Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End [Archive] - Page 2

a330pilotcanada

22nd Jul 2010, 21:04

Further to Taildragger 2004:

Thank you for your succinct comments on age 60. Back in the late 60's early to mid 70's I can remember airline pilots moon lighting in the corporate world which held a lot of the commercial entry pilots back. During the first oil embargo in the 70's a lot of these commercial entry level pilots were hurt badly and lost jobs because of these "self satisfied" individuals. Luckily for me I held on by my finger nails. I can still remember chasing pay cheques to cover rent cheques and that was thirty five years ago. After living that experience I vowed to myself when I got an airline job I would not moon light and I never did.
Yes I was hired late did not get my 35 years in but I was comfortable with that along with the retirement age of 60 which I was aware when I signed on.
For those starting out never allow your persona be defined by what you wear when you go to work, budget yourself on what you made on your last bid position ie you are now a B-767 F/O base your budget when you were a A-320 F/O, same spouse, same house makes life very easy and for those who are married if you leave the "paddock" it is half your pension along with a lot of other things.
For those in your mid 50's if you do not have a hobby, interest do not wait for retirement to find one as it will be too late. My late father had a good saying in retirement you have to be just as busy in retirement as you were in your working life. Treat every flight as your last as you never know if it was due medicals competency etc.....
Above all remember life is a transitory thing and if you think you are hard done by go to a paediatric oncology ward (three words that should never be in the same sentence) and have your attitude adjusted.
I set the parking brake a while back and life is grand as there is a life outside of aviation.
I would be interested in hearing what really motivates Ray 767 especially since a complaint has been filed at the Manitoba Law Society against him. Or maybe that will not happen as it is in the "courts".
In closing for the junior pilots enjoy your career as it will pass by very quickly

Vic777

22nd Jul 2010, 22:53

One man's opinion/advice and to someone who believes in the rights and freedoms of the individual ... is worth what I paid for it .... Fly Past Sixty is now a reality in Canada.
I would be interested in hearing what really motivates Ray 767 especially since a complaint has been filed at the Manitoba Law Society against him. Or maybe that will not happen as it is in the "courts".Or maybe it will not happen as they were required to shut down their Forum ... ACPA is severely broken ... the members will pay the price for incompetence/stupidity.

MackTheKnife

23rd Jul 2010, 00:25

"ACPA is severely broken ... the members will pay the price for incompetence/stupidity."

It has been broken for quite a few years

and

As someone so aptly stated over on the AVCanada forum:

"Often pilots want to have the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Sometimes, there are consequences"

And I bet this ones going to cost ACPA a small fortune..

engfireleft

23rd Jul 2010, 14:39

This should be interesting. Given that the MEC and ACPA forum watchdogs have for several years tacitly condoned the harrassment and slander of those members in favour of eliminating mandatory retirement while deleting any posts contrary to their position, will they now attempt to take the high road and say such behavior is wrong?

You don't have to be very smart to see which way this was going to go from the very start. Had the MEC only looked around them at what's going on in the rest of the world vis-a-vis age 60, and especially at the mandatory retirement issue in this country with regard to human rights, they couldn't help but see the futility of their chosen path. And it is the path they chose without regard to the potential consequences or damage to the membership. Could their own desire for the most rapid advancement have blinded them.....?

In any event the inevitable outcome is upon us, and in addition to the monetary cost we will all have to bear for this debacle, our pilot group is so bitter and fractured it will take years to recover. If we even can recover. I don't think we can with an insular, detached and isolated organization like ACPA as our representation.

I think it's safe to say the only big winner here is the company, because without lifting a finger they just sit back and watch us tear our own house down. To them we must seem pathetically inept. And we are.

jonny dangerous

23rd Jul 2010, 16:09

Fortunately my airline company offers the option of Captain until 65, and FO from then on. That said, I hope I will not be pushed financially to work past 60. My father retired as a professional pilot (military/corporate) at 65, and so I have no reason to suspect I won't wish/have to do the same, for whatever reason I choose: bad financial planning, divorce, greed, boredom...the list goes on.

Raymond, I thank you and the others fighting the various legal skirmishes for having the courage to do so, in the face of vilification by various parties. I have read your posts on this matter, and they are always on point, and devoid of personal attack.

I believe the Christians have a prayer about God granting them the 1) courage to change things they can, 2) the grace to accept things they can't, and the 3) wisdom to know the difference between the two.

John Swallow

Vic777

23rd Jul 2010, 16:23

I think it's safe to say the only big winner here is the company, because without lifting a finger they just sit back and watch us tear our own house down. To them we must seem pathetically inept. And we are.Air Canada played ACPA like a violin on this age 60 issue. AC stands to gain immensely from this turn of events. The AC Pilots can avoid the damages by dissolving ACPA dividing up it's resources and then join ALPA. Negotiate the next contract as ALPA Pilots. Get out of ACPA before it's too late.

engfireleft

23rd Jul 2010, 20:54

To be clear, we support the right of all pilots to openly discuss any subject they choose...

...just not on our forum, because if you disagree with us we will delete your posts. Our supporters will also do the same on other forums.

The last thing ACPA wants on this issue is an open discussion, and they have gone to great lengths to prevent it.

This week the MEC unanimously approved an agreement reached between the ACPA Age 60 Legal Support Committee and Air Canada that establishes the return to work conditions for Mr. George Vilven and Mr. Neil Kelly.

Were the two individuals consulted in this agreement? They are reinstated and will have seniority rights, unless the union has decided they don't. If that's the case this should get very interesting quickly.

Under the terms of our Pension Plan they are entitled to receive their pension payments and will receive a salary top-up not to exceed that of a B777 First Officer.

Who's paying the top up? ACPA members?

There are so many questions it's hard to know where to start.

Vic777

23rd Jul 2010, 22:09

... They are reinstated and will have seniority rights, unless the union has decided they don't. If that's the case this should get very interesting quickly.AC has always had the authority to train any Pilot to any position.

engfireleft

23rd Jul 2010, 22:17

Not entirely, there has to be a reason to restrict someone to a particular position. If this is a case of punitive measures to encourage someone to leave then both the union and company are opening themselves to even more grief. There is also the next 150 cases. Are they going to be similarly restricted to EMJ FO, thus boosting 150 guys into the next higher paying position while paying the reinstated pilots B777 wages? Who's footing the bill for that? I think it would be naive to think the company is going to accept all the cost.

So many questions...

Vic777

24th Jul 2010, 02:42

Vilven and Kelly should be given their old numbers back ... i.e they should be placed on the list just ahead of the guy they were just ahead of when they left and just behind the guy they were just behind when they left. I assume that would put them very near the top of the seniority list ... maybe position one and two. The Company can decide what equip that they are initially trained on and for how long. Eventually their seniority should rule. This philosophy should apply to all reinstated Pilots during this "change over" of philosophy period.

a330pilotcanada

24th Jul 2010, 12:10

Just did some web searching as I feel there as there might be another reason for RAY767's interest in this item and that is federal politics. It seems he is running for a M.P. in the next federal election so the cynic could say his involvement in this fight is for a seat in the "front bench" of parliament.
Before that will ever happen he has to be elected, but Justice or Human Rights would be a interest or if he loses back to the "friendly skies"??????????

The item below was taken from his political web site which is also a article from the Winnipeg Free Press.

Raymond getting results for pilots!

11/21/2009

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has decided in favour of two Air Canada pilots who complained their forced retirement at the age of 60 was discrimination.
"It's a pretty significant decision," said Raymond Hall, a now-retired Air Canada pilot in Winnipeg and lawyer who helped pilots George Vilven and Robert Neil Kelly in court.
Vilven and Kelly were both forced to retire from Air Canada at the age of 60, and took their cases to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the body that reviews cases of alleged discrimination when employees fall under federal jurisdiction. Both were referred to the tribunal.
The tribunal initially rejected their complaints based on an exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act letting employers defend mandatory retirement if the age is the industry norm, said Hall, and also rejected the argument that it was a breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A federal court disagreed, he said, and found mandatory retirement was a charter breach. The case was sent back to the tribunal to see if the breach was reasonably justified. The tribunal found otherwise, and decided Air Canada could not justify the policy.
"It gives a clear message to employers that mandatory retirement has to be properly justified," said Hall.
Airline pilots are given frequent competency and medical tests to ensure they're capable of flying, he said.
In a press release, the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) expressed disappointment with the decision.
A spokesperson for Air Canada said the company was studying the decision and could not comment until their review was complete.
The decision has implications not just for aviation, but for all employees and employers under federal jurisdiction, including those involved in transportation, banking, and telecommunications, said Hall.
Both Air Canada and the pilots' union can seek a review of the decision within 30 days.
The issue of damages will be decided at a future hearing.
Hall, who also represented a coalition of pilots forced to retire called Fly Past 60, said he's unclear whether he would return to the skies with Air Canada if the company changed its mandatory retirement rule.
He's set to run federally for the Conservatives in Winnipeg South Centre against Liberal MP Anita Neville in the event an election is called.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 29, 2009 B1

Flexable

24th Jul 2010, 14:06

Ray Hall as a politician will be a loose canon...change that to a loose water gun. If ever elected, he might walk across the chamber to any better offer by the opposition for his spot in the limelight.
Type of guy who supported a system who force those senior to him to retire at 60 but when he approach the agreed to retirement age no no not for me i want to stay, and if you do not agree i will sue.
Do not trust the guy...OMO

engfireleft

24th Jul 2010, 15:24

This is why ACPA and Air Canada are getting steamrolled on this issue. Instead of taking a critical, objective look at what's happening and acting accordingly you persist in attacking the people bringing about this change. Instead of managing this change that was going to happen no matter who caused it, you act like children pointing fingers and calling names. In the meantime you attempt to enact measures at every step of the way intended to further discriminate and punish those standing up for their rights. You just don't learn.

Unfortunately it means ACPA and Air Canada will continue to get hammered over the head by the law until they figure it out. It will cost us lots.

O360A1A

24th Jul 2010, 15:34

Let's get rid of the myth that Senior Pilots supported Age 60 retirement till their turn came.

Many pilots supported the Ross Stevenson fight; suggesting that CALPA should stick to its policy of opposing mandatory retirement. Ray Hall and others spoke out on this issue long before their retirement, trying to have ACPA use the change in ICAO recommendations as an opportunity for more early retirements as well as eliminating mandatory retirement in line with Canadian law. Many others supported the change quietly, after speaking up attracted censure from short term thinkers.

Senior pilots supported junior pilots in numerous ways over the years. Senior pilots took short hours (at AC) at times to avoid layoffs of junior pilots.

Senior pilots got accomodations and allowances for those on initial training at AC, something those senior pilots did not have when they were hired.

Senior pilots supported the introduction of the Bank Plan at AC. Prior to that, certain blockholders would go on makeup well over a hundred hours, and reserve pilots would get very little flying. Senior pilots also supported the change to higher minimum guarantee for reserves.

There are numerous other examples of Senior Pilots supporting juniors.

Air Canada management has been working to destroy ACPA for years. The new agreement with ACPA to restrict Kelly and Vilven to the Embraer will aggravate the legal battle, as ACPA continues to pour money into a pointless fight, and further divides the membership. There are a lot of current pilots supporting the Fly Past 60 Coalition; those pilots are mostly keeping quiet in public.

AC has made ACPA jointly liable for damages. When ACPA has to impose a special assessment to pay those damages, the membership may finally realise they have been sold a bill of goods.

Air Canada has nothing to gain financially by perpetuating this fight. The financial benefit of even a few pilots staying past 60 is huge. Unless AC management is stupid, they have another reason for stirring the pot.

There are a lot of AC pilots quietly promoting the idea of ALPA instead of ACPA for the next contract. There is dissension within the MEC on several issues, including this one.

After CALPA went down at AC, Flight Ops management appointed former CALPA officers to management positions; watch for a replay when ACPA goes down.

Vic777

24th Jul 2010, 16:46

After CALPA went down at AC, Flight Ops management appointed former CALPA officers to management positions; watch for a replay when ACPA goes down.Union officials and management Pilots are individuals who want to become immersed in the "environment", of course if a fresh supply of these individuals appeared on the scene ... the company would gobble them up ... there's nothing unusual about this.

O360A1A

24th Jul 2010, 17:09

Regarding placing Kelly and Vilven on the Embraer and "uplifting" their pension to 777 F/O rates.

It is unusual for someone to receive a pension and a salary in the same company.

Consider the case of a complainant who is recently retired as a 777 Captain, is still completely current on that aircraft and has never seen the Embraer. Will AC then train that person on the Embraer at a cost of $40,000, then pay them as a 777 Captain. How about 50 such individuals?

AC loses the benefit of reduced training costs that comes with fewer retirements; average seven courses for each retiree at $40,000.

If AC continues to pay pension and salary, AC loses the improvement to the Pension plan that comes from paying out for fewer years, and loses the benefit of pilots paying into the pension for more years.

What if some of those pilots stay for only brief periods; what is the cost then?

How will Flight Ops Management justify this to the the AC Board?

AC has nothing to gain with this; there is more here than meets the eye.

OverUnder

24th Jul 2010, 18:40

What is surprising is that Air Canada's senior management must have bought into this dog's breakfast solution. I smell litigation and liability!

It is the lawyers' dream come true.

MidgetBoy

24th Jul 2010, 20:35

gasbag1

24th Jul 2010, 20:45

One step at a time Ray 767, you well know the only case heard by the CHRC is the Villiven/Kelly complaint. That outcome has yet to be clarified by the CHRC Chairman to many of these questions that are being discussed.

This complaint has not yet had a final outcome other that re-instatement and you well know they should not displace a pilot from their position. The Embraer F/O is only position with vancancies. From what I have been told the CHRC Chairman has a good grasp of the issue of re-instatement and the harm to others by displacement. So they will be the highest paid EMB pilots in the Company! Certainly more than any of the Captains.

