Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[yycflyguy]

Rockie, haven't seen you on the board lately. Welcome back. We certainly don't see eye to eye on this topic but I certainly appreciate how you defend your position.

There is a financial impact study on the ACPA website that is garnering a bit of attention. It is very difficult to pick out relevant information because it approaches the issue from many different angles, but it makes the situation look very bad for junior pilots who according to the study will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. It even implies they will make less money by working longer

I don't see this as a surprise.

Using a baseline of normal attrition due to retirements today versus the cost of having the membership work an additional 5 years with adjusted pension triggers, increased cost of living over an additional 5 years, more concessions (?). The list goes on. A dollar earned today is much more valuable than the promise of a dollar tomorrow. So anyone that is on flat pay, PG or affected from the additional 5% Airbus concession is going to be stuck in their financial world for longer than originally forecasted.

I also read that it looks like you are right and the mandatory retirement will cease this spring. They will be filtered back into the group with additional equipment bids.

If people are hostile about the decision, just wait to see how much fun it will be in the crew room when they are back exercising their right to work

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if the report is a joint effort between the Company and ACPA. Neither side wants to go down this road.

[rudder]

If people are hostile about the decision, just wait to see how much fun it will be in the crew room when they are back exercising their right to work

Couldn't be any worse than red vs blue.

[yycflyguy]

If people are hostile about the decision, just wait to see how much fun it will be in the crew room when they are back exercising their right to work

Couldn't be any worse than red vs blue.

I think it would be worse than red v blue. The merger was forced upon by the Federal government, claiming it was a "business" decision to protect Canadian jobs.

This spawns from within.

[Jaques Strappe]

This thread is getting so in depth I can't remember if anyone has already brought this up or not but how do they think they are going to get around the seniority problems that will be coming from this? I mean, you could have guys over 60 in the right seat of the 777 who cannot be scheduled to fly with Captains over 60 and vice versa. That single scenario just cannot work right now.

I believe that if the mandatory retirement age is eliminated, there will be lots of provisos in order to not trigger another complaint from those it effects.

[Brick Head]

This thread is getting so in depth I can't remember if anyone has already brought this up or not but how do they think they are going to get around the seniority problems that will be coming from this? I mean, you could have guys over 60 in the right seat of the 777 who cannot be scheduled to fly with Captains over 60 and vice versa. That single scenario just cannot work right now.

Jaques,

The Tribunal addressed it.

[148] Even assuming that the over/under rule would produce these consequences (which has not been established) Captain Duke agreed that he did not consider any other solutions to the conundrum that resulted from the two experiments that he conducted.

[149] However, there may be alternatives to potential scheduling problems that arise from the
implementation of the over/under rule. For example, it may be that instead of requiring under 60
first officers to accommodate the over 60 captains, the respondents could agree that in the event of a scheduling problem, the over 60 captains would be required to bid into other positions where they could be accommodated.

Notice the wording. .....the respondents could agree...... no mention of the complainants or the Tribunal.

[Brick Head]

I also read that it looks like you are right and the mandatory retirement will cease this spring. They will be filtered back into the group with additional equipment bids.

False rumor.

[Brick Head]

The financial impact study simply displays redistribution from what ACPA intended, and negotiated, on behalf of ACPA members.

The CHRT has no jurisdiction over distribution. Only the bargaining agent does.

Correcting the redistribution is not age related. It does however require proving before acting.

[Jaques Strappe]

Thanks Brickhead

Here is another question and please excuse my ignorance but I would rather not second guess anything until an actual decision has been made. However, assuming that the mandatory retirement age of 60 is eliminated, even though it was seen as a benefit by the majority of the pilot group and negotiated into our contract by the very complainants who are now trying to destroy it, is there any jurisdiction over seniority?

I mean, we could drop this age 60 fight all together and simply have a vote by the membership whereby we make a decision to include language into our collective agreement allowing pilots to fly till they die, however their seniority number gets retired at 60.

Nobody is stopping them from working beyond 60 keeping their ex wives liquid and the rest of us don't have to be penalized as a result.

I am sure people much smarter than me have already thought of this but just wondering if it was even possible.

I was at a recent social gathering with fellow colleagues and this age 60 thing came up at the bar. If anyone held any resentment over the Blue vs Red, it was nothing compared to the resentment brewing over this. At least the Blue and Red teams were seen as fighting for the best possible benefit for their respective members and really, who can fault that? This however is being seen as a blatant, screw your fellow pilot, by the blues, the reds and the purples. I fear there will be some pretty unfriendly cockpits and I don't think many will be made to feel welcome.

