Mandatory Retirement to be Eliminated in Parliament

[600RVR]

So your doing this for all man kind, out of the goodness of your heart of with no personal gain for your self. Very interesting. Or your close to 60 and need a few more years for retirement. and you probably figure your in the safe zone for layoffs. (personal gain).

600RVR

[Rockie]

I do agree that forcible retirement attached to an age is discriminatory. If you're paying any attention at all you would know that Canadian society, Canadian courts and all levels of Canadian government think so too. Which brings me to the reason for my vocal opposition to ACPA and Air Canada's actions.

Only a true idiot could think this was never going to happen. And once it did, only a true idiot could think they could stop it. ACPA lost this fight the day the first challenge to the retirement policy was submitted, and it was years overdue. Age 60 is out of step with society at large and is specifically out of step for our industry. Have you noticed the whole world has now gone to 65 for pilots?

Something else, I don't know how old you were when you hired, but if you were over 25 you would never be able to collect the same pension as the original people it was designed for. If you were between 25-30 now you will. Does that not mean anything to you or is that too far off in the future for you to consider?

Mandatory age determined retirement is dead in this country and has been for a while. Air Canada and its pilots do not live in isolation to the rest of the country or the world. What we have been doing is discriminatory and we have to stop...period. The timing might be inconvenient for you and I but I guess we'll just have to deal with it like men and get on with it.

[dtpilot]

Just curious as to when retiring early became a bad thing. Is it because of the lack of pension after you retire? Being unable to afford a nice retirement? I was under the impression that early retirement from a major airline meant a being able to hit the links at an age where I can still beat my son... All this talk about human rights gets tiresome when is it really human rights that we care about or how it will affect our wallets? Would the age be raised and you'd still have the option of early retirement? At least that would give you the option to stay on longer. Don't worry about blocking junior guys, either way, they'll have to retire someday and the cycle will stay the same.

And really of course a 65 year old pilot can still perform his duties but really at 65, 66 ,67, 68, 70, 75 will you still want to???

And here I am, 26, counting down the days, counting down the rides, about 65 to go... FORE!!!!!!

[Rockie]

Just curious as to when retiring early became a bad thing.

Nothing's wrong with retiring early. In fact I hope to be able to go when I'm 60 as well, but like I said I'll wait until I'm 59 before I decide that. So should everybody else here.

But that has nothing to do with the issue. Nobody can force anybody to stay longer than they want nor would they want to. However many people here want to prevent someone from continuing to work based solely on their age and that is age discrimination. It is illegal.

What's so hard to accept about that?

[the original tony]

So then when do you retire?
Everybody in the universe has gone to 65, even aliens from mars retire at 65, wow. Not the millitary, but who cares, they don't affect your payscale so I guess it doesn't count. The only type of discrimination that counts for you is $$
Govt forces 60, shocking. I think you should sue them too! Since you are fighting for everyone, not just yourselves.........
But our saviours have not set an age, GREED. We don't want to retire, ever. There first big mistake in this horse shit.
Go to the media right now, stating these guys are being forced to take 100g's plus to do sweet F all,
I can only imagine the sympathy this is going to foster.
Please don't do me any favors, if one person gets cut due to this there will be hell to pay.
As for lawsuits, that will be one for the books, and seeing how much free time I will have with my lazy buddies, like you old bastards say.
See you in Court.

Tony

[mbav8r]

I don't know if this angle has been presented before, I may have missed it in the previous 7 pages. Anyhow, would there be anything discriminatory about forcing someone to retire with years of service and out. Make it 25 or 30 years and you're done? So you started at age 22, you retire at 47 or 52, likewise you started at 35 you can go to 65. I thought that was Cathay's thing before, 25 years, golden handshake good bye and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Just food for thought, over at Jazz we can go to 65 and some of the captains over there only have 7 years in the pension. When the merger happened some of the pensions couldn't be rolled in, so they were paid out and now have only been in the current pension since 2003. Who could fault a guy for working till 65, even though I won't see an upgrade for another 7 years.
Next question, are some of the work til you die camp from Canadian and if so do they have the same amount of pensionable time at AC or did the clock start at the merger?

