Mandatory Retirement Repealed!!!

[yycflyguy]

"If this was truly about discrimination, the majority of the litigants would be happy to settle and return to work, not hope for a fat settlement cheque with no designs on exercising their new rights to continue to fly."



I will gladly settle for the the remuneration I have lost, and, I am ready to go back to work.
I think it is over $500,000 since I was forced out. That is the kind of cash we are talking about, which is the difference between my pension and projected salary to date.

Thanks for proving my point. See ya on the line next year.

[FADEC]

The Stig Wrote;

"The salary you earned was paid to you in accordance with the collective agreements in place while you flew at Air Canada. You were remunerated in accordance with the pay scales for the positions 'awarded' under the terms of those agreements, you never owned anything, it was inherited. Under those collective agreements there were no positions at Air Canada for anyone the month after they turned 60, therefore your 'projected salary' was zero."

IF the provisions of that "Agreement" regarding Retirement are ruled Illegal, then you are wrong, and the outcome is out of our hands. There is little point arguing about if here; we have no say.

Save your anger for those who not only failed to inform us, but actively misled the members. Ray Hall and others tried to tell us; we didn't want to know.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see"

[Norwegianwood]

I submit that since FP60 is advocating "no" retirement age

Wrong, wrong, wrong................ The Fed's have changed the Law of the Land and as the Emperor of Austria said 'nuf said!

Ah-yeah, do some serious reading before you have to change both feet at the same time

[Rockie]

So far you and the coalition have said nothing. Any challenge has been met with the usual. ACPA is a cast of idiots. The train wreck is coming or my favorite, "it's the law...get over it". Offer something to the losers so that they may see that the complainants aren't self-centred opportunists.
I am trying to have a serious dialogue here. For the love of god, no more get over it, it's the law crap. That type of response will send your opponents into a "fight till the bitter end...and then fight some more" attitude.

Air Canada pilots have never had anything but a "fight to the bitter end...and then fight some more" attitude from the very start. Nothing else was ever considered and you know that.

It is this preoccupation with "them" that has prevented us from dealing with "it". If every one of the previously retired pilots decided to just quietly disappear never to be seen or heard from again it wouldn't change the law. Mandatory retirement is now illegal. So at the risk of sending you absolutely postal...get over it and move on, because you are just wasting even more energy and time in a pointlessly irrelevant blame game that does nothing to advance your interests.

[Raymond Hall]

This brings to my next point to answer Raymond Hall's question from page 5.
Your clients financially benefited from mandatory retirement at Air Canada up until the day they retired. It is obvious to all but I'd like it if you would kindly acknowledge this fact. I am not trying to publicly back you into a corner. You will be on the pointy end of this question in any settlement discussion to be sure. As a result, your client's careers were not held back in financial terms by the proposed changes. How would you propose ACPA and it's junior members making south of 40K embrace the change. What should the wise old skipper say to his younger colleague in this regard ?

I admit that. We benefited, everyone benefited in the stagnant environment by career advancement as a result of pilots ahead retiring. That is correct.

Do not forget, however, that the majority of that benefit came from the pilots that would have retired anyway, regardless whether there was mandatory retirement or whether there was no mandatory retirement. The overwhelming majority had then and still have now absolutely no intention of sticking around beyond the date when they can get an unpenalized pension and move on. In fact, hundreds in the past five years took advantage of the two early retirement incentive packages and left early, once they were able to retire with no penalty.

You benefited from that change to age restriction in the collective agreement and you did not complain about that. Without those two early retirement packages, your career progression would been even slower than what it actually was, as dismal as it may seem.

Now, what do I say to those south of 40K? I say, it didn’t have to be this way. You could have had both career progression and union solidarity, had your Association chosen a more enlightened path in 2006, 2007, or even as late as 2009. It is too late for that now. Any benefit that the union might achieved by consciously attempting to trade off the inevitable loss of the mandatory retirement provision for pension improvements and other incentives to encourage senior pilots to leave early, so as to diminish or even totally offset the adverse effect of the change have been all but squandered.

