Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[Rockie]

Brickhead. Does it make sense to you that the CHRT would promote further discriminatory practices in their ruling of last August? Think about this for one second.

Do you think the CHRT would condone denying pension benefits to pilots over 60, or accept stripping them of the right to work as Captains? Has none of this taught you or the union anything about age discrimination?

It is shameful that our union is so blind and vindictive that they would consider it much less think it would be accepted. ACPA has lost all grip on reality as far as I'm concerned and is working against the best interests of its members. In the process they have once again fostered deep and unnecessary divisions within our pilot group.

[Brick Head]

Brickhead. Does it make sense to you that the CHRT would promote further discriminatory practices in their ruling of last August? Think about this for one second.

Rockie.

Listen carefully please. I get your point. I even agree this won't work. But ACPA didn't do this. The CHRT has decided that the alternatives to mandatory retirement, used in other jurisdictions to effectively preserve the benefit system, are the way to go. Do I think the CHRT is going to go WTF! when they see what is required? Yup. Oh yeah big time. I think they are even likely to refuse the alternatives. I mean are they really willing to go there? The problem they have is they will completely contradict their ruling if they do not allow the alternatives. What this amounts to is a real lack of understanding of just how steep our pay grid is on the part of the Tribunal. That steepness requires radical changes to preserve the original intent.

Do you think the CHRT would condone denying pension benefits to pilots over 60, or accept stripping them of the right to work as Captains? Has none of this taught you or the union anything about age discrimination?

No. But again it would appear the CHRT had no idea this is what it would take as an alternative, to preserve the benefit system without mandatory retirement.

It is shameful that our union is so blind and vindictive that they would consider it much less think it would be accepted. ACPA has lost all grip on reality as far as I'm concerned and is working against the best interests of its members. In the process they have once again fostered deep and unnecessary divisions within our pilot group.

Okay. So what is your suggestion for " effectively preserving the benefit without the use of mandatory retirement? What would you do that is not discriminatory? You see I think you are right and that is why I think this ruling will die.

This is all heading back to the central question. Can the benefit system really be preserved without mandatory retirement?

I'll ask you a question. Do you think alternatives will work in our case? From a practical point of view do you think the below statement is realistic?

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?

[Rockie]

The CHRT's wording on alternatives is vague enough that they do not suggest anything discriminatory. It is ACPA that's interpreted it as license to screw over 60 pilots. As well, nothing in the CHRT's suggestions can possibly override the essense of their ruling. Mandatory retirement at age 60 is not permitted because ACPA and Air Canada have not made a compelling enough case for BFOR. Period. They never will either since the entire world has now gone to 65.

That's why I suggested a long time ago they stop wasting time and start making the BFOR case for age 65, which they can do.

One other thing, ACPA has made the argument that the ruling should not be retroactive prior to August 28th 2009 since technically they had no knowledge they were committing discriminatory acts prior to that. I agree since there has to be a cutoff date somewhere and that is consistent with how other laws are enforced (although I think there will have to be some kind of settlement paid out to those previously aggrieved which I've also suggested). By doing that however ACPA willingly commit themselves (meaning us) to responsibility after August 28th 2009.

Why then are we still shoving guys out the door?

[Brick Head]

Wow lots of questions there.

The CHRT's wording on alternatives is vague enough that they do not suggest anything discriminatory.

Of course they are not specific. The CHRT can not force any specific solution on the respondents. It is for them to negotiate. What the Tribunal was doing is throwing out suggestions, contrary to ACPA and AC arguments, to show that there were solutions to preserve the benefit system rather than using mandatory retirement. Therefore, ACPA is wrong, and this is the key, why use mandatory retirement at all when these alternatives can do the same job. Love it or leave it. That's the logic.

It is ACPA that's interpreted it as license to screw over 60 pilots.

No. They took the suggestions from the CHRT and used them to preserve the benefit system as instructed. I will ask you again. What better suggestions to you have that would preserve the benefit system without mandatory retirement? The message from ACPA could also be interpreted as, we told you mandatory retirement was required to preserve the benefit system.