[Rockie]

But our saviours have not set an age, GREED. We don't want to retire, ever.

PLEASE do some reading before posting rubbish like this. The CHRT is not in the business of setting a retirement age. They only say you cannot force someone to retire based solely on their age because that is discriminatory, so the complainants cannot ask for a set age. The Human rights act has exceptions to that basic right and I encourage you to read back into this thread to see what those are. Plus ultimately the person has to be capable of doing the job and be employable.

I've stated more times than I can remember that ACPA and Air Canada should be making the case for a BFOR of 65. They haven't done that believing instead that they will win this case. Fat chance.

Would everyone please do some reading before shooting their mouth off?

[Rockie]

Anyhow, would there be anything discriminatory about forcing someone to retire with years of service and out. Make it 25 or 30 years and you're done?

That's an interesting angle that I've given some thought to before, and I don't see how that would fit into the strict definition of discrimination. It seems to me no different than a limited time contract which is perfectly legal. However that won't help the situation here since the average age of new hires has been 35, not 25, and those guys would be around until 65 or beyond anyway to collect the full pension (even though they haven't thought that far yet).

[F-16]

Rockie,

Hope you like layoffs from the top of the list
Hope you like equal pay for equal work
Hope you like rotating bidding
Hope you like summer holidays only once every 4 years
Hope you like finishing your last 5 years at the bottom of the list
Hope you like what could be coming your way if you get your wish....

Having a guy leave at 60 is far less discriminatory than the crap that is thrown at the junior pilots and it's about to stop (regardless of this ruling).

Oh, don't forget, our contract still complies with the law of the land.

[Brick Head]

Hope you like equal pay for equal work
Hope you like rotating bidding
Hope you like summer holidays only once every 4 years

Alternatives, other than mandatory retirement, that preserve the benefit system. Just like the idea of status pay, none of the above preserve our system. They dismantle it.

[Brick Head]

For a group that claims to be the only side that is truly informed on the age 60 proceedings there appears to be a curiously wide vacuum in understanding. I get that your side has focused largely only on the charter issue. That your position is that anything centered on age, is discriminatory. That there are no reasonable limits on the charter when it comes to age. Therefore all other arguments are irrelevant.

You do however understand this is only your position on the issues? Right?

This belief that age discrimination is on equal footing, under the charter, with other forms of discrimination, like gender, race or religion, is not accurate. Age discrimination is the only form of discrimination that is recognized to have reasonable limits. Unless of course you believe a three year old will soon walk into a bar, and order a beer? Age based limits will remain an acceptable limit on the charter.

Failure to understand why age based discrimination is unique is fostering an atmosphere of inaccurate assumptions. The Tribunal did not accept the complainant’s logic. The Tribunal did not rule, as being asserted on this thread, that reasonable age based limits, are illegal under the charter. Quite the contrary. Rather they went their own direction. Actually they went the route of the provincial jurisdictions that have preceded us on this issue. They ruled mandatory retirement is not a reasonable limit on the charter if alternatives can effectively preserve the benefit system. This means that mandatory retirement is still a reasonable limit under the charter, but only in situations where alternatives do not exist. This also means the Tribunal reinforced the importance of protecting the benefit system in the absence of mandatory retirement.

Lastly not understanding why mandatory retirement is an exception within the CHRA is also causing confusion. What is its purpose? Exactly how does it fulfill its objective? If there was proper understanding here there would be no confusion over the link between mandatory retirement and our benefit system. We would not be having people post that the benefit system is not mentioned in the recent ruling. Or that the benefit system is irrelevant to the discussion, or the Tribunals logic. We would not have surprise at the idea of alternatives to preserve the system. Or that alternative may prove to be a reasonable limit on the charter in the absence of mandatory retirement. Instead all I read is indignation based on ignorance.

