Retirement - Split from Hiring

[yycflyguy]

I don't want to be a passenger on a large jet that has a Captain in their possibly medically unstable mid-sixties, plus I don't want my tax dollars going to bail out AC again when they can't afford the over-paid under-worked 60+ pilots who won't leave.

AC has never received "bail out" money from the government. They received a loan with unbelievably high repayment interest rates. Why don't you ask the government for your share of the profit they will make off their AC investment last year with your tax dollar?

[Jaques Strappe]

"Old fella"

No.......... don't quit this topic. It's getting quite entertaining for us old goats who have nothing better to do, read and perish the thought, comment on this board. Listening to the dick swinging boys from Air Canada duke it out over, of all things, the magical 60 yrs old. An age many, if not all of you posters haven't reached yet but I have and permit me share a little secret based on living experience. Some of you are not gonna see 60yrs of age. Shocking thing to say but heart attacks/cancer/car, bike, boat, skidoo accidents/ falling off roofs/skiing off a hill into a rock/run down by a drunk driver/falling down the stairs/electrocution/plane crashes....... you probably get the hint by now as the man with the sickle is lurking around the corner ready to grab you and he will get some. Always did, shall now and will happen.
Anyway….. carry on!!!!

I am not saying don't debate the issue. I agree with Rockie on that front. Open respectable discussion is very positive. I am saying let's not monopolize the entire board and all it's threads while doing so. As for your "Dick Swinging" comment, it saddens me to think that you would be so ignorant to not realize that a lot of what happens at Air Canada influences the industry in general. ACPA and the pilots of Air Canada get blasted for fighting battles but get little to no recognition for the efforts they make within the industry. Whether that be financial assistance to fellow pilot groups, financial assistance to the creation of a College of Pilots, community work, research and development of flight safety programs, accident investigation etc..... This all gets done as a pilot community who is able to put aside whatever differences they may have at the time and work together.

Amazing how that gets lost when there is nothing but "bashing" going on in a forum full of "Dick Swingers". I believe AvCanada has the monopoly there.

[Johnny#5]

haha...exactly....one of these new FlyPast60 AC pilots will drop dead one day at the age of 64 somewhere at FL350 then the government will have to come up with answers.

What about passenger rights? I don't want to be a passenger on a large jet that has a Captain in their possibly medically unstable mid-sixties, plus I don't want my tax dollars going to bail out AC again when they can't afford the over-paid under-worked 60+ pilots who won't leave.

Just my 1-cent opinion....Great arguments on here though.

Dude, get over it already. You are allowed to fly to 65 at pretty much any other airline in North America and you dont hear about pilots dropping dead. You make it sound like the 65 retirement is a totally new concept. What rock have you guys been under?

Sure they're allowed but most still leave at 60....just like I suppose most at AC will as well.

Actually how many at AC will stay past 60? Is it so few that this whole argument is asinine?
But I guess it's more about the 'freedom' to stay if they so please not the number who actually will.


PS - this thread continually gets hijacked because the hiring question has been beat dead.....not hiring now, maybe later.

[Old fella]

"As for your "Dick Swinging" comment, it saddens me to think that you would be so ignorant to not realize that a lot of what happens at Air Canada influences the industry in general. ACPA and the pilots of Air Canada get blasted for fighting battles but get little to no recognition for the efforts they make within the industry."
JS old boy, it is commentary as noted above that sometimes leads people to....... well whatever. Granted AC is a very good airline as has been demonstrated in its 60+ years of existance by the very items you touched on. Your airline has been instrumental in establishing some bench marks for the industry as we see it today - there is no doubt about that. But it isn't nor should it be the yardstick that everything in the aviation industry has the be measured by(Note to file: flying beyond 60 yrs of age).

Never worked for your company, never applied as well(probably wouldn't have gotten past the interview process let alone passing the course. It was tough in those days as AC had very high standards) instead I put 35+ years with the regulator/service provider. I know things with that past experience that you as an individual pilot would know nothing about and probably couldn't understand. The theme "What's good for Air Canada is good for the country" in the specific/ specialized area that I worked(Airspace) was taken with a pinch of salt, believe me on that. AC more than naught, never got its way!!!

And finally, you are indeed correct, this topic(60 yrs of age in the cockpit) is long winded and getting silly and my commentary just adds to the silliness of it all. I think it is time for me to get off this board completely......

Take care bro and here's hoping you have a good retirement

[Rockie]

But it isn't nor should it be the yardstick that everything in the aviation industry has the be measured by(Note to file: flying beyond 60 yrs of age).

You have that exactly backwards Old Fella. The entire planet is 65 now and that is the yardstick. Air Canada and ACPA are stuck in the past all by themselves trying desperately to keep it at 60.