They are seeking a return to flying, Yes or No? A displacement would have at a minimum 9 subsequent displacements to other pilots. All the other issues would be covered by the CHRC final report, I suspect.

engfireleft

24th Jul 2010, 21:02

I vote giving every airline pilot over 60 a free ticket into the sun.
They'll enjoy taking turns showing off their skills, and if one of them seriously isn't competent enough to aim at the sun, at least they're not here anymore!

I believe the term used by 0360A1A was "short term thinkers". You obviously have never considered the possibility you will be 60 one day and might not want to be pushed out of your job simply because you had a birthday. Casting old people adrift on an ice flow is a great idea until you're the one waving goodbye to the village.

This agreement ACPA has with the company proves they still operate under the mistaken opinion that they are not discriminating against anybody and that they are in control of events. Neither are true. Aside from wanting another trip to the CHRT, they are absolutely begging for a DFR complaint.

ACPA continues to dig themselves deeper with their refusal to accept reality and deal with it responsibly, and the company is only too happy to provide the shovel.

cloudcity

24th Jul 2010, 21:51

"....dig themselves deeper with their refusal to accept reality and deal with it responsibly, and the company is only too happy to provide the shovel."

The highly obvious bigee you have to ask, with all this digging, and nonstop documented discrimination going on, is when does the 'shovel' dig far enough to clink into the HRC Section 59 and 60 criminal code provisions that are clearly designed to back up individuals' Parliamentary rights. What are the repercussions.

Pilots returning to the line from GDIP face no such sanctions. Pilots returning to the line from Layoff face no such sanctions. Pilots returning to the line from Leaves of Absence face no such sanctions. A ton of questions.

ACAV8R

25th Jul 2010, 01:36

Tail Dragger 2004 wrote: "Yes I retired with 25,000hrs plus at 60. I sincerely miss those days but it was time to hang it up. Many young kids now who are trying to get a flying job don't have the opportunities we had. Eight companies in a career was enough. Lets give them a break and wish them success. To give back to aviation what we received would be to let the young eagles soar. To continue flying commercially at the end of ones career, is leaving a young pilot on the bread line......."

TD 2004, Amen Bro'! My sentiments exactly!

cloudcity

25th Jul 2010, 03:08

"Tail Dragger 2004 wrote: "Yes I retired with 25,000hrs plus at 60. I sincerely miss those days but it was time to hang it up. Many young kids now who are trying to get a flying job don't have the opportunities we had. Eight companies in a career was enough. Lets give them a break and wish them success. To give back to aviation what we received would be to let the young eagles soar. To continue flying commercially at the end of ones career, is leaving a young pilot on the bread line......."

TD 2004, Amen Bro'! My sentiments exactly!"

Everybody is entitled to fly and to be gainfully employed, regardless of age.

MidgetBoy

25th Jul 2010, 04:54

A better name for this poster would be " Midget I.Q. "
More like I'm thinking of this for the sake of the economy.
Our working force is aging quite rapidly, like Japan. By the time I hit 60, my tax dollars will be supporting 7 dependents. Not logical.
And you know what? As much as I love money, like I said on the first page of this thread, I will hand in my license when I hit 60; been there done that, no need to fly til I die, at least not jets.
Sometimes when people die, their friends say "at least they died doing what they love". You don't die in a plane crash. That isn't the way for a pilot to go, ever.

I was at Pitt Meadows when a ~70 yr old crashed his multi, and instead of TC taking away his license, just gave it back to him, and he ended up in a building in Richmond.
TC saved their ass by saying that first crash was due to a 'landing gear malfunction' which of course I knew was bull**** because the only reason why his landing gear malfunctioned was because it wasn't there since he clipped the fence.
They didn't want to be blamed because they gave someone his license back when his skill level was lacking. Every pilot slips, more so as they age.

If pilots don't retire when they're 60, newbies will be stuck with no where to climb for a good 10 extra years, and when we finally run out of money to support the dependents of our country, we'll collapse. Sending stubborn people to the sun is perfectly fine, saves our economy, saves our future, fixes our already messed up aviation industry. Now, unless you see pilot pay increasing substantially in the next few years where waiting an extra 10 years for a promotion won't affect their overall pay and increase of inflation over those years, then sure, let these 60 yr olds fly til they're 200. But you and I both know the pay isn't going to ever be what the current 50+ yr old pilots are making.

OverUnder

25th Jul 2010, 06:22

MidgetBoy:

Your argument might have made sense to the legislators 30-some years ago when the proposed human rights law was initially debated, but if you read the beginning pages of this thread, you will see that that argument is totally irrelevant today.

The primary issue here is the legal validity of a collective agreement provision in the context of human rights legislation, not the merits of the agreement itself on any other grounds, including safety. A secondary issue is how to deal with the implications arising from the first issue.

Wrong fight, sir.

engfireleft

25th Jul 2010, 11:56

More like I'm thinking of this for the sake of the economy.
Our working force is aging quite rapidly, like Japan. By the time I hit 60, my tax dollars will be supporting 7 dependents. Not logical.

It's perfectly logical, and an uncomfortable fact that governments will have to deal with starting now. Our demographics are aging, and a smaller work force will indeed have to support an increased number of elderly citizens who are also living longer. Which is precisely why people will need to stay in the work force longer. Retiring at 60 will be a luxury for an individual, but an unaffordable strain on existing pension plans and the economy.

You have the right argument, you just applied it incorrectly.

Your desire to stop flying jets at 60 is your business and your decision, but it applies to no one but you.

Chuck Ellsworth

25th Jul 2010, 14:09

The flying skills of a pilot are only age related based on the individuals all around health MidgetBoy.

When I retired at age seventy I still held and was flying in airshows in Europe and held an unrestricted airdisplay authority under JAR, which incidentally is far more demanding than the Canadian equivalent.

My Icon as a pilot was Bob Hoover who was still flying air show displays well into his eighties, I retired not because of my inability to fly safely but because I wanted to see how the rest of society lived before it was to late.

So you can argue your position as much as you want it still does not negate the fact your opinion does not reflect the facts of the matter....which is age is not a determining factor in a pilots ability to fly.

Unless of course you are an Air Canada employee with the mindset that the law does not apply to you.

clunckdriver

25th Jul 2010, 14:24

Chuck, I think being current has more to do with ones flying skills than age, the classic being the homebuilder who spends five years building and not flying and then bends his/her labour of love on the test flight program, we have seen three of these at our base in the last while. Yesterday we did a circling down to mins at our home base, at 72 years old I was quite at home, have seen others at eighty do just the same. On the other hand I flew with some who were burned out at 55, much as I think that those wishing stay in a large company over 60 need to get a life, the competency arguments are simply not valid.

Vic777

25th Jul 2010, 14:49

What is Vilven's pension?
What is Kelly's pension?
How much does an EMJ F/O make?

Vilven and Kelly will be paid an amount to fly as EMJ F/O ... they will also receive the pension which they have earned. (I think this is what I read on this forum)

Will the amount Vilven and Kelly get paid to fly as EMJ F/O be less than the pay other EMJ F/O's get?

That would mean ACPA has agreed to a reduced pay level for certain EMJ F/O's.

Is this possible? Has ACPA (for no reason or benefit?) agreed to let the Company pay certain EMJ F/O's less than other EMJ F/O's?.

Can anyone supply these numbers?

Lost in Saigon

25th Jul 2010, 14:58

Vic777

25th Jul 2010, 15:05

I expect Vilven and Kelly will get top 777 FO pay, no matter which aircraft they are trained on, and whether or not they even turn a wheel.

Top 777 FO pay is currently $163.10/hr day and $176.64/hr night.Well that is certainly what they are entitled to, if not more ... where would they sit if they got their original seniority back? Do they still receive their pension? What is an EMJ F/O pay? They must never be paid less than those flying the same position, the fact that they might be receiving a pension also ... should never enter into the calculations for their flying pay ... it is a separate issue.

Lost in Saigon

25th Jul 2010, 15:29

where would they sit if they got their original seniority back?

Do they still receive their pension?

What is an EMJ F/O pay?

Kelly would be number 5 on the 2010 seniority list and Vilven would be 750.

I don't know if they will continue to receive their pensions when they come back.

The max pay for an EMJ FO is the 12 year scale which is $86.51, but that is raised to $96 with the higher paid pilot still in Position Group being forced to give up some of their formula pay to subsidize the lower paid pilots.

(don't get me started on Position Group :*)

engfireleft

25th Jul 2010, 15:37

Any pilot who decides to stay beyond 60 or come back is still a member of the bargaining unit represented by ACPA. For that reason ACPA had better be very, VERY careful how they treat these individuals. Their current strategy of punitive and discriminatory treatment will land them in DFR complaint territory in the blink of an eye along with more CHRT complaints.

ACPA and Air Canada are directly responsible for the hostile attitude many of our members have towards people in favour of 60+. ACPA chose an outdated, divisive position on a moral human rights issue that was inevitably doomed from the start. Despite obvious societal changes to mandatory retirement in general, the age 60 question for pilots around the globe and an actual ruling against them by the CHRT last august, discriminating against pilots older than 60 is not only still acceptable but official ACPA policy.

ACPA will never be credible in ensuring equal treatment of over 60 pilots.

Desert185

25th Jul 2010, 15:57

As an American and retired airline type, I'd like to address some of the comments on age and flying. Age or hours has no real world bearing on competence in my experience. As an ex-chief pilot/check airman and line pilot with experience worldwide with five airlines, I have seen competency demonstrated regardless of age/experience.

In my mind, this entire age argument boils down to individual freedom and desire to work/fly without regard to individual or collective motive. The basic criteria is safety and legality. Since a set age can't determine competency, competency should be determined on an individual basis, which is what we have prior to the required retirement age...hence, the system of training, checkrides and physicals may not presently work pefectly, but it does work. To impose a particular age limit based solely on competence is not logical, because it can be demonstrated the two are not always directly related. An age limit is only part of the competency equation. Experience (professional track record), individual merit and a person's physical profile must also be considered.

For those who say old guys are a pain to fly so they should receive the old guy's pay...I can acknowledge that, but I can also relate my experiences with young guys who are lazy and only look forward to the upcoming destination in order to chase the easy, lovely du jour. They could care less about the means to the pleasurable end, i.e. competence and attitude cuts both ways.

Needy, greedy, passion/love of the game and being tired of the "grind" are all motivating factors in one's individual decision concerning when to end the flying career. Is a younger pilot's need or greed anymore important than an older pilot's? Redistribution of wealth, perhaps?

The younger one's will eventually take the same position many of the older one's have now. Over the years I've heard a few young guys say they don't want to work past 50 or 55...but when the time comes...they very rarely adhere to their earlier stated philosophy...due mostly to need or greed. The wheel isn't going to get reinvented, and neither will the conflicting, agenda driven opinions of pilots on either side of the age aisle.

FWIW, I am 66, still flying a multi-engine turbine aircraft, have an FAA 1st class physical, am the company Check Pilot, take an annual simulator check and an inhouse, 6 month recurrent training/check and I fly my own 185 in bush and mountain environments. I also remain involved in the profession via aviation forums and publications...and yes, I do it for love of the game...and the money ain't bad either.

Press on. :ok:

Vic777

25th Jul 2010, 16:10

Kelly would be number 5 on the 2010 seniority list and Vilven would be 750.Then Obviously, Kelly should come back as number 5 and Vilven should come back as number 750. The Company should be able to train them in any position ... they should be paid as to what their seniority would give them. Then they should be able to bid on subsequent lists as per their seniority and be paid accordingly. It's simple and it's just. The pension issue is another issue. I would say suspend the pension while they are flying ... they continue to make pension payments ... as per years of service they are credited with the years they have been illegally forced out of work.

gasbag1

25th Jul 2010, 16:31

"the fact that they might be receiving a pension also ... should never enter into the calculations for their flying pay ... it is a separate issue."

Vic 777 lets see your logic, Vilven wants to continue to pay into his pension to increase that pension, Kelly has reached the maximum pension of 35 years. Both can not be Captains...an ICAO thing. Vilven will increase his pension by this agreement...it does not matter to Kelly.

Of course there is this sticky Revenue Canada problem to address as to being able to collect your full pension and work for the same company, see how far one's rights are trampled by them.

Seniority is a whole different kettle of fish...lets see what the CHRC has to say about that.

Vic777

25th Jul 2010, 16:57

Of course there is this sticky Revenue Canada problem to address as to being able to collect your full pension and work for the same company, see how far one's rights are trampled by them.
The pension is a separate issue .... they will be allowed to continue receiving their pension or not. If the pension payments are discontinued. Vilven should get credit for 7-8 more years (or for as many years as he's been illegally forced onto his pension) and be allowed to renew payments and maybe get a larger "best 5" or "best 3" as applicable. Kelly could maybe improve on his best "last years". My logic is this ... The pension is a separate issue, they must be paid by Air Canada as per the position and rate that their seniority will get. Air Canada should take the high road, recognize the injustice and pay these individuals what they deserve ... what would Milton, Brewer or Rovinescu pay themselves?

MidgetBoy

25th Jul 2010, 19:38

engfireleft

25th Jul 2010, 19:52

Well then Chuck, tell every airline pilot to jump into a job that doesn't put hundreds of people at risk. No one cares if you fly alone, TC sure doesn't.
Do what you love doing, and regardless of whether or not this thread has anything to do with our economy and promotion of newbies, our country forces us to bring it in. We can't just think of it as some rights protest crap.

It might be crap to you, but I can almost guarantee it wouldn't be if it were your rights being trampled. The risk to the public red herring has also been put to rest so you don't have to worry yourself about that either.

Vic777

25th Jul 2010, 23:25

Thanks for the update Ray ...

