Layoffs... True?

[Brick Head]

IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT AC WOULD GET RELIEF FROM THE LATEST RULING BASED ON A BFOR FOR POST AGE 65 PILOTS.

Says you. I think they will. But, we'll never know for sure until they try, and they aren't trying.

Rockie your comments puzzle me.

Says who? The CHRT did.

Read what I wrote again. Based on the logic of the ruling..............

The CHRT stated in their latest ruling that if older pilots can not be accommodated where they are, move them to where they can be.

The logic is simple. If they can be accommodated, somewhere, somehow. Do it.

As a matter of fact I do know that, which is why we should be working to put some limit on it based on BFOR.

What? The CHRT struck down mandatory retirement altogether and you think setting limits based on age will be acceptable? It will be acceptable to force someone out the door at a specific age even if there is a job they could do???????????????????

So I am not following you at all. Are you suggesting that there is nowhere to accommodate post 65 pilots? There is no licensing age limit in Canada. As long as AC has a sizable domestic operation there will always be a place to accommodate any age at which pilots choose to retire.

What the CHRT wants is for the respondents to collectively bargain accommodation of no age limit for retirement while addressing their own operational and collective needs that result from the change.

It may have slipped your notice, but I am a voting member of this pilot group as well. Not someone on "that side of the fence". The union representing me decided on their own and before consulting the membership to fight this. When they put it out to a vote it was to obtain a mandate to do that without representing both sides of the debate. That is not what I would call democracy in action.

What the membership is now a bunch of easily manipulated idiots in your view? When it went to a vote it was clear to anyone with a brain what was being asked. Fight for status quo. Yes or no. It doesn't matter what the chances of success are. What matters is the membership decided. You made a choice to be subjected to the will of the majority when you joined a union. I don't agree with everything the majority decides to do either. The latest TA comes to mind. 6 weeks to the nearest deadline and we caved? Not what I wanted to see, but I accept it because the majority chose it, and I chose to live by the will of that majority when I took the job. So did you.

In the end though it doesn't matter. We have been given our marching orders by an organization bigger than we are. How we implement it is our business (provided it isn't discriminatory in some other way) and the HRTC doesn't care what kind of pay scheme we have in place. Our job is to comply.

Exactly.

Continuing to fight it after the ruling is putting us in an even worse position each and every month

How? I don't see it.

Because ACPA and AC are probably thinking that not fighting this ruling, to at the very minimum ensure collective bargaining rights are protected, is a recipe for loosing control. That could spell huge liability issues. Huge operational impacts and so on.

[loopa]

So back to the original question, layoffs ... yes or no?

They say that when it takes somebody a period of time to answer a question, they probably don't know anything about the subject matter.


Seems like this is the case on this thread; how many of you guys really fly for air canada ? lol

[Rockie]

The CHRT stated in their latest ruling that if older pilots can not be accommodated where they are, move them to where they can be.

The logic is simple. If they can be accommodated, somewhere, somehow. Do it.

This does not stop the union or the company from stating the case that they can't be accommodated. If the HRTC rules that they can be accommodated then the pilots in question (65+) are moved where they have to go. If anything that will be domestic only so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what you guys want to do with them in the first place? Really, I don't see what you're arguing against here.

What? The CHRT struck down mandatory retirement altogether and you think setting limits based on age will be acceptable? It will be acceptable to force someone out the door at a specific age even if there is a job they could do???????????????????

BFOR is a valid reason for the HRTC as you very well know as long as the case is made. We aren't trying to make the case are we? Why do you fight so unreasonably to win something you won't, but you won't even try something you might win?

What the membership is now a bunch of easily manipulated idiots in your view?

I wouldn't put it quite that way, but yes. This is the MEC's agenda because they themselves don't want their career progression delayed and they sold it that way. Nobody explained the other side of the issue, and our obviously pavlovian reaction to a stalled career is to fight it. Just look at the way we drool at the prospect of more hiring or aquiring new airplanes. It's embarrassing sometimes.