The only consideration the complainants have given the issue of impact is denial. At all costs deny that impact exists. In fact you have employed a lot of effort trying to make light of the impact. Yet it is so obvious. The impact is undeniable when 5 years could redistribute, to one individual, an income that sounds like a lottery number.

You will eventually be forced to deal with this issue or just have it decided for you. It is not like I don’t understand your position on the issues. What I don’t understand is why your group, the one that claims to be so informed, doesn’t seem to understand it is just a position. Is your leadership running around in the same fog? Did the assumption that the charter rules all, so everything else is irrelevant, become a stumbling block to truly understanding the issues? Or, and more probably, has your leadership just said nothing because the subject matter does not support their position?

[Rockie]

From the Human Rights Act:

For all purposes of this Act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination

Employment
7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or
(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee, on a prohibited ground of discrimination. [1976-77, c.33, s.7.]

Exceptions to the above permitted within the Act are:

Exceptions 15. It is not a discriminatory practice if
(a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;
(b) employment of an individual is refused or terminated because that individual has not reached the minimum age, or has reached the maximum age, that applies to that employment by law or under regulations, which may be made by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this paragraph;
(c) an individual's employment is terminated because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position of that individual;
(d) the terms and conditions of any pension fund or plan established by an employer provide for the compulsory vesting or locking-in of pension contributions at a fixed or determinable age in accordance with sections 17 and 18 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985;
(e) an individual is discriminated against on a prohibited ground of discrimination in a manner that is prescribed by guidelines, issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuant to subsection 27(2), to be reasonable;
(f) an employer grants a female employee special leave or benefits in connection with pregnancy or child-birth or grants employees special leave or benefits to assist them in the care of their children; or
(g) in the circumstances described in section 5 or 6, an individual is denied any goods, services, facilities or accommodation or access thereto or occupancy of any commercial premises or residential accommodation or is a victim of any adverse differentiation and there is bona fide justification for that denial or differentiation. [R.S., 1985, c.H-6, s.15; R.S., 1985, c.32 (2nd Supp.), s.41.]

Could you please show us where benefit system is mentioned in the exceptions?

While you're at it could you also please show us where the CHRT mentions benefit system in the conclusions of their ruling (para.155 - 157)?

[Brick Head]

Could you please show us where benefit system is mentioned in the exceptions?

HELLO! It is the sole purpose behind 15(1)c. Obviously if you don't understand why it was placed in the CHRA in the fist place, it is a little difficult to grasp the logic. Which is the point of my comments above. You know the one about indignation based on ignorance.

Hint: The exception is how the benefit system is to be protected, rather than just stating the benefit system is to be protected and leaving the how to a free for all. You see this was well thought out. The architects of the CHRA knew they wanted to protect deferred benefit systems against the very legislation they were writing. But they also knew they could not write every scenario into an exception. The end result. One exception that covers all bases.

Your leadership knows this right? Which is my question. Why don't you guys understand this very basic stuff?

While you're at it could you also please show us where the CHRT mentions benefit system in the conclusions of their ruling (para.155 - 157)?

Your not really still there are you? Your just reading three pages still?

Hint: The other pages were not just added to make the document look bigger. ( I tried that in high school once. It didn't go over well) They are the supporting rational for the conclusion.

[Brick Head]

From the Human Rights Act:

For all purposes of this Act, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted are prohibited grounds of discrimination

Yes that is what it says alright. Do you know how it is interpreted? I mean don't you even wonder why we have a CHRA that states age discrimination is prohibited, yet age related discrimination takes place all around us, all the time? Why? how is that possible?

Hint: One of those discrimination's is not like all the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZIvgQ9ik48

[Rockie]

15(1)(c) doesn't say anything about deferred compensation. None of the exceptions do. The CHRT also said the following in their conclusions about 15(1)(c):

"The tribunal has concluded that the respondents have not met their onus under s.1 of the Charter. Section 15(1)(c) is not a reasonable limit on the complainants rights under s 15(1) of the Charter."

