Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

[rudder]

However even though it is a deferred compensation system it would still represent a partial dismantlement of our present system. It is not something that would be viewed as preserving the present benefit system. The courts have repeatedly pointed to "alternatives" to effectively preserve the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

How do we "preserve" is extremely contentious. I am not really sure it is possible to even do, yet it is the direction so far taken by the courts.

Separate issue that seems to be lost in the haze of the FlyPast60 debate: is status quo sustainable in the competitive scheme of the airline industry? What impact does it have on units costs? There is a reality check and it will likely be discussed at the bargaining table this spring.

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

I get the impression, that the pension amounts should be averaged out per pilot? Are you leaning towards an average to each pilot at pension time? (note i did not say FORCED retirement). Is that what is evolving here?

All pilots get the same pension amounts?

[Brick Head]

Separate issue that seems to be lost in the haze of the FlyPast60 debate: is status quo sustainable in the competitive scheme of the airline industry? What impact does it have on units costs? There is a reality check and it will likely be discussed at the bargaining table this spring.

This spring? My understanding is that part has already been dealt with. It is just money now.

The changes are going to be massive. That we know for sure.

I suspect we are going see the ability to be mobile between equipment much tighter.

A slew of work rule changes designed toward productivity.

[Brick Head]

Brick Head

I get the impression, that the pension amounts should be averaged out per pilot? Are you leaning towards an average to each pilot at pension time? (note i did not say FORCED retirement). Is that what is evolving here?

All pilots get the same pension amounts?

No. That is not the system we have in place nor have I ever heard of such a system. Pension is part of ones deferred compensation. Your are entitled to it. If we averaged it out then some people would be talking others delay income.

Same argument just a different subject.

[Understated]

Looks like FETCO doesn't like it when its vested interests become exposed. It's web site, http://www.fetco.ca appears to have been taken off line, after yesterday's posts here.

[Understated]

If it means politicians are engaged through lobbyists, in an effort to make sure concerns are heard about the future of this legitimately recognized socioeconomic benefit, then so be it. That is how the system works.

"The future of this legitimately recognized socioeconomic benefit?" "DEMOCRACY FOR SALE" would be a much more appropriate epithet.

Did you ever read "All the President's Men?" Do you remember the reference to the cartoon on Colson's wall with the caption, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow..." ?

I ask you again, how much did ACPA pay from my union dues to have this lobbyist attempt to persuade this Member of Parliament, this Member of the the Committee to work against not only my interests, but the interests of so many of the other members of ACPA who oppose mandatory retirement?

Please answer the question. How much $$$ did ACPA pay to have him attempt to undermine the legitimate protection of our right to be free from age discrimination in employment? If you don't answer me now, I can assure you that you, or someone else, will answer me later.

[ACAV8R]

I don't know but lets double it!

[777longhaul]

ACAV8R

what are you Jazz guys doing about your FP65 issue, that Localizer mentioned?

I see from your previous post(s) that you are interested in the issue(s). Since you are not an AC pilot, what do you want to see done at Jazz?

[ACAV8R]

Sorry can't answer for the Jazz guys but I'm with the majority at Air Canada.

[vic777]

Sorry can't answer for the Jazz guys but I'm with the majority at Air Canada.

Let's see at 100 Pilots per year in Ten years AC will have over 1000 Pilots or 33% of the group over Sixty and another Twenty Plus percent over Fifty. Heck they could even vote all the MEC positions to Pilots over Sixty. There is a very narrow window on a slippery slope here guys.

[rudder]

ACAV8R

what are you Jazz guys doing about your FP65 issue, that Localizer mentioned?

I see from your previous post(s) that you are interested in the issue(s). Since you are not an AC pilot, what do you want to see done at Jazz?

Jazz has quite a few post age 60 pilots. Some on medical leave, but most are still flying. Many of the contract pilots that were hired to get the 757 program running were over age 60 (but under 65). Some were retired AC.

Jazz retires pilots at age 65 per the terms of the collective agreement. At least 2 Jazz retired pilots have recently filed complaints with the CHRT. I am guessing that the company and union response will be a BFOR argument based on age 65.

Clearly what is happening with the AC cases will impact those for any other airline. That is why seeing them mismanaged such that the end result could be no age restriction at all is very concerning.

Regardless, Jazz and ALPA will live with the decisions that are made by bodies with proper jurisdiction and authority and it is unlikely that you will see any Supreme Court challenges.

[mbav8r]

ACAV8R

what are you Jazz guys doing about your FP65 issue, that Localizer mentioned?