Before your delicate ego gets all out of joint, let me rephrase that in a way that I already have many, many times so you will probably find it familiar. We as a pilot group are not very good at looking beyond the next bid or upgrade in pay. You only need to look at the hysterically emotional reaction of a lot of people at the notion of delaying their next pay upgrade even a small amount. It's the only thing most of us seem able to think about (go ahead, try and deny that). A lot of the most strident voices are from people currently on flat pay, but they don't seem able to make the 20 year leap in thought to when they are on the other end of the scale and find themselves with a much reduced pension because they only got 25 years service instead of the 35 required for the full benefit.

Making an informed decision requires information. Our MEC didn't give us any when they put this to a vote. They fell prey to the negative implications of 60+ and completely ignored the benefits themselves, and presented it that way to the membership to vote on. I'm not at all surprised it went the way it did.

Exactly.

Since we apparently agree on this, the most important point, I don't see what we're arguing about here. Let's get on with complying with the ruling.

How? I don't see it.

I've said this 100 times too. Every month we push more pilots out the door who will have every right to come back when all this legal BS is done with. Every month that we delay implementation will make it much, much harder and more expensive to do. That doesn't take genius to figure out. The ruling was a complete game changer in this debate. It moved 60+ from a hypothetical to a directive from the government. That date is when this becomes effective. I'm frankly shocked that the company and union didn't at the least stop pushing guys out who didn't want to go pending the final outcome of their desperate defence, but there you go.

[Brick Head]

Rockie,

This does not stop the union or the company from stating the case that they can't be accommodated. If the HRTC rules that they can be accommodated then the pilots in question (65+) are moved where they have to go.

True they could. However we all know 65+ can be accommodated domestically. Correct?

BFOR is a valid reason for the HRTC as you very well know as long as the case is made. We aren't trying to make the case are we?

Because there is not a case for a BFOR. Who's accusing who of wasting energy on fruitless endeavors?

Why do you fight so unreasonably to win something you won't, but you won't even try something you might win?

Ummm?????? There is greater likelihood that this ruling will change through the appeals process than there is of getting a BFOR exemption for 65+ pilots in the rulings present form.

Considering your position on this subject.......... am I missing something here? Why do you want AC to ask for a BFOR exemption so that AC can force people out the door at 65?

A lot of the most strident voices are from people currently on flat pay, but they don't seem able to make the 20 year leap in thought to when they are on the other end of the scale and find themselves with a much reduced pension because they only got 25 years service instead of the 35 required for the full benefit.

You are harming many of the very individuals you claim you want to help. I'm just about to hit 50 myself. I'll only get 26 years in. (not ex military) You want to reduce the pension I am entitled to at 60, by reducing my best 5 years of compensation leading up to it? I know you don't think the vast majority of the membership is all that bright, but you actually think I am stupid enough to stand up and applaud your efforts here? You want me to just roll over and let you force me to work past 60 (for the same pension) just because that is what you want? I get the willies reading some of the stuff coming out of the post 60 camp. Too many of you sound like used time share salesmen.

I get it. You want to stay past 60. Good on you. I don't care. Go for it. You will get that chance I am sure. Maybe sooner than later. Maybe later than sooner.

But hear this before you make more irresponsibly inaccurate one sided remarks about the "benefits" of post 60 retirement.

I DON'T WANT TO STAY PAST 60. KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY PENSION.


As for the rest of your post?

You don't have a very good grasp of the process we are in. All I can say is this. Take a deep breath because it will probably take a while to be vetted through the courts. For our part? We will do our very best to protect our collective bargaining rights so wages and pensions are protected from your ambitions.

[Brick Head]

So back to the original question, layoffs ... yes or no?

No.

