Mandatory Retirement Eliminated

[ChicoChico]

I'm hoping sooner rather than later....

CC

[Seeker]

(Note: I know it will never happen but the principle is the same IMO)

It's not the same principle at all; the contract has always had retirement at age 60, and these guys who have claimed that their "rights" have been affected were hired with the age 60 retirement in place - nothing has been taken away from them. As I've said before age 60 or age 65 both work just fine but it's the changing mid stream that will cause the problems.

[groundeffect]

What mystifies me the most is when one considers

lost pension income, how little these post 60ers

will be woking for.

Also:

If one stays in good health, 60 isn't all that old

to travel/fill in your own personal desires.65?!

Now you want to live the good life?

I don't get it.

[Fido]

I don't get it.

Are you divorced?

[groundeffect]

Yup! I am, none of your business by the way.

And no hope of 35 years in.

I guess i cherish my short yet robust, time

on planet earth more than some..you I guess.

[Guest rozar s'macco]

2 major thoughts came to my mind when reading the decision.

1. In the event that damages are awarded, they'd better calculated by taking into account the positions that the claimaint pilots would have held had this interpretation of the charter been in force during their careers ie. not a "big bang" event when they turned 60. It is beyond dispute that neither would have held the various positions they held throughout their careers had not the pilots senior to them retired at age 60. Hired 5 years later...promoted 5 years later...A340 skipper 5 years later...poof damages gone, or even money owing, given that pay scales have come down and the time value of money. Sorry, can't have cake and eat it too.

2. There appeared to be a few mentions of working changes into the contract that are applicable once one reaches a certain age. That seems to counter the idea that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age, but it may fall under the purview of BFOR if the company and union can show that it is not possible to have more than 20% widebody captains above age 60, due to scheduling solutions.

Age 65, it's here. I suspect all along Ray Hall et al, in attempting to tell us all "it's coming, deal with it" was really fishing for settlement. Now that it IS here, I think it can be conclusively proven that no damages are payable (1.) and that the contract can be amended to reflect the operational challenges presented. At the end of the day, for me, it is less about working to 65 than it is about preventing a select group from making a large settlement by exploiting our flimsy CHRT process, while attempting to downplay the fact that their own careers were such as they were solely DUE TO the fact that those before them left when the collectively agreed upon time came.

[Johnny]

There exists a very vocal demographic on the ACPA Forum, that makes you ashamed to be a member.

Although I personally disagree with "fly-till-you-die," the personal attacks are unbelievable.

Whether it was, "these three Pilots," or not...someone was going to champion the cause.

[rudder]

2 major thoughts came to my mind when reading the decision.

1. In the event that damages are awarded, they'd better calculated by taking into account the positions that the claimaint pilots would have held had this interpretation of the charter been in force during their careers ie. not a "big bang" event when they turned 60. It is beyond dispute that neither would have held the various positions they held throughout their careers had not the pilots senior to them retired at age 60. Hired 5 years later...promoted 5 years later...A340 skipper 5 years later...poof damages gone, or even money owing, given that pay scales have come down and the time value of money. Sorry, can't have cake and eat it too.

2. There appeared to be a few mentions of working changes into the contract that are applicable once one reaches a certain age. That seems to counter the idea that it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age, but it may fall under the purview of BFOR if the company and union can show that it is not possible to have more than 20% widebody captains above age 60, due to scheduling solutions.

Age 65, it's here. I suspect all along Ray Hall et al, in attempting to tell us all "it's coming, deal with it" was really fishing for settlement. Now that it IS here, I think it can be conclusively proven that no damages are payable (1.) and that the contract can be amended to reflect the operational challenges presented. At the end of the day, for me, it is less about working to 65 than it is about preventing a select group from making a large settlement by exploiting our flimsy CHRT process, while attempting to downplay the fact that their own careers were such as they were solely DUE TO the fact that those before them left when the collectively agreed upon time came.

The ICAO age 65 rule change that modified the industry standard was the game changer. Therefore, in the 'remedy' portion of the hearings this time frame will be highly relevant. It is unlikely what happened before the rule change will be given much weight. Under the 'duty to accomodate' requirements, it is much more practical to keep two post age 60 pilots out of the same flight deck than it would have been to keep a post-age 60 Captain in Canadian domestic airspace only. It wil be interesting to see how the CHRC decides to deal with post age 65 pilots.

