equipment bid

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

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

Post Reply
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Lost in Saigon »

tonysoprano wrote: Even though we all know what this is really all about by now, right? But you know, I'm pretty sure there are companies the world over that retire well before 60. Are you sure OUR union will automatically accept this just because it's the way of the future? Don't forget, there's still more of us than you. Unlike the seniority saga, this just MIGHT go to a vote. But hey, like I said, gimme a choice without getting penalized and I'm happy. :wink:
The problem is Tony, no one has communicated to the union that you want the choice to retire when it suits you. Be it 60 or 65. They had the silly vote and assumed that the majority don't want a choice. They only want 60.

Now there will be no vote. Whatever the CHRT decides for us will have to be implemented.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by tonysoprano »

Now there will be no vote. Whatever the CHRT decides for us will have to be implemented.
This is why I bring up the other world carriers. If they have age 65 but companies are retiring pilots below 60, maybe the courts will give companies in Canada a choice and maybe this will all go back to a vote. It's a long shot I know and I just don't have enough background on this topic to be sure but I think it's going to have to be revisited by ACPA and the membership.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Brick Head »

[quote="Rockie"]

Have you listened to your fellow pilots or read most of the comments on this and other forums regarding over 60? And if it is accepted where is the working group or committee tasked with laying the ground work for implementing it? quote]

Yes I have listened to them. I just shake my head. I'll give you that most of us haven't read or taken the time to understand and that many comments resound from ignorance.

Working past 60 is coming. It is done deal. You are absolutely right. Denial of the fact is just sticking your head in the sand. The CHRT has spoken. It shall be.

The reason you hear nothing about implementation is simple. We have a court proceeding going on.

How long do you think it would take for that info to end up in front of the Federal court or a Tribunal if divulged?

3 seconds maybe?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Brick Head »

Lost in Saigon wrote:
The benchmark is no longer 60. Thousands of airline pilots around the world are flying past 60 right now! (including many ex-Air Canada pilots)

Wake-up and face the new reality.
In Canada we follow Canadian law. The CHRT has set the benchmark. You & I may not like it. You & I may not agree with it. But unless it is changed through appeal you & I will have to live with it.

The benchmark for Air Canada pilots is the average retirement age at legacy carriers. When you think about it. Because of the way the benchmark was devised it will likely never be 65. Every carrier would need to go to 65 for the average to be 65.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Lost in Saigon »

The CHRT has not set the benchmark. They only decided one case. The Vilven/Kelley case. A case that goes back to the 2003-2005 when those 2 retired. A case that is being appealed.

They only hinted at what the future might bring. It is not law yet.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: equipment bid

Post by Dockjock »

Rocky and Lost in Saigon,
How do you suggest we prepare for this foregone conclusion? It appears you would be vehemently opposed to any changes to the contract. Rather you'd like everything to stay the same, with a '0' whited out and a '5' written in.
And yet you say we need to get out in front of this issue. Are you saying I (we) need to just get over it? Stop complaining? And let you guys have what you want and when you want it?

With all due respect, that ain't gonna happen.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

? Normal Retirement Age ?

Post by Lost in Saigon »

The process has already begun. What is going to happen is, one day soon, the CHRT will decide what the "Normal Retirement Age" for Air Canada pilots is.

It is pretty obvious to me, as each day goes by, that it will be age 65.

Right now ACPA needs to be negotiating, or at least posturing, to make sure that when this change happens, those who still want to retire at 60 may do so with no penalty.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: equipment bid

Post by Rockie »

Dockjock wrote:Rocky and Lost in Saigon,
How do you suggest we prepare for this foregone conclusion? It appears you would be vehemently opposed to any changes to the contract. Rather you'd like everything to stay the same, with a '0' whited out and a '5' written in.
And yet you say we need to get out in front of this issue. Are you saying I (we) need to just get over it? Stop complaining? And let you guys have what you want and when you want it?

With all due respect, that ain't gonna happen.
Brickhead

Nothing we do as pilots (or the company for that matter) to prepare for over 60 today will have any bearing on the Vilven and Kelly court case because their case was decided on the conditions at the time they retired. Today doesn't matter in their case which is why I think they're going to lose.

Dockjock

What do we do about it? I've posted this a couple of times already on this one thread, but I am happy to do so again. These are fundamental principles that ALPA put in place as a condition of their support for over 60. Whatever details emerge on contract must adhere to these principles that all stakeholders in this have agreed to. Here in Canada it may be a little different but this is a pretty good place to start don't you think?

http://www.age60rule.com/docs/2007%20AL ... elease.pdf

My personal feelings about age 60 have nothing to do with why I am trying to light a fire under our head in the sand membership and union. Over 60 is right around the corner as you too have realized, and we are doing nothing to prepare for it. All we are doing is fighting a battle that is already lost which is a huge waste of time and money. I want you and everyone else who wants to go at 60 to do so with as little disruption and loss as possible. But that's not going to happen by standing around with your fingers up your ass. And it's not going to happen by fighting Vilven and Kelly either.
---------- ADS -----------
 
yycflyguy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2786
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:18 am

Re: equipment bid

Post by yycflyguy »

Weird. I thought this thread was on the equipment bid.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Martin Tamme
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:58 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Martin Tamme »

yycflyguy wrote:Weird. I thought this thread was on the equipment bid.