[yycflyguy]

You are harming many of the very individuals you claim you want to help. I'm just about to hit 50 myself. I'll only get 26 years in. (not ex military) You want to reduce the pension I am entitled to at 60, by reducing my best 5 years of compensation leading up to it? I know you don't think the vast majority of the membership is all that bright, but you actually think I am stupid enough to stand up and applaud your efforts here? You want me to just roll over and let you force me to work past 60 (for the same pension) just because that is what you want? I get the willies reading some of the stuff coming out of the post 60 camp. Too many of you sound like used time share salesmen..

[TyrellCorp]

Bravo Brick Head. BRAVO and well said!

[Rockie]

You are harming many of the very individuals you claim you want to help. I'm just about to hit 50 myself. I'll only get 26 years in. (not ex military) You want to reduce the pension I am entitled to at 60, by reducing my best 5 years of compensation leading up to it?

I don't see how you can miss something so obvious. First of all you are not entitled to any guaranteed level of compensation for 5 years. I can think of many factors that will, and do, adversely effect your ficticious entitlement. This is just one of them. On the other hand the current employees now have the right to stay beyond 60 if they choose. You might have missed it but the HRTC says so. You don't know if your pension will be reduced leaving at 60 if the age goes to 65. You assume it. But I can guarantee you it will be better if you stay for 31 years in instead of 26. And who knows, by then you will probably want to stay. There is also the rather embarrassing fact that nobody wants to stop you from going at 60, yet you are completely fine with forcing someone out when they don't want to go. That fact alone is a disgrace.

Fortunately for us we live in a civilized society that doesn't agree with you. Don't believe me? See how many jurisdictions are doing away with mandatory retirement and you will get a sense of how out of step you are with today's values.

You also don't know if I am going to stay beyond 60. I don't know if I'm going to stay beyond 60 because it is many years off yet. The difference is I can tell when the tide has turned and when a fight is futile. If the union wins this particular battle it is a temporary reprieve at best. Our pensions cannot stand the pressure of more, and longer living recipients being supported by relatively fewer and fewer contributors. It isn't just a problem with pilots either. It is a serious societal issue with no immediate answer except allowing the workforce to stay longer. Too bad it doesn't fit into your plans. But then again like most other people here you don't give a shit what happens after you leave anyway.

[Dockjock]

Rockie re: expectations.

I was once offered a job at $28,000 as a turboprop FO. It was a job I'd been seeking for about 2 years and I finally nabbed it. It involved a move across the country, but it was a big step up from what I was doing. 2 days before groundschool, the HR lady calls me up and says, "Hey Dockjock, we've just released a B scale and now we're offering you $22,000." A 21% cut, from an already pathetic wage. Some 'big break' this was turning out to be. An acquaintance who had worked there for a number of years already, comfortably ensconsed as a Captain midway up the old scale (it was his first and only job since flight school) attempted to provide sage counsel, "Dockjock relax pal you didn't get a pay cut, you just have to adjust your expectations." I'd been blue-collar'n it for the last couple thousand hours and here's Mr. White Shirt telling me to relax. Chapped my ass then and still does, actually. Who fuckin says shit like that!

I'll adjust my expectations when the industry is in recession. Or when terrorists crash into the world trade centre. Or when my company is bankrupt. Or pretty much any and every situation when all pilots are similarly being crapped on at the same time due to whatever new crisis of the week is in progress.

I will expressly NOT adjust my expectations when somebody is attempting to steal from me.

[the original tony]

we don't give a shit after we leave? well as it's going nobody will ever leave!! so u have nothing to worry about.
get with the times, not one person looks past this foolish pension. i'll take zero pay as long as we protect the pension. and that is zero for the newbies. unless you plan to leave in the next 18 months or so there's nothing saying the pension won't disappear on the next negots. so with pension reform coming, inevitable if u will, like this 60 bullshit. there is no longer a benefit of staying past 60 to anyone as a group, except your own selfish desire.
if this has nothing to do with money as these greedy bastards keep stressing, why not take an FO position? RP? if the company or acpa has no control over pilot placement, shut the doors to all union offices and planners. the company has lost its rights to run a democratic process by which the pilots as a whole cannot negotiate anything.
i'm done, let everyone stay and f up progression for all. as long as the pension is safe and the old still get to screw over everyone else. god bless democracy.

tony

[Rockie]

I will expressly NOT adjust my expectations when somebody is attempting to steal from me.

