On January 30, 2007, FAA Administrator Ms. Marion Blakey announced that the FAA would be introducing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to raise the maximum licensing age of airline pilots from 59 to 64. However, that Notice was superceded by developments in the House of Representatives and in the Senate later in the year. Both legislatures passed bills in early December that were signed into law by President Bush on December 13, 2007, changing the maximum age for licensing of Part 121 (air transport) pilots from age 60 to age 65, effective that date.

The net result of this legislative change is that the United States carriers cannot terminate the employment of any pilot solely on the basis of the individual's age until that pilot now reaches the age of 65. This development will have a huge impact on the Air Canada - ACPA agreement, we believe, because the exemption against age discrimination provided in the Canadian Human Rights Act, which permits termination of an individual at the "normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work" now must be viewed in the context of a new world-wide comparator--the majority of air carriers whose pilots do "similar work" to the pilots at Air Canada now have a normal age of retirement of age 65, not age 60, and therefore the exemption, in our view, no longer applies.

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing into the complaints of age discrimination by two former Air Canada pilots in respect of their termination (mandatory retirement) concluded in early March, 2007; the Tribunal's decision was released on August 17th. Neither of the complaints were upheld. However, the Tribunal was explicit in its findings that the complaints that it was reviewing were of those two individuals only, and that the fact situations as of their respective dates of termination were the facts relevant to the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal also noted changes in the industry, including changes in the ICAO standards for maximum age of pilots-in-command, which became effective November 23, 2006. Hence, it would appear, that the Tribunal did not foreclose itself from arriving at a different decision, given a different complaint (or set of complaints).

Both pilots affected by the Tribunal decision have sought judicial review of the Tribunal's ruling, on a number of grounds, and that review is expected to take place early in 2008.