Well, by the time this debate is over, another equipment bid will be out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: equipment bid

Post by Dockjock »

The items on the ALPA list seem to be focussed on retaining the same rights for those over 60 as those under as to medicals and "the ability to retire before 65 without penalty". An ominous statement if there ever was one. Why would ALPA feel the need to specifially protect something that is already enshrined, in fact forms the entire basis for, existing pensions? Would it be because it is evident that some day down the road, 60 WILL eventually be seen as "early retirement"? I fully believe so. Normalization of deviance. Not in the next 5 years, but 25 years from now, through the next and the next and the next crisis, a full pension at 60 will be under fire. Because of this.

I see nothing that addresses the immediate concerns of the under 60 group.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by tonysoprano »

I vote to lower the retirement age to 55. What? I have rights too. :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: equipment bid

Post by Rockie »

Dockjock wrote:I see nothing that addresses the immediate concerns of the under 60 group.
It's right there in black and white, but I've highlighted the appropriate sections for you

ALPA will now turn its attention to working to advocate the following priorities contained in the resolution:

Appropriate legislative language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 Rule, to the effect
that: “No person over 60, except active flight deck crewmembers, on the effective date may serve as a pilot
(captain or first officer) for a Part 121 airline unless such person is newly hired as a pilot on or after such
effective date without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of
service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”

Appropriate legislative language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in
implementing a change to the rule, to the effect that: “Any action in conformance with this Act or with a
regulation under this Act may not serve as a basis for liability or relief before any court or agency of the United
States, or of any state or locality, nor may any action taken prior to the effective date of enactment on the basis
of section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as then in effect.”

Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a
participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have
been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule.


Opposing any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing.

Opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records.

Supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six
months for pilots over age 60.

Opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit
be under age 60. Once sufficient data on pilots over age 60 becomes available, unless the necessity for this
mitigation for the long term is clearly shown, advocate for removal of the ICAO over/under mitigation for all
operations.

Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.

The Board charged that ALPA continue to aggressively lobby for the adoption of the Akaka bill (which would provide full
PBGC benefits to pilots who retire at age 60
).
---------- ADS -----------
 
Al707
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Al707 »

And once again Rockie you are about how old? :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Brick Head »

Rockie,

The Vilven/Kelly award already dealt with this. Our situation is different because of our pension.

At the moment it is the highest Federal ruling on the matter.

Lost and Rockie,

Let me get this straight. You both feel the Vilven/Kelly award has nothing to do with anyone else but them. That the guidance given only applies to them. That ACPA and AC are free to ignore the guidance given within it wrt to normal age of retirement because it only applies to those two individuals?

What??????????????

So like if Vilven/Kelly had won. It would only apply to them? They would be the only two allowed to stay?

So this appeal gets heard. Then that gets appealed to the supreme court by who ever looses. That's going to be very time consuming. I didn't know it would take that long to get 60+ implemented.

I wonder how the CHRT will feel about it's guidance being ignored for so long? Not thinking their going to be happy. Justice delayed justice denied kinda thing.

Wonder how the first individual who could stay past 60 based on the guidance will feel about your opinion? That we get to ignore him/her while the appeals take place. Hmmm. Glad you guys are not ACPA's legal team.

Who is giving you this stuff? Please expand your sources for reading on this subject.

I can tell you emphatically. That is not what lawyers are telling ACPA.

It is the highest federal guidance we have on the subject. Unless changed on appeal ACPA must follow it.

(added for clarification) In the meantime ACPA must also follow it.

I suspect that this legal opinion has a lot more to do with strategy than fact. The strategy being, avoid as much as possible, the guidance within the Vilven/Kelly award from being implemented. Although you won. In your opinion it is not a big enough win. Once individuals start staying under those conditions it is hard to reverse so avoid implementation.

ACPA can't do that. you may be able to espouse that opinion risk free. ACPA certainly can not act on it risk free.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Brick Head on Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:58 am, edited 3 times in total.
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by tonysoprano »

Who is giving you this stuff?
Remember a guy named McInnis?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
barefootpilot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:30 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by barefootpilot »

Even if the CHRT changes the age to 65, aren't we legally obligated to retire at 60 because that is what is the contract and what pilots agreed on? SO come 09 no madder what happens with CHRT, not that it will get done in time, won't it go to what the majority wants in a legally binding contract?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: equipment bid

Post by Rockie »

Al707 wrote:And once again Rockie you are about how old? :roll:
Not that it matters, but not yet in my 50's. You are trying to make this out about me when it is really about you. If you guys don't start doing something constructive about this issue you will lose your ability to retire at 60 without penalty. I am trying to get you to do something about saving your retirement benefits that will actually work. Betting the barn on stopping over 60 is a lost proposition and I am simply trying to convince you guys of that fact. Stop trying to make it personal because it isn't.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: equipment bid