[Brick Head]

Jaques,

ACPA has now come out with their position. Go to the ACPA website and under Age 60 committee read the statement of particulars dated Jan 22.

It is what I have been trying to explain. But might as well get if from the horses mouth rather than sifting through these 6 pages. Moreover it gets very specific.

Pay close attention about paragraph 18.

BUT EVERYONE. PLEASE READ IT ALL.

There is way to much fear out there based on a poor understanding of the issues.

[Max111]

Brick Head,

Para. 18........"is entitled to advance......jobs." That is a given...the only problem with that is, it doesn't make any sense if the logic is flawed................Why . The MEC can say whatever they want.....that doesn't make it so !

Read Paragraph 20........Here is ACPA's potential measures of accommodation. Nothing for the company and everything for the MEC. None of us want to collect our pensions and still continue to fly...This would not help the pension plan or the company. Enough said !!
The third condition.....age 60+ pilots could not bid into the position of Captain.

What planet are you from.............no airline in the world allows that..not BA,Qantas,Air New Zealand, the 45,000 pilots of Part 121 carriers in the USA and not Air Canada Jazz to name but a few.

Anyway...the vocal minority is alive and well. Free speech is a great thing !

Max111

[rudder]

Always leave it to ACPA to take the least enlightened position.

I hope that ACPA and the company pooch this assignment so bad that the CHRT takes it upon itself to write the language. It will likely resemble the templates that already exist, and perhaps it will teach a lesson to certain parties about responsible representational and employer behaviour. Or perhaps not . Other carriers and unions have all figured this out. Disappointing but not surprising that AC/ACPA cannot do the same.

[Brick Head]

Guys,

First of all this is a forced document by the CHRT to provide a solution on remedy based on the latest ruling. ACPA first objective is still planning appeal.

This document is what the CHRT has suggested. It is why I have been so accurate as to what to expect. Not because I am on the inside, but because I read the latest Tribunal document. It is the Tribunal, not ACPA, that is suggesting ACPA find means other than mandatory retirement to protect the deferred compensation system and benefits. Everything in ACPA's statement of particulars was suggested by the Tribunal itself, as a way to avoid hurdles, and allow individuals to stay beyond 60. ACPA has been forced to provide a solution, based on the latest ruling, for remedy. Here you have it.

This is the crux of the CHRT logic for not applying section 15(1)c. Above this paragraph are a bunch of suggestions to protect the system without mandatory retirement. The suggestions range from different working conditions, beyond a specific age, as done in other jurisdictions. Incentives to retire and more. Later on there is even a suggestion that the respondents agree to move post 60 pilots to other positions where the over/under 60 issue is not a problem.

[45] In the light of the above-noted considerations, can it be said that the goal of permitting
mandatory retirement to be negotiated in the workplace continues to be of pressing and
substantial importance? The alternatives to mandatory retirement, which are in use in other
jurisdictions, effectively preserve the benefits of the current system without infringing a
constitutionally protected right. How then can the goal of permitting freedom of contract in this area be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutional right?

So do you think these alternatives are discriminatory? Sure makes one wonder doesn't it. If they are? Then the CHRT did a big oops in not enforcing 15(1)c and the appeals court will throw all this back at them. What a mess.

At some point ACPA and AC are going to ask for a stay. I mean does anyone other than me think that this logic may be flawed? Or that there is a chance the appeals court will go.......WTF!

At this point I think ACPA and AC haven't applied for a stay simply because they want to see just how far down this path the CHRT is willing to go.

The Tribunal's problem is that they can not change the law. They just enforce it. The law says mandatory retirement is legal under specific conditions. They needed a reason to ignore it. They created one. At first blush it sounds reasonable. But in practicality?

Again. We are in this position because of the charter question. Had the CHRT simply said the new normal age of retirement is xx we would not be here.

Now we are left with two possible directions. Continue heading in the current one or an appeal court makes everyone start all over

[Johnny767]

I read into all of this, the Company is going to capitulate and ACPA knows it. So, now what?

ACPA is scrambling for damage control.

[Brick Head]

I read into all of this, the Company is going to capitulate and ACPA knows it. So, now what?

ACPA is scrambling for damage control.

Your reading way too much.

The statement of particulars are based on the respondents mutual need shall we say. The respondents have been forced to produce a solution for remedy based on the CHRT's latest ruling. That is it. Nothing more.

To be frank, I don't think the company, nor ACPA, believe the latest ruling from the CHRT will likely stand on appeal. I think they believe we will all eventually start this process over again for yet the third time. Which means they believe the statement of particulars are likely mute.