Not only that, but the emotional rift among the members and the loss of solidarity of the group as a whole is irreparable, at least in the short term, in my view.

[vic777]

I'm sure you're aware of Capt. Duke's testimony to the extent to which Air Canada would be unable to forecast the number of pilot's planning on staying past 60

All AC has to do is ask ... on the equip bid form, ask each Pilot to state when they are retiring, this date could be changed on each bid.

Once again, why isn't the FlyPast60 group embracing such ideas?

As far as asking the FlyPast60 group to embrace ideas, all their energy is spent fighting AC and their UNION.

[Ah_yeah]

[quote="Rockie"
Air Canada pilots have never had anything but a "fight to the bitter end...and then fight some more" attitude from the very start. Nothing else was ever considered and you know that.

It is this preoccupation with "them" that has prevented us from dealing with "it". If every one of the previously retired pilots decided to just quietly disappear never to be seen or heard from again it wouldn't change the law. Mandatory retirement is now illegal. So at the risk of sending you absolutely postal...get over it and move on, because you are just wasting even more energy and time in a pointlessly irrelevant blame game that does nothing to advance your interests.[/quote]

Aye Carrumba...The attitude was solidified by the unwavering demand for the right to die in the flight deck. Both sides polar.
The "them" reference is to be expected. Many pilots on opposite ends of this battle know each other and have spent time on layovers being pilots. Each side feels betrayed. I am not going to go postal, I am trying to have a mature discussion but frankly, if you only have one line to add to the conversation I'll just drop it Rockie.

[Rockie]

I am not going to go postal, I am trying to have a mature discussion but frankly, if you only have one line to add to the conversation I'll just drop it Rockie.

Actually I've had several lines to add over the years, but all of them have been centered around the theme of dealing with the reality of this situation rather than waste time with personalities that have nothing to do with it. I've wanted us to do that because it would have maximized the benefits we could get from this change while minimizing the liability. We still haven't done that yet, but we will in the end because we must. The only difference is we will see none of the subsidiary benefits and all of the potential liability. As a single theme I think that's a pretty good one in the whole sorry mess even if you don't like it.

But I'll humour you for a moment. What would you have the FP60 group do to soothe your bruised sensitivities?

[vic777]

I am trying to have a mature discussion

Air Canada has agreed to allow Pilots to FlyPast60. That debate has ended, it is history. The mature discussion should now be about how to implement this policy. Can ACPA negotiate in the best interests of all Pilots realizing that every Pilot will eventually become "Sixty Plus" yrs. old? Does ACPA have the resources to aid each Pilot in their career planning to age Sixty and beyond?

[rudder]

This discourse continues to be completely irrational. It is hilarious to watch those that still continue to insist that there will be 'conditions' to continued post age 60 employment and laughably - conditions to retiring (i.e. you apparently will have to book a date).

Nobody else in North America does it this way and they face the exact same operational issues. What makes AC so special?

ACPA/AC can continue to delay the impact of this until December 2012 but by then the inertia will have reached a level that will make the collision even more forceful. At least AC has acknowledged the crazy aunt in the basement in writing. Others clearly have not.

So while you continue to expend resources on the family feud, the rest of the adults in the industry will convene with the employers and legal and industrial advisors and focus on the new facts of life and start to manage the very real circumstances where pilots will express a desire to remain employed after age 65.

[Rockie]

Ah_Yeah

You wanted a serious discussion (which this has always been by the way) so answer my question please. What does the FP60 group have to do that will get your mind off of them and focused on dealing with the facts in this issue?

[Mig29]

Ah_Yeah

You wanted a serious discussion (which this has always been by the way) so answer my question please. What does the FP60 group have to do that will get your mind off of them and focused on dealing with the facts in this issue?