As well, nothing in the CHRT's suggestions can possibly override the essense of their ruling. Mandatory retirement at age 60 is not permitted because ACPA and Air Canada have not made a compelling enough case for BFOR. Period. They never will either since the entire world has now gone to 65.

That is not why mandatory retirement is not permitted at age 60. It has been abolished under this ruling due to the charter question. It has been abolished on the grounds that alternatives can be found both operationally and collectively. I am sensing here that you are not connecting the dots wrt the difference between using the charter to abolish mandatory retirement and a relatively simple normal age change. The former while abolishing mandatory retirement did not abolish the reason it was in place. To protect deferred compensation systems.

Why then are we still shoving guys out the door?

Because it is not the law until the appeals courts says so. Likely the sup court since it is now a charter issue. The mandate ACPA has is to fight. Finally the financial cost to capitulate for individuals is very high. Probably higher than the cost to fight.

[Rockie]

No. They took the suggestions from the CHRT and used them to preserve the benefit system as instructed. I will ask you again. What better suggestions to you have that would preserve the benefit system without mandatory retirement? The message from ACPA could also be interpreted as, we told you mandatory retirement was required to preserve the benefit system.

The CHRT made a ruling that mandatory retirement at age 60 at Air Canada constitutes age discrimination. In making that ruling they determined that ACPA and Air Canada failed to make the case for the two possible allowable exceptions under the Act (15(1)(a) and 15(1)(c)). Nowhere in the exceptions to the act is our benefit system mentioned.

The CHRT acted fully within their mandate.

In their discussion however they presented evidence that the current deferred benefit system will not be unduly effected by eliminating mandatory retirement at 60. Where does ACPA get the idea they can create other forms of discrimination from that?

[balfour]

[yycflyguy]

This certainly is not a dead horse topic.

[Inverted2]

You guys will all be over 65 before you get done bickering over this!

[JayDee]

I'm one of the converted who now favor's a change to the retirement age simply because I don't trust the pilots I leave behind to look after my pension after I'm gone.

The pension used to be a "sacred cow" . Not any more. I have silently read just about every post written on this subject. The bottom 70% of the Air Canada pilots seem intent on not only their own self destruction but they intend to take down all who went before them.

Whats worse, ACPA, the body who supposed to be looking after my interests has now become my worst enemy as they now attempt to bargain away the top hat portion of my pension. I figured the company would eventually go after whats left of it but never in my wildest dreams would I have ever believed the Union of doing the hatchet job for them.

[Rockie]

Exactly. Our union and our pilots are vindictively attempting to sell out our own future for the immediate satisfaction of screwing a few pilots who challenged the status quo and won. We aren't mature or bright enough to realize we would ultimately be screwing ourselves.

It is embarrassing to be associated with a group that still cannot recognize age discrimination despite losing the case at the HRTC, and the fact that our union is promoting more of it as a remedy to Vilven/Kelly is disgraceful.

[the original tony]

This does it, now these brave pioneers are in this fight to save the pensions! The very same one that isn't enough for these poor soles to live on?
Since the pilots behind them are so weak and stupid, more or less. I appreciate the vote of confidence but you and all others that want to die in the left seat can go for it right now.
Trust me I won't stop you trailblazers.
Don't do me any favors though, my upbringing was a little different, I like to share the wealth, not keep it as long as possible, go on disability as quickly as i can and screw the company, and ultimately everybody remaining out of money, one of the perks your career had by this thing called progression. Things weren't broken before, don't bother it.
Until you tireless, kind people showed us the errors of our ways.
But hey, you guys know better than me. If everything is age discrimination then where does that leave us?
Why set ages to hold a license, why set ages for different medical standards?
I've heard and seen enough.
You can all $^&* off now, I'm going go sit down with my lazy brethern and watch you masters of human rights show us how its done, nine days a month and max pay.
By the way can anyone spare a dime for lunch?

Tony

[Rockie]

Things weren't broken before,

Society changes Tony. In keeping with that truism, forcing pilots to retire at 60 was declared discriminatory and therefore illegal last August by the body that is charged with defending your human rights. ACPA and its membership can learn the definition of age discrimination the easy way or the hard way...but they will learn it.