As Einstein said, "Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 00:10

Ray767 Just a question so I know why you are so involved in this issue. In the article (Winnipeg Free Press) from your political web site you were quoted that you had not made up your mind on returning to flying.

So just that we all know your motivation, if you lose the federal election will you go back to your legal practice or go back to being a pilot for Air Canada?

engfireleft

26th Jul 2010, 01:28

Lost in Saigon

26th Jul 2010, 01:55

How is it a dummy like me with very little formal education beyond high school and no access to legal advice on the matter can see the folly of ACPA actions...and they can't?

It defies any explanation.

I have asked myself the same question.

The way I see it, the ACPA officials who calling the shots, know they haven't a hope in hell of ever winning this battle. All they want to do is postpone the inevitable as long as possible so that they can personally benefit from the upward movement of the current age 60 retirements.

They don't care about the potential financial liabilities because that will be paid by the entire membership. Each and every day they postpone "Flypast 60" is another day closer to their own financial reward of what ever seat they are hoping to get next.

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 02:24

RAY767 as a fan of Question Period and Prime Ministers Questions (U.K.) I had a chuckle on your non-response........
On a serious side I have found the human factors in accident investigation to be fascinating. That being said your involvement in this issue is very curious as you have basically lobbed a fragmentation grenade in a crowded room and stood back to watch the body parts fly around. I thought the seniority battle was a "chuckle" but it pales to this. It appears "fly till you die" will be in place but consider this; the next W.A.W.C.O.N. survey will be dictated and won by the junior pilot not the senior pilot. So what Charter Provision or jurisprudence will you use than to try to rectify that?
I would choose your battles with more care as you just might lose the war. I believe Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said it best after Pearl Harbour "I fear we have woken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible anger".

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 02:39

Enginefire left, Vic777 and Lost in Saigon

With regards to A.C.P.A. if I remember correctly there was a vote on retirement on age 60 by the member ship and roughly 2/3 supported it and 1/3 did not. By the nature of that vote the M.E.C. went ahead to support this as the memership wanted that direction.

How ever the recent events have appear to have negated the wishes of the majority of the membership.

To suggest that the leadership is "challenged" intellectually would put Ray767 on the same level as he was in senior leadership as well.

Part of the membership dues is for legal help and to use a statement from a management pilot who was very much in his "cups" in FRA he said "we never stand a chance fighting a grievance as A.C.P.A. has more resources at thier disposal than I do".

No union is perfect as I can remember in the C.A.L.P.A. days there was a individual who was voted in for change and each L.E.C. (YUL,YYZ,YWG and YVR) took him into thier well stocked hospitality room at the YYZ Airport Hilton and told him how he would conduct himself. From memory he did the honourable thing and resigned.

That being said the best union would be the Teamsters............

engfireleft

26th Jul 2010, 02:55

With regards to A.C.P.A. if I remember correctly there was a vote on retirement on age 60 by the member ship and roughly 2/3 supported it and 1/3 did not. By the nature of that vote the M.E.C. went ahead to support this as the memership wanted that direction.

Ah yes...the vote. This is what the vote actually said:

Do you support the MEC’s position to maintain the
Age 60 retirement provisions?

FOR YES PRESS (01) FOR NO PRESS (02)

The MEC had already made up their mind and pressed the case to the membership. No examination of the issue or discussion on the potential consequences of their decision. The membership has never been given the information they needed to form an informed opinion on the matter except as provided by those in favour of 60+. And their attempts to inform the membership result in being shouted down or simply having their posts on various forums deleted.

It is also not true that 2/3 of the membership supported the MEC. 3083 members were eligible to vote but only 1840 did. Of those 1382, or roughly 44% of the membership actually voted to support the MEC, and that was without the required information to make an informed choice. Since then 500 or so pilots have been hired who have never been given a chance to vote on anything. So where does this 2/3 number come from?

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 03:06

MEA CULPA

Thank you for getting the number out as I had forgotten.

If there is a blame here it lies at the npn participation of the membership aka "you get the government you desrve".

By the way have you ever done any union work?

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 03:11

RAY767 no this is not personal all I wanted to know is the motivating force?

That being said it is a legacy that I do not envy and when it is over there can be a proper history of the events

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 03:13

already ordered on line from the library thanks

engfireleft

26th Jul 2010, 03:17

By the way have you ever done any union work?

Yes I have. And it was done in fairness to the entire membership with their best interests always the number 1 priority. They didn't always like what I had to say or the position I took on various items, but it was always correct. That is why I cannot rationalize what our union is doing here.

Vic777

26th Jul 2010, 10:52

RAY767 no this is not personal all I wanted to know is the motivating force?A330PilotCanada you seem to miss the obvious ... or you just like to argue for arguments sake ...

I don't know Ray ... but I know he obtained a Law degree while flying for Air Canada.

He obviously saw a great injustice right in his own backyard.

What a great opportunity to put his Lawyer Expertise to good work.

It seems like a totally obvious natural chain of events.

Now forget Ray ... the issue now is ... how can the Air Canada Pilots benefit from the huge windfall gains Air Canada is going to reap from these new rules.

If you have any ideas pass them on to the ACPA movers and shakers.

clunckdriver

26th Jul 2010, 11:56

Went for a bath last night, and good grief, Ive finally run out of those little hotel bars of soap gathered over the years during my time at AC, I gues I will have to get my name on the list to go back and stock up again! Being "hair challenged" the shampoo seems to OK for a while.OK Ray, put me down for another ten years, that should do it.

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 12:16

Yes there are others who have had law degrees such as our last President who as a second officer was bored went to law school and gaduated magna cum laude and was asked to article for a very prestigious law firm in YYZ. That being said he worked on issues from within and attempted to build consensus amongst some very challenging issues of the day.

As far as giving guidance to the "movers and shakers" at A.C.P.A. the constitution does not allow retired members to vote and they have no standing so that makes my input rather academic.

So rather standing from afar why do not get involved yourself? Based on the last L.E.C. votes for councillor anyone who put thier hand up was acclaimed by "lack of interest" by those who were so disengaged they could not take the five minutes to sign on to the A.C.P.A.web site and VOTE!!!!

Oh yes I did participate a little myself with some I.A.C. work, some work on seniority issues that had me going some days to 03:00 but that pales to the work that the M.E.C. and L.E.C. do on your behalf.

bcflyer

26th Jul 2010, 14:03

Later, I was asked to cease and desist from participating on the Forum, and eventually was precluded from participating there and from attending any ACPA local council meetings.

Ray, did you not try to introduce postings from the ACPA site as evidence in court?

bcflyer

26th Jul 2010, 16:20

Written like a true lawyer... Of course why would we expect anything different? :ugh:
If the answer was no, you would just say so. If you are denying the accusation in court what damage could denying it on a public forum do?

a330pilotcanada

26th Jul 2010, 21:38

RAY767 that is the first I have heard of that taking posted comments off of a web site to be used in court? I guess that confirms the "expectation of privacy" does not exist in restricted access forums... Or is this considered a public venue even if it requires a pass word to access it?

Also are you keeping a record of all posts on PPRUNE for further use by you at a later date?

On another subject please confirm or deny that you have birth dates and home addresses of pilots from your work for C.A.L.P.A. from the early eighties?

If so please confirm if this information is considered priveleged that you will expunge this information from your data base.

OverUnder

26th Jul 2010, 23:26

A 330 Pilot:

God help anyone who discloses their real identity here for the purpose of being straightforward, honest and contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion. They are immediately set upon by the wolves who will take pleasure in tearing any shred of meat off their victim, no matter how small, from no matter what part of the individual, and for no reason other than that they can. Why? Certainly not to add to the substance of the discussion of the issue at hand.

Although I am new here, it would appear to me that there are two types of posters here. The ones who elevate themselves by the quality of their contribution. And the ones who cannot resist the egotistical temptation to try to bring others down to their own miserable level.

Why don't you disclose your true identity, so that we can level the playing field and expose some the apparent skeletons in your closet? It would only be fair.

bcflyer

27th Jul 2010, 02:08

That issue off-topic on this thread.

You brought the topic up when you added it to your post. You want everyone to know that you have been asked to cease and desist posting on the ACPA forum and denied access to the meetings but seem very threatened when someone posts a potential reason for it.

VMO Home

27th Jul 2010, 04:51

Raymond767 where can one find the list of the +138 pilots that you represent? Or is it a secret?

I'm just wondering how many of them are younger (ie less then 40) and are interested in flying past 60 or are all of the 138 very close to retirement?

Thanks

MackTheKnife

27th Jul 2010, 13:30

Anyone in the age group you refer to would not be on the list in the first place because according to the CHRT rules, you cannot claim discrimination until it actually happens. IOW, anyone under 60 would have to wait until their name no longer appears on an equipment list in order to file a claim in the first place. It is from that point onwards that you are being discriminated against.

When you consider that 5 years ago almost 500 pilots voted against ACPA's foregone conclusion of a vote, there are hundreds of pilots out there not saying or doing a thing until they legally can. It would be extremely interesting to see what a re-vote would look like in todays climate where pilots are finally actually starting to understand the issue.

MTK

OKFINE

27th Jul 2010, 17:59

Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just 138 litigants taking their rightful place at the buffet. After all, it is the "Law". Put any spin you want on it Ray; at days end it is avarice.

Frankly I'm surprised you are not preparing a challenge to the ICAO age 65 Captain thing. Or are some discriminatory practices acceptable?

Oh to be a French- speaking aboriginal lesbian in a wheelchair. With your considerable skills we could turn this country on its ear!:cool:

a330pilotcanada

27th Jul 2010, 20:23

Overunder: I think that what you are missing in the discussion is a simple fact that "Ray767" had an option of going to the YYZ L.E.C. Base meeting to present a motion on how to rectify the retirement issue at hand. Based on current meeting turnouts where some are cancelled because there are not enough people present to form a quorum, he could have stacked the meeting with his supporters to force the L.E.C. to present this issue to the M.E.C. and then present it to the membership which, if they did not, he could have done a D.F.R. to force A.C.P.A. to follow through.
It would appear that he took the easy way out and went to the C.H.R.C. first which would suggest a show of contempt towards the normal process. The sole issue that I have with "RAY767" is that he did not follow the process under the A.C.P.A. Constitution to move this issue forward.
As I have no desire to have my karma consumed by dogma as you would suggest as I am quite at peace with myself surrounded by family and close friends. But then again that last statement is not germane to the points you raised as your focus is elsewhere.
So rather than running away from any problem you will be better respected if you educate and motivate from within your peer group than take the undemanding way through litigation which suggests a lack of moral fibre.

Vic777

27th Jul 2010, 22:17

a330pilotcanada first you say ....
he could have stacked the meeting with his supporters to force the L.E.C. to present this issue to the M.E.C. and then present it to the membership then you say .. he went to the C.H.R.C. first which would suggest a show of contempt towards the normal process. You funny guy.

a330pilotcanada

28th Jul 2010, 00:20

He had a choice...................

royalterrace

28th Jul 2010, 01:05

A330

Who do you think you are...Brian Mulroney?

a330pilotcanada

28th Jul 2010, 01:28

Thankyou RAY767 that is making it more clear

a330pilotcanada

28th Jul 2010, 02:22

Kein mein Freund aber ich tranken einen Kaffee mit meinem Freund Karl Heinz und Brian vor einigen Jahren im Wirsing-Hotel auf dem Bahnhofstrasse in Zürich.

corrigan

28th Jul 2010, 02:24

This latest move between ACPA and AC is like waving a red flag at a bull. I'm sure the CHRC tribunal will be very disturbed with this developement.The ACPA MEC sooner or later are going to have to realize they will never win this one, and while continuing on this futile path, the damages keep mounting. Do the math ACPA 150 pilots who have lost about $100,000 per yer ( would have been wages less pension ) for an average of over 2 years. The total simple damages are well over $30 million and split between ACPA and AC , that's $15 million ACPA is on the hook for , not to mention their legal bill. When is it going to dawn on the regular ACPA chap that his share will be over $5000. Tha's something that the ACPA MEC have never mentioned to the union public.

VMO Home

28th Jul 2010, 03:01

Good thing we can come here and "freak out" about this issue with the ACPA forum shut down.

But you have to use your real name there actually with accountability and of course we wouldnt have "Ray"

20driver

28th Jul 2010, 04:32

There seems to be a lot of playing the player and not the ball here. The motivations of a party to a suit are totally immaterial so what the slagging?

Does anyone on here contend that forced retirement due to age is not discrimination?

A collective agreement is not the law. It is a contract that must adhere to the law and laws change. Is the AC collective agreement above the law?

20driver

engfireleft

28th Jul 2010, 21:00

1. Forced retirement based on age is age discrimination.

2. Age discrimination in Canada is illegal.

Those two simple facts are indisputable because for years now courts, various levels of government and the CHRT have said so.

The arguments put forth by many of our pilots defending discrimination are a severe embarrassment, as they scream out to the public that we are unable to adapt to changing social attitudes and are incapable of recognizing that laws apply to us. We might as well put "Whites only" labels on our flightbags instead of "Maximum 60". Stop thinking about your poor little old self and open your bloody eyes to what's going on around you....

ACPA's continued actions on this issue leave me completely at a loss to explain. They are on a path of self-destruction that is doing incalculable damage to the pilots they are supposed to represent.

767-300ER

29th Jul 2010, 15:58

What is a severe embarrassment is some of our colleagues trying to make themselves seem like people who are/were discriminated for gender/race/religion...

They are an embarrassment because greed is their motive, not redressing their "perceived" injustice. Just look at the reaction to one of the plaintiffs to him being offered a job with 777 FO equivalent pay, but not actually flying the 777...he feels it's beneath him to fly the EMJ.... wow, that says it all.