You are confusing entitlement with expectations. You're welcome to leave your expectations right where they are but you have no entitlement, so how is it you figure you're being stolen from? You don't own any number on the seniority list except the one you have now. You do not own and you are not owed a higher paying seat. So what's stolen? If it takes a few months longer to get that higher paying seat but you decide to go at 60 anyway, that is your choice and you can't blame that on anybody else. If you decide to retire later you end up with an even bigger pension than you would have gotten otherwise.

No crime has been committed. Nothing has been stolen from you.

It has escaped you outraged victims of a ficticious crime that I am in the same boat you are. My progression to the next seat will be just as delayed as yours. Any hit to your best 5 years will also occur to mine. My ability to retire at 60 is just as effected as yours. But unlike you I've thought about this from a much wider perspective and actually weighed the pros and cons (without any help from my union by the way). I've also viewed this in the context of which way society is heading and really, you guys are pissing into a hurricane here. You don't have a hope in hell of keeping the age at 60.

This has already steamrolled over us but we're too stubborn to realize it. In fact this war was over the instant the first complaint was made and all that was left was keeping the lawyers happy.

So, I guess we'll just keep on keeping the lawyers happy until God himself denies the very last appeal. In the meantime all those guys pushed out the door each and every month are going to want satisfaction, and they will get it because they will be entitled to it.

[hoghead]

If they really want to work past 60, go to the sandpit. What is happening at AC is just a micro version of what is happening in the country. One generation found it acceptable to rack up huge debt and defecit finance, let the next generation pay!

AC needs pilots to work till 65 to delay paying pension obligations. Those last 5 years will take a huge toll on your health at that age and when you do retire, you'll pop your clogs sooner after retirement anyway.

Try sitting at a kitchen table with your parents for 6 hrs (if they are seniors), that is what flying with 60+ is like.

Good luck

[737daytripper]

Do a google search on "the greediest generation" and you will find a number of acticles relating what Rockie is saying ( not necesarily related to aviation, but mandatory retirement in general). But the underlying fact in all of them is that this is not about human rights but about greed and a sense of entitlement.

How is it that the greatest generation (world war II vets) managed to raise the greediest generation?

[Rockie]

Do a google search on "the greediest generation" and you will find a number of acticles relating what Rockie is saying ( not necesarily related to aviation, but mandatory retirement in general). But the underlying fact in all of them is that this is not about human rights but about greed and a sense of entitlement.

How is it that the greatest generation (world war II vets) managed to raise the greediest generation?

There are also a lot more baby boomers about to go on retirement, collect government pensions, require health care etc. And there are a lot fewer people of working age to pay for it. So that means you will have to pay more. Read a newpaper sometime and you will see lots of articles about it. Or, since you like google so much look up "aging canadian demographic". There is a tidal wave of seniors coming that will cost our society a lot of money, who are also willing to continue contributing instead of recieving. And you don't want to let them. Do you think ACPA members are immune from that? Think again.

I also submit that people who only see this as a greed issue suffer from it themselves. How else do you explain their inability to accept that maybe some people just love their jobs and want to continue doing it? How about the serious mental and physical health implications of forcing someone out before they are mentally ready? Google that. I personally know a school janitor who dreaded retirement and ended up in a deep depression afterwards. He killed himself one year after being forced to retire. Was he being greedy?

[Old fella]

If they really want to work past 60, go to the sandpit. What is happening at AC is just a micro version of what is happening in the country. One generation found it acceptable to rack up huge debt and defecit finance, let the next generation pay!

AC needs pilots to work till 65 to delay paying pension obligations. Those last 5 years will take a huge toll on your health at that age and when you do retire, you'll pop your clogs sooner after retirement anyway.

