Undue hardship.
The over/under rule states that at least one crew member must be under the age of sixty. Air Canada claims that since 80% of their flights are international in nature that constitutes an undue hardship. Let's see...
It is extremely rare for anybody to retire off the EMJ, so that's not a problem.
It is almost as rare for someone to retire off the A320 but nobody retires off it in the right seat, so that's not a problem.
People do retire off the B767 but very rarely out of the right seat, plus many flights have an RP who most certainly is nowhere near retirement. So that's not a problem.
The 330 retires many people but again hardly ever out of the right seat. If the average age split between a CA and FO is five years or more then having Captain's work until 65 should pose no problem whatsoever for a halfway competent company to manage.
The 777 retires most Captains. Some FO's may approach age 60, however I doubt many RP's do if any. As long as the average age difference between the Captain and the FO or RP is five years or more there should be no problem accommodating Captain's to age 65 either. Did Air Canada bother to survey the average age difference on the 777 between the oldest and youngest crewmember? Was that little bit of critical information included in their testimony?
No? I'm not surprised.
Accommodation for this is child's play for a company like Air Canada, and any limitations put on people should only be the minimum required to preserve the principle of protection from age discrimination. The idea that this would impact 80%, or even 5% of Air Canada's flight is absurdly easy to disprove. It certainly doesn't justify a blanket BFOR at age 60, and there is little doubt in my mind this ruling will not stand. I don't think anybody else seriously thinks so either regardless of what side of the issue they're on.
A more disturbing thing to me is the willingness of our pilot group to perpetuate what is considered age discrimination in Canada. Whether you agree with it or not, it is the morality and the law in Canada now. What was considered normal when mandatory retirement at 60 was concieved is no longer relevant, nor is a contract that contravenes the discrimination laws.
LeadingEdge wrote:I along with the majority choose to retire at 60 as per our contract, does not constitute hate by any definition, and in fact I resent your use of it.It is unfortunate that you choose to use a word that represents the very thing that you are against. I think that you should apologize.
The personal attacks and vitriol which those of us who support ending mandatory retirement have been subjected to, and you have not, constitutes hate. I don't care if you resent my use of the word because it is what it is, so don't hold your breath waiting for my apology.