How about this...if all the plaintiffs agreed to let the thousands of AC pilots who retired before them, get compensated and offered jobs first...then they might be able to say that they were doing this for altruistic reasons...if they can't do that, then we know that this is all about greed.:=

pudljumpr

29th Jul 2010, 16:20

Lost in Saigon

29th Jul 2010, 16:37

Being a current 777 CA with Air Canada my opinion is to allow all pilots at 60 who want to continue to do so as RPs on 777.
I've benefited my whole career by the retirement at 60 and I don't plan to screw the guys below me .

That won't work.

If you want to see what will work, just substitute age 60 with Race, Religion, Sex, etc.

You can't force a guy at 60 to be an RP against his will anymore than you can force a Woman, Black, or Muslim.

You don't get it do you?

VMO Home

30th Jul 2010, 04:52

So I have an great idea for those at Air Canada anyway

Whomever stays beyond 60 states how long they wish to remain for beyond 60 as they approach 60. They sign a contract that specifies whats best for that person for how much longer the wish to stay. They must contribute to the pension however to keep the pension plan in good shape as our current plan is based on pilots retiring at 60.

For every pilot signing a contract to stay beyond 60 another pilot is allowed to retire early without penalty. Ie one pilot wants to go 3 years past 60 another is allowed to go 3 years early no penalty.

If the pilot signing the contract to go past 60 retires prior to the date he wanted to go to in the contract he signed then he pays a penalty (same that one would have paid to retire early).

I'm sure we would find LOTS of guys wanting to go early and the whole thing would be equal thus not affecting the more junior pilots and not costing the company a thing!!!!

Everyone would be happy!!!

pudljumpr

30th Jul 2010, 17:51

No-you don't get it McDuck. We NEGOTIATED retirement at 60. Just because a few of you guys never got a life outside of playing pilot doesn't mean you can screw everyone else.
Why do I bother .

Lost in Saigon

30th Jul 2010, 19:35

So if you NEGOTIATED into the contract that Women, Blacks, or Muslims could not be hired, or not hold Captain positions, you would be alright with that?

I see no difference.

Vic777

30th Jul 2010, 19:46

So if you NEGOTIATED into the contract that Women, Blacks, or Muslims could not be hired, or not hold Captain positions, you would be alright with that?

I see no difference.You're 100% correct Lost in Saigon, that's why you'll see age Sixty Plus Pilots in the Air Canada cockpits very soon. ACPA better get it's act together soon.

wadefac

30th Jul 2010, 21:08

Why is a population with the best free education so hung up on a #...........if these guys have built the airline over the years let them fly till they say "no more" not based on your pathetic senority list..............always wonder how many of the complainers cross the line when they hit 60:=

pitotman

30th Jul 2010, 21:23

Acpa just reported that Vilven and Kelly are not intersted in returning to AC.

"The "interim and without prejudice" agreement reached between ACPA and Air Canada regarding return to work protocols for the two complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) were apparently insufficient to induce either retired pilot to actually return to active status. Press reports indicated that both former pilots considered the EMJ First Officer position unacceptable, despite their stated desire to continue their flying careers and the fact that the protocol ensured that neither pilot would suffer any financial penalty as a result of accepting the positions offered"

Got to love this human rights violation stuff..............(not intended to insult anyone who has actually had their human rights violated here in Canada or abroad.)

Carnie

Phil340

31st Jul 2010, 02:27

When was age 60 negotiated? We did have 57 and out. I believe because of the lack of use it was traded for vacation days or such. Maybe someone can correct me on the 57.

Vic777

31st Jul 2010, 02:35

Acpa just reported that Vilven and Kelly are not intersted in returning to AC.How reliable is any "information", from ACPA? Can you publish the whole article here?

O360A1A

31st Jul 2010, 03:10

Lets lay to rest some "Urban Myths" about Age 60.

Age 60 was not anywhere in the contract or Pension Agreement till the mid 80's.

Anyone who joined before that did not agree to 60; CALPA opposed a fixed retirement age prior to that time.

Age 60 was never negotiated; it was slipped into the Pension Agreement after a Captain won re-instatement after forced retirement. After that individual left, CALPA and AC slipped 60 into the Pension agreement.

Even though the individual in question was not particularly popular, quite a number of other pilots supported his position on principle.

Many of the current complainants opposed Age 60 prior to their retirement. They could not make formal complaints till they were retired.

Some of the history of this issue was on the ACPA website; it was removed some time ago.

This is an issue that should have been "retired" long ago; ACPA has wasted piles of members dues in fighting a lost cause; a cause no reputable union would have fought.

engfireleft

1st Aug 2010, 02:43

They are an embarrassment because greed is their motive, not redressing their "perceived" injustice. Just look at the reaction to one of the plaintiffs to him being offered a job with 777 FO equivalent pay, but not actually flying the 777...he feels it's beneath him to fly the EMJ.... wow, that says it all.

First of all, as Ray states they haven't said anything at all. Second, pilots who fly Air Canada aircraft all have seniority numbers and are members of the bargaining unit represented by ACPA. That means they have seniority rights just the same as you and I. If ACPA were permitted to do this to these two pilots (they can't thanks to a little thing called labour regulations) they could do it to you. How would you like to be restricted to EMJ FO at 320 pay simply because ACPA took a disliking to you?

As and individual it isn't surprising that you let your emotions get the better of your good judgement or reason, but ACPA isn't supposed to let that happen, and as I've stated countless times we will all pay a heavy price for it.

1st Aug 2010, 14:58

First of all, as Ray states they haven't said anything at all.
Actually, Ray posted a link a few days ago to the Toronto Star article that quotes Mr. Vilven as having spoken to the media, although even then they got part of it wrong:
Last year, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Air Canada’s contract with the pilots’ union, the Air Canada Pilots Association, was discriminatory. On Friday, former pilot George Vilven received a phone call.

“It was the director of flight operations. They were offering me an entry-level job on the smallest plane, an Embraer, that does regional flights. That’s what new hires start at. I said I wouldn’t do it.”

Vilven was forced to retire at 60 and is now 66. He wants to know why, if he’s fit to fly a smaller plane, he can’t go back to the Boeing 777 (the largest in the fleet at the time) he used to fly between Hong Kong and Vancouver as senior first officer. It appears from the offer Air Canada made, that he would get the same salary as when he retired.

The union, Vilven said, is out to get its older pilots. “The union has decided that they’re going to make it (the work) so distasteful that we wouldn’t want to come back.”

Toronto Star: Air Canada pilots say they still face restrictions (http://www.thestar.com/business/companies/aircanada/article/840543--air-canada-pilots-say-they-still-face-restrictions)

Vic777

1st Aug 2010, 15:56

CD, why don't you just look up two posts and read what Ray wrote?

1st Aug 2010, 16:58

I did ... he clearly indicated that Mr. Kelly had not spoken to the media. As he stated, there were no press reports or articles quoting Mr. Kelly.

It is Mr. Vilven and Mr. Hall that are quoted in the Toronto Star article of July 26th.

engfireleft

2nd Aug 2010, 01:43

"The Fly Past 60 Coalition has been advised by both George Vilven and Neil Kelly that neither pilot is refusing to accept re-employment in any capacity whatsoever, be it in the Embraer First Officer position or in any other position, subject to the same types of provisos and conditions mentioned by ACPA in its newsletter of July 23rd. "

That's too bad. With the company's cooperation ACPA has arbitrarily stripped away individual Air Canada pilots bidding rights for no reason other than they are pissed off at them. A large chunk of our membership is applauding that fact because they are too stupid to realize if they let it happen once, it can happen to anyone for any other reason.

This utterly ******* disgusts me.

Vic777

2nd Aug 2010, 02:29

With the burden of the possible settlement over their head ....
AC owns ACPA.

20driver

2nd Aug 2010, 14:00

or in a hole - hard to tell.

No one questions age discrimination is illegal. Given the venom that seems to run in the veins on many of the AC pilots it will only take one "decent" contingency lawyer and a few pissed of "old" guys to take ACPA to the cleaners big time. Expect AC to cut and run at the appropriate point leaving ACPA holding a big smelly bag load.

You cannot continue to defy the law because you don't think it is fair. This reminds me of the MLB umpires who marched with their union into oblivion.

I find it hard to believe AC management could execute any plan, let alone a cunning plan, but it does seem like they will end up owning the pilots.

The irony is you could very well have the pilots who support age 60 working till 70 to pay off the settlement to the pilots "retired" under age 60.

Lewis Carroll would have loved it.

Itsaliving66

2nd Aug 2010, 15:37

Keep believing in a slam dunk gents. If this passes entirely as you envision it there will be unpleasant consequences for the FP60 victors. All legal and negotiated. Read, status pay and redistribution of wealth. The contract will be up for renewal and the negatively affected membership will speak with their votes. This strata of pilots will also be the future keepers of the pension plan. Before you guys go out buy new cars and boats with your fellow pilots money consider the domino effect from and outright victory...just say`in.

B777ER

2nd Aug 2010, 22:18

Itsaliving

You have now earned the dubious title of having posted the dumbest reply I have ever seen.

bcflyer

2nd Aug 2010, 22:40

You haven't been here long.. There is nothing dumb about that reply. I'm willing to bet the old guys haven't thought about things from that point of view...

engfireleft

3rd Aug 2010, 00:18

Every province and territory has done away with mandatory retirement based on age because of its discriminatory nature. The federal government is in the process of doing so. ICAO has gone to 65. Developed countries the world over are eliminating mandatory retirement or dramatically upping the age because of economic and demographic reasons. Every aviation company in Canada is age 65 or higher. Canadian society has considered mandatory age based retirement discriminatory for quite some time. And if ACPA and many of our pilots are too self-absorbed or just plain dumb enough to not notice any of this...the CHRT explicitly told us on August 28th, 2009 that what we were doing was discriminatory. Is anybody getting the picture yet?

To anybody looking at us from the outside we must appear to be unbelievably stupid.

Now ACPA has further demonstrated their irresponsibly stupid refusal to accept reality by signing an MOU with the company that clearly violates not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of their obligation to provide equal and unbiased representation to every one of their members.

Those individual members claiming retribution through contract realignment are equally as dense because they cannot see that they are only hurting themselves. They cannot see what they do to older pilots will apply equally to them when they reach that age.

Stupid...stupid...stupid.

Vic777

3rd Aug 2010, 00:44

This strata of pilots will also be the future keepers of the pension planBut, itsaliving66, I thought the guys who retired and went on pension were the "good guys"?

OverUnder

3rd Aug 2010, 04:51

I have one very basic question.

Has there been any legal proceeding launched against ACPA that the membership has not yet been advised of? If yes, what is ACPA's response and is there any end in sight to this crap?

12435

3rd Aug 2010, 13:47

Re stupid stupid stupid.....

the only thing stupid is to think that we (the juniors) don't get it.

Enginefireleft: you say the samy will apply to us when we reach the age..... we will NEVER be affected the same way.... because we will not have seen the advancement up to the senior positions and then allowed to stay extra. There is only one group that would reap a windfall gain, and I suspect that you belong to that group. Please stop telling us that it would also benefit us later on. Just not true. Again, it is about career earnings, full stop. I'd have to work longer just to make the same, get it!
And have LESS time available to me to enjoy my retirement, get it!
Parc, Rishworth, Flightdeck..... all are looking for experienced commanders.

Somewhere higher up someone said that the EU has changed. Just not true. A couple of LH pilots tried to do what you are doing here a short while ago, and even under the "new EU anti-discrimination laws" they lost.

This is long from over,
Joseph Keisinger

Itsaliving66

3rd Aug 2010, 15:01

Intelligent response 777ER. There is another law out there that has stood the test of time and is not up for judicial review. Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You may be able to fly way past 60 but will you want to once the contract has had a makeover courtesy of the people that have been adversly affected by your actions ? It's obvious you guys don't care. To quote your lawyer "so be it".

MackTheKnife

3rd Aug 2010, 15:58

12345

"the only thing stupid is to think that we (the juniors) don't get it."

"you say the samy will apply to us when we reach the age..... we will NEVER be affected the same way.... because we will not have seen the advancement up to the senior positions and then allowed to stay extra. There is only one group that would reap a windfall gain, and I suspect that you belong to that group."

If you want to start the advancement, career expectation / earnings argument again please include that EVERY junior pilot you refer to started their career at AC as either direct entry First Officers and some lucky people were direct entry Captains

On the other hand, practically EVERY pilot retiring in the last while and probably the next 5 years or so was forced to spend between 5 - 12 years as a Second Officer.

As you you aptly pointed out " it is about career earnings, full stop"

MTK

MackTheKnife

3rd Aug 2010, 16:07

itsaliving66

"Intelligent response 777ER. There is another law out there that has stood the test of time and is not up for judicial review. Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You may be able to fly way past 60 but will you want to once the contract has had a makeover courtesy of the people that have been adversly affected by your actions ? It's obvious you guys don't care. To quote your lawyer "so be it".

While on the subject of intelligent responses:

There's a reason why every position of importance in this world is usually filled by older people. It's called experience and having the ability to see the big picture.

Your viewpoint is what is called " Biting your nose off to spite your face" or "can't see the forest because the trees keep getting in the way"

Best of luck in life with that outlook on problem solving.

MTK

VMO Home

3rd Aug 2010, 16:12

Macktheknife give me a break. Must of been real tough on you to spend 5-10 years in a cosy backend job flying all over the world after you started at Air Canada in your early twenties as that was the average age getting hired at that time.

In reality now all of the group hired in the last 10-15 years spent the time you were relaxing in the back seat out in the bush somewhere making hardly anything and working their asses off flying some piece of junk in brutal weather. Then this group finally gets hired in their mid thirties (this is now the average age to be hired) and STILL has to spend 5-10 years in the back seat or worse EMJ F/O.

