiate the very best retirement provision they can get for their membership? No one can ever take away their right to negotiate when their members can retire, but what they can no longer do is dictate when a person must retire. That is not their right to negotiate, and it is not the collective membership's right any longer to decide when any individual must retire. Canada is much more enlightened in 2010 and doesn't tolerate it anymore because it is discriminatory. This is not a difficult thing to understand.

But now, despite knowing and even stating the solution to the problem, ACPA still believes it is their right and prefers to force their own members into retirement against their will. It boggles the mind.

[ywger]

Understated - wow, for all of your implied wisdom on the ways of the world, you're surprisingly obtuse. Metaphors about playground bullies abound in my head when I read that kind of propaganda, but this kind of tone is typical on this subject, so it's far from surprising.

Regardless of what you think, this will all go down with many shades of gray. Neither side will be entirely happy, but it certainly is not the slam dunk you think it will be.

Keep dreaming

[WF9F]

Exactly. The over 60 crowd thinks that the gravy train will go on to infinity at the expense of the junior pilots. Guess again. My guess is we will lose in court as our track record is dismal but then the contract will be totally rewritten and the senoir end of the list will not be to happy with the result.
Personally I think we should have spent our energy changing the contract now( remove the heavily weighted top end pay and seniority perks) rather than wait and have some lawyer who knows squat about aviation construct parameters that we are going to have to follow.