[Vsplat]

My suggestion:

1) Eliminate train to standard, today. Two failures in a row you are gone.

2) No cash settlement. There is no retirement age at Air Canada, apparently, so everyone can work till they die.

3) Anyone who really thinks they need their job back needs to settle accounts with the company - retirement money paid out verus salary money to buy back the years of service, so they are a current, salaried employee with pension valid to their years.

4) Anyone who fails a medical while trying to return gets no compensation as they are not blocked from returning due to age.

5) Recurrent training on type, failure x 2 equals termination as it would for every other employee. Not retirement, termination.

Fair is fair. You want to stay until pushed out, then let's have at it.

Vs

[Don Hudson]

rozar;

Age 65, it's here.

Is it, or is there no age limit whatsoever? I think it's open-ended, isnt' it? Fly til you're 70, etc?

The Human Rights Tribunal knows nothing about aviation; it knows nothing about why the retirement age was the way it was. It was a ruling which took a very narrow view of "rights" and ignored the context - very bad work in my view, favouring no one in the end. There's nothing magic about "60", health included - it can be good and it can be terrible at 50 as can mental acuity. But if someone over 60 fails a ride, will the Tribunal see that as the next "discrimination"? Nobody has been done any favours by the original complainants' case and the subsquent ruling, least of all aviation. This may be the biggest example of BCWYWF of all.

Vs;

Eliminate train to standard, today. Two failures in a row you are gone.

That's the way we used to run it. Then we went to "permanent SO's" until that position disappeared. In fact there is a "strike 3" clause in the CA but it takes a bit longer to trigger, (if I recall, you can "try" twice with a year in between and if you fail the second time, you're out and not returned to your former status). Two strikes and you're out is appropriate, providing there is a true competency issue and failures are not used to "motivate" pilots as occurred in Miami. That's originally where train-to-standard came from; the issues weren't competency but political in nature and I would hope that everyone has learned a thing or three since then.

[rudder]

My suggestion:

1) Eliminate train to standard, today.  Two failures in a row you are gone.

2) No cash settlement.  There is no retirement age at Air Canada, apparently, so everyone can work till they die.

3) Anyone who really thinks they need their job back needs to settle accounts with the company - retirement money paid out verus salary money to buy back the years of service, so they are a current, salaried employee with pension valid to their years.

4) Anyone who fails a medical while trying to return gets no compensation as they are not blocked from returning due to age.

5) Recurrent training on type, failure x 2 equals termination as it would for every other employee.  Not retirement, termination.

Fair is fair.  You want to stay until pushed out, then let's have at it. 

Vs

Are you suggesting that there are some pilots at AC that remain employed only because of the train-to-standard program? Pretty serious allegation.

Acronyms like LOFT/LOS/AQP didn't exist in years gone by. While train-to-standard may not be the best program to deal with training annomalies, the outdated 'up or out' or 'two strikes' type programs were relics from another era. Perhaps the answer lies somwhere in between. Much like the SMS philosophy, training systems must be progressive and self-reinforcing otherwise the value is nil.

[Johnny]

Train to Standard - is a feel good term. It REALLY does not exist, if the corporation wants you out, you will be out.

Forced on to long term disability, until retirement. Forced into a lower rated position - Captain to First Officer etc.

The way it should be, there is nothing to fear about "Train to Standard."

For the "Over the Hill" crowd, expect the Medical and Simulator standards to be seriously increased.

The people that run the place, are not stupid.

[rudder]

The Human Rights Tribunal knows nothing about aviation;

Perhaps. And neither AC nor ACPA did an effective job at educating them either. Hence, the result.

There have been comparisons between how ACPA has managed this subject vs how ALPA managed this same issue in the US when faced with regulatory change that created rights issues. I guess that it remains to be seen who's strategy was more effective but there is much to be said about being proactive. Member polls don't mean anything when the right to deal with the matter does not fall within the exclusive purview of the bargaining agent.

[Guest rattler]

Interesting history of the AGE 60 rule.

AGE 60 RULE – A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The present-day age of retirement for this nation’s airline pilots is set at 60. Prior to 1959 no such age limit existed. With the new age of jets approaching, American Airlines President C.R. Smith wanted his older pilots grounded. Its attorneys advised the FAA, in the process of re-writing medical standards, that there were no grounds for setting an arbitrary age.