Try sitting at a kitchen table with your parents for 6 hrs (if they are seniors), that is what flying with 60+ is like.

Good luck

Good Points. Speaking from experience (60 yrs, retired, pensioned off), our male generation of old f---ers are indeed cranky, difficult to deal with, obtuse, opinionated, self centered etc, etc. Just walk around the malls/coffee shops (Tims, Second Cup) and what do you see! Old men sitting around mumbling, bitching complaining about everything under the sun. These useless old pasture pluckers hate everything from automation to zest and everything in between. It’s an embarrassment to the generation – bar none.

[Four1oh]

I hate intolerance... and the dutch.

[El Comat]

haha....that was the least informative but most entertaining post! My friend used to say, "there are only two things I hate....racists, and Mexicans".

Now back to your regular scheduled age 60 debate.

[Four1oh]

My other fav is "Kill all Extremists!"

[3Green]

So lets keep all the miserable old "seniors", so we can spend countless hours flying across countries listening to them bitch and moan about something else...drinking FREE Second Cup?
Not cool.

[Rockie]

So lets keep all the miserable old "seniors", so we can spend countless hours flying across countries listening to them bitch and moan about something else...drinking FREE Second Cup?
Not cool.

Maybe all those guys who have been there for many years aren't too interested in hearing you bitch about your problems either. Maybe they consider that uncool.

[DocAV8R]

Just the facts! NOTE THE DATES

Canada's national airline originated from the Canadian federal government's 1936 creation of Trans-Canada Airlines (TCA), which began operating its first transcontinental routes in 1938. In 1965, TCA was renamed Air Canada following government approval. Following the 1980s deregulation of the Canadian airline market, the airline was privatized in 1988.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada

The federal government abolished mandatory retirement for its employees in 1986.

In virtually all of its Annual Reports since 1978, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for the removal of mandatory retirement provisions such as section 15(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. For example, the Commission states the following in its 1997 Annual Report, "The Commission favours repeal of the provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act which permits mandatory retirement at the normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position of that individual. .......................................... We believe that competence - not age - should be the only consideration in determining whether a worker should be forced to leave a particular position."

The Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, appointed by the Minister of Justice in April of 1999, also took an interest in the issue of mandatory retirement. In Chapter 18, section (a) of its final report, the Panel stressed that mandatory retirement is age discrimination and recommended that there be no blanket defences for mandatory retirement (refer to recommendations 131-133). The Review Panel's final report, Promoting Equality: A New Vision, is available on the website of the Department of Justice Canada at: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/chra/en

The Canadian Human Rights Commission's website can be found at http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca You will find electronic versions of our annual reports at: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/reports-en.asp

[yycflyguy]

Rockie:

In your posts you comment frequently about greed and the inability of our generation of pilots to see past the next bid. You talk often of the differences between entitlement and rights. I am sure that many will share my following comments.

When I was hired, not so long ago, it was with the understanding of flat pay, position group pay and formula pay. It was with the understanding that I was hired too old to maximize my pension when I retire at age 60. I suffered through the flat and position and was told on several occasions by senior guys that "I went through it too" and somehow in their minds it justified the pathetic pay that was handed to the newest members of the association. As a personal aside, I am still recovering the savings I lost while on this pay scale. The big difference that they never mention is how they suffered through it at age 25, most were single, for most it was only their 2 job in aviation and for most it was for a non-flying position on the 8, 747 or 727. There was no position group or "B" scale. I knew these conditions and I accepted them.

Now this same group comments about how my generation are the greedy ones.

I find it hard to swallow that someone can't budget their personal lives after a career of 30 plus years, during the "golden age" of wages and conditions (pre 2003) and now argue that it is their right under the charter not to retire. A maximized pension and 30+ years at 6 figures isn't enough? This same group enjoyed upgrades their entire career thanks to the gentlemen of a generation previous that stepped aside when it was their time so the person junior could enjoy the same benefits.