It is up the the CHRT to determine which, if any, of the exceptions are justified in any particular case. They said none were in Vilven and Kelly. Do you think it would be any different for the next 70 cases?

I think you're grasping at straws based on discussion points contained in the ruling paper. It doesn't change the simply stated conclusions though does it? ACPA lost.

I also have to mention the really big aspect of this whole discussion. Section 15(1)(c) is on the way out because it does not reflect Canadian values any longer. ACPA and Air Canada are expending huge amounts of money and good will fighting a war that is already history. If by some freak stroke of good fortune you prevail in Vilven/Kelly, ACPA still is out of step with society and age 60 will change anyway.

[Brick Head]

15(1)(c) doesn't say anything about deferred compensation. None of the exceptions do.

Do you even read my posts? If you won't except my help that is fine. I get you don't trust me. But please at least do some homework on your own so that when you post it is with some semblance of rational thought.

Again. A lack of understanding as to why mandatory retirement is in the CHRA in the first place is preventing you, and many others, from seeing the big picture.

Why is that at this juncture?

"The tribunal has concluded that the respondents have not met their onus under s.1 of the Charter. Section 15(1)(c) is not a reasonable limit on the complainants rights under s 15(1) of the Charter."

Correct. Why did the Tribunal conclude that the respondents did not meet their onus. What was the rational? If you don't understand why? You simply don't understand.

It is up the the CHRT to determine which, if any, of the exceptions are justified in any particular case. They said none were in Vilven and Kelly. Do you think it would be any different for the next 70 cases?

Nope. Based on the logic. If they can be accommodated? Do it. And alternatives to mandatory retirement to preserve the system? I see no change coming from the Tribunal for the next 70.

I think you're grasping at straws based on discussion points contained in the ruling paper. It doesn't change the simply stated conclusions though does it?

Those straws your talking about are deeply entrenched historic pillars to which collective bargaining has been based for decades. You would have recognized there importance had you bothered to even attempt an understanding. Again. Why don't you guys get this stuff? We are a couple of years into this debate and you guys react like I am speaking a foreign language to you?

I also have to mention the really big aspect of this whole discussion. Section 15(1)(c) is on the way out because it does not reflect Canadian values any longer. ACPA and Air Canada are expending huge amounts of money and good will fighting a war that is already history. If by some freak stroke of good fortune you prevail in Vilven/Kelly, ACPA still is out of step with society and age 60 will change anyway.

Finally something rational. Yes I agree with you. I think you keep forgetting I am sort of a middle player here. I would like to just get on with this as well. We just disagree on how to proceed with getting on with it. Right?

If you really wanted to get on with it, you would be posting your own suggestions to effectively preserve the benefit, in the absence of mandatory retirement.

Yet I haven't heard so much as a peep.

[Rockie]

Rockie wrote:
"The tribunal has concluded that the respondents have not met their onus under s.1 of the Charter. Section 15(1)(c) is not a reasonable limit on the complainants rights under s 15(1) of the Charter."


Correct. Why did the Tribunal conclude that the respondents did not meet their onus. What was the rational? If you don't understand why? You simply don't understand.

The rationale is sentence two of the ruling. Section 15(1)(c) is not a reasonable limit in the CHRT's determination. The Federal Court instructed them to make a determination and that's what they came up with. It is consistent with Canadian Society today and I would be very shocked if the Judicial Review overturns it. The Federal Court is not in the habit of turning the clock back.

Rockie wrote:
It is up the the CHRT to determine which, if any, of the exceptions are justified in any particular case. They said none were in Vilven and Kelly. Do you think it would be any different for the next 70 cases?


Nope. Based on the logic. If they can be accommodated? Do it. And alternatives to mandatory retirement to preserve the system? I see no change coming from the Tribunal for the next 70.

The CHRT is in the business of stopping discrimination, not accommodating it.