I'll tell you what these folks can do to mitigate the problem:

option 1) RETIRE at age 60.

option 2) Return to work back of the line at the appropriate pay scale (you can still use your best 3 or 5 years until you finally decide to retire to help you max your pension return)

option 3) For every pilot over 60 staying, company has to allow one guy to retire between 55 and 60 - no penalties whatsoever. I see plenty of guys on the line dying to fly and picking up drafts religiously, so I'm not buying it, however it's not completely wrong what you said.

I admit that. We benefited, everyone benefited in the stagnant environment by career advancement as a result of pilots ahead retiring. That is correct.

Aside from Raymond Hall, no one has admitted the fact that people moved up the ranks and pay because some one moved out! Simple as that!

Do not forget, however, that the majority of that benefit came from the pilots that would have retired anyway, regardless whether there was mandatory retirement or whether there was no mandatory retirement. The overwhelming majority had then and still have now absolutely no intention of sticking around beyond the date when they can get an unpenalized pension and move on. In fact, hundreds in the past five years took advantage of the two early retirement incentive packages and left early, once they were able to retire with no penalty.

You can't say that for the fact, it's at best a hypothesis and your own personal view on it.

[vic777]

option 1) RETIRE at age 60.

Pilots junior to you will be flying past Sixty and I'm sure we'll soon be hearing tales of AC begging Pilots to stay on for at least a few more months ... to help them out of a jam.

option 2) Return to work back of the line at the appropriate pay scale (you can still use your best 3 or 5 years until you finally decide to retire to help you max your pension return)

Not going to happen, ask the Canadian Government to explain it to you.

option 3) For every pilot over 60 staying, company has to allow one guy to retire between 55 and 60 - no penalties whatsoever. I see plenty of guys on the line dying to fly and picking up drafts religiously, so I'm not buying it, however it's not completely wrong what you said.

ask ACPA to spend all their "bargaining capitol" on this!

Aside from Raymond Hall, no one has admitted the fact that people moved up the ranks and pay because some one moved out! Simple as that!

Why do you ask people to admit something which is so obvious everyone already knows it. What you can't seem to grasp is that, that was then, this is now. Pilots will still retire off the top, just at a slower rate as everyone benefits from longer careers. If they make the medicals and other qualification criterion stiffer, Pilots could even retire more frequently and have shorter careers.

[Mig29]

Pilots will still retire off the top, just at a slower rate as everyone benefits from longer careers.

everyone benefits from longer careers!?? You are out to lunch man! I don't give a damn about sitting up front at 68 years of age, I want to retire the earlier the better. Stagnation on top will make the early exit harder for me. How long do you think AC will take to catch up on this NWO as you say, and impose mandatory increase in retirement age for pilot. Will I have a choice then!? NO, I will HAVE to stay to 65 just to make up what I could have had at age 60. You are setting a precedent that will eventually become LAW as you all say it so often for EVERYONE.

Explain me why option 2 won't work? You are not retiring at 60, you are only sliding at the back of the line, with top F/O pay? Is that so bad?

[Rockie]

option 1) RETIRE at age 60.

They already did, and not by choice.

option 2) Return to work back of the line at the appropriate pay scale (you can still use your best 3 or 5 years until you finally decide to retire to help you max your pension return)

Most probably won't return at all. Some might opt to do exactly what you suggest. Those that choose to come back into whatever seat their seniority allows will only be availing themselves of their seniority rights just like you do. But is that really what it's going to take for you to deal with the real facts in this issue? Why aren't your own interests sufficient reason?

option 3) For every pilot over 60 staying, company has to allow one guy to retire between 55 and 60 - no penalties whatsoever.

That's been suggested many times by the FP60 guys here. In order for that to occur though the Air Canada pilots and their union have to start addressing the facts in a realistic manner and make it happen. It isn't going to happen all by itself. Can we start doing that now please?

[yycflyguy]

option 3) For every pilot over 60 staying, company has to allow one guy to retire between 55 and 60 - no penalties whatsoever.