So now this group wants to stay a few more years, because it is their right under the CHRT, but somehow my generation is the greedy one?

One of my favourite comments from a senior pilot regarding the abysmal flat pay we welcome new pilots with was "we don't negotiate for pilots not on the property". With this mindset it is no wonder the entire industry wage and conditions is taking a pounding.

Rockie, you seem to rest your case on all the legal angles of discrimination and that this is inevitable so we need to collectively stop fighting it and reform the issue. I am not even going to try to debate that as you are probably right. It probably will happen and probably sooner than the majority would like. It doesn't mean that your ilk are entitled to the rest of us rolling over on our principles. I will fight this and drag my heals as long as possible because this is a simple case of right v wrong for the existing membership.

We all knew the conditions when we signed up. We accepted those terms which included the seniority system based on a age 60 retirement age.

Just because I don't agree with 60+, don't accuse junior pilots of being unable to see past the next bid. I for one, will be out the door at age 60 and plan to spend the rest of my days under a palm tree, fishing the mornings and working on golf swings and Cuba Libre's in the afternoon.

[Rockie]

No, I talk about the difference between expectations and rights. Not entitlement and rights because they are the same thing. Everything you've said in this post is about expectations.

You are not going to retire at 60 either. You hope to retire at 60, but there are many things that can happen between now and then to change your mind. And yes I know you are pissed off at the greedy bastards who took advantage of the system before you, and you're welcome to be as pissed off as you want. But that will effect nothing, and will change nothing. It won't advance the interests of the pilot group one inch when this inevitably passes. It might make you feel better to fight it but you will not win, and fighting it is only delaying dealing with it making it much more difficult and expensive for ourselves when we finally come to the realization that we've lost.

It is disappointing to me that our union and pilots let emotion guide our actions even though they hurt us in the long run and accomplish nothing. I would rather deal with this maturely.

Also once again just so we're clear. This isn't my case. Everyone here insists on assuming I am one of the people getting a windfall gain, when in actuality I may be junior to you and will be even more adversely effected by this ruling than the majority of those opposed to it. The real difference between you and I is that I can see this ruling for what it is.

It is first and foremost inevitable, and you can be thankful it took this long to occur. It probably could have, and should have happened 20 years ago. I also know that if it wasn't this group forcing the change it would be somebody else, maybe even you in 20 or 30 years when your mindset changes. Second, I know there are many reasons to want to continue working past 60 besides greed so I'm not going to judge this particular group and let anger cloud my reasoning. Third, because I don't let emotion rule my reasoning I can look past the immediate adverse effect this will have on me and see the long term benefits of ending mandatory retirement at 60.

Being part of a profession that holds people like Haynes and Sullenberger up as examples of our ability to deal with adversity with calm and exacting clarity, it astounds and embarrasses me that we are unable to do so with this issue.

[yycflyguy]

Just so we are clear. I hold no anger and I am certainly not allowing emotion to dictate my perspective on this. When something smells like bullshit I am going to call it exactly that.

I think you err in your logic that this is a done deal. Court rulings get overturned all the time. If not, the idiot that burnt herself drinking hot McDonalds coffee would have set a dangerous precedence.

Like I said, you are probably right that this will come to pass but getting the company and ACPA to accept that the battle is over will take years. It is rare that both sides fight for the same cause so this will take years to be implemented. Just calling it like I see it. Once it is implemented I am going to seek legal council on how I was discriminated against as a new hire and fight for equal pay for equal work just like the FAs do. I think it is fair that any FO should be paid the same as the top earning FO in the company. See how ridiculous a claim that is?

[Rockie]

Once it is implemented I am going to seek legal council on how I was discriminated against as a new hire and fight for equal pay for equal work just like the FAs do.

Well, start looking for lawyer then because this is not going to take years. I doubt it will even take months as inevitably the union and company are going to realize they've just been run over by a train. I bet it's the company that realizes it first.