No more Age 60 forced Retirement at Air Canada ???

[WF9F]

If this comes to pass the whole contract will now be open for change. Bring on status pay and much more to change the top weight of seniority the way it is now.Don't think you over 60 crowd will have all your cake and eat it too. Greedy _______!!!!!

[JazzJetDriver]

I love it, you mainline guys can't even get along with yourselves...if you're not fighting with each other you're fighting with everyone else. What a screwed up bunch of self-serving morons you are. You, the mainline crowd, will never see 'happiness' ever, the way you are going.

At least in my little Jazz world we get along and as a group we are able to achieve, you at AC only fight and always lose out...what a friggin' laughing stock you are.

[tonysoprano]

oops.....he's not a mainline guy. Lol.

[Rockie]

If this comes to pass the whole contract will now be open for change. Bring on status pay and much more to change the top weight of seniority the way it is now.Don't think you over 60 crowd will have all your cake and eat it too. Greedy _______!!!!!

Status pay is a great thing. If it is brought in opposition to over 60 will evaporate in seconds.

[tonysoprano]

You won't see status pay anytime soon.

[Rockie]

I don't think we'll ever see status pay since implementing it would be an absolute nightmare, but it would end an awful lot of problems. Age 60+ being just one of them.

[tonysoprano]

yep.

[Mig29]

I am not near 60, but you can say that I am getting close to the half mark....I don't work for the big red or baby red, but hope one day I will....And if I don't...well so be it. But I refuse to see my self operating an aircraft at this pace and at this life style until 65!! Heck, I'd like to see my self retire at 50 if I can....I understand some of you love this job, so much in fact, that you can't see yourself doing anything else. That's fine, but that's not me...and as long as there are people like you and me, this world will not become boring:)

I come from a different mentality, where LIFE takes presedence over WORK, where you plan life outside (not around) work, and use work to achieve certain things and goals in life. Yes, it should be rewarding, and yes we should enjoy it, but to make it your only way of living is like putting all your hopes in flying an F-18 when applying to the air force. I've seen to many good people, dying too early in this career, or soon after it ended. Yes, you can call it, unlucky or destiny, or just 'it was ment to be' but it saddens me to see these folks climb up so high in this career, and never get to enjoy their retirement with their families, grandchildren, friends....Life is too short, our PIC and jet times, aircraft ratings, seniority numbers will all come and go, but we only got one life...

I am all for older folks staynig with the company and passing on their knowledge and wisdome to young guys, but maybe in other capacities than flying the line until 65...or 60 if you ask me. And yes, it's nice to hop over the pond once or twice a month and make 200K but is it fair and viable for the company? While your colleagues are trying to make ends on a 35K salary with a new mortgage, young family and never ending aviation related debts?

I know we are going to disagree on this, but as I said earlier...the world would be one dull place if we didn't

[Rockie]

We'd all love to be independently wealthy and not have to work wouldn't we? But life's just not like that. It will ultimately be the requirement to work till 65 that will change things if the human rights thing doesn't.

It would be nice if the Air Canada pilots would recognize the inevitable and stop wasting money and effort trying to stop it, and instead lay the groundwork to make the change as beneficial to them as possible. But there is little hope of that it seems.

[sepia]

Rockie: At the end of this recession stocks will soar back up in value. Pensions which were once underfunded will be taking contribution holidays again. Those who once thought they would be forced to work past 60 to support their lavish lifestyles, or 3 wives can now retire without worry. The BMW will get to stay, the boat won't have to be sold, and child support to wives 1,2,3 will still leave some cash leftover to spend.

Unfortunately there won't be a clause in flying past 60 which allows it only in a depression, and reinstates retire at 60 once the DOW rises a certain level. Most of what they fly past 60 guys push is total fear mongering. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. If you want people on your side, present solutions to the issues that will effect those most at risk. I realize that any solutions would take away cash from the over 60 crowd, but you're gonna keep everything then things won't change. Maybe instead of saying the onus is on ACPA or the company to make this workable, you should form a committee and work on solutions. Finding a workable solution to the issue would be a lot cheaper than another 5 years in court.

[Lost in Saigon]

Maybe instead of saying the onus is on ACPA or the company to make this workable, you should form a committee and work on solutions. Finding a workable solution to the issue would be a lot cheaper than another 5 years in court.

The over 60 crowd approached ACPA,and the company, many years ago to try and work out a solution. ACPA and the comapny would not take part and basically said "Take a hike, we'll see you in court".

And here we are now......

[Mig29]

what's the point of having a bimmer at 60 or 65??? haha
that's what I don't get...I know you are joking and all...but have a life NOW...because you can't plan too far ahead...I still stand on the fact that I want to retire by 55 and work at my pace and on my accord after that....not on some clock

[Rockie]

Rockie: At the end of this recession stocks will soar back up in value. Pensions which were once underfunded will be taking contribution holidays again. Those who once thought they would be forced to work past 60 to support their lavish lifestyles, or 3 wives can now retire without worry. The BMW will get to stay, the boat won't have to be sold, and child support to wives 1,2,3 will still leave some cash leftover to spend.