And then we are told you would like to keep flying as long as you can and hold our careers back even more!!!!!

Greedy is what it is!!

MackTheKnife

3rd Aug 2010, 18:02

My point, (which I obviously failed to get across) was that every generation has their share of up's and downs to deal with.

VMO Home

3rd Aug 2010, 18:56

And my point.........some more then others!!!!!!!!

Itsaliving66

4th Aug 2010, 04:59

Hey MTK, I'm not slagging people older than me or of any defined age for that matter. My point is simple, just like Raymond's, that denial will not serve anyone well. You guys seem to think that there would be no negative consequences to a FP60 slam dunk. Go ahead dream big. I'm merely suggesting not to be so naive.

To the other poster referencing the s/o position, been there done that, and the pay scale off flat salary was well into the six figures at about the 6 year mark well over a decade ago. PG (B scale) pilots today are in the sixties.

meaw

4th Aug 2010, 22:45

"In a separate development, the Fly Past 60 Coalition announced today that more than 60 active Air Canada pilots and force-retired Air Canada pilots filed a 58-page complaint with the Canada Industrial Relations Board on August 2nd alleging that ACPA has breached its duty of fair representation to them, in contravention of Section 37 of the Canada Labour Code. "

Wow Ray, 60 guys out of 3000! I'm glad to see the vast majority respect their junior colleagues.

Vic777

5th Aug 2010, 01:54

Wow Ray, 60 guys out of 3000! I'm glad to see the vast majority respect their junior colleagues.meaw ... One sole complainant is enough to bring down the wrath of the CIRB. ACPA better get it's act together.

767-300ER

5th Aug 2010, 05:01

CIRB assesses the legal direction that it should take on a particular issue, it makes its decision on the basis of sound legal principles that will withstand judicial scrutiny.

Really, like the Keller abritration, the Teplistsky work, the Lordon review.....yep, the CIRB really sticks to it's guns and follows sound legal principles, with no politics, nice try Ray....:ugh:

clunckdriver

5th Aug 2010, 10:35

Up early this AM, turned on the tube to catch up on the news of the day, seems that the rights folks are on a roll {1} Brother and sister sueing their school as the "Fitness test" infringed on their rights.{2} Women sueing over being ordered to show face prior to boarding a flight, infriged on her rights.{3} Kid sueing over no booze allowed in drivers under 21, his right to drink and drive being infringed .{4}Guy sueing over max PNDB noise regulation for his "Hawg", its his right to make as much noise as he wants, his rights you know. Seems like Ray wont be short of members/ paying customers if this bunch decide to fly for a living!

Itsaliving66

5th Aug 2010, 15:36

In the mean time, people with life threatening health problems have to wait months for diagnostic testing, children in Haiti are robbed of their childhood and women in the middle east are murdered on accusations of adultry. Tell me with a straight face your plight is a human rights issue.

Vic777

5th Aug 2010, 15:51

Tell me with a straight face your plight is a human rights issue.itsaliving66 .... ACPA has now ensured that it's a CIRB issue! (the human rights issue has already been decided)

Itsaliving66

5th Aug 2010, 16:58

Ok Vic. What's the point of the JR on Nov 22-25 then ?

Lost in Saigon

5th Aug 2010, 17:15

What's the point of the JR on Nov 22-25 then ?

Could be any one of many reasons:

1) Stalling tactic to get a few more guys up the ladder?

2) Last ditch "Hail Mary" pass to the end zone?

3) Spend last remaining funds on Lawyer buddies before the **** hits the fan?

4) Misguided concept that they are following the true will of the membership?

5) ??????

Vic777

5th Aug 2010, 17:27

What's the point of the JR on Nov 22-25?Damned if I know. SOP's I guess.

engfireleft

7th Aug 2010, 02:52

Enginefireleft: you say the samy will apply to us when we reach the age..... we will NEVER be affected the same way.... because we will not have seen the advancement up to the senior positions and then allowed to stay extra. There is only one group that would reap a windfall gain, and I suspect that you belong to that group. Please stop telling us that it would also benefit us later on. Just not true. Again, it is about career earnings, full stop. I'd have to work longer just to make the same, get it!
And have LESS time available to me to enjoy my retirement, get it!
Parc, Rishworth, Flightdeck..... all are looking for experienced commanders.

No, I do not belong to that group. In fact I am likely junior to most of the people opposed to eliminating mandatory retirement and I will be just as adversely effected as they are.

As well, I am getting more than a little tired of whiners bitching about how their career earnings will be effected. Close to 70% of the 320 FO's in Toronto could be making up to $30,000 more a year as an EMJ CA, but choose not to. The situation is even more dramatic the farther up the seniority ladder you go. Virtually all of the 330 FO's could be 320 Captains. Most of the 777 FO's could be 767 Captains. So let's give that tired refrain a rest shall we?

We must as a group and a union follow the rules, laws and regulations that are in place. Our contract does not in any way allow us not to. We have been told explicitly that mandatory retirement is discriminatory and therefore illegal. If our union and many of our members had simply taken a cursory look at what's going on in the rest of the country we wouldn't need to be told...but regardless we have been. We still don't get the picture. How stupid are we?

The union has abandoned their duty to provide fair representation to the over 60 pilots even though they are full members of the bargaining unit. If similar restrictions as what they proposed in the MOU were directed at any pilot under 60 you and everybody else would be screaming bloody murder, and for good reason. They are required to provide fair and equal representation to every member, not just the ones they like or the ones who think they are the majority.

Our members and union are determined to learn the hard way what the laws and regulations say. It is shameful that it has to come to this, because long after the people making these disastrous decisions are gone we will be paying the price.

I support the idea (as does the entire nation) that forced retirement due to age is discriminatory which is why I support the 60+ guys. I don't care what their motivation is. Having a union background myself I take very seriously the obligation of a union to provide fair and equal representation, and I will be the first in line to take them to court for their determination to not do so.

You and many others may not see why now, but eventually you will.

Itsaliving66

7th Aug 2010, 04:01

You guys get your panties in a knot pretty fast. The 2 pilots in question are being re-instated the only place the airline has room between bids. Both ACPA and AC are doing this so as not to further delay their re-instatment. Secondly, the CHRT said age 60 was not a BFOR in their opinion. The Federal court will have it's say in November on the bigger matter. I wouldn't count your money yet. In the mean time I guess the play-book is to keep tossing enough merde against the wall in hopes some of it will stick. Maybe you guys can coordinate a massive "slip and fall" injury outside ACPA HQ and sue all the members for damages.

Vic777

7th Aug 2010, 11:26

Ray, is there any way a typical ACPA member can protect himself from the coming settlement. Can the Pilots "get out" of ACPA and get a new bargaining unit? Are retired pilots who have no say in this fiasco vulnerable? Can ACPA escape it's potential liabilities by "dissolving" or somehow ceasing to exist? Ray, I recognize that you may not want to discuss this publicly ... does anyone else have any ideas as to how ACPA and its members can cut and run from this fiasco? Does any one else have any idea how the typical line Pilot might free himself from the merde ACPA has gotten him into? If ACPA says "We're sorry, we were wrong, we welcome all Pilots back into their respective slots", is there any chance that the wronged Pilots would drop their request for damages? (I'm not talking about Vilven or Kelly who have specifically already won damages) In short, is there a mutually acceptable way to end this?

20driver

7th Aug 2010, 18:01

There is a silver lining in every dark cloud.

Unions in general, ACPA is a good example, have a long history of screwing new members to the benefit of older, or rather more senior members.

The current entry level salaries at AC being Exhibit A. 40 K a year to fly a jet. That is a royal screwing.
The newbies have always put up with this on the grounds of well I'll get the brass ring someday, plus the lack of numbers to really change it.
(There might be an interesting age discrimination case there if you think about it)

Take away the incredible incentives to being at the top part of the list and suddenly the entire game changes.

A way out of this is to create a contract with salaries based on years of service, (years of service, not age so this gets around discrimination charges) not seniority based equipment bids. Likewise a fair bid line on schedules etc. Flatten the salary at 20 years service and don't load the pension to final years of service. Make everyone fly their share of holidays and weekends and lots of people will bail and open up slots.

If the young ones are going to held back from getting that top number there is a very good reason for them to change the contract to make being a top number less desirable. That is what I would do. It certainly is smarter that beating your head against a wall while acquiring legal debt and liabilities.

One more reason for AC pilots to start thinking long term of the reality of the law in Canada and not going down in flames on emotional roller coaster of "It's not fair, it always being that way"

pitotman

7th Aug 2010, 20:53

Vic777,

Last time I checked you are ACPA....so if you want change than I suggest you get on a ferry and attend meetings! (Cause most do not) When are our 3000 plus members going to understand that the only people who can affect change are ourselves. That is one of my problems with Ray's plight........he is retired! For decades he enjoyed the fruits of our system and now he and a greedy bunch of retirees or those at the top are trying to force change.............
Change is coming but it should be by the membership for the membership...... not a bunch of old miserable retirees who don't have a life and need to dawn a uniform just to wake up in the morning.........
Last time I checked Vic777 our membership voted to have status quo........so if you have the time before you hit 60 then pass a motion to have a new IVR vote to see if the membership wants to continue to fight against over 60. When 51 % of our membership votes for change than I will accept over 60...until then I am all for fighting it tooth and nail. If you run out of time then I am sure Ray will be all too willing to add your name to the list of former members who feel the need to sue their colleagues.
You ask if there is anything else an ACPA member can do to protect once self, well you could always quit and join Parc aviation. But I can tell you this much ahead of time the contract you will sign with them will not be opened and changed at your discretion! You will live and die by that contract............ Oh yeah and 99% of the contracts you have to be under the age of 57 at signing and expire when you are 60…………sound familiar?
Parc Aviation Recruitment and Resourcing (http://www.parcaviation.aero/)

ALPA did not get JAZZ the last gains in bargaining, the 97% unified pilot group did.

Cormac Ward
YVR 767

clunckdriver

7th Aug 2010, 21:52

Pitotman, well said, I am retired,{Still flying my own twin and very well paid for it, well enough to train deserving kids and pay them} and have outlived most of my course mates.What I find a bit strange is how one side in this discussion harp on about "its the law, so must be obeyed" but ignore the fact that we live in a democracy, thus surely in such a society the will of majority should hold sway. I often didnt like what CALPA did {Im pre ACAPA} but in our society the majority should call the shots.I know this will bring forth a long ramble from one side or the other, so be it, but if majority rule is to be ignored by various elite commitees working outside of the electoral process then we are indeed heading for a society which will be run by those who think they are the keepers of our nation, not those elected by a majority to run things . As an example, I would hang Robert Picton in the village square,{and sell tickets to cover the cost of his trial} but the majority of Canadians dont want capital punishment, thus I go along with the view of the majority, thats the way it should work, not having seventy out of three thousand calling the shots. Thats the view from the retirment bench.

Vic777

7th Aug 2010, 22:43

Vic777,

Last time I checked you are ACPA....check again ... I'm retired ... no interest in ever doing another take-off. I've got it so much better right now! Just watching from the sidelines, wondering if the Pilots will ever get unified and grow some cojones.

engfireleft

8th Aug 2010, 00:09

so if you have the time before you hit 60 then pass a motion to have a new IVR vote to see if the membership wants to continue to fight against over 60. When 51 % of our membership votes for change than I will accept over 60...

This has been said 1 million times already but our union, many of our pilots and you specifically still don't get it. It isn't an issue that we vote to change or not. Age discrimination is illegal and we have been told so by the CHRT. You can agree with it or not, but we will comply regardless of what our contract says. Continuing to fight it is doing massive harm to us and is futile. The sooner that fact sinks into to some brains around here the sooner we can begin the long process of fixing what's really wrong.

This week ACPA received information that a group of pilots represented by Raymond Hall have filed a Duty of Fair Representation complaint against ACPA under the Canada Labour Code concerning our response to the retirement at Age 60 issues. Section 37 of the Code provides that a union shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the bargaining unit with respect to their rights under the collective agreement that is applicable to them. We anticipated this tactic and welcome the opportunity to respond before the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We do not believe the complaint has any merit.

According to this release from ACPA the MEC knew ahead of time that the memorandum of understanding signed with the company would result in a DFR complaint against them. Yet for some incomprehensible reason they went ahead and did it anyway.

If anybody can provide a rational explanation for this irrational, divisive and self-destructive act let's hear it.

OverUnder

8th Aug 2010, 00:57

That is one of my problems with Ray's plight........he is retired! For decades he enjoyed the fruits of our system and now he and a greedy bunch of retirees or those at the top are trying to force change.............

"The destination airport is under a foot of water, the navaids are all out, and the weather is below limits. But we decided to press on anyway. Why? Because we took a vote. The majority said that the contract requires the airport to remain open."

Not just dumb. Stupid! And you have the ignorance and temerity to blame the over-60 group for your own stupidity! No wonder your union is in trouble.

Itsaliving66

8th Aug 2010, 00:58

If anybody can provide a rational explanation for this irrational, divisive and self-destructive act let's hear it.

That's an easy one. Because there is a difference in opinion both legal and otherwise. The CHRT doesn't make the laws in this country. Their position is going to be judged by a higher entity in the food chain. Your lawyer knows that but are you guys prepared for the water-down conditions upon which you will be able to fly past 60 ?
You guys are trying in vain to convince all opposed to your position to quit and accept your assertion that you're going to take us to the cleaners. I guess that is you best chance at an outright victory so I can't blame you for trying. Give your fellow pilots and ACPA some credit for seeing through this staged hissy fit.

Itsaliving66

8th Aug 2010, 01:04

Not just dumb. Stupid! And you have the ignorance to blame the over-60 group for your own stupidity! No wonder your union is in trouble.