If you really wanted to get on with it, you would be posting your own suggestions to effectively preserve the benefit, in the absence of mandatory retirement.

Yet I haven't heard so much as a peep.

Extending the age beyond 60 is not a great detriment to the deferred benefit scheme. There is expert evidence in the ruling stating that very thing if you bothered to read it and the CHRT agrees. It is not a case of saving deferred benefits through mandatory retirement. I personally think the deferred benefit scheme is crap that creates more problems than it's worth, and this would be a great opportunity to change to something better along the lines of status pay.

Deferred compensation is a non-issue as far as the expert witnesses and the CHRT are concerned Brick Head. Mandatory retirement is not in any way required to preserve it in their opinion, so I don't see why you're still beating that drum.

[Rockie]

I haven't addressed this one yet.

Rockie,

Hope you like layoffs from the top of the list

And why, under any circumstances, would that occur?

Hope you like equal pay for equal work

As a matter of fact I'm all for it.

Hope you like rotating bidding

Again, why would that be necessary under any circumstances unless we chose to do that? But personally it wouldn't bother me.

Hope you like summer holidays only once every 4 years

See the above question. And this also wouldn't bother me.

Hope you like finishing your last 5 years at the bottom of the list

Once again...why would that happen?

Hope you like what could be coming your way if you get your wish....

If you mean not being discriminated against I would like that very much. What else do you have in mind? An alleyway beating perhaps from my peers?

Having a guy leave at 60 is far less discriminatory than the crap that is thrown at the junior pilots and it's about to stop (regardless of this ruling).

I agree that junior pilots are treated terribly, especially in the pay department. It's a disgrace actually in my opinion. I've never been against some of the equalizing measures you threaten here like rotating bidding for flights and holidays in any of my other companies either. But Air Canada pilots are not exactly known for compassion and fair treatment of all if it means giving something up ourselves. As a group we would much rather throw the most junior guys under the bus. That's just the way it is.

I'm very interested in what exactly you mean by "it's about to stop (regardless of this ruling)". Are you planning some kind of revolt or something?

[DocAV8R]

Before you all make assumptions have a look at what ACPA reports in Feb- Mar 2006 said about flying past 60. Secrets kept from the troops. It is time to be questioning the MEC. Studies done in consultation with experts and consultants. Supplied by Max 111

SURVEY – AGE 60 RETIREMENT RULE
ACPA COMMITTEE REPORT/ASSESSMENT

Training Committee
Crew Rest Facilities Committee
Training Alternatives Committee

No changes, no effect on Collective Agreement; not affect any part of the Training / Licencing requirements under our C/A.
(G. Bobro, Feb. 17/’06)
No apparent problems.
(G. Bobro, March 2/’06)
No effect.
(Y. Robichaud, March 3/’06
Subsequent submission by members of
Committee, in two parts dealing with their (1)
mandate, and (2) committee members
concerns; this committee is still in the
research and development phase of
alternative pay methods – as yet, no
consensus on whether or not it would be
affected by any change to the normal
retirement age; committee members identify
several areas of personal concerns (see for
ref. CMSC below):
• Article 25 – bidding and working
conditions … how to handle the current
freezes as pilots enter that working
years; what to do with pilots currently
frozen off equipment (Art. 25.06.02 –
last 18 or 30 months);
• Benefits packages – insurances, GDIP,
EMA … will premiums have to increase
(re-work actuarial numbers?), will
programs come under greater strain as
pilots working population ages beyond
60 … will programs be sustainable?
• Training upgrades and failures – how
will “train to standard” in Art. 14.04 be
affected? Will pilots working beyong
age 60 still have opportunity to upgrade
(? Failure rates increase; cost of
training? etc.);

