Oh no...the FTYD gang must be sticking pins in the VooDoo dolls...

[anonymous]

Ontario firefighters to face retirement at 60

Front-line firefighters would have to retire at age 60 across Ontario to limit their health and safety risks under new legislation being introduced Monday by Labour Minister Charles Sousa.

The move follows a motion passed by the Legislature last month, calling on the government to bring in the lower mandatory retirement age for all firefighters involved in fire suppression.

“Firefighters work under unique conditions,” Sousa said in a statement, noting that two-thirds of firefighter union contracts in the province now mandate retirement at age 60 or 65.

“Their work is extremely physical and unpredictable, and they often have to perform their duties under stressful and demanding conditions.”

Sousa added that the average retirement age for firefighters in Ontario is 57, and that the legislation largely reflects current practice as well as “medical evidence that supports retirement from suppression duties at age 60.”

The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association said it supports the bill.

“We are very pleased that this legislation supports the health and safety of our members and makes the principle of mandatory retirement consistent province-wide,” said president Fred LeBlanc.

[rudder]

At the Federal level, it's called BFOR. AC and ACPA have doen a piss poor job making an argument based on the BFOR exemption. There is no health/medical data or pilot licensing regulation that supports such a case for pilots within Canada, so all that is left for argument is operational challenges based on meeting ICAO requirements beyond Canadian borders. That ship may have already sailed.

[CD]

Another view from the far side of the world...

Aging Air NZ pilots 'refuse to retire'

Last updated 13:00 13/04/2011

Air New Zealand has dozens of pilots aged over 60, and some over 70, flying some of its biggest planes because they're "creaming it" and refuse to quit.

That's according to one pilot who has told the Nelson Mail their refusal to retire was hampering the career prospects of others – like him – and causing headaches for the airline.

His revelations follow an Employment Court case in which eight pilots are suing Air New Zealand for millions, claiming they retired or were demoted between 2003 and 2006 without being told that international rules were changing that would have allowed them to continue in their positions.

Air New Zealand, like other airlines around the world, promotes its pilots according to seniority and the lifting of retirement age restrictions has seen many hang on to top earning positions longer than they might have otherwise expected.

An Air New Zealand pilot who did not wish to be named said the company had about 850 pilots, with more than 100 of these aged over 60 and about three over 70.

"For the last 10 years no-one has been retiring. Everyone's been stuck where they are. Air NZ has not hired a pilot in over three years and any hiring in the last five to eight years was primarily due to new aircraft expansion."

The most senior pilots captain the biggest planes...

...

New Zealand Airline Pilots Association acting president Glen Kenny, of Nelson, said Air New Zealand's promotion regime was no different to that used by other airlines around the world. New Zealand had led the way with human rights legislation preventing age discrimination, he said. "You have to look at the big picture."

The pilots now at retirement age were part of the baby boomer generation and had "probably enjoyed one of the best periods of prosperity in the industry that we'll see".

"They will eventually move on. I do know the younger generation, they want everything now. It's almost the green-eyed monster. They can see what's occurred and they wish it could have occurred for them."

But there will still be opportunities for young pilots down the track, Mr Kenny said. The aviation industry in Asia-Pacific was expected to almost double in size during the next 20 years.

"We're seeing more pilots effectively work offshore but live in New Zealand. They enjoy far superior remuneration and working conditions than they will ever enjoy working for a New Zealand company. We're just becoming a far more globalised workforce. I think that's what the younger pilots have to keep in mind."

Full article here...

[rudder]

And therein lies the credible BFOR argument....rostering nightmare.

What ACPA is endeavouring to do in the TA is make the 777 right seat less attractive for those that can hold left seat 320/767 and to lower the pay expectations for pilots who remain past current retirement age who's plan was #1 widebody FO.

The fewer post-age 60 pilots on the widebody FO rosters, the fewer ICAO scheduling conflicts, and therefore the weaker the BFOR argument.

So was ACPA trying to make rules that accept the impending reality, or is the BFOR impact of their attempt to make the contractual benefits of extended tenure less attractive simply an example of the law of unintended consequences?

[Peter Gill]

The Transportation industry is Federal jurisdiction, firefighters are not, different rules and different jurisdictions, so why are you making the link? And if it really matters, in BC at least, Vancouver fire department retirement age is 60 (according to nephew David Gill, VFD hall chief) and same for Coquitlam fire department (according to nephew Rod Gill, CoqFD hall chief). And according to both of them, no one, not ONE person, wants to push that beyond 60. So what's your correlation again?

[DEFCON]

"So what's your correlation again?"

Wouldn't it be; regardless of 'jurisdiction, or career path, they're all human?

[Peter Gill]

Sorry DEFCON, what I meant was that there's no real linkage between the two jurisdictions and unlike Vilven et al, there is no firefighter support for extending retirement beyond 60. So I don't really see what one has to do with the other?