Nice one Overunder, are you all just one person with multi aliases or were you all coached to stoke and scare the unwilling as a part of your "legal" strategy ? :rolleyes:

a330pilotcanada

8th Aug 2010, 02:17

Good Evening over under or should I refer to you as Ray767's alter ego?
According to your profile you are 29 but your level of articulation is beyond your chronological age!
I would enjoy reading your curriculum vitae to see what your interests in this subject are?
What are your aviation credentials? Main line? Feeder? Corporate? General Aviation?
Let us know we are all curious on this one...

Phil340

8th Aug 2010, 02:41

Mr. Ward,

I would suggest you have strong drink and chill out. Change is going to happen wether you like it or not. Your suggestion about Parc Avation et al, you are right, on the property by 57 or so but also on the property the chances of working past 60 are pretty good. Yes, I tried various options to work past 60 but the world recession of 08 and 09 kinda killed it.

Also, you or anyone else in Air Canada have no idea about my life and what I want to do with it. I don't tell you how to live your life please don't tell me how live mine. You can pass this on the rest of the crews you fly.

Phil

ps We won't have beers when I come back!
e & oe

a330pilotcanada

8th Aug 2010, 13:09

E&OE is an initialism standing for errors and omissions excepted. The phrase is used in an attempt to reduce legal liability for incorrect or incomplete information supplied in a contractually related document such as a price list, quotation or specification. It is often applied as a disclaimer in situations...

That is a very rough definition of the above mentioned item by Phil340 it would appear at "first blush" that YWG has a few more lawyers involved in this thread and as hard as it, maybe this thread should die as it could be used by some as potential litigation bait.

I really hope I am wrong on this but after the forum at A.C.P.A. was shutdown because of allegations of some people "strip mining" I am not so sure..........

Vic777

8th Aug 2010, 13:27

a330canada ... your post above certainly emphasizes the fact that we've run out of ideas ...

ArcticBeech

8th Aug 2010, 19:03

pitotman

8th Aug 2010, 20:46

Phil,

Suggest ya reread my post because it’s pretty clear that I know change is coming and I embrace that change that is directed by OUR membership!

I have worked for Parc for 44 months and I have done another 1.5 year contract overseas. So please don't try to educate me on the workings of overseas work that you ALMOST had..........been there done that! I can tell you a lot better qualified people than you cannot find work over 60 in the contract world and although that is slowly changing working over 60 is the exception not the rule...

I could not care how you live your life and if you want to spend your time suing ACPA to get your old life back have at er....

Phil I only drink with people whom I respect.......

I wish you a long, happy and healthy retirement!

Cormac

engfireleft

9th Aug 2010, 01:05

Your lawyer knows that but are you guys prepared for the water-down conditions upon which you will be able to fly past 60 ?

The CHRT has ruled, yet you guys and ACPA behave as if they hadn't and continue to forcefully retire pilots, who then naturally add their name to the list of those discriminated against according to the ruling last August. Every jurisdiction thinks exactly the same way including the federal government with their recently introduced legislation, but somehow you think ACPA's legal interpretation will win the day? You guys are deaf, blind and stupid.

When ACPA has run out of legal delaying methods unless a cease and desist happens first, we are all going to pay the very heavy price not only for ignoring the ruling, but the blatantly discriminatory tactics that ACPA has employed thus far to the thundering approval of the unenlightened. Your watered down working conditions (read discriminatory) are a figment of wishful thinking. Those pilots are, and will be full members of the bargaining unit with all the rights and privileges that you enjoy. So says the law.

You guys are trying in vain to convince all opposed to your position to quit and accept your assertion that you're going to take us to the cleaners. I guess that is you best chance at an outright victory so I can't blame you for trying.

No, we are trying in vain as we have been for years now that fighting this is futile and will be very costly. We have been trying in vain to convince you that managing this change will greatly decrease the negative impact. But nobody is listening. Nobody wants to take you to the cleaners...those are your words. Mandatory retirement based on age is now illegal in this country as it constitutes age discrimination, so in that sense it is already an outright victory if that's what you want to call it. Your position is dead, but you still act like it's alive and well.

errbus

9th Aug 2010, 02:07

Just wondering. As you appear to be quite familiar with the inner workings of the CHRT, how many of their decisions have been overturned on appeal by the Federal Court?

engfireleft

9th Aug 2010, 02:59

Ray is the guy to ask about that, but I do know that ACPA cannot look to the Federal Court for salvation. It's the Federal Court that set the conditions for the ruling last August that ACPA is ignoring. If anybody there bothered to stick their head up above their own delusions long enough to look around at what's happening in this country they would stop fighting the inevitable and find a way to come to terms with it.

Instead, ACPA and many members simply refuse to believe forced retirement based on age is discrimination despite the law in general and the CHRT ruling specifically addressing this case. They continue to believe the contract as voted on by the majority of members somehow negates Canadian Law.

School children know better.

ACPA has steadfastly refused to accept what any moron should have figured out long ago, and continues to act irrationally making the situation increasingly worse despite constant warnings. The damage that will occur as a result will no doubt be blamed on the people giving the warnings, not the people ignoring them.

Vic777

9th Aug 2010, 03:30

ACPA should go after the flypast60 were it hurts the most, there wallets. When is the next round of contract negotiations with AC? Redistribute the wealth, go after slashing top end salaries and increasing the bottom to middle end salaries. Out with pay based on what you fly rather how many years you've been with the company.ArcticBeech ... grow some cojones ... don't you even understand what you're saying ... don't slash salaries ... don't redistribute wealth ... get the company to let the Pilots keep more of the money they alone generate .... negotiate more for everybody ... I truly believe there is no hope with your attitude and ACPA's leadership.

engfireleft

9th Aug 2010, 03:47

Everything ACPA does, and everything people suggest is aimed at punishing anybody who chooses to stay past 60. Our compensation scheme will likely have to be changed, and it's long overdue because it is a total goatf**k the way it is now, but still people think of it as retribution rather than improving everyone's lot.

Such narrowminded and vindictive thinking.

Flexable

9th Aug 2010, 12:38

Flytdeck

9th Aug 2010, 13:04

The basis of formula pay is sound. The problems result from modifications and concessions we have made at one time or another. If we made the effort to restore the principle of formula pay including maximum two year flat salary, we would have a very solid basis for remuneration.

ACPA has studied pay systems in detail and believes that formula pay is the best system for the membership. Suggest you might review the results of these efforts. It may change your position.

In my personal opinion, ACPA is unable to withdraw from the Age 60 issue. The membership is exposed to litigation and possibly liable for substantial penalties. ACPA has no choice but to continue along their current path hoping that they can avoid a large lawsuit by achieving a positive result.

Mitigating retention of 60+ pilots has yet to be discussed, though I believe a return to indexed pensions, extension of the contribution period, and reduction of years required to qualify for pension would assist in encouraging pilots to consider earlier departures. Those pilots who have a passion for the profession will stay no matter the incentives to leave.:cool:

Complicated issue that will only be resolved by rational and intelligent examination, discussion, evaluation, and implementation.:hmm:

Vic777

9th Aug 2010, 13:19

In my personal opinion, ACPA is unable to withdraw from the Age 60 issue. The membership is exposed to litigation and possibly liable for substantial penalties. ACPA has no choice but to continue along their current path hoping that they can avoid a large lawsuit by achieving a positive result.Could ACPA cease to exist i.e dissolve? Could the Pilots get another UNION? Can the Pilots cut and run from the huge damages that the current ACPA has saddled them with, by dividing ACPA's assets amongst the Pilots and then dissolving ACPA? Does anybody care? Could ACPA approach the FlyPast60 group and come to some mutually acceptable agreement ... now? Or maybe just hold over the destination until the fuel disappears ....

What if ACPA went to the FlyPast60 group and said ...
"We will withdraw any objections to your groups desire to FlyPast60 and those Pilots can come back on the ACPA list with their old seniority positions if you drop any damages to ACPA". What would the response of the FlyPast60 group be? This seems like a good solution. Then a unified Pilot group could move forward. If AC tried to levy any costs against ACPA, the solution is simple, simply DOWN TOOLS. The Pilots have always held the best hand ... they just always fold before the flop ...

(Air Canada could join ACPA in this strategy also, why ignore the inevitable? Ya gotta know when to fold 'em.)

clunckdriver

9th Aug 2010, 14:52

Phill 340, Please check ypur PMs.

Itsaliving66

9th Aug 2010, 19:12

ACPA has steadfastly refused to accept what any moron should have figured out long ago, and continues to act irrationally making the situation increasingly worse despite constant warnings. The damage that will occur as a result will no doubt be blamed on the people giving the warnings, not the people ignoring them.

Enginefire, your post is dripping in desperation matey. If your opponents would just give up and let you have your way you wouldn't have to inflict the financial beat-down. We get it.

a330pilotcanada

9th Aug 2010, 21:28

Good Afternoon Engine Fire Left.

What I find interesting with your posts are the legal issues that you have raised. I am a board member of a charitable organization and at every board meeting we have our lawyer sits in and advises the board on whether the direction we are taking is legal.

That being said do you not think that A.C.P.A. does not actively engage their legal experts when ever there is a new issue? I would think that they are working hard to represent the union in not only a legal way but one that is honest. To parallel something from the airline history if you remember Mr Milton was criticized by sitting on the sidelines while Mr Schwartz of ONEX was travelling cross-country telling the country that his plan would save the airlines. After careful planning Mr Milton and company thwarted his plans by staying in the background and doing their homework there by winning the game.

That being said yes there is a legal process under way which will determine the age 60 is discrimination or that a group of professionals can determine their collective future. The outcome which the courts will decide is whether collective bargaining decided by a majority is legal or the CHRT will have the day.

So where does this go next will a observant Orthodox Jew claim discrimination because of the requirement to observe Shabbat prohibits him or her working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday? Alternatively, a devout Muslim claiming discrimination by being forced to serve alcohol or an unsafe food?

There are many other issues that you can look at but the one that is relevant is the age 60 one. To use an analogy we are on the space shuttle the solids are lit and that my friend is V1! So we should all take a deep breath walk to the fridge like I am going to do and have a very cold beer as we await the legal outcome in the late fall.

You mentioned previously about leaving the membership because you might be sued. I would talk to an "impartial" legal expert and I am sure you will find out is when you "cut yourself from the herd" you will make yourself a larger target as opposed to being in the herd. In other words you will find out when you are sued is when the writ is delivered to you and everything else is rhetoric.

Oh I forgot something to add from a personal perspective retirement is great and my only complaint so far is that there is not enough time in the day.

Just enjoy your career but make sure you develop outside interests early, never allow your persona be defined by what you put on when you go to work and remember there are only two things in life that are important your health and your family everything else is chump change my friend!

Oh yes that beer..................

Itsaliving66

9th Aug 2010, 21:56

A330pilot : If electronic media would permit me to teleport you the coldest finest beer in the land, you'd have it before you pressed "send". That is the most balanced and intelligent post on this matter in a long time.:D

engfireleft

10th Aug 2010, 03:23

What ACPA (with the approval of the majority of the membership) is trying to do is to continue to reward those who respect their part of the deal and leave at 60 (and not affecting/delaying the junior pilots ''normal'' career progression.
Those who want to fly untill they died will not be able to enjoy that benefit (SERP/Tophat).
There will be no discrimination due to age but an option for individual to chose.

This is the kind of thinking that ACPA's using to sink us deeper and deeper into the quagmire they've created for us.

A reward (or incentive if you prefer) is something you give to someone that they didn't have before. An example that fits here is permitting someone to retire earlier than normal with no penalty, commonly used to prevent layoffs. Accepting that reward or not is entirely up to the individual, and not accepting it does not harm them in any way.

A penalty (or disincentive if you prefer) is when you take something away from someone that they already have. An example that fits here is denying pilots some benefit that they currently recieve along with everyone else, like pension benefits or seniority rights for example.

When you target a specific group over a certain age for this kind of penalty, that is called age discrimination.

ACPA and our pilot group will learn this distinction one way or the other.

A330pilotcanada:

In every legal dispute there are two sides or points of view, each with lawyers arguing that point of view. Only one side wins. In this issue ACPA is 180 degrees out from society and government which you know if you've been paying any attention at all. Almost a year ago the CHRT told ACPA in very specific terms how wrong they were consistent with Canadian attitudes toward mandatory retirement and age discrimination. There are several other procedings and complaints against ACPA now that are a direct result of ACPA's refusal to accept anything but their own interpretation.

Will you admit that ACPA was wrong when they get the hammer thrown at them, or will you continue to blame society and the individuals defending their (and your) right to not be discriminated against?

Also, thank you for the advice on life planning after I stop working. It seems you make the mistake a lot of others do thinking that people who wish to continue working past age 60 have no life outside of work. You will no doubt be relieved to know you're wrong.

ps. It wasn't me who mused about splitting myself from ACPA to avoid paying the price. I unfortunately know that we cannot do that, which is why I am trying so hard to get people to start using their head to make decisions instead of petty anger.

engfireleft

10th Aug 2010, 03:32

Enginefire, your post is dripping in desperation matey. If your opponents would just give up and let you have your way you wouldn't have to inflict the financial beat-down. We get it.

Pay attention. It's not me that will be inflicting the financial beat-down. I am a junior pilot nowhere near retirement so I will be receiving the same beat-down you will.

By the way, it isn't the 60+ pilots who will be inflicting the beat-down either. ACPA is doing this entirely to themselves and us.

a330pilotcanada

10th Aug 2010, 17:46

Good Afternoon Engine Fire Left:

I really do not know where to start on a response as it is apparent that my writing might have been too obtuse for you judging from your response. Yes you are absolutely right only one side wins a legal argument based on a preponderance of evidence presented to the courts. If indeed A.C.P.A. is wrong they will lose the case but let us allow the legal process to unfold in the time that it takes. Since we are on constitutional issues I more faith with the Supreme Court in the ultimate definition of a complaint than I am with a quasi legal tribunal such as the C.H.R.T. Yes they do good work but again I am more comfortable with seven senior jurists debating and deciding the argument than the political appointments in the C.H.R.T. Just consider it as checks and balances.