FAA Administrator Quesada did the expeditious thing; he simply signed an administrative order setting a new retirement age at 60, regardless of any other considerations. This act ignored not only the advice of FAA attorneys but also the recommendation of the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF).

This Flight Safety Foundation, a highly regarded, non-political, objective and independent entity released a report prior to Quesada’s administrative rule change. After considering the effects of the newly introduced jet transport aircraft, the FSF specifically recommended no change to pilot medical standards.

In December 1959 the new rule setting 60 as a mandatory retirement age went into effect. In January 1961 FAA Administrator Quesada stepped down from the FAA – and was immediately elected to the American Airlines Board of Directors.

All minutes and documentation of those FAA meetings concerning retirement age have disappeared without explanation.

The history of this rule since that time is very simple: The rule exists, therefore it must have merit.

http://www.apaad.org/history.htm

and another perhaps less biased source.

How it all started

How did the Age 60 Rule come to be? As the decade of the 50s neared an end, there was no federally-mandated retirement age yet established for commercial pilots. However, the major airlines had begun to devise and unilaterally institute pilot retirement plans that called for retirement at age 60. This was in keeping with how these companies treated other employees. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), which represented the pilots of these carriers, opposed age-based retirement as a matter of policy. Eventually ALPA began to challenge company-imposed age-based retirements through the grievance process. (ALPA would later reverse its official position on this issue, and today supports a continuation of the existing Age 60 Rule.)

According to S. D. Woolsey (Commercial Aviation's "Age-60 Fraud," Danville, Calif., September, 1992), the first trio of such grievances took place during 1958-59, directed against TWA, Western and American Airlines (whose pilots at the time were represented by ALPA). Interestingly, Western and TWA management used medical and flight-safety arguments to support their positions. ALPA, though, succeeded in rebutting these points. In each case, a neutral arbitrator decided the grievance in favor of the union, and against the airline.

C. R. Smith

(1899-1990)

Gen. Elwood R. (Pete) Quesada

(1904-1993)

But possession, as an old legal adage points out, is nine-tenths of the law. American Airlines founder and CEO C. R. Smith, unhappy with the arbitrator's decision, refused to reinstate the three pilots who had brought the retirement grievance at his carrier. This issue (and a variety of others) eventually provoked ALPA to call for a strike against American. After a 21-day walkout, the pilot group claimed victory in regards to most issues. CEO Smith would not, however, allow the three pilots to return to work.

http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181875-1.html

[rudder]

Train to Standard - is a feel good term.  It REALLY does not exist, if the corporation wants you out, you will be out. 

Forced on to long term disability, until retirement.  Forced into a lower rated position - Captain to First Officer etc.

The way it should be, there is nothing to fear about "Train to Standard." 

For the "Over the Hill" crowd, expect the Medical and Simulator standards to be seriously increased. 

The people that run the place, are not stupid.

Medical standards are set by TC. Sim standards are set by TC. Are you suggesting that TC is going to make changes to the regulations simply because AC will have pilots over the age of 60? The same fear tactics were used in the US and the reality is that nothing was changed at a regulatory level in terms of standards. One presumes that AC staff exercising their designate authority on behalf of TC are doing so diligently and will continue to do so, irrespective of the age of the training candidate or patient.

[boestar]

Why would there be a need to change the standards for older folk? If you can meet the current requirements it shouldnt matter if you are 26 or 66, if you can pass then you are good to go. Same goes for the medical, if you pass you are good to go. although maybe they could step it up to 2 fingers for the over 60 crowd. May act as a deterrant

[Johnny]

No, but what I am saying is; where there is a bit of "grey" it will become very "black."

As with most things, there is usually a "Grey" area...or two.

[Don Hudson]

rudder;

Thanks for the point of view. I dont' know what, if any interaction ACPA or AC had with the CHRT or if they did, whether the CHRT took it seriously or if they were simply focussed on a rights-based matter vice a strategic (aviation) matter and dismissed the "arguments from aviation". Given that this decision was viewed as a fait-accompli long before it was issued, I suspect the CHRT was unmoved by any "narrow" argument concerning historical reasons for aviation's long-standing retirement policy. Also, we may be sure they had an eye to the rest of the world and where it was going, especially in the US.