[Old fella]

But it isn't nor should it be the yardstick that everything in the aviation industry has the be measured by(Note to file: flying beyond 60 yrs of age).

You have that exactly backwards Old Fella. The entire planet is 65 now and that is the yardstick. Air Canada and ACPA are stuck in the past all by themselves trying desperately to keep it at 60.

I think I do, Rockie. I indicated in my view AC isn't the yardstick to be measured by and note to file flying past 60 yrs of age.That's AC's yardstick(no flying past 6o yrs old - to date) but others in Canada do not share that view and indeed have people working beyond 60 yrs, even beyond 65 yrs old. Isn't that your point?

Whether that is right or wrong for your airline is a debatable point(hence the long winded posts from all sides of the fence on the subject) but it is a fact of life folks are continuing to work at their current employer much beyond the 60 yr age bracket. I l took early retirement package in 2003 and there were a couple of lads over 65 who were working and they are still working now. Glad I didn't have that lifestyle, but I am me and they are who they are - best of luck to them thou............

[Rockie]

My misunderstanding Old Fella...

Glad you're enjoying your retirement.

[600RVR]

Rockie,
Just wondering, Do you tell guys your point of view when your flying? And what kind of response do you get? Because I know its brought up every time I'm flying and I know what response I get? must be a very lonely cockpit if you do. Or do you hide behind this forum with your point of views? Just Curious?

600RVR

[Rockie]

The subject comes up, but not always. When it does I calmly explain the mandatory retirement/age discrimination issue from not only my perspective, but that of the individual I'm flying with as well. I find people are much more willing to listen to reason and actually think about things when you can discuss it over a longer period of time in person. For instance they actually come to see the advantages and can think about the long term future when the person they are sitting beside forces them to. I have no idea if I change their minds or not, but I do get them thinking about it instead of blindly raging against it.

It's only on here where normal conversation is not possible and people can as you put it "hide behind" their anonymity where it becomes much more difficult. The way people address others here is much harder to do in person, so they are much more open to listening to another viewpoint.

I must also say I am able to make my partner very comfortable flying with me. I carry no axes to grind, I am a strong believer in both CRM and the fact my partner wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't capable, and I've been around a long time and feel no need to showcase my prowess in an airplane or command ability to anyone.

I don't raise the issue to pick a fight or try and sway anyone. When it comes up it is usually after a day or two and the person I'm flying with feels comfortable enough to raise the issue himself. Usually because they respect me enough to actually want to know what I think of it. It is never confrontational, but it is always honest.

[the cool one]

Not my fight but since I am an infrequent visitor here I enjoy the various subjects discussed.

I cannot believe the amount of "yanking your chain" goes on in this tread and others. Rookie seem to think of himself as an army of one. He is able to rattle the cage to no end. And there seem lots of fish in the sea willing to bite the hook AND sinker. I cannot fathom any other profession where I would be "engaging" and otherwise work with some people like him. Whooa!!!

I am not familiar with the subject enough to comment on the merits but if I was a judge he would not have a chance with his case....based on his arguments here on this forum. If I understand the crock of his argument right, he needs to work because of his fiscal mismanagement and lack of planning. That is not a discriminatory issue anymore and should be treated that way.

I would ignore his posts until the final, final decision is made on the subject. Clearly he enjoys being a b#$l buster. And in the proper context it could be funny.....but in this context he isn't.

From an "outsider of this issue" opinion who normally enjoy most posts here.

Have fun but remember ........life is short.

[Rockie]

Rookie seem to think of himself as an army of one.

It's Rockie...with a "c".

[Raymond Hall]

As it stands right now, mandatory retirement is not illegal in Canada for federally regulated corporations as long as the retirement is done at the "normal age of retirement" (Section 15(1)(c)). The CHRT chose to ignore this provision.

As such, the Federal Courts will have no choice but to overrule the CHRT's decision, because the Courts have to enforce the law as they stand on the books - they cannot make their own law if they don't like said law, or think the law will change at a future date. As such, as it presently stands, it is LEGAL to terminate someone on the basis of his/her age.

Incorrect, Martin. Any corporation purporting to exercise its right to terminate any individual pursuant to the provisions of Section 15(1)(c) of the CHRA will run headlong into the reality that the Federal Court has already stated that that provision of the CHRA offends the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Tribunal stated in its August, 2009 decision, that the breach of the Charter by Section 15(1)(c) is not saved by Section 1 of the Charter.

So technically, the provision has not yet been struck down, but the Tribunal exercises its right to not apply it. The outcome of any other complaint before the CHRT on this issue is likely to be identical, because the Section 1 Charter determination is not made based upon facts relative to the Complainants, but rather on facts related to group of individuals representative of the persons affected by the provision.