Post by Rockie »

barefootpilot wrote:Even if the CHRT changes the age to 65, aren't we legally obligated to retire at 60 because that is what is the contract and what pilots agreed on? SO come 09 no madder what happens with CHRT, not that it will get done in time, won't it go to what the majority wants in a legally binding contract?
This is the kind of poor understanding that manifested itself in the meaningless vote. Go back and read the thread.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: equipment bid

Post by Rockie »

Brickhead

Of course we have to comply with the eventual outcome of Vilven and Kelly. But they are probably going to lose and their retirement sticks at 60 because of the CHRT ruling. What I've been trying to tell you 100 different ways is that Vilven and Kelly will have no bearing on future cases except that their ruling laid the framework for how normal retirement age is determined. That is going up. Vilven and Kelly only applies until the next case. Get it now?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Brick Head
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:37 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Brick Head »

Rockie wrote:Brickhead

What I've been trying to tell you 100 different ways is that Vilven and Kelly will have no bearing on future cases except that their ruling laid the framework for how normal retirement age is determined. Get it now?
Rockie,

Exactly.

This is the part I don't get.

If we have a frame work in place to determine the normal age of retirement, which you and I agree on, why would there be a need for further hearings centered on that issue since it is clarified?

What is it that the a CHRT needs to hear wrt to the other 44? The normal age of retirement (based on the framework/guidance) is either 60+ or it is not. Right?

Unless those challenges are bases on another question that needs clarification, why would the CHRT hear more cases asking the exact same question they already answered? My understanding is that the other cases are all centered on "normal age of retirement" as well.

The CHRT does not hear cases they believe have already been answered.

Unless forced to by an appeals court, why would a CHRT hear this again?

I don't follow.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Al707
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Al707 »

We can walk away anytime we want there Rockie (Before factor 80 a small penalty after factor 80 no penalty) the long term financial penalties and long term lifestyle penalties to all of "us guys" will come from those of you not vacating the positions that our retirement calculators and future equipment bids are based on!

Monthly PBS bidding, equipment bidding and therefore pay, vacation bidding... everything that is worth it's salt in our existing contract will be very adversly affected and that is why people are so against it and will be until those seeking it are willing to make some concessions.

Funny thing is I have not talked to a single individual wanting to go beyond 60 willing to give up ANYTHING! They all want the same identical contract... otherwise it's...... AGE DISCRIMINATION!

There are creative ways to make it work should it be forced on us and those whining, poor, discriminated against individuals are going to need to realize no one gets something for nothing in todays world.

Hard to feel sorry for someone entitled to 100K+ on pension at 60!
---------- ADS -----------
 
tonysoprano
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:01 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by tonysoprano »

Al. I can't believe this. I agree!!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rebel
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1552
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:43 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Rebel »

Funny I keep hearing all the old augments both pro and against. It would be more constructive if ACPA focused their energies on providing input into how to implement the new reality of flying beyond age 60 instead of flogging a dead horse. Otherwise the Government in conjunction with the airlines will impose a solution, which is exactly how the infamous age 60 was born. That is history and reality..
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: equipment bid

Post by Lost in Saigon »

Brick Head wrote:
If we have a frame work in place to determine the normal age of retirement, which you and I agree on, why would there be a need for further hearings centered on that issue since it is clarified?

What is it that the a CHRT needs to hear wrt to the other 44? The normal age of retirement (based on the framework/guidance) is either 60+ or it is not. Right?

Unless those challenges are bases on another question that needs clarification, why would the CHRT hear more cases asking the exact same question they already answered? My understanding is that the other cases are all centered on "normal age of retirement" as well.

The CHRT does not hear cases they believe have already been answered.

Unless forced to by an appeals court, why would a CHRT hear this again?

I don't follow.

There is no framework in place. All that was decided was whether or not Vilven and Kelly (and anyone else who retired 2003-2005) had their human rights discriminated because they were forced to retire at 60.

The answer was no, Vilven and Kelly did not have their rights discriminated because when they retired (2003-2005) because the CHRT decided that 60 was the normal retirement age for Air Canada pilots. END OF STORY.

Every month more Air Canada pilots retire BUT THERE IS NO FRAMEWORK in place for them. They must retire at 60. There is no formula, there is nothing. Only a contractual agreement that forces some pilots to retire against their will at age 60.

The other 44 who have filed cases must wait until Vilven/Kelly appeal is decided before their cases can be heard.

No questions have been answered and it will take further cases to decide what the new “Normal Age of Retirement” is for anyone who retired since ICAO, the USA, and many other countries have changed the retirement age to 65.

BUT, if Vilven and Kelly should win their appeal and the CHRT says that they erred in looking outside the country for comparators, or that all other pilots in Canada retire at 65 and so should Air Canada, then the new “normal retirement age" will be 65 at Air Canada.

Do you follow that?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”