Perhaps it is idealistic to expect that it is, or should be, the CHRT's responsibility and obligation to educate themselves on such sweeping social matters and not for the affected parties, many of whom did not and could not know that they were to be affected, to have to lobby for their positions. Perhaps AC and/or ACPA were invited to offer their views, a very likely scenario (but I don't know if they did), and argued strenuously upon the principle of the age-60 retirement policy but was set aside in favour of the CHRT's broader social mandate to rule upon and otherwise enforce Canada's Declaration of Rights and Freedoms, (a document which has removed social policy from the people and from Parliament, and handed it to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies, a much different and less flexible arrangement).

I understand very well the financial arguments especially from those pilots who had their pensions destroyed/stolen through Chapter 11 in the US - that is permitted by their labour law while it is not, in Canada - so far, anyway.

I understand those getting into the game late would find the "extra" time suddenly available to earn money, very beneficial. Those with specific economic hardships such as divorce, illness, kids in university, bought a lot of toys and they all need gas, bad financial planning or perhaps an investment went bad - there are a million reasons, but none of those are "rights-based" reasons, they are economic reasons and no ethical or legal basis upon which to formulate social policies with possess such broad and fundamental impact.

We must bear in mind too, that as boomers retire, it is business and industry that cannot replace employees as fast as they are retiring and still keep their economy of scale and still maintain the fundamental capitalist notion of unending growth. Is it too cynical to suspect these reasons? Time will tell.

This is all in my personal opinion which hasn't changed since 1973. It will be very interesting to watch, from the sidelines.

[J.O.]

One of the reasons that I decided not to apply to AC during the last big hiring was that I was not going to be there long enough to build enough of a pension to justify the huge cut in pay I was going to take by making the move. Had I any inkling that this ruling may come to pass, I may very well have made a different choice. So the natural follow-up question would be, am I entitled to whatever compensation is decided? After all, this issue has (apparently) negatively affected my career progression too!

All just kidding of course. I made my bed and I am perfectly willing to lay in it. It just makes me crazy that some people whose career progression was directly (and positively) affected by the mandatory retirement of those ahead of them at 60, would then turn around and attempt to grab a winfall gain at the expense of those who follow them. Economic issue or not, it simply lacks the kind of integrity that I believed our fraternity of pilots still had.

By the way, I admit that this is a change of heart for me. I used to be on the other side on this issue, but I am not any longer. The damage that's being done within the AC pilot group is simply not worth it, IMHO. Hence the reason for my change of heart.

[rudder]

Don,

The debate on this issue in the US was equally or more rancorous than the one that is going on here. Not sure of it resulted in the closing of any bulletin boards though

They are also living with the fallout of the changes (delayed promotion progression/ delayed recall from layoff/ increased medical leave claims). Change is never easy. I am certain that there was upheaval when they went from no retirement age at to age 60 as well. Feelings get hurt but life goes on.

The question now is whether to try to manage the situation, or go down with guns blazing to a glorious defeat. In the US this was settled by statute. Perhaps that is the answer in Canada as well. There may be too many cooks in the kitchen on this one

[Guest rozar s'macco]

I understand those getting into the game late would find the "extra" time suddenly available to earn money, very beneficial. Those with specific economic hardships such as divorce, illness, kids in university, bought a lot of toys and they all need gas, bad financial planning or perhaps an investment went bad - there are a million reasons, but none of those are "rights-based" reasons, they are economic reasons and no ethical or legal basis upon which to formulate social policies with possess such broad and fundamental impact.

Don items 67, 68 deal directly with your statement. Noted are the hardships associated with raising children (women) and starting an adult career late in the game (immigrants). Neither of which make up even a significant minority of pilots at Air Canada, or really, pilots anywhere in North America. Sickeningly ironic how the plight of immigrants and women is being used to argue the case of Air Canada pilots...OH the hardships!! (gawd these cases are easy...)

As I'm running through the decision to find the passage pertinent to your demographic statement I'm literally sputtering at my monitor, my blood is boiling, and my fingers trembling. Suffice it to say that if you haven't read the decision with your own eyes, in full, then you don't know what you're missing.

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1176_5806chrt24.pdf

Some gems:

[133] Rather, the evidence establishes that if mandatory retirement was removed, there would likely be a delay, not a denial of career progression of younger pilots.

[134] Professor Kesselman testified, on the basis of his research that 3 to 10 percent of the labour force would choose to work past age 60 in jurisdictions that don't allow mandatory retirement. If that were applied to Air Canada [...]

[135] Offset against that delay would be the fact that younger pilots would have the freedom- when they reached age 60- to work as long as they needed or wished to work.