Pilot Assistance Committee
CMSC

• Pilot career progression changes may
affect other members interested in
retiring at age 60 or earlier.
(March 10/’06)
No significant impact on our resources or
programs; perhaps as pilots age there would
be more performance failures (sims, checks,
etc.) and perhaps general health problems …
hard to quantify.
(A. Graham, March 3/’06)
Presently no age restriction in Article 25;
working beyond age 60 - some transition
issues that will require modification to Article
25 (not knowing final outcome re: any
changes to normal retirement age and/or
status restriction):
• Art. 25.06.01 – 18 mth mandatory
freeze (equipment/status) prior to
normal retirement age (60);
• Art. 25.06.02 – 19-30 mths
discretionary freeze (equipment/status)
prior to normal retirement age;
• Pilots who have been posted off retired
but have not reached their retirement
date --- how will they return to active
status if they wish to do so (?);
• Pilots that have retired and are allowed
to return --- how will they return to
active status (?);
• Possible impact on surplus/furloughed
pilots not returned (recall protocol
agreement);
• Protection for pilots restricted from
bidding Capt. pos because of age;
• Crewing formula adjustments to cover
older pilot group in senior pos –
vacation entitlements, sick days, GDIP,
etc.;
• Transition agreement required to
alleviate initial impact caused by backfilling positions from above
(reverse order)

PBS Committee
Constitution Committee/
Administrative Policy Manual
GDIP Committee

(G. Marquis, March 4/’06)
No problem with the PBS system with pilots
flying beyond age 60; unless other countries
maintain age 60 restriction (e.g. the U.S.A.) –
then possible accommodation will have to be
made in bidding system, including factors of
overflights and U.S. alternates, skewing
senior/junior pilots bidding rights possibly.
(F. Coates, Feb. 14/’06)
No effect on Constitution; APM may require
updating of Sec. III, subsec. A – Negotiating
Policy, 12. “The Association strongly opposes
any airline, government agency or person
arbitrarily setting a retirement age. The
Association will recognize a fixed retirement
age only when it has become voluntarily
negotiated as part of an agreed pension
scheme.”
(P. Carter, Feb. 9/’06)
Suggest a full review of the GDIP will be
required:
• presently pilots over age 40 are
required to have 2 medicals, 4 sims, 3
written exams, an ART session and a
mandated route check per year – will
this have to be expanded for 60+
pilots?;
• GDIP schedule of benefits (Art.
26.03.03.03) is built around age 60
retirement rule presently … will have to
be expanded to cover pilots working
beyond age 60 and for how long =
financial $cost for Company;
• Alternative – separate disability plan for
60+ age pilots, in incremental years,
tied to ability/fitness to continue in employment? – or – no GDIP beyond
age 60 employment … if become
disabled, move into retirement/pension
(?);