That's been suggested many times by the FP60 guys here. In order for that to occur though the Air Canada pilots and their union have to start addressing the facts in a realistic manner and make it happen. It isn't going to happen all by itself. Can we start doing that now please?

What makes you think that this is not being considered in the current CBA negotiations? Do you have inside information on what is truly happening at the table? How bout this... stand by for new ATIS message.

[Rockie]

What makes you think that this is not being considered in the current CBA negotiations?

Of course I have no idea if this is being discussed at the table, but consider this:

ACPA has never given the membership any indication whatsoever that they were doing anything but what they say they're doing, which is fight this to the bitter end as per the membership's wishes. They've repeated that mantra time and time again. ACPA has never even acknowledged the change in law that occurred last December 15th. Since the last negotiations disaster ACPA committed to not doing anything without full and comprehensive consultation with the membership, which on the face of it they seem to have honoured so far to the great satisfaction of the membership.

Do you think they're going to suddenly change direction on an extremely controversial and emotional issue like this and undertake complex negotiations with massively far reaching implications without giving the membership any input or even informing them of their intentions? Would you be happy about that?

I guess the next YYZ meeting will give us some indication, but I know I wouldn't be happy.

[yycflyguy]

You are confusing the role of ACPA and the role of the NC. The NC has not tipped their hand as to what exactly is being negotiated other than if you read between the lines on the WAWCON surveys they released. It is in their best interest NOT to disclose what are the top priorities. Both sides realize the inevitability of December 15th 2012. It makes sense that they would be discussing it now during CBA negotiations.

The failed TA had SEVERAL bombs attached to it. Pay grouping, DC pensions, LCC etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this one had a bomb or two in it as well... including this controversial ticking bomb.

[Rockie]

You are confusing the role of ACPA and the role of the NC.

No I'm not. For this purpose they are one in the same. We ditched our last NC and as much of the MEC as we could because they went completely off campus negotiating things they told us nothing about and we did not give them permission to do. Reversing their position without member input on this issue especially would be a very, very bad thing for them to do when they've gone to great pains legitimizing their position by saying they're only doing what the membership mandated. Actually negotiating with the company on it would be even worse.

The failed TA had SEVERAL bombs attached to it. Pay grouping, DC pensions, LCC etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all if this one had a bomb or two in it as well... including this controversial ticking bomb.

On this we completely agree. How the union deals with it vis-a-vis the membership will tell if they've really learned anything from the last fiasco or not.

[Morry Bund]

Explain me why option 2 won't work? You are not retiring at 60, you are only sliding at the back of the line, with top F/O pay? Is that so bad?

Canadian Human Rights Act


10. It is a discriminatory practice for an employer, employee organization or employer organization

(a) to establish or pursue a policy or practice, or

(b) to enter into an agreement affecting recruitment, referral, hiring, promotion, training, apprenticeship, transfer or any other matter relating to employment or prospective employment,

that deprives or tends to deprive an individual or class of individuals of any employment opportunities on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

[Mig29]

A two tier employee system you mean??

I know this is illegal, but AC does it in almost every other department....tier A and tier B employees, different pay grades, temps vs permanents, etc.

Jazz just did it with the new Travel Pass policy, creating a 3 tier seniority system....What a joke!

[vic777]

Explain me why option 2 won't work? You are not retiring at 60, you are only sliding at the back of the line, with top F/O pay? Is that so bad?

Mig29, Are you a Troll? Your question indicates that you have absolutely no concept of the FlyPast60 issue. It seems like you have not understood any of the many times Rockie and others have explained the NWO. Here is the simple fact, after Dec 1st 2012 AC Pilots will continue in their present Position past the age of Sixty. This will result in huge windfall gains to AC, no part of which has ACPA been able to get for the junior Pilots.

[Morry Bund]

I know this is illegal, but AC does it in almost every other department....tier A and tier B employees, different pay grades, temps vs permanents, etc. Jazz just did it with the new Travel Pass policy, creating a 3 tier seniority system....What a joke!