[138] Professor Carmichael disagreed. He thought that because being a pilot at Air Canada is so rewarding in every sense of the word, a greater percentage of pilots would stay on past 60 if mandatory retirement was removed. [...] However, he could not specify exactly what that delay might be. ACPA bears the burden of proof in this regard.

[139] A delay in career progression would also mean a delay in salary increases. It is not as ACPA stated, that the over 60 workers would be taking money out of the younger workers pockets if the age 60 rule were removed. Rather, the younger pilots would take longer to achieve the salary increases they desire.

Oh, not to worry it'll all just TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER. Meanwhile, my kids are growing up, my mortgage still needs to be paid, I'd still like to hold Christmas off one of these years, get a summer holiday, and maybe see my wife once in a while. I'll stop there before my head explodes.

Read the decision, I implore you.

http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1176_5806chrt24.pdf

[Don Hudson]

Thanks rozar - will read and comment. I see that the first time around, the CHRT rejected the complaint on aviation's grounds - that retirement at 60 was "the norm" and did not offend the Charter. It is thus the Federal Court which held sway here.

In the following, I am interpreting commentary without having read the ruling yet. I am also cognizant of the very strong feelings on both sides of this matter. My own position has always been clear from the time Ross Stevenson first tried this in the early 70's.

It is a curiosity to contemplate the notion of the "right to work longer". What a strange society we live in.

With regard to the economic argument, if I understand part of the argument here, it is "you can make up for 'late entry', 'the expense of raising children' or the reality of 'low wages' by working longer".

In other words, the CHRT views economic benefit as a "right" to which the Charter speaks and that when that right is offended, the "remedy" is to work longer.

The following view won't be a surprise to anyone and is informed by well-known views on the power of private industry's power over social matters through neoliberal economics, but should nevertheless be considered in the light of the changes rendered by the ruling:

The CHRT has confused rights with personal finances. That would include bad planning, stock market losses, chronically-low wages, inability to save for retirement, the transfer, by a lemming's choice, of personal savings to the stock market with the usual attendant losses, and so on.

In doing so, the tribunal has put its critical stamp of approval on what has long been seen by the health community, social think tanks and philosophers as a serious modern ill - working longer and harder, working on vacations, on days off, etc, just to make ends meet, (and, I would add, in one of the wealthiest nations on earth).

How does one sort all this out? How does one come to terms with such thinking without becoming completely cynical? One cannot make the judgement yet, but, one wonders, given the slight right turn the Supreme Court and the CIRB rulings has taken, has the CHRT also turned slightly right?

[Guest rattler]

Don, I don't there there are many "right wing" thinking people on the CHRT or perhaps I am reading their Bios incorrectly (would not be the first time I was wrong)

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/about/biographies_e.asp

[Don Hudson]

rattler;

I don't there there are many "right wing" thinking people

Oh, I agree with you - but I don't think they know what "left" means. I think they're just swimming comfortably with the rest of society and have left their thinking caps off.

"Rights" today, is perceived as purely a left-wing notion, privileging the individual in society over the whole. In fact, modernity has created the notion of "the individual", whereas such a social entity never existed in history before.

But, again if I understand the ruling's basis, in part, it is "because of economics" that "the right to work longer" now exists. To me, that "right" is merely intended to "fix" present ills of low wages, lousy pensions and the inability of employers to find employees. That such a "right" is seen as somehow desireable is odd and, to me and many, a troubling indication of societal values.

Interestingly, it wasn't the other way around - the "right" to retire with a secure future - that kind of thinking is viewed as "the responsibility of the individual". One wonders if that kind of complaint would have survived. I submit that it would not have, and therefore conclude, with very little practical evidence at the moment but just a sense of it, that the Tribunal ruled with a bow towards the right...towards those societal currents in which work is increasingly a never-ending enterprise; - towards the de-legitimation of the notion of a personal "retirement" and "pension" and the right to live for one's pleasure beyond the world of working for someone else.

That's one vision - there are others.

"Rights" are those serious, human affairs such as the right to speak freely, the right to gather, the right to protest, the right to face one's accuser, the right to speedy and fair trial if detained, the right to privacy and the right to silence. That is the stuff of "rights".

The "right" to "work longer"? Good god!

[Dropzone]

I said the decision would open Pandora's Box.....HCRAP ! And this is just the beginning of the beginning.....