I see from your previous post(s) that you are interested in the issue(s). Since you are not an AC pilot, what do you want to see done at Jazz?

I can answer that as a Jazz pilot, although I'm probably the minority opinion but it's mine. Since we were already 65, I don't feel it will make a whole lot of difference in the long run. We have seen some retire before 65 and some end up on LTD at 61. What the status pay system does, is take some of the pressure off me, as the FO pay is upto 70% of Capt pay, the difference between holding a nice block as FO and reserve block as Capt, after factoring in per diems, it's not enough to justify the upgrade. Will it make a difference in how long it takes before I can hold a decent block left seat, probably, no way to say for sure. As I said, we have some guys leaving before 65 as it is.
My only concern is this, how much more will it cost me for the LTD insurance coverage? If you want life insurance at 65, you're going to pay through the nose, but our LTD is not based on age, it's based on usage and with that it means, more usage, more premiums to the entire group. I feel that if we can have the premiums factored to the group that use them more, ie; if the group bracket 60-65 uses 48% of the benefits, then they pay 48% of the premiums, that should alleviate some of the opposition.
I am strictly talking about LTD, as I feel that past 60 you are much more likely to be on LTD than under 60. Before anyone starts saying what about eye glasses or dental, because you are much more likely to need glasses or have more dental work later on in life, true but we are talking about 350.00(glasses) every 2 years verses 75,000.00(aprox/yr) on LTD, big difference.

[rudder]

My only concern is this, how much more will it cost me for the LTD insurance coverage? If you want life insurance at 65, you're going to pay through the nose, but our LTD is not based on age, it's based on usage and with that it means, more usage, more premiums to the entire group. I feel that if we can have the premiums factored to the group that use them more, ie; if the group bracket 60-65 uses 48% of the benefits, then they pay 48% of the premiums, that should alleviate some of the opposition.

It is legal to reduce disability benefits with age because of the cost considerations. Jazz does not do so but AC does in the GDIIP program. It may be that Jazz consider doing the same. It is unlikely that there would be any disability benefit available to pilots over age 65. Or in the alternative, that it would be so low that drawing pension and CPP benefits would be more lucrative.

In any case, the vast majority of Jazz pilots on LTD are under 60.

[MackTheKnife]

Any possible LTD costs incurred in the years to come will be a miniscule drop in the bucket compared the the $$$$$$$$$ ACPA has wasted fighting this losing battle.

Considering that damages are already over $14 M and conservatively increasing at the rate of over $750,000.00 per month, ACPA continues to demonstrate its myopic inability to lead. If ACPA thinks for one moment, returning pilots will join the fold again and wave the ACPA banner after it's disgusting DFR example, they are dreaming in technicolor.

The one good thing that will come out of all this - at the first opportunity, ALPA will have a huge opportunity to swoop in.

[Brick Head]

"The future of this legitimately recognized socioeconomic benefit?" "DEMOCRACY FOR SALE" would be a much more appropriate epithet.

Democracy for sale?

Understated,

I stand by my comment as strongly as you stand behind your will to see mandatory retirement abolished. I am not against ending mandatory retirement, I am pro protect the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

If I were king this would already be settled and people would be staying past 60. Safe guards would be in place to protect the benefit system. Read here (and this is just my opinion) collect your pension and return to work at the bottom. double dip.

Lobby comes under the purview of the President. Your question about cost are better directed there.

Your groups lack of understanding, or belief it is irrelevant, of the history and benefit to society of deferred compensation system, is leaving you wide open to an attack from your flank. A flank you had no idea needed addressing.

Mandatory retirements sole purpose has been to force individuals to pass the benefit on at a prescribed time. Without it, individuals will not live up to their responsibility to the system, and their peers, and refuse to pass the benefit. Once people stay beyond the prescribed point at which the benefit was supposed to be passed, they begin taking the delayed income of someone else. Once delayed income no longer finds the rightful owner the system implodes. The system you and I have benefited from. The system that the federal court still believes is important to society. The system to which parliament must also decide if it is important to society.