[600RVR]

Rockie If your an active AC pilot how come I don't see your views expressed on the ACPA FORUM? What about the rights of those who will be layed off, and bump off equipment to accommodate you and god knows how many. You and your group didn't worry about Human Rights as you guys moved up through the ranks. The most disgusting part in all of this is that your waving the Human Rights Card.

[Rockie]

Rockie If your an active AC pilot how come I don't see your views expressed on the ACPA FORUM? What about the rights of those who will be layed off, and bump off equipment to accommodate you and god knows how many. You and your group didn't worry about Human Rights as you guys moved up through the ranks. The most disgusting part in all of this is that your waving the Human Rights Card.

You are mistaken to think I am senior. You are mistaken to think my career won't be effected by this just like yours will. You are mistaken to think anybody will be bumped to accommodate me. You have no right that supersedes anybody elses right to not be discriminated against because of their age. Someday you will appreciate that as it protects you from the same thing.

And I am not on the ACPA forum for the simple reason the decorum on this one is 1000 times better.

[yycflyguy]

And I am not on the ACPA forum for the simple reason the decorum on this one is 1000 times better.

Yikes. That is a scary thought.

[600RVR]

O.K Rockie

If your an active AC pilot then you knew the terms of your employment by taking the job. To use the words"discriminate against" is total BS. You knew the deal you didn't have to take the job. And now you feel like your feelings are hurt because of age 60 again more BS

[ywger]

Hear hear tony and 600.

Hate to break it to you Rockie, but us 'lazy', 'apathetic' jr. guys who don't give a damn about the pension ARE YOU. We are, as a whole, what you were when you were starting out at AC. You could transplant us into what was then your job, and we would do just fine. And like you, we are adept at discerning right from wrong, which is why, like you, we are generally very good at our jobs. And like you, we will stick up for ourselves when we feel we are being wronged. So, like it or not, we are the same as you. We deserve the same career expectations as you, and thus expect that those who have benefited from the system before us, will step aside and allow us to progress in our profession. I don't care what the law says, the spirit of this movement is ROTTEN.

Rockie, your cohort is no better than ours. Some of them just squawk louder than the rest of us. Now have some respect.

[Rockie]

O.K Rockie

If your an active AC pilot then you knew the terms of your employment by taking the job. To use the words"discriminate against" is total BS. You knew the deal you didn't have to take the job. And now you feel like your feelings are hurt because of age 60 again more BS

My feelings aren't hurt at all, I just have my eyes open to reality. As for the terms of employment, they change all the time. This particular aspect of it has been deemed age discriminatory by society through the HRTC. Do you think Air Canada pilots are living in a bubble where we don't have to adhere to Canadian values and laws?

We are, as a whole, what you were when you were starting out at AC. You could transplant us into what was then your job, and we would do just fine.

Again someone is making wrong assumptions because there is a very good chance you have been at Air Canada longer than I have. What you are failing to consider is that there is no "you against us" here. Unless you quit or die early "you" will turn into "us", and your circumstances when you turn into "us" may dictate that you work beyond age 60. I guarantee you will be very concerned about not being discriminated against when that day comes.

[Rockie]

And like you, we are adept at discerning right from wrong, which is why, like you, we are generally very good at our jobs.

Our job isn't to descern right from wrong. Our job is to operate an aircraft using our best judgement to assess dynamic situations and make accurate, correct decisions while leaving emotion out of the equation. Our union and membership are falling flat on our faces doing that here.

We deserve the same career expectations as you,

Agreed. But times change and those changes will inevitably effect us. Comfort yourself with the fact this will effect me the same way it effects you...maybe worse.

and thus expect that those who have benefited from the system before us, will step aside and allow us to progress in our profession.

This is the sense of entitlement that makes me embarrassed to be an Air Canada pilot sometimes. You know where you can find "sympathy" in the dictionary.

I don't care what the law says, the spirit of this movement is ROTTEN.

Really? Do you feel the same about race, gender or religious discrimination as well? What are your thoughts on slavery and child labour?