Human Factors Committee
/PEAC
Vacation Committee

• Anticipated that there will also be
increased usage of sick leave/GDIP by
older 60+ age pilots = increased
$costs.
(G. Tarves, Feb. 16/’06)
Fatigue and flight safety concerns expected to
increase; e.g. humans sleep less as we age
and our ability to adapt to sleep variations
decreases as we age – implications to PEAC
(more) onerous pairings and FRMS; if U.S.
FAA not change, creating pairings that do not
fly into U.S. would reduce total pairing quality
through the entire schedule, possibly; also,
possible negative affect on bidding (PBS) if
crews have to be mixed by one under/one
over 60 ratio (e.g. India ); sim
evaluations/medicals do not specifically test
for age related deterioration of cognitive
abilities – may have to consider (?);
- research paper attached from the
Aerospace Medical Association – The
Age 60 Rule … “Upon review of the
existing evidence, the Aerospace
Medical Association concludes there is
insufficient medical evidence to support
restriction of pilot certification based on
age alone.”
(D. Tweedlie, Feb. 27, March 2/’06)
There would have to be some changes to
Vacation section in C/A, and bidding …
examples:
- retiring pilots presently have a
minimum number of days to bid, based
on the months he will be working
during the year of retirement … will
Insurance Committee
have to transition to a flexible
retirement date if allowed to work
beyond age 60 (new max.?);
- there may be pressure for increased
vacation beyond 25 yrs. service max.
at present ($cost);
- GDIP & Vacation has effect on each …
more pilots on GDIP = more manual
adjustment by Crew Manning;
- working beyond 60 (senior pilot) would
mean less vacation time/slots available
to junior pilots.
(M. Paquin, Feb. 16/’06)
3 areas of concern: ACPA Basis/Optional Life
Ins., Extended Mutual Aid (EMA) and Air
Canada Benefits:
• Basic & Optional Life Ins. – current
premiums are $3 per mth. for $20,000
basic life coverage … if there were
some impact of raising retirement age,
could increase premium (to $3.50); for
optional life, coverage could be
impacted and could be resolved by
creating a new category for age 60-64
(as an est. premium cost - $.42 per
$1000; pilots not wishing to pay this
premium could opt out);
• EMA – impacted most … our
experience is that members in the age
55-59 age group have the highest
experience onto GDIP and we assume
same for post-60 pilots group … could
put financial strain on the trust
(presently .325% of gross income
funds the trust) and expect to be
paying out more in EMA benefits due to
a higher retirement age … would have
to monitor EMA closely (perhaps
exclude age 60-65 pilots from EMA
plan?);
• Air Canada Plans – would probably see
some impact of extending benefits
coverage beyond age 60 (claims
OSH Committee
Pension Committee (Air Canada
and Former CAIL)
increase, costs for coverage … but
may be offset in other areas such as
pension and training).
- for more comprehensive study we would
have to bring in an insurance consultant …
perhaps from Eckler Partners Ltd. ?
(J. Jackson, March 9/’06)
Difficult to determine what impact might be of
having older pilots in the workplace … would
need a risk management study/analysis;
some assumptions can be made re: more
years of radiation at high altitudes, fatigue,
jetlag, airline food (nutritional factors); look at
other high stress and proficiency professions
such as medical surgeons [article offered:
Cognitive changes and retirement among
senior surgeons, by L.J. Greenfield MD, from
June 2002 Bulletin of the ACofS]; we have no
immediate accident statistics to use at Air
Canada re: older workers or older pilots; only
some speculations, comments offered.
(L. Dore, March 4/’06)
It is the text of our pension plans that currently
includes the language for mandatory
retirement, which is included by reference in
the Collective Agreement (Articles 26.04.01,
26.04.02), by the following provision(s):
“5.1 Normal retirement A Member shall
retire from the Company no later than his
Normal Retirement Date … “Normal
Retirement Date” means the first day of the
month immediately following the month the
Member attains the Age of 60.”
In our view – there are few negatives, if any,
to removing the mandatory retirement
provision; allowing a member to continue to
work and accrue additional years of pension
service may be beneficial to the pension
plan(s) … on an actuarial basis, it may be less
expensive for a member to work an additional
year(s) and accrue an additional year(s) of
service and start his pension at age 61 then it
is for him to retire at age 60. In the end, the
Registered Plans would be better off if
individuals worked past age 60 instead of
collecting a pension benefit at that age (based
on the assumption that our plans text remain
as is, unchanged except for the requirement
to retire immediately upon attaining age 60 …
i.e. still able to retire (voluntarily) with full
pension at age 60.
*Cost implications – However on a total plan
basis, if older members do work past age 60
and they are not immediately replaced by
younger workers, the cost of the pension
plan(s) as a percentage of payroll will
probably increase, at least for the short term.
*Flexibility – removing the mandatory
retirement provision will allow members to
decide when the appropriate time is to retire
(according to their individual financial and
other considerations)
[*opinion from Eckler Partners Ltd.,
consultants]
(C. Blandford, March 7/’06)

Perhaps a brave soul will post this on the ACPA site so more are informed.

[Rockie]

(L. Dore, March 4/’06)

It is the text of our pension plans that currently includes the language for mandatory retirement, which is included by reference in the Collective Agreement (Articles 26.04.01, 26.04.02), by the following provision(s):

“5.1 Normal retirement A Member shall retire from the Company no later than his Normal Retirement Date … “Normal Retirement Date” means the first day of the month immediately following the month the Member attains the Age of 60.”