Unfortunately there won't be a clause in flying past 60 which allows it only in a depression, and reinstates retire at 60 once the DOW rises a certain level. Most of what they fly past 60 guys push is total fear mongering. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. If you want people on your side, present solutions to the issues that will effect those most at risk. I realize that any solutions would take away cash from the over 60 crowd, but you're gonna keep everything then things won't change. Maybe instead of saying the onus is on ACPA or the company to make this workable, you should form a committee and work on solutions. Finding a workable solution to the issue would be a lot cheaper than another 5 years in court.

Blinders

Solutions have been forwarded ad nauseam but no one is interested. So we'll have to do it the hard way.

[North Shore]

At the end of this recession stocks will soar back up in value.

Ahh, yes...the economists' myth of unending economic growth in a finite system...

[sepia]

Rockie: At the end of this recession stocks will soar back up in value. Pensions which were once underfunded will be taking contribution holidays again. Those who once thought they would be forced to work past 60 to support their lavish lifestyles, or 3 wives can now retire without worry. The BMW will get to stay, the boat won't have to be sold, and child support to wives 1,2,3 will still leave some cash leftover to spend.

Unfortunately there won't be a clause in flying past 60 which allows it only in a depression, and reinstates retire at 60 once the DOW rises a certain level. Most of what they fly past 60 guys push is total fear mongering. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. If you want people on your side, present solutions to the issues that will effect those most at risk. I realize that any solutions would take away cash from the over 60 crowd, but you're gonna keep everything then things won't change. Maybe instead of saying the onus is on ACPA or the company to make this workable, you should form a committee and work on solutions. Finding a workable solution to the issue would be a lot cheaper than another 5 years in court.

Blinders

Solutions have been forwarded ad nauseam but no one is interested. So we'll have to do it the hard way.

Rockie,

Can you direct me to somewhere the solutions have been forwarded "ad nauseam"? I'm actually quite interested in reading what fly past 60 sees as a workable solution.

[sepia]

At the end of this recession stocks will soar back up in value.

Ahh, yes...the economists' myth of unending economic growth in a finite system...

So you're saying that we're going to see unending economic decline then?

Ahh yes... North Shores' myth of unending economic decline in an finite system...

[Rockie]

Rockie: At the end of this recession stocks will soar back up in value. Pensions which were once underfunded will be taking contribution holidays again. Those who once thought they would be forced to work past 60 to support their lavish lifestyles, or 3 wives can now retire without worry. The BMW will get to stay, the boat won't have to be sold, and child support to wives 1,2,3 will still leave some cash leftover to spend.

Unfortunately there won't be a clause in flying past 60 which allows it only in a depression, and reinstates retire at 60 once the DOW rises a certain level. Most of what they fly past 60 guys push is total fear mongering. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. If you want people on your side, present solutions to the issues that will effect those most at risk. I realize that any solutions would take away cash from the over 60 crowd, but you're gonna keep everything then things won't change. Maybe instead of saying the onus is on ACPA or the company to make this workable, you should form a committee and work on solutions. Finding a workable solution to the issue would be a lot cheaper than another 5 years in court.

Blinders

Solutions have been forwarded ad nauseam but no one is interested. So we'll have to do it the hard way.

Rockie,

Can you direct me to somewhere the solutions have been forwarded "ad nauseam"? I'm actually quite interested in reading what fly past 60 sees as a workable solution.

https://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/ALP ... &Tabid=256

This issue has been staring ACPA in the face for years now, and they have steadfastly refused to address it like aware adults. Instead our members have buried their heads in the sand and pinned their hopes on a single court challenge that does nothing to address the dozens of cases following it. They also completely ignore economic realities and the future viability of the pension. They use the contract as a weapon in their arsenal when it is completely irrelevant, and fall back on the utterly useless refrain of "you knew what the terms were when you hired on".

No, we are not addressing this very maturely.

ALPA laid the framework for protecting the rights of all pilots on both sides of the issue, but we refuse to even look at it. In other words, the suggestions are there, but no one's listening to them.

[sepia]

Rockie, perhaps I was unclear, I was interested in solutions the fly past 60 group had come up with. A few paragraphs written by ACPA regarding a different country doesn't qualify as "ad nauseam" solutions to me.

[Rockie]

Rockie, perhaps I was unclear, I was interested in solutions the fly past 60 group had come up with. A few paragraphs written by ACPA regarding a different country doesn't qualify as "ad nauseam" solutions to me.

You were quite clear, and what you want is a complete solution nicely tied up with a bow to this whole issue so you don't have to think about it. No discussion required.

What ALPA has done is lay down fundamental guidelines that must be adhered to while this issue is hammered out. They are completely applicable to our situation and are a giant step in the right direction. The 60+ crowd has repeatedly stated they don't want to diminish in any way your right to retire at 60, and ALPA's plan has been suggested many times (by me alone) to no effect. But our pilot group flatly refuses to consider anything but the status quo and no amount of suggested solutions mean anything if you aren't prepared to look at them.