[600RVR]

Rockie,

So why do you feel you should go against the majority of ACPA members. There was a vote, and an overwhelming majority wanted retirement to remain at 60. But for the greater good of the people you guys feel that this is wrong. ACPA is following the direction of the majority of ACPA members. I think they see the bigger picture than the greedy few that want to remain at the top. Thats right I said Greedy, thats all it is. You can hide behind the Human rights issue all you want. But it is total BS. Again you never answered my question, What about the rights of those who will be laid off? If your an active pilot I'm willing to bet your close to retirement, and at the top of the heap. Anything that might happen will not affect you as much as the 70% from the top of the list. But again its about "discrimination". You seeing $ signs, I'm seen a pink slip.

P.S I knew about flat pay, PG and age 60 retirement when I signed on. that was the working conditions i signed on for.

Also tell me whats in it for you? the fly till you die? you must be gaining something.

[Lost in Saigon]

Rockie,

So why do you feel you should go against the majority of ACPA members. There was a vote, and an overwhelming majority wanted retirement to remain at 60. But for the greater good of the people you guys feel that this is wrong. ACPA is following the direction of the majority of ACPA members. I think they see the bigger picture than the greedy few that want to remain at the top. Thats right I said Greedy, thats all it is. You can hide behind the Human rights issue all you want. But it is total BS. Again you never answered my question, What about the rights of those who will be laid off? If your an active pilot I'm willing to bet your close to retirement, and at the top of the heap. Anything that might happen will not affect you as much as the 70% from the top of the list. But again its about "discrimination". You seeing $ signs, I'm seen a pink slip.

P.S I knew about flat pay, PG and age 60 retirement when I signed on. that was the working conditions i signed on for.

Also tell me whats in it for you? the fly till you die? you must be gaining something.

The ACPA membership vote is worthless.

There was a time when Air Canada didn't hire women..... Or short pilots......... There was probably a time when they didn't hire minorities too.

If ACPA voted tomorrow to limit the progression of Blacks or Jews, or some other group protected group, do you think that would be OK?

Grow up, get educated, and get out of the Dark Ages. Face reality. Age discrimination is no different than discrimination based on Race, Religion, Sex, etc.

Just because a bunch of Neanderthals voted on it, it doesn't mean it conforms to the Laws of Canada.

[Rockie]

So why do you feel you should go against the majority of ACPA members. There was a vote, and an overwhelming majority wanted retirement to remain at 60. But for the greater good of the people you guys feel that this is wrong. ACPA is following the direction of the majority of ACPA members.

This is false. ACPA decided on their own in April 2006 to oppose this and put the following question to the membership:

QUESTION:

Do you support the MEC’s position to maintain the
Age 60 retirement provisions?

FOR YES PRESS (01) FOR NO PRESS (02)

There was no discussion on the merits of extending the age to a pilot group that will not have the chance to collect a full pension because they were hired at 35 instead of 25. There was no discussion on the merits of the discrimination aspect. No effort was made to give the membership the knowledge they needed to make an informed decision. The MEC decided on their own and got the membership at the time to agree to it. It should interest you to know that despite the complete lack of unbiased information given to the membership only 1840 out of 3083 pilots voted, and of that 458 (25%) disagreed with the MEC.

What that means is that only 45% of the pilot group actually supported the MEC, and that was back in 2006.

Since that time 500+ pilots have been hired. There has still been no examination of the issue by ACPA and any attempt to explain the other side on the ACPA site gets shouted down through personal attacks by the mob. Oh yeah...the CHRT has also ruled since then that forcing retirement at age 60 is age discrimination rendering that vote even more irrelevant than it was when it was conducted.

If your an active pilot I'm willing to bet your close to retirement, and at the top of the heap. Anything that might happen will not affect you as much as the 70% from the top of the list.

Please read my posts before accusing me of something. I am nowhere near retirement and sit in the lower 15% of the total seniority list. That argument is completely invalid.

What about the rights of those who will be laid off?

What rights are you referring to? Please be specific.

[JayDee]

P.S I knew about flat pay, PG and age 60 retirement when I signed on. that was the working conditions i signed on for.

600RVR,

Time to wake up and smell the roses.

If you want to point out Bull Shit, lets start with your post.

You signed on because you were given a chance at the best aviation job in Canada.

PERIOD !