With regards to discrimination judging from the tenor of your post would you not consider that "if you have been paying any attention at all," "you will no doubt be relieved to know your wrong" as a form of intellectual discrimination? As no where in my previous post did I attack you in any way or be offensive towards you. To summarize my post there is a legal process in play let it run its course to a logical conclusion and than move on.

Oh yes the "no life outside of work issue" why I am enjoying retirement so much is that I had a very privileged career and I am now giving back to society through charity work what I have enjoyed in my professional work. If indeed there are people who want to work past 60 let them do it but after saying that "life is not a dress rehearsal" to me the worst thing in my dying moments is contemplate I could have done something meaningful. With your passion have you considered doing union work and working from with in to make a change to your work environment? Also if are trying to get people to change their mind you will find this forum the wrong constituency to use so bring your debate to the next L.E.C. meeting. If you are articulate enough you will have a motion passed that the M.E.C. will address.

engfireleft

10th Aug 2010, 20:37

The CHRT is the body constituted to decide these very matters. Holding out hope that a higher authority will overturn what's already been decided, especially considering how provincial, territorial and now the federal government views it is unrealistic at best. In the case of ACPA it is irresponsible because they continue to systematically discriminate against more people every single month despite last August's ruling. I would have thought at the very least they would try to mitigate their potential liability until they've exhausted their last legal delaying tactic by asking guys if they want to retire, but instead they continue on as if the ruling never existed.

Is that smart?

10th Aug 2010, 22:55

Here is the latest communique:

Pilots Support Retirement at Age 60: Poll

Aug. 10, 2010, 10:29 a.m. EDT

TORONTO, ONTARIO, Aug 10, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union.

The survey of more than 1,800 pilots showed that 82 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or even younger.

"These survey results demonstrate without question that Air Canada pilots overwhelmingly support the freely negotiated age of retirement in their collective agreement," said Captain Paul Strachan, President of the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA). "The results confirm what our members have repeatedly shown in successive rounds of collective bargaining. They want us to preserve retirement at age 60 with a secure pension that allows them to enjoy the benefits of their years of work performed on behalf of our airline and our passengers."

The results come from an on line survey of 1,860 Air Canada pilots conducted June 7 - 23 by The Wilson Center for Public Research, Inc. In the survey, which included almost 60 per cent of all Air Canada pilots, respondents were asked whether they would like a retirement age of 60 years, greater than 60 or less than 60.

Pilots were strongly united on the issue, with 78 per cent supporting retirement at age 60 and a further four per cent wanting to retire at a younger age. Even among senior pilots over the age of 50, more than 63 per cent supported retirement at age 60 or earlier, outnumbering those wanting to work past 60 years by more than a two-to-one margin in that sub-group. Only 13 per cent of pilots wanted a retirement age greater than 60 years.

Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the pilots' contract and pension plan, which are negotiated with Air Canada by ACPA and ratified by its member pilots in a democratic vote each time their collective agreement is renewed.

The negotiated age of retirement is also the subject of an upcoming Federal Court judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) decision. In August 2009, the CHRT asserted that a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) cannot be justified under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That section of the human rights law says that a practice is not discriminatory if an individual's employment is terminated because he or she has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in similar positions.

ACPA asked the Federal Court to review the CHRT decision, arguing that the Tribunal had ignored Supreme Court of Canada decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to determine a retirement age through the collective bargaining process.

The Federal Court will hear the case November 22 - 25 in Ottawa.

"We have a strong, clear mandate from our members to defend their right to collectively bargain their retirement provisions," Captain Strachan said. "We will exercise the mandate pilots have given us by using every legal means at our disposal to defend their democratic rights."

The Federal Court's decision could potentially have an impact on the wages and benefits of the Air Canada pilots and thousands of other federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement.

Full press release here... (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pilots-support-retirement-at-age-60-poll-2010-08-10?reflink=MW_news_stmp)

rick3333331

10th Aug 2010, 23:59

Proof positive of what the MEC thinks is important.........not a wage increase, not indexed pensions...nothing in the WAWCOM survey seems that important........Just how to do it too the older pilots.........Be careful what you wish for...........................What a joke this mec is !!!!!!

O360A1A

11th Aug 2010, 00:43

Red Wine is proven to be good for you. Given the right question, pilots might vote to have red wine served with every hot crew meal. It could be voted on, passed, and published. What are the chances it would happen?

Given the average age of the pilot group, a vote to terminate everyone over 57 might pass. How about everyone with 35 years of service?

You cannot put something illegal in a contract, no matter how much certain people would like to.

Taking a survey does not change the rules. This nonsense is worthy of South Africa prior to Mandela, or the ravings of Robert Mugabe!

engfireleft

11th Aug 2010, 00:54

An overwhelming majority of Air Canada pilots support retirement at age 60, according to a poll conducted for their union.

It has even less credibility than their financial impact study had, and zero relevance to the legal question at hand.

Why are they wasting theirs and everybody elses time with this?

cloudcity

11th Aug 2010, 01:13

The poll showed that 82 percent of 60 percent polled or less than half of the pilots had a preference to retire before 60, so the overwhelming majority is actually statistically a minority?

a330pilotcanada

11th Aug 2010, 01:47

Good Evening Engine Fire Left:
If I may ask you a rhetorical type of question and with out using a "hot button" example so I will use a vanilla type of question so as not to offend the sensibilities here.
As you have succinctly demonstrated your passion here let us say you have lost a ruling at the C.H.R.T. and constitutionally what are your options? You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
So that being said how about every one take a very deep breath and wait for the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada after November 25 of this year.
Personally I have no interest one way or the other but there is nothing you or others can do until this is decided. As this process is started just let it run its course and in due time I am sure you will be able to comment on which ever way the decision goes. Oh by the way that is your right as a citizen of our country.....
In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved.

cloudcity

11th Aug 2010, 02:23

You have the right to apply for redress up to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is everyone's right and the seven senior jurists if they decide to accept the case are the senior intelligentsia of the legal system in our country. They will determine who is right and who is wrong in the definition of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But the current ruling is that discrimination has taken place and is taking place. The remedy went ahead and V-K have been offered reinstatement by the employer under an MOA. Is that legal?

engfireleft

11th Aug 2010, 14:44

a330pilotcanada

If this were a simple legal dispute with little in the way of potential damage I would agree with you that everybody should just chill out and wait until the end gamut has played out. But this is any simple legal dispute.

This entire country has eliminated, or is in the process of eliminating age based mandatory retirement on the grounds of discrimination. Aside from that, ACPA's original argument that age 60 is the "normal" age of retirement has been proven false even if that provision wasn't being eliminated. ICAO has gone to 65 for airline pilots along with the rest of the world removing that rationale from ACPA's meagre toolbox. ACPA's only other remaining arguement about the will of the membership and what has been agreed to in the contract has been addressed more times than I can count. Our contract cannot violate Canadian law even if 100% of the pilots think it should...end of story.

This is not rocket science.

One year ago ACPA and Air Canada were told in explicit terms by the CHRT (whose official mandate is to decide these matters) that forcing pilots to retire is discriminatory. If everything was frozen in place until ACPA exhausted every last possible measure in attempt to turn back the tide I might also agree with you to patiently wait it out. But that's not happening either. ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law.

In closing I might suggest to those who question their union why not get involved in the process as if you do not you are you are being intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt by not getting involved
This statement I take minor offence to and have trouble understanding. Just what do you think we are doing by getting involved in this issue? One of the main reasons I am so passionate about this is my absolute belief that a union should responsibly represent the best interests of its membership. ACPA has acted beyond foolish from the very start of this issue, and I am convinced they do so because of their own selfish desire to move up the ladder as quickly as possible. I agree with others that these delaying tactics are designed to move as many people out the door as possible before they are forced to desist. They don't seem to care about the liability they are forcing on us in the meantime.

This latest press release from them is a classic example of how inane their position is. No reputable polling firm on the planet would interpret one limited question on the WAWCON survey as a mandate to continue down this disastrous course. Furthermore, 100% of the pilots could support discrimination and it would change nothing. This is a matter of law and our opinion, no matter how unanimously anachronistic it may be, does not matter. They should know that.

I think this is a case of the MEC beginning to realize that the light at the end of the tunnel is an unstoppable freight train. This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan.

Regarding your statement above, we are doing union work by trying to get things back to reality.

Vic777

11th Aug 2010, 14:59

Enginefireleft says ....
ACPA and Air Canada are continuing the systemic discrimination of pilots every single month, greatly increasing the size of our liability. They can't claim ignorance because the CHRT told us to our face that we were breaking the law. The clock is indeed ticking ... "Cha-ching Cha-ching"

This press release was nothing more than their attempt to fortify the "we're only doing what the members want" defence for when the s**t hits the fan.Are there any outs? What can ACPA do at this late date to reduce or eliminate the liabilities? Is staying the course to the inevitable costly end in hope of a miracle the only viable battle plan? Maybe asking the FlyPast60 group for some kind of immediate settlement would be the way to go. The ACPA officials might actually gain prestige with this tactic, and disassociate themselves from AC.

cloudcity

11th Aug 2010, 17:29

Are there any outs? What can ACPA do at this late date to reduce or eliminate the liabilities? Is staying the course to the inevitable costly end in hope of a miracle the only viable battle plan? Maybe asking the FlyPast60 group for some kind of immediate settlement would be the way to go. The ACPA officials might actually gain prestige with this tactic, and disassociate themselves from AC.

Does the protocol for your suggestions likely doesn't even exist at this point??

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Aug 2010, 19:29

There is an interesting comment on the Avcanada forum made by a moderator.

No, but please note that Mr. Hall will no longer be contributing to these discussions.

Did Mr. Hall make a statement that was libelous and Avcanada has banned him or did he quit on his own?

engfireleft

11th Aug 2010, 20:03

No. A libelous and untrue accusation was leveled at Ray, and he advised the person who wrote it to retract the accusation. At least one of the moderators over there is hostile to eliminating mandatory retirement and has gotten away with wholesale deletions of posts advocating that position. Maybe in this instance getting rid of Ray was easier than policing the rest of the people.

Like the ACPA forum, rational discussion of this issue at AVCanada is rarely possible, and sometimes not even permitted. That's why I left and will never go back.

It is obvious that the only way this will be solved is through legal action and orders from the authorities. Even with that, ACPA is determined to continue the discriminatory practices through some other methods involving penalties to pilots over 60. Those too will have to be addressed, and are being addressed through legal mean. When ACPA and the membership finally wise up to Canadian reality version 2010 then litigation will no longer be required. But until that day ACPA and anybody else stepping over the line will get hammered over the head through legal action.

This is easy to avoid, and they bring it down on themselves.

On Glideslope

11th Aug 2010, 20:17

Cloudcity,
Re post #428

I urge you use care with your choice of interpretation of the statistical data represented by the ACPA release. Please review statistical sample sizes and their meaning prior to passing blanket statements about the validity of data gathered and the size of the sample group. While the statement should have included the sampling error (+/- N%), the sample size seems rather adequate to reflect the union members sentiments.

While my statistics textbooks are enjoying their retirement next to my calculus texts, I see no need to further elaborate on the mathematical methodologies required for collecting and interpreting such data.

Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility.

Respectfully,

On Glideslope

Idle Thrust

11th Aug 2010, 20:31

I think a word of thanks is due to Danny and his moderators for allowing free speech to continue here.
Idle.
Edited for grammar

engfireleft

11th Aug 2010, 21:15

Agreed. Long may it continue because this is it, the last forum where this can be discussed. When the final rulings have been handed down the need for an open arena to discuss what comes next is absolutely essential.

cloudcity

11th Aug 2010, 21:31

Just ask Minister Clement, speaking of mathematical issues one doesn't fully understand hardly lends itself to a sturdy platform from which to build credibility.Hi:

Point well taken. My Stats texts are also under a layer of dust in a cardboard box and maybe you've had time to analyse the entire survey and you've perhaps seen the .05 or whatever level of certification of that according to currently accepted statistical standards, but the overall point was that discrimination can't be voted away. And it's all about minorities in the first place, the smallest minority being 1. The Human Rights Act and will protect that 1 individual and they already have. The majority-minority stance is only posturing for whatever reason. They're saying some of us don't want to go past 60 so therefore we do not intend to allow anybody to do that?

royalterrace

11th Aug 2010, 23:21

I suspect that the "thought police" at AvCanada banned him.

The moderators there are well known for lacking any intestinal fortitude when the subject makes THEM feel uncomfortable.

Thankfully this forum is more enlightened.

Lost in Saigon

11th Aug 2010, 23:36

They are having a bit of a "Meltdown" right now over at the AvCanada Air Canada forum.

People repeatedly ask why Raymond hall has been banned, or speculate why, and the posts keep getting deleted or the threads get locked.

Even just commenting on the apparent censorship gets your post deleted.

AVCANADA • View forum - Air Canada (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewforum.php?f=31&sid=68ff487df2c0ea45a2c74ef4c012828a)

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Aug 2010, 23:40

I think a word of thanks is due to Danny and his moderators for allowing free speech to continue here.

I second your sentiments.

Avcanada used to be a place where one could intelligently discuss these matters without being penalized by those who have taken over control of content.

I personally had no problems with posting "ALL " the facts surrounding my legal battle with TCCA over the past years, for that I must thank Joe the owner of the forum.

I never posted anything that I could not back up with irrefutable documentation and that protected Avcanada from being harassed for what I said.