They will likely apply for a stay of the CHRT process soon. The question is when. Whether they wait for specific point to interrupt the process, or they wait for a final out come? It is coming.

Besides the company can not realistically capitulate. Should they do so without an agreement with ACPA, and then the situation changes yet again? They could inadvertently increase their liability not just to retires, but current ACPA members as well.

[Rockie]

ACPA seems bent on finding a way to punish pilots who elect to stay past 60 by:

A) Forcing them to collect their pension at age 60 regardless of how many actual years service they have (para 20a)
B) Denying supplementary pension payments to pilots who stay past 60 (para 20b)
C) Removing the right of an over 60 pilot to bid Captain (para 20c)

How dense can they be? Any measure that unnecessarily discriminates against a pilot due to their age will result in another trip to the CHRT. I'll take it there myself.

And before anybody agrees to screwing pilots who stay beyond 60 they would do well to remember they are really screwing themselves.

[DocAV8R]

What would make good reading is the Mercer Report produced for Air Canada on the Impact of Age 60 pilots remaining. That would be "GOOD READING".

The fact that it is not presented in the Tribunals is significant. You can bet that with the hundreds of thousands or even millions being spent to fight a few loyal and long-standing employees, they would be using it for their defense if it helped them. There is no doubt that it shows the money that would be saved allowing pilots to fly past 60.

This is consistent with the findings of British Airways, Quantas, Air New Zealand, South West Airlines, and Cathay Pacific to name a few.

ALPA statistics also show that Collective Agreements survive the change to flying past 60. It is not the horror show that is being promulgated by your Age 60 Committee. They are creating a problem that really didn't exist except in their own minds.

If they are worried that a huge percentage of pilots will fly past 60,
then doesn't it prove that they are not representing that same percentage of pilot's interests. This union is not doing a good job maintaining a united cohesive workforce, in my opinion; rather it is doing everything possible to cause strife among its members. Not very impressive.

[Lost in Saigon]

If they are worried that a huge percentage of pilots will fly past 60,
then doesn't it prove that they are not representing that same percentage of pilot's interests. This union is not doing a good job maintaining a united cohesive workforce, in my opinion; rather it is doing everything possible to cause strife among its members. Not very impressive.

I think a major motivating factor in this age 60 fiasco might be the self interests of those running ACPA. As they near 60 they want to preserve their advancement at all costs. They are spending a lot of money and resources to fight a battle that can not be won. It will only be delayed long enough for those in charge to reap their own maximum benefits. I hope I am wrong, but that is the way it looks to me.

If only a few choose to go past 60, it will not have the disastrous effect that ACPA is so concerned about. If many choose to go past 60, then ACPA is not representing the membership properly.

I personally think only about 20% will work past 60, and only for 2-3 years. Of course it will vary from year to year depending on the pilot's years of service when they hit 60.

[yycflyguy]

I think a major motivating factor in this age 60 fiasco might be the self interests of those running ACPA. As they near 60 they want to preserve their advancement at all costs. They are spending a lot of money and resources to fight a battle that can not be won. It will only be delayed long enough for those in charge to reap their own maximum benefits. I hope I am wrong, but that is the way it looks to me.

Sad but true.

Just throwing this out there. What percentage of the guys will be on GDIP between age 60-65?

[Rockie]

Sad but true.

Just throwing this out there. What percentage of the guys will be on GDIP between age 60-65?

That is an excellent point that highlights where ACPA should be focusing their efforts. Instead of wasting resources fighting a lost battle or inventing ways to screw the over 60 pilots they should be thinking about practical implementation. I too think it is their own self interest that is driving their actions, and they have done a wonderful job of manipulating the pilot group into supporting them.

[Brick Head]

Okay. Let me get this straight. The ruling has been in black and white since Aug 09. But I heard no outrage from you wrt to its contents. ACPA basically takes the CHRT's own suggestions from the ruling on how to preserve the benefit system, without using mandatory retirement, writes them down, and submits them back for remedy.

And now you decide to be outraged? Not only that your anger is directed at ACPA. The entity who was ordered to submit suggestions for remedy based on the ruling, rather than directing your anger at the author.

You guys give me headache.

[Rockie]

Take an aspirin.

The ruling suggested nothing like what ACPA has submitted, and it certainly did not support even more age discrimination.

[Brick Head]

Take an aspirin.

The ruling suggested nothing like what ACPA has submitted, and it certainly did not support even more age discrimination.

Rockie, Docav8r, lost

This is all about the consequences of eliminating mandatory retirement rather than just an age change.

Sorry Rockie. Alternative suggestions to mandatory retirement are all through the document. I've been pasting them here for pages now. They are not considered discriminatory because there objective is preservation rather than age related. They are in affect already in many provincial jurisdictions that have already eliminated mandatory retirement.