ALPA will now turn its attention to working to advocate the following priorities contained in the resolution:

Appropriate legislative language to prevent retroactive application of a change to the Age 60 Rule, to the effect that: “No person over 60, except active flight deck crewmembers, on the effective date may serve as a pilot (captain or first officer) for a Part 121 airline unless such person is newly hired as a pilot on or after such effective date without credit for prior seniority or prior longevity for benefits or other terms related to length of service prior to the date of rehire under any labor agreement or employment policies of the air carrier.”

Appropriate legislative language to ensure stronger liability protection for airlines and pilot unions in implementing a change to the rule, to the effect that: “Any action in conformance with this Act or with a regulation under this Act may not serve as a basis for liability or relief before any court or agency of the United States, or of any state or locality, nor may any action taken prior to the effective date of enactment on the basis of section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as then in effect.”

Ensuring that, under a defined benefit retirement plan, a change to the Age 60 Rule will not reduce a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit nor reduce a benefit to which a participant or beneficiary would have been entitled without enactment of such a change to the Rule.

Opposing any additional age-related diagnostic medical testing.

Opposing any attempt by the FAA to obtain greater access to pilot medical records.

Supporting FAA Air Surgeon Tilton’s recommendation to require a 1st Class Medical certification every six months for pilots over age 60.

Opposing for domestic operation the implementation of the ICAO standard that at least one pilot in the cockpit be under age 60. Once sufficient data on pilots over age 60 becomes available, unless the necessity for this mitigation for the long term is clearly shown, advocate for removal of the ICAO over/under mitigation for all operations.

Support the ability of a pilot to retire prior to the mandatory age without penalty.

Granted, the devil is in the details and that's what will take time to work out, but this isn't supposed to be easy. I encourage you to read these fundamentals again, and ask yourself why we haven't done the same thing.

[sepia]

Rockie: While I'd certainly love a nice little package that fixes the problems with a bow tie on it, that's not what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is a compromise. You know, where you get something new, but in turn for getting something new you give something you once had up.

Your group is so utterly unpalatable to the majority because it reeks of greed. If your group thought of a solution that didn't punish everyone junior to you the optics certainly would change.

[tonysoprano]

See, I have this suspicion. I hope I am wrong and I probably am, but I think having gone through a merger has made me a little cynical. Would I be wrong in saying this is a blue/red dilemma? Would I be wrong in suggesting that the blue side wants to be around a little longer with their better seniority? I was kind of looking forward to seeing them all retired in a few years but it seems they are on a mission to spoil my time a little longer. I know, I know, get a life Tony. Hey, all jokes aside, gimme a choice, don't penalize me and I'll be ok with it. Really.

[Al707]

Reversing the seniority list on ones 60th birthday sounds reasonable

Keep the stripes as taking them away would be.... discriminatory or make one feel of less worth.
Keep the money as taking some away would be.... discriminatory.

Go to the bottom of the list for block bidding, vacation bidding and everything else seniority driven.

And if anyone argues that it would be discriminatory to bid from a lower position then the system (seniority) in itself must be discriminatory...

[Rockie]

Rockie: While I'd certainly love a nice little package that fixes the problems with a bow tie on it, that's not what I'm looking for. What I'm looking for is a compromise. You know, where you get something new, but in turn for getting something new you give something you once had up.

Your group is so utterly unpalatable to the majority because it reeks of greed. If your group thought of a solution that didn't punish everyone junior to you the optics certainly would change.

There's the greed thing again. It would be best if everybody stopped using that word because althought there are many reasons why someone would want to continue working beyond 60, there is only one reason why you don't want them to. And that's your own greed. So let's just give that one a rest shall we? You people are so fixated on denouncing a person's motivation and laying blame that you're missing the point entirely. This is going to happen and you are doing nothing to prepare for it.

Once again, if you read the fundamentals ALPA put out, and that every single person wanting to work beyond 60 would agree to, you will see not only compromise but a desire to protect your rights as well. But here's the trick, you have to read and consider them.

[sepia]

Ahh yes, the 230k/yr 777 captain working 10 days a month calling the EMJ FO on reserve working 17 days a month making 35k/yr greedy.

The guy on the bottom of the list is just wanting the career progression you yourself enjoyed. What you're wanting is something that no one before you enjoyed, and no one after you will ever enjoy. Yes, is those position group pilots who are greedy, definitely not the top end guys.

[Rockie]

See, you are absolutely fixated on this word greed and denouncing motivation. And while you're vilifying the people you are completely ignoring the issue and not preparing for it. You are also ignoring the pension issue which will be the real deciding factor. When this thing comes to pass you cannot blame anyone but yourself if you get the short end of the stick because you insisted on playing the blame game instead of preparing.

Isn't it time our pilot group stopped acting like a bunch of jilted teenage girls and did something proactive?

Speaking of pension, when yours turns into a defined contribution or worse and the pilot group comes to the conclusion they need to extend the age to 65, I hope you remember all those behind you who won't enjoy the career advancement you did. But somehow I don't think you will.