Your group has very publically, here and in court, painted itself as the poster child of why there needs to be a mechanism (mandatory retirement or an alternative) to force individuals to pass the benefit at a prescribed time, if society wants to preserve these benefit systems. You have very publically declared your view that the collective wealth transfer as a result, is an entitlement for you to take as you wish. You have very publically attacked one of the premier deferred compensation systems in the country. A benefit system so successful that 1/2 the max pension benefit is still more than the average annual salary in this country. You publically attack the system on the grounds that anything other than a max pension is not enough, and you are therefor entitled to more, despite the consequences to those around you. You attack the system that many believe provides socioeconomic benefits important enough, that some form of limiting individual rights is justified. You have very clearly and publically declared your view that deferred compensation systems and the protections allotted them are expunged with the end of 15(1)c. Your group has very clearly and articulately trumpeted your will to see the end of deferred compensation systems and the end of the socioeconomic benefits it provides, for all federal employees who follow in your footsteps.

That my friend is changing public policy. That issue belongs before Parliament not a court. Does society want to go that direction? Is it good public policy? Surely you see why Federally regulated employers and employees want their voice heard on the issue. An issue so far confined to just a few pilots. If we are going to have a public policy change away from a long held recognition that deferred compensation systems are a desired benefit to society, then society at large has a right to have a say on the issue.

That is Democracy.

Insisting on imposing your personal view of what is best for society is not.

[accumulous]

Actually you’re incorrect on pretty much all of that.

If I were king

You’re not.

people would be staying past 60

They already are.

collect your pension and return to work at the bottom. double dip.

Not in a million years. 2900 pilots can’t make max years pension unless they go past 60. A very high number of them can’t make it unless they go past 70. Many can't make it unless they go past 75. So no, we're not stopping at 60. But thanks for the thought.

If you want to jerk their pension accrual out from under them, once again put your numbers on a plate and slide them onto the table at a meeting that has all 2900 of those pilots in attendance and tell them their pension accrual ends at 60.

Your groups lack of understanding, or belief it is irrelevant, of the history and benefit to society of deferred compensation system, is leaving you wide open to an attack from your flank. A flank you had no idea needed addressing.

The flanks are doing quite well, it’s the rump roast that’s causing the problems. 2900 pilots are taking it there with the prospects of their pension plan ending at 60, because the courts have already decided that they can enter the pension plan at any advanced age. It's blindingly clear. Just because you can't see that, doesn't mean it isn't.

You’ll be thanking the flanking when it’s your turn. You won’t have the benefit of 700 guys expunged from the top but that was never going to happen anyway.

Without it, individuals will not live up to their responsibility to the system, and their peers, and refuse to pass the benefit. Once people stay beyond the prescribed point at which the benefit was supposed to be passed, they begin taking the delayed income of someone else

That responsibility has changed because now that everybody will have a chance to maximize their pensionable years which nearly everyone has to do by going past 60, everybody is still on the same page, as duly pointed out by the Tribunal. The goal post has moved but it has moved for everybody.

Once delayed income no longer finds the rightful owner the system implodes.

Not one system in North America has imploded, but thanks for the melodramatics. You should give that speech at the American National ALPA Convention.

You have very publically declared your view that the collective wealth transfer as a result, is an entitlement for you to take as you wish. You have very publically attacked one of the premier deferred compensation systems in the country. A system that many believe provides socioeconomic benefits important enough, that some form of limiting individual rights is justified.

Now that one is just plain silly. Nobody attacked the system that 2900 pilots cannot attain under an age 60 forced retirement scenario. Everybody simply asked for the right to work. Check the Human Rights Commission Application Form. And that’s what they’re going to do. Nobody attacked the compensation system. It’s not available to 2900 pilots at age 60. To limit individual rights means that 2900 individuals can’t have it. That’s all changing for everyone’s benefit.

If you want to pin a Pension Plan to a cock-eyed Mandatory Retirement argument, you just pined the tail on the donkey because the benefits of the Pension Plan are not accessible to well over 90 percent, the overwhelming vast majority of Air Canada Pilots at age 60. Tell the country that one on Tuesday.

[Brick Head]

Accumulous,

The double dip comment was just my opinion. That's it. It has no more relevance than any other opinion expressed here.

You seem to believe it is an "individual human right" to have a max pension.

There is no such right. Show me one place this is addressed? Within the contract? Within the constitution? Written into law? The CHRA? A pension rep will tell you there has never ever been the intent to provide everyone with a max pension. The intent is to provide the best pension possible. You are implying an entitlement, or right, that has never existed, written, spoken or intended.

The notion is an ill informed fabrication.

You still have an individualistic entitled view of our benefit system and what it means to be part of a collective.

What about the pension of the individual who's best 5 years is negatively impacted as a result of your "human right" to more pensionable time? If max pension, or more pension, is an "individual human right" how do the competing "individual human rights" get resolved?