No. Not a joke. Seniority, date of hire, and work status (full-time versus part-time) are not in the included in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Age is. So you can't force anyone at age 60 into a different work and pay regimen simply because of their age.

You may not find these distinctions very satisfactory, but they have been used as the basis for damage awards that have exceeded $100,000 in many, many cases, not just for pilots.

Have a look at this recent decision out of PEI with respect to three university professors terminated at age 65:

Nilsson v. University of Prince Edward Island, 2010 CanLII 82372 (PE HRC)

[80] The Panel orders the University to do the following:
1. Cease the contravention complained of, namely, mandatory retirement;
2. Refrain in the future from committing the same or similar contravention, namely, mandatory retirement;
3. Reinstate the Complainant Dr. Nilsson to his former position with tenure;
4. Reinstate the Complainant Dr. Wills to his former position with tenure;
5. Reinstate the Complainant Ms. Fell to a position comparable to the position she held prior to the termination of her employment;
6. Pay to the Complainant Dr. Nilsson $331,487 for loss of income;
7. Pay to the Complainant Dr. Wills $263,489 for loss of income;
8. Pay to the Complainant Ms. Fell $84,972 for loss of income;
9. Reinstate the Complainants to the Pension Plan or, in the alternative, pay to each Complainant an annual annuity in accordance with the reasons in paras. 66-67;
10. Pay to each Complainant $8,000 for general damages;
11. Pay to each Complainant, if entitled, an amount for income tax gross up;
12. Pay to the Respondent Faculty Association costs in the amount of $51,870.96;
13. Pay to the Respondent CUPE costs in the amount of $4,010.97;
14. Pay to each Complainant costs in the amount of $1,000;
15. Pay pre-judgment interest on the loss of income awards accruing from the Complainants’ respective dates of termination to the date of this judgment and post-judgment interest on all monetary awards until paid.

Dated at Charlottetown this 4th day of June, 2010.
----
The University filed an application for a partial stay of the award, pending judicial review of the award:

"[1] ... The Human Rights Panel was constituted to hear and determine complaints made to the Prince Edward Island Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”) by Dr. Thomy Nilsson, Dr. Richard Wills, and Ms. Yogi Fell (“the Complainants”), alleging their compulsory retirement constituted discrimination on the basis of age contrary to the Act. The Human Rights Panel upheld the complaints and subsequently issued an order dealing with remedies, damages and costs. Pursuant to the order and pending appeal, UPEI has reinstated the complainants to the same employment they previously held at UPEI, but asks this Court to stay payment by UPEI of various monetary awards, principally past loss of income awards, contingent upon UPEI paying these amounts into an interest bearing trust account pending the final determination of the application for judicial review."

The application for a stay was denied, with the Court saying:

"[32] I find on a balance of convenience that the Complainants would suffer greater harm from the granting of the stay than UPEI would suffer from its refusal.
Conclusion
[33] I conclude the partial stay should not be granted. UPEI’s motion is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the Faculty Association and CUPE. I fix the costs of the Faculty Association at $5,000, and the costs of CUPE at $2,000."

[Localizer]

Mig29, your missing the point my friend. Whatever happens to the rest of us is just fine, as long as those at the top keep their pay, pension, working conditions .. etc. As for the rest of us .. they don't really care .. OH .. just contribute to keeping their pension funded, that's your only duty.

Sarcasm aside .. I'd just like an honest answer as to what makes you, fly past 60 so special? Why shouldn't the other pilots enjoy the same opportunity to progress in pay, seniority and eventually the ability to retire at a decent age? Why should other career's be put on hold for the sake of those who enjoyed the best this industry had to offer? (notice had) Nobody on this forum can really answer that question .. the music eventually stops for all of us, the least you can say is "I enjoyed it while it lasted" and bow out with the respect of your peers .. just like those before you, and those still to come.

Cheers.

[vic777]

Nobody on this forum can really answer that question ..

The answer is that, "Sixty is your Grandad's Forty". Society changes. reality rears it's ugly head. Get with the program.