But I do agree with you. This ain't going to work IMO. Our deferred compensation system is so steep in comparison to others, that alternatives to mandatory retirement, need to be that much more severe in order to preserve the benefit? So much so, that it really makes one wonder if this is a logical route.

I wonder if the CHRT would have chosen this route had they seen the financial impact study during the hearings? That study would have sent a very clear message of just how severe the alternatives would need to be in order to preserve the benefit in the absence of Mandatory retirement. But as we know that did not happen.

What ACPA submitted was their idea for remedy based on the ruling. The CHRT can say no. Maybe they will. Problem is, to now say no and deny ACPA alternative ways of preserving the benefit system (without mandatory retirement) would completely contradict their ruling. If they continue with their present path you guys will also have good grounds for appeal.

But which ever one is in line for appeal on remedy, will have to wait behind the present appeals that will start over the actual ruling soon. That appeal has a charter issue in it ( the very same one that has caused the mess above). No saying how long that will take to sort out first.

What a mess

[DocAV8R]

Brick head said

I wonder if the CHRT would have chosen this route had they seen the financial impact study during the hearings? That study would have sent a very clear message of just how severe the alternatives would need to be in order to preserve the benefit. But as we know that did not happen.

The financial impact study you refer to was presented to the Tribunal in the latest hearing and Kesselman ( the Economic Expert) pointed out the numerous flaws in the study and in the false assumptions. Garbage In = Garbage Out.

The studies assume 100% are staying past 60. If that were true, then this union is clearly fighting for the wrong side.

What you haven't posted on the ACPA web-site is the MERCER REPORT that was commissioned by a company that understands logic, math, costs and benefits. The results of that are clearly significantly different from the flawed studies in the propaganda.
I would suggest that the MERCER REPORT shows completely the opposite results for the airline and the pilots, otherwise it surely would have been put into evidence at the Tribunal and not been kept a secret from everyone.

ALPA has negotiated numerous contracts with over 60 pilots and it did not turn into the horror show you are predicting here.

You are making imaginary problems and supporting them with imaginary facts and studies designed solely as propaganda to stir the troops up. Sadly, it appears, that slimy tactic has met with some success. Unfortunately, people tend to be gullible and believe everything they read. They do not take the time or have the skills to critically analyze the propaganda put before them, and blindly follow their leaders ( who likely have their own private agendas).

Luckily, it seems more and more people are becoming aware of this and are putting their heads over the parapet and speaking up. I hear that the latest events have spurred many more to sign up in support of the FLY PAST 60 Group.

I feel that it is "you" who doesn't understand.....

[yycflyguy]

Luckily, it seems more and more people are becoming aware of this and are putting their heads over the parapet and speaking up. I hear that the latest events have spurred many more to sign up in support of the FLY PAST 60 Group.

Yikes, if you have been following the ACPA forum on this, have you seen the backlash against those who are showing up with hat in hand now by putting their name on the complainants list? Without using the "G" word, they are "looking to supplement their revenues" because they see a potential hand out. Pretty immoral if you ask me.

[Brick Head]

Docav8r,

Interesting way to take a stab at the financial impact study. But it is kind of missing the point isn't it? Kinda not seeing the forest for the trees? Yes the graphs are designed to show extremes. Some shock and awe sort of speak. But that does not matter. What matters is that there is an impact. It does not matter how big. Or how small.

What matters is that impact exists. What matters is that the latest Tribunal ruling embraces alternatives, as a way to eliminating mandatory retirement altogether, and still preserving the original benefit system.

I wasn't there. Did Kesselman admit impact? Big or small? I'm guessing all he really said was the big impact picture was probably remote. Right? That doesn't change the fact that ACPA still has a right to address even a small impact.

What I am sensing from your post is that you have a problem with ACPA preserving the benefit system, with alternatives other than mandatory retirement. Correct?

Now that issue you will have to take up with the CHRT or an appeals court.

FWIW I agree with you. I can see some logic in this. I can see how with a flatter compensation system this idea of preserving the benefit system with alternatives could work. The measures needed to preserve are small. But the idea that alternatives to mandatory retirement, can be used with our CA, to preserve the benefit system, seems questionable as the measures required are so large. Yet if the Tribunal doesn't allow these measures? well it doesn't have to be these specific ones. It could be other alternatives that effectively accomplish the same thing. If they don't allow alternatives that effectively preserve the benefit system? Their whole logic for not applying section 15(1)c goes out the window.

That is why at the end of the day I think this ruling will join the first one in the trash bin.