Fact is you do not have an "individual Human right" to anything other than to be free from discrimination. Even then limits are placed on individual human rights when it is deemed best for society.

And no I won't be thanking you later. For me it is already later. I will not get a full pension at 60, nor do I have any entitlement to it. I am entitled to the amount allocated me under the terms of the collective agreement. No more. No less.

[accumulous]

So in conclusion, ACPA has one great big fat juicy fly in its Mandatory Retirement versus Pension Plan ointment.

In the case of the Air Canada pilots, virtually no pilots can achieve the plan’s intended benefits under the current demographic age scenario.

No way – No how.

Those glaring statistics are readily available and ought to be duly noted and duly entered into evidence.

The Pension argument for retaining Mandatory Retirement for Air Canada pilots is completely and totally, by statistical definition, irrelevant.

[Brick Head]

So in conclusion, ACPA has one great big fat juicy fly in its Mandatory Retirement versus Pension Plan ointment.

In the case of the Air Canada pilots, virtually no pilots can achieve the plan’s intended benefits under the current demographic age scenario.

No way – No how.

Those glaring statistics are readily available and ought to be duly noted and duly entered into evidence.

The Pension argument for retaining Mandatory Retirement for Air Canada pilots is completely and totally, by statistical definition, irrelevant.

Accumulous,

Did you even read my response?

You can't seem to get through your individualist view point.

Again your belief that max pension for each individual, is the goal, the intent of the benefit, or an entitlement, is puzzlingly ill informed.

The goal is the best pension possible, for the collective as a whole.

Your argument has been made up. It is a fabricated argument with no basis in fact or history. Your grasping at straws. The pension benefit has no such goal or intent.

Who is giving you guys the idea that a max pension is a "human right" or the goal/intent of a pension benefit? I ask because the notion is very ill informed, yet appears to be very prevalent.

[Rockie]

If I were king this would already be settled and people would be staying past 60. Safe guards would be in place to protect the benefit system. Read here (and this is just my opinion) collect your pension and return to work at the bottom.

I wish this were just your opinion, then it wouldn't be such a problem. Unfortunately the ACPA brain trust agrees with you and may even be taking its advice from you.

Denying pension accrual and seniority rights to people when they turn 60 is age discrimination. I don't know how many times it will take for you and ACPA to be told as much, but until it sinks in ACPA just keeps digging the hole deeper and filling it in on top of us.

Your groups lack of understanding, or belief it is irrelevant, of the history and benefit to society of deferred compensation system, is leaving you wide open to an attack from your flank. A flank you had no idea needed addressing.

Expert opinion on record says ending mandatory retirement does not necessarily impact deferred compensation. Nowhere has anybody said age discrimination by alternate means is justified to maintain deferred compensation. Your group's lack of understanding that mandatory retirement is age discriminatory and therefore no longer tolerated in Canada is costing us big. Will you and ACPA accept full responsibility for the consequences that result?

[Brick Head]

Expert opinion on record says ending mandatory retirement does not necessarily impact deferred compensation.

Key words are not necessarily. And I would agree with that wording depending on if alternatives are allowed or not. in fact I suspect the term "not necessarily" is exactly grounded on what alternatives are used post abolition of mandatory retirement. Our system is too steep to protect without an obligatory point at which the benefit must be passed.

This is what will take place if mandatory retirement falls. You can read it for yourself in the last age 60 newsletter. Simply put.

-Use alternatives to preserve the benefit system.

-If that fails a court challenge, start dismantling the deferred compensation system.

Nowhere has anybody said age discrimination by alternate means is justified to maintain deferred compensation

Rockie your putting words in the Tribunals mouth or at least attempting to. They explicitly said alternatives, in the absence of mandatory, that effectively preserve the benefit system without infringing on a protected right.

Your problem is that you think everything is a protected right. Including pension. Your pension rights start and stop with the agreement between employer and union contained in your contract. Any changes need to be negotiated.

Geesh and you don't see why the company is opposing your position?

You are effectively attempting to subvert the collective barging process, and use the CHRA to negotiate increased pension benefit.

Can you not see this?

[777longhaul]

Brick Head

A quote from your previous post:

"There is no such right. Show me one place this is addressed? Within the contract? Within the constitution? Written into law? The CHRA? A pension rep will tell you there has never ever been the intent to provide everyone with a max pension. The intent is to provide the best pension possible. You are implying an entitlement, or right, that has never existed, written, spoken or intended."

Please.....read line # 3 from your quote.