You seem to be under a misapprehension that the Courts are obliged to apply the legislation until Parliament changes it. That is not strictly correct. There are laws and there are laws. The Charter, in its preamble, states that it is the “supreme law of the land.” As such it has precedence over statute law. And with the Charter predominent, the Court has the power to “strike down” laws that are not in accord. That is almost what the Federal Court did in the April, 2009 decision—it said that Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates the Charter. It couldn’t strike it down, because there is a saving clause, Section 1 of the Charter, and that issue wasn’t pleaded before the Court. So the Court had to send it back to the Tribunal for the Tribunal to make that determination.

The Tribunal found that the provision was not saved by Section 1 of the Charter, but administrative tribunals, although having exclusive jurisdiction with respect to their areas of the law, do not have jurisdiction to “strike down” statutory provisions. Only courts can do that.

However, the “striking down” of the provision is not far away. The issue is now on its way back to the Federal Court by way of judicial review of the August Tribunal decision, and when that decision is made, the Court will have the jurisdiction and the power to strike it down. And that action will be just as effective, legally, as having Parliament repeal the provision.

To get a flavour of the propensity of the Court to strike down Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, one need only read the words of Madame Justice MacTavish in her decision. She could not balance the concept of the purpose of the Canadian Human Rights Act (as expressed in Section 2 of the Act) with the concept of a dominant player essentially, as she stated, “setting the standard,” i.e. essentially contracting out of the Act. She could not understand how discrimination should be allowed provided that it is allowed to prejudice a minority, by reason of dominance of the majority, and she suggested that the proper cure for this problem was to be found in the Charter (which she said was violated).

So, then, when Air Canada and ACPA receive the decision of the Federal Court regarding the judicial review of the August Tribunal decision, what is at stake here is not just the collective agreement provision between Air Canada and ACPA. What is at stake is the validity of Section 15(1)(c) for all employees in the federal jurisdiction, including all Air Canada employees, all telecommunications employees, other transportation employees, and employees in the banking industry.

I have suggested many times that if Air Canada doesn’t want 85-year old flight attendants, it would do well to negotiate a settlement with its pilots over this age dispute, and not ask the Federal Court to confirm what it has essentially instructed the Tribunal to find—that Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates the Charter and is no longer available as a defence under the Act, because after the Court’s decision is rendered, there will be nothing that Air Canada can do (save attempt to have the decision overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada) to stop it. Your mother will be able to reapply for her previous job, and Air Canada will not be allowed to take age into consideration as a condition of employment.

[Martin Tamme]

OK Ray,

If everything is such as slam dunk in the Court system, why then the need to lobby Parliament to change the Act?

[Raymond Hall]

OK Ray,

If everything is such as slam dunk in the Court system, why then the need to lobby Parliament to change the Act?

Because right now, if the employer does not know about the Tribunal decision, or if the employer purposefully disregards the Tribunal decision as Air Canada is doing, the individual's sole recourse is to file a complaint with the CHRC, have it investigated, referred to the Tribunal, and then prosecuted. Two years, on average, from the occurrence of the discriminatory act, to the remedy and damages. And the person cannot continue his or her employment in the interim, causing all sorts of disruption to what would otherwise have been. All assuming that the complainant has the resources and the will to fight against deep-pocketed employers and their unions. Air Canada and ACPA have spent millions of dollars making lawyers wealthy in this fight, only to wind up (I suggest) being held liable for millions of dollars damages for not recognizing the law. What individual stands a chance against that obstacle?

If the section of the statute is repealed, the employer would not attempt to violate the person's rights from the outset.

That is why.

[bowling]

Hey Raymond,

would you be doing the same thing if one of your kids was stuck on the ramp for a tier 3 company for an extra few years so a greedy babyboomer that waited for everyone else in front of him to retire to call it discrimination can collect his 240k????

funny how someone like you voted YES so many times when you were 20, 30 and 40 if the ACPA contract is all about discrimination

just hope if AC goes to 65 it will be another generation that will benefit from it.... for once

[Rockie]

Hey Raymond,

would you be doing the same thing if one of your kid was stuck on the ramp for a tier 3 company for an extra few years so a greedy babyboomer that waited for everyone else in front of him to retire to call it discrimination can collect his 240k????

funny how someone like you voted YES so many times when you were 20, 30 and 40 if the ACPA contract is all about discrimination

Soon ACPA, Air Canada and the entire pilot force at Air Canada will embark on a steep learning curve about what age discrimination is and how this country regards it. For you specifically I would also try to learn more about contracts and how they are voted on.