It had screw all to do with any specific issue, such as flat pay, PG or Age 60 retirement. It was more likely the entire package you were attracted to of which numero one was probably job stability -but guess what, BRACE yourself - even that is highly unlikely in the Air Canada economic environment of today.

You can't for one moment tell us you truly believed the conditions you "signed on for" at age 25 would be the exact conditions you retire under some 30 to 35 years later???

If thats the case, I suggest you be very careful the next time you do an approach to minimums as sometimes things are not what the FCT said it would be and you just might have to consider other alternatives or crash and burn in the attempt.

Things change and thank god they do. If the rest of the world followed your mental process we would all still be lighting fires in caves and dragging women around by the hair because, "thats the way it's always been". Change is and always will be inevitable.

“When your finished changing, you're finished.” Benjamin Franklin

JayDee

[600RVR]

Sorry Rockie,

I don't buy for a second that your in the bottom 15%. If that were true than you got hired in 2006 or later. So your either a junior 320 F/O, very Junior EMJ CPT, or EMJ F/O, either way you would have alot to lose. You will get bumped back from your current position taking a pay cut or worse getting laided off. The finacial impact to you would be bad. not to mention if you get laid off it could take years for you to get hired back, only to return to the bottom of the list as a older jr EMJ F/O. If the retirement age was left at 60 then you will move up by 700 numbers in the next 4 years. That could mean senior EMJ CPT, Junior 320 CPT, of even Junior Widebody F/O. Thats why I don't believe you. Tell me what you have to gain by changing the retirement age as it is now to "fly till you die"? (without waving the Human rights card). Your like everyone of us their is something in it for you.

Now in saying that where do the line get drawn on what retired guys can return. Remember you can't discriminate against anyone. This human rights crusade your on is for the greater good of "ACPA PILOTS" and "MAN KIND". When do the flood gates close in allowing retired pilots back.

Am I being greedy. Yes I am, I want the same progression and advancement as every retired AC pilot enjoyed before me (and now they want to stop it because their at the top). Another reason why I don't believe your in the bottom 15%.

Anyways I'm going back to being what was it you called us "Neanderthall ACPA pilots" chase my wife around the house, beating my cheast grunting "me man you woman" Might get lucky

Good luck in your crusade
600RV

[Rockie]

Sorry Rockie,

I don't buy for a second that your in the bottom 15%. If that were true than you got hired in 2006 or later. So your either a junior 320 F/O, very Junior EMJ CPT, or EMJ F/O, either way you would have alot to lose. You will get bumped back from your current position taking a pay cut or worse getting laided off. The finacial impact to you would be bad. not to mention if you get laid off it could take years for you to get hired back, only to return to the bottom of the list as a older jr EMJ F/O. If the retirement age was left at 60 then you will move up by 700 numbers in the next 4 years. That could mean senior EMJ CPT, Junior 320 CPT, of even Junior Widebody F/O. Thats why I don't believe you. Tell me what you have to gain by changing the retirement age as it is now to "fly till you die"? (without waving the Human rights card). Your like everyone of us their is something in it for you.

Now in saying that where do the line get drawn on what retired guys can return. Remember you can't discriminate against anyone. This human rights crusade your on is for the greater good of "ACPA PILOTS" and "MAN KIND". When do the flood gates close in allowing retired pilots back.

Am I being greedy. Yes I am, I want the same progression and advancement as every retired AC pilot enjoyed before me (and now they want to stop it because their at the top). Another reason why I don't believe your in the bottom 15%.

Anyways I'm going back to being what was it you called us "Neanderthall ACPA pilots" chase my wife around the house, beating my cheast grunting "me man you woman" Might get lucky

Good luck in your crusade
600RV

I can sleep at night knowing you don't believe me, but I assure you it is the truth. What do I gain from 60+? I've been saying all along my career will be as effected as anybody else's, so I guess I gain nothing but the assurance I won't be discriminated against if I choose to stay past 60. I'll make that decision when I'm 591/2. I would caution you to save your outrage for when you're 591/2 as well because by then you just might need or want to stay longer too.

You still haven't read any of my posts because if you did you would know what I think ACPA and the company should do instead of the caustic, damaging, futile course of action they have taken. Go back and read this thread from start to finish.