That is everything in a nutshell. The mandatory (forced) retirement, is NOT allowing 2900, of the 3100 pilots at AC to obtain the "best pension possible."

The FP60 group is not attacking the pension, the pension system, or any other form of compensation. The FP60 issue, will in fact, relieve the pressure on the defined system, and help others get more pension. For those that need the increased employment to get their best 5 years, this will allow them to have a better chance at it. NOT everyone is going to stay past 60 or 62 or .........some other age.

It will be the individual pilots choice, to retire, not forced out.

How is Jazz doing it? They went to 65, long ago, and they are still flying, and still promoting pilots, etc etc. Did their plan implode?

If acpa was really on the ball, they would get the best 5 years reduced, to the best 3 years. It is ridiculous, that it is at 5 consecutive years. Other airlines are/were best 3 years. Why not go to that option???

What is really important, is to get indexing back into the pension plan. The cost of living is going up and up, and the fixed pension issue, is a joke. AC management have indexing, Milton has a pension that is larger than 5 retired B777 CA pensions, who are at max benefit, and his pension, is indexed!! We are all so busy shooting at each other, that we are missing the most important values.

The option, to work longer, for 2900 out of 3100 AC pilots is very important. That is the majority issue, and the collective issue, for ALL AC pilots.

How is Jazz doing things differently? They are at 65, and they are surviving?

The push from acpa, on Tue. on the Hill will be a real show stopper. Wish it was broadcast so we could all watch our union try to push 2900 of our pilots, away from obtaining a better pension.

[accumulous]

Did you even read my response?
You can't seem to get through your individualist view point.

And therein lies the crux of your total complete misconception of the Universe.

YOU are an INDIVIDUAL.

YOU just don’t know it.

YOU can stand in a group of a hundred guys and say WE want 2900 pilots out of the Pension stream before they get a chance to realize the intended benefits of the Pension Plan, but as far as the Human Rights Commission of Canada is concerned, you are all simply individuals, and YOU alone carry ONLY YOUR own weight.

That’s why the almighty ACPA Survey didn’t count for anything when the Tribunal made its last ruling.

Now there’s no doubt that the ACPA Rep that suits up for the live broadcast on Tuesday will wheel out the good old ‘overwhelming’ survey again, but the facts are this.

Forty-Five percent of the INDIVIDUALS said they wanted the Pension tap shut off at 60 on 2900 pilots. You can take that ‘majority’ which is really a 'minority of individuals' and run with it in any direction you want to, hollering democracy, but at the end of the day, it counts for precisely squat. It might wow the troops for a split second but once you throw in the rest of the data it won’t matter how rabid your lobbyist is, the numbers just dissolve and blow away like a bunch of confetti.

THREE DECADES AGO Air Canada pilots fought and won the right to be hired at any age they desire. THREE DECADES later the Pension Plan that you are trying to tie to your Mandatory Retirement soap box pitch is 30 years on the OBSOLETE side of the ledger you are looking at.

Your Collective Pie, in reality exists way out beyond age 60, THREE DECADES or 30 years after the courts abolished age restrictions on hiring. Your Pie argument doesn’t even exist inside 60 for 2900 pilots. Your Pie won’t even be baked until a lot of pilots are over 75.

So enough of the Pie thing already.

The only single solitary thing the ACPA vote does is legitimize the forced cash contributions of all 3000 pilots, including the 1701 INDIVIDUALS who either did not vote for it or did not want it, as a fiscal means to keep the ball rolling that tries to eject 2900 of our own pilots right clean out of the Pension stream for as yet, lets just say, ‘undetermined’ special interest reasons.

YOU are only an INDIVIDUAL. But that lowly position is the one most highly protected under law and it means that YOU have the right to work past 60, just like everybody else, but YOU as an individual do not have the right to tell any other individual when they will retire.

[ACAV8R]

ACPA can keep throwing money at it too. This is one fight the majority of guys don't mind paying for especially if it doesn't delay our Wages And Working CONditions progression by 5,10,15, (til we die) years. The longer it's tied up in court the further along all of us will be to soften the blow if this is crammed down our throat!

Plus if it gets held up in courts 4-5 years the actual individuals forcing this issue will likely not see an AC flightdeck (except Kelly) which would be alright by me. As they say - "The law students of today will be the lawyers billing at the end of this"!

[morefun]

ACAV8R...so now it is all about you is it....the more flushed out the door the better so when you stay till 65 you'll be senior for most of it...what a strange lot we are. We deserve every bit of shit thrown our way as AC pilots...