[CanadianEh]

This has obviously become a very heated argument and it seems like both parties (on the forum) will just have to agree to disagree for the time being. Only time will tell what will become of the mandatory retirement age at Air Canada.

[rudder]

This has obviously become a very heated argument and it seems like both parties (on the forum) will just have to agree to disagree for the time being. Only time will tell what will become of the mandatory retirement age at Air Canada.

If AC and ACPA continue to @*#& this up, there will be no mandatory retirement age at WJ, Transat, or Jazz either.

[Brick Head]

Only time will tell what will become of the mandatory retirement age at Air Canada.

No not just Air Canada. Every federally regulated company, and all employees working for them. Every Airline. Every Telecommunications company. Every rail company.

[Brick Head]

If AC and ACPA continue to @*#& this up, there will be no mandatory retirement age at WJ, Transat, or Jazz either.

Rudder,

The logic the Tribunal had was if the complainants can be accommodated? The respondents must do it. We all know everyone can be accommodated in one form or another. Based on the logic used no one would have fared any better before the Tribunal.

We could blame the individuals who put forth the argument. But that is flawed as well. Someone, somewhere would have done this. Could have happened in a Rail company.

Our Tribunal system is what it is. It protects the rights of the minority. The desire of the majority have no consideration even when the negative impact is substantial.

Welcome to the CHRT

Under the Present ruling the best we will get now is the ability to end load, with pay, a specific age, even if people stay past that age. The complainants will fight this tooth and nail. The Tribunal did state however in their rationalization for not applying 15(1)c that alternatives to mandatory retirement, presently in use in Provincial jurisdictions, can preserve the system.

Time will tell what these alternatives will look like. What is found acceptable. And whether they really protect the system or not.

[ivanhoe]

Our Tribunal system is what it is. It protects the rights of the minority. The desire of the majority have no consideration even when the negative impact is substantial.


Welcome to Canada. Look at our justice system...it's a disgrace. Our immigration system...a disgrace. Even though I'm pro 60+ , I feel your frustration with a system that does not listen to the majority.

[rudder]

If AC and ACPA continue to @*#& this up, there will be no mandatory retirement age at WJ, Transat, or Jazz either.

Rudder,

The logic the Tribunal had was if the complainants can be accommodated? The respondents must do it. We all know everyone can be accommodated in one form or another. Based on the logic used no one would have fared any better before the Tribunal.

We could blame the individuals who put forth the argument. But that is flawed as well. Someone, somewhere would have done this. Could have happened in a Rail company.

Our Tribunal system is what it is. It protects the rights of the minority. The desire of the majority have no consideration even when the negative impact is substantial.

Welcome to the CHRT

When the ICAO standard changed to 65, the ground shifted. The US, the slowest moving dinosaur, moved at comparative light speed to make the necessary legislative and logistical changes to demonstrate compliance.

If AC and ACPA had started the response as "age 65 is the new standard" then the remedy phase would have been much smoother and the outcome would have been easily anticipated. The CHRT needs ammunition but neither ACPA nor AC seem willing to provide it. Obstructionism is a poor response to an inevitable outcome,

[Brick Head]

Rudder,

This whole issue started out as finding a new normal age of retirement. All it took was one individual to change the direction toward no retirement age at all. I can assure, I think even RH would agree, because I have heard him state it. This is inevitable. Not now? Then later. If not him? Someone else right around the corner.

attempting to stop the process by promoting age 65? Just delaying the inevitable.

The real question is, and has always been, how do we do it.

[Widow]

This thread has been split from the Hiring thread. Threads will be linked to each other so that those interested can pursue the topic.

NOTE: Personally, I'm disappointed to see the lack of decorum and would have preferred to do a lot of editing but I have a life too ... but PLEASE, keep it respectful, stop goading each other, and stay on topic.

[115B]

A contract cannot be used as an excuse to do something illegal; mandatory retirement is illegal.

By the way; a normal month for a 777 pilot is not eight days; more like 16. 15-16 hours for a european cycle; you figure it out. Maybe the senior 320 guys can do eight days on VR, SFO, or LAX turns.

AC can say it has a surplus;or not; maybe it does, but not likely. flying is being increased, and lots of pilots are gone who will not return. Only those pilots who have objected (less than a third of retirees) can even think of returning; even in that group many will not come back. There may be short term changes, but layoffs for short term disruptions do not make economic sense.

Few pilots will stay past 60; right now 10 plus percent leave before 60. Those who do stay will save AC megabucks, which will make it healthier and benefit everyone. The pension deficit will be reduced right away, as returning pilots will be obliged to pay back any pension they collected.