In our view – there are few negatives, if any, to removing the mandatory retirement provision; allowing a member to continue to work and accrue additional years of pension service may be beneficial to the pension plan(s) … on an actuarial basis, it may be less expensive for a member to work an additional year(s) and accrue an additional year(s) of service and start his pension at age 61 then it is for him to retire at age 60. In the end, the Registered Plans would be better off if individuals worked past age 60 instead of collecting a pension benefit at that age (based on the assumption that our plans text remain as is, unchanged except for the requirement to retire immediately upon attaining age 60 … i.e. still able to retire (voluntarily) with full pension at age 60.

*Cost implications – However on a total plan basis, if older members do work past age 60 and they are not immediately replaced by younger workers, the cost of the pension plan(s) as a percentage of payroll will probably increase, at least for the short term.

*Flexibility – removing the mandatory retirement provision will allow members to decide when the appropriate time is to retire (according to their individual financial and other considerations)

[*opinion from Eckler Partners Ltd.,
consultants]
(C. Blandford, March 7/’06)

Why wasn't any of this information given to the membership before the vote? I don't know why more people aren't angry at being denied the very information they needed in order to make an informed decision on whether or not to support the MEC's predetermined agenda.

Despite denying the members any sort of balanced information on the issue, only 45% of the pilots actually voted to support the MEC, not the "overwhelming majority" often mentioned. Any kind of a fair presentation of the issue would undoubtedly make that number much smaller.

This was a con job.

[Rockie]

Perhaps a brave soul will post this on the ACPA site so more are informed.

"Brave" indeed. The mob mentality that rules over there supported by the moderators is a disgrace to our supposed profession.

[600RVR]

Rockie,
Man your wife must be very proud of you and the amount of time you spend on this forum. By the way if your in the bottom 15% how in gods name do you have time to post on this forum every few hours or so every day? You must have a better schedule than me. Anyways how about enough of the BS wait to see what supreme courts have to say. That will be the final tail. Anyways off to work. got to make some money to save for a possible layoff hey Rockie. Hope your doing the same being the the bottom 15%

600RVR

[Rockie]

600RVR

Do you think about retirement? When making decisions that will effect your retirement do you typically like to have a well rounded pool of information to help you make those decisions?

If so, are you not just a teensy bit disappointed that ACPA is witholding it from you?

[600RVR]

Yes Rockie I do think about my retirement. At age 60 I will have 27 years in. retire as a Widebidy CPT with my best 5 years punched in. Too get laid off at 37 years old for god knows how long, too look for a job while still paying off my debts which added up for the last 2 years of flat pay. I would not be able to buy back pension for lost years if I was laid off. I wanted to retire at 60. Tell me how your crusade will be good for me, and you for that matter. If your in the bottom 15% your alot older than I and don't see the benefit of retiring at 60 the same. You looking out for yourself in the same way right?

600RVR

[Rockie]

If the retirement age becomes 65 instead of 60, you can have 32 years service accumulated instead of 27. Still not the maximum benefits you would get with 35 years service, but I suggest you go onto the pension estimator and see what kind of difference that extra five years gets you.

Of course even at that you may still decide to go at 60, but the kicker here is that it would be your choice. Nobody would be pushing you out against your will if for some reason life threw you a curve ball and you couldn't quite afford to retire.

Now about that layoff thing. You speak about it as if it was inevitable (which it certainly isn't), but didn't you consider the possibility you may be at the bottom of the list for some time when you came here? Maybe even laid off? If you couldn't afford that then perhaps you made the wrong decision. Nobody here promised you anything.

ps. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic. The starting salary here is truly pathetic and unworthy of anybody actually qualified for the job. There is no way you or anybody else should have to go into debt to put food on the table for the first couple of years. We are not hiring 25 year old kids anymore, we are hiring people like you with an established family and commitments, and it's about time the starting salary recognized that.