I am dismayed at how few of my colleagues in aviation understand the meaning of rule of law.

Chuck Ellsworth

11th Aug 2010, 23:59

They are having a bit of a "Meltdown" right now over at the AvCanada Air Canada forum.

It is not only the Air Canada forum that is affected, it is any forum where anyone has an opinion or thought that does not pass their thought police.

Maybe the Canadian forum here at Pprune will pick up some of Avcanadas rejects?

Lost in Saigon

12th Aug 2010, 00:32

Here is the latest post to get axed at AvCanada. I guess they are not too good at handling criticism or competition.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/Airline/Clipboard02.jpg

a330pilotcanada

12th Aug 2010, 02:42

The following is a cut and paste from AVCANADA:

It has come to my attention that AVCANADA has banned Raymond Hall from posting on the Forum. I find this to be VERY disturbing as he was the only person who could accurately comment on the whole age 60 fiasco.

I never read anything from him inflammatory. The only inflammatory remarks were made by others.
Why has Raymond Hall been banned?[/font]

yycflyguy response

Really Lost? Nothing inflammatory from Ray? Threatening former colleagues with litigation based on legitimate questions?

While I agree that he could accurately comment on the flypast60 perspective he certainly hasn't offered solutions to the questions many have been asking him. Threats of future lawsuits, accusations of defamation, slander and libel, RCMP discrimination investigations against those who he has worked with resulting in the ACPA forum shutting down, meanwhile blindly leading the charge of "discrimination" which will adversely affect every ACPA member with a seniority number lower than those victimized by this unjust system that HE supported and benefited from... until 60.

I find this entire "fiasco" inflammatory.

R.O.E. from Avcanada

Just coming back after a tour at work, I'm astounded at what's going on in here.

I don't know much about the Retirement at 60 subject, nor do I particularly care. However, after reviewing the manner in which it has been "discussed," and I use the term loosely, I have wonder if there's something in the water at Air Canada lately?

This is a private site, and as such there are clear forum rules for conduct and they must be followed if posting privileges are to be kept. It is that simple. The vitriol, slander, attacks, and general bickering on display in the removed topic(s) are in contravention of those rules - rules to which we have all agreed on upon registration to the site. There is a PM button available, if you really feel the need to say something along those lines, use it.

This has generally been the most professional forum on the site, but this last round has certainly not lived up to that billing. To clarify where Avcanada stands on this topic:

It is NOT a taboo subject - yet. Joe is very close to giving the whole topic a 6 month holiday.

If the subject can be discussed without contravention of the site rules, then it will stay. The CHRT Remedy Ruling thread will stay, but some of the latest posts have been removed as they are not on topic.

Any personal attacks, slander, naming of names, or vicious posts will be removed, the users warned accordingly, and they will be given a small vacation.

It is not WHAT is being discussed, or who is discussing it as some of you would like to believe, nor is it political censorship, it is simply how it is being discussed that is the issue for Joe and the Moderators.

I hope we are clear on this, and if there are any further questions, please feel free to PM me as I'm between fire flaps at the moment and should have time to respond.

bcflyer

12th Aug 2010, 05:29

Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here?

Vic777

12th Aug 2010, 08:56

Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here?Well, for one thing ... don't use your real name on any of the forums.

yycflyguy

12th Aug 2010, 18:03

As a lawyer, perhaps you could clarify a few things to those mere pilots that don't have law books in their library.

To successfully win a defamation lawsuit do you not need to prove:

1. Malicious intent directed solely at you.
2. Public humiliation.
3. Some sort of financial penalty incurred as a result of the slander.

AvCanada is a private forum (contrary to point #2) requiring a membership and there were no comments made towards you that would alter your status as Retired Airline Pilot or Barrister. You chose to post under your real name and that is not required anywhere under the terms of use.

Looks like you wouldn't have much of a defamation case but you still brought out the heavy guns.

Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here?

Yup.

Lost in Saigon

12th Aug 2010, 19:13

AvCanada is not a private forum. You can do a Google search find Raymond Hall or anyone else on the AvCanada Forum.

AvCanada should have deleted the offending posters who slandered Raymond Hall. All he did was remind the offenders that slandering someone is not good and could have consequences.

Instead of banning the slanderers, they banned Ray for speaking the truth, and banned me for asking why he was banned.

They also deleted posts that called the whole thing censorship.

engfireleft

12th Aug 2010, 19:56

It's interesting how threats of loss of bidding privileges, loss of pension benefits, and an intentionally hostile work environment are perfectly acceptable to the ACPA and AvCanada moderators. But advise someone of the possibility of legal action absent a retraction of online libel and you find yourself tossed from the premises.

It's a screwy world we live in.

dhc2widow

12th Aug 2010, 20:04

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to stay out of this conversation?

:mad:

royalterrace

12th Aug 2010, 20:15

dhc2widow

Get lost.

Go back and "moderate" your own forum.

cloudcity

12th Aug 2010, 20:21

No matter what venue you want to name, Ray Hall has provided nothing but the finest solid unbiased information with regard to the current case of discrimination that is before the courts.

He has given countless hours of his time to provide the most comprehensive summaries of legal information with regard to all aspects of the issue, in response to the questions of a huge number of individuals.

In fact, most of the pertinent questions have been repeated ad infinitum and despite that, have always been met with the same factual measured response. In fact, the wealth of factual information is nothing short of amazing. Anybody can attest to that, and where all of the factual information has not been right at hand the response has always been measured and qualified.

In anybody's opinion, the value of that kind of resource is immeasurable.

The ACPA Forum had the distinct advantage of his generous input but chose to exclude him to the detriment of their own membership. So too with his denied participation in meetings. The first thing you would assume is that the Association would have an obligation to permit their own members to learn the real facts, and the real case. It's their loss unfortunately because there are no doubt a lot of guys out there who have serious questions and who want the real correct straightforward serious answers. But those avenues seem to be systematically closed down.

The recent display at AvCanada on their Forum included a string of outright personal slander against Mr. Hall and in response he was banned from that Forum as well, through no fault of his own. If you can't even protect yourself against that kind of activity without incurring retribution yourself, that speaks volumes about what went completely wrong. Sure there were a lot of guys over there who got the afterburners on way too early, and it's a hot topic but where was the response to that.

It was however a good move by the Moderators to bring the hammer down on that Forum and those particular threads, but unfortunately the element that was clearly at error was somehow missed. Not to criticize the Moderators. Trying to ride herd on that is like trying to herd a bunch of cats that are on fire. It's not easy and kudos to them for at least diving in there and taking some kind of action.

But as anyone who has read the items in question, surely an apology must be due to Mr. Hall for the part of that action that saw him adversely affected for no reason and which only served to reinforce the actions of those who are in it for a brawl.

OldCanuckPilot

12th Aug 2010, 20:37

As a long time reader, but non-poster here, and a far longer time aviator in Canada and around the world, I am embarrassed, disgusted, and truly appalled at the behavior of pretty much everyone here.

This is professional pilots/lawyers "discussing" a topic? This is what is representing our profession to the public? You people are like a cohort of school-ground children squabbling over a nickel for lunch. There is no wonder why the profession has eroded to the point where it is today if this is representative of the level of intelligence, patience, and communication used to further our cause.

To all of you sitting behind your computers posting this childish drivel, please keep you mouths shut when at work, because if I have to knowingly share a flight deck with any one of you it'll push me to early retirement. What has the world come to that this behavior is acceptable? Everyone shouts, nobody listens, and you're all big men when there's no requirement to speak face to face.

Truly disgusted.

Jim

engfireleft

12th Aug 2010, 21:35

Actually I don't see any real problem with a few of us undesirables getting punted off their forum because they still have 30,000 desirables left.

I don't see a problem with it either. In fact I didn't give them a chance and left on my own.

It's a shame though because there is not enough discussion about this and it is getting harder and harder to find a venue for it. When this issue first landed at the CHRT I knew very little about it, but made sure I read up. After looking at what is happening in the rest of the country vis-a-vis mandatory retirement, and specifically at the worldwide pilot issue with ICAO's initiative, it was obvious to me this was a done deal. No amount of hot air from the peanut gallery would change it even a tiny bit.

I didn't get vocal about it until I saw what ACPA was doing, and I saw nothing but disaster on the horizon if they persisted on this course. Their behavior on this issue from the start has violated their obligation to provide responsible representation to the membership. Their most recent actions flagrantly violate their duty to provide fair representation to all their members. And since August 28th, 2009 they have been violating Canadian law through unabated discrimination of it's pilots over the age of 60.

These have resulted in legal action against them and while they of course deny everything, what will they do when these legal actions go against them? Will they admit they were wrong? Oooops...sorry about that. By the way, here's a special assessment against each and every one of you for $??,???, please pay as quickly as you can because after all, we were only doing what you wanted us to do.

dhc2widow

12th Aug 2010, 23:55

Look up.

royalterrace appears to have been banned.

so has Raymond777, and some of his posts removed to boot.

engfireleft

13th Aug 2010, 00:35

Gee, I see Pprune has banned a couple of people.

It's a shame no moderators on any forum see fit to rein in the excessiveness on the other side of the debate. C'est la vie.

I vote we shut down any and all discussion everywhere it may appear. Then we'll just let the various legal processes run their course and figure out a way to live with the results afterwards without benefit of discourse. Nothing anybody says here will effect the outcome anyway.

I'll go first.

Ciao

cloudcity

13th Aug 2010, 04:32

The problem is there's not enough knowledge outside of the few on this forum who have a sound legal grasp of the issues to make any kind of reasonable exchange possible, and the one with the most knowledge gets excluded and you know what? It might just be because this is just too complicated for 99 percent of everybody to understand so the 1 percent with the knowledge base gets punted.

It's like you're at the library and you don't take the big book home because you just don't get what's in it.

So once you exclude the guys with the brains this is what you're left with.

YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM)

bcflyer

13th Aug 2010, 06:04

I would guess that Mr Halls behaviour away from the forums could have the owners of Pprune and Avcanada running scared. If I was one of them I certainly wouldn't want to get dragged into court over something that was posted on my site...

PPRuNe Towers

13th Aug 2010, 11:50

Scared?

I've informed Uncle Ray that giving the appearances of being a litigious little sausage he can run his own site elsewhere or indemnify PPRuNe. It appears, at first glance, forums have a problem when our chum is around.

Now my judgement is that he needs us far more than we need him. It appears to me that sites and threads have difficulties. It also appears to me that those dificulties seem, entirely coincidently, to occur when he is involved in discussions.

Not withstanding the American law on 'union house' conversation, 1st amendment rights or even the President's recent moves on the subject I'll work on my established, primitive, animistic basis. If there is wind I see the trees waving and bending. Therefore the trees are making the wind.

And thus with Raymond.

Regards
Rob

Oh, and Chuck - enough of the attention seeking. Wrong thread so sod off.

Vic777

13th Aug 2010, 15:47

PPRuNe Towers

13th Aug 2010, 19:17

Nah, simply stop visiting you posturing ninny.

Rpob

Idle Thrust

13th Aug 2010, 21:21

Well said Towers - gotta luv Brit humour!

Flytdeck

13th Aug 2010, 22:15

Nah, simply stop visiting you posturing ninny.

Rpob

Re the humour, it certainly lacks any intelligence, doesn't it?

Age 60+ is an emotional issue. So was the Magna Carta. If the issue was not important, it would not generate such emotion. The 1215 charter committed the King not to punish a freeman unless under the rule of law. Don't imagine King John was too pleased with THAT! He likely would have loved to censor the rabble who was forcing his hand to sign the document. It was, understandably, disrupting his court and Monarchy. It would have been so much easier for him to maintain the status quo.

Changes in the retirement age, motivated by the evolution of societies perceptions, are causing similar disruptions. It would be so much easier to maintain the status quo. Therefore, silence the rabble as they are making things so difficult! Well done PPrune! King John would be PROUD!:D

OldCanuckPilot

13th Aug 2010, 22:49

Excellent analogy.

Yes, the Magna Carta and Air Canada's age 60 retirement debate share so much in common.

I've been follow said debate over on the other site, and it seems to me a rather substantial section of you are confused as to what you're being told. Looks like some mature communication skills would go a long way to helping continue said debate.

Jim

I lifted this:

- It is NOT a taboo subject - yet. Joe is very close to giving the whole topic a 6 month holiday.

- If the subject can be discussed without contravention of the site rules, then it will stay. The CHRT Remedy Ruling thread will stay, but some of the latest posts have been removed as they are not on topic.

- Any personal attacks, slander, naming of names, or vicious posts will be removed, the users warned accordingly, and they will be given a small vacation.

- It is not WHAT is being discussed, or who is discussing it as some of you would like to believe, nor is it political censorship, it is simply how it is being discussed that is the issue for Joe and the Moderators.

gasbag1

14th Aug 2010, 17:31

cloudcity

14th Aug 2010, 18:27

Raymond is a lawyer who represents and has given legal advise to many pilots who are feeling discriminated. Mr. Hall is the legal representative at the CHRC for many of those pilots.

Has any one heard of or seen an active lawyer participating on a forum public, private of otherwise while a case is active? I would think not. And it would appear that "mining these sites" is all that is really being done to support Ray's legal case at the CHRC.

Actually those comments are way off base. That 'mining' theme has been flogged around the patch for so long now it's got wheels. It's pretty much the only thing anybody can think of to justify the screaming and yelling. It's just a sour grapes thing that goes round and round and round. Raymond has put forward the most pertinent factual and legally correct information with regard to these issues that you could imagine, and of all things he's the one that gets excluded.

As a gentleman who has been heavily involved in ACPA matters from an executive standpoint his wealth of information on any of these topics is second to none. He answers everybody's questions in a straighforward factual manner and really welcomes anybody who wants information on these topics and is tireless in his contributions. If there's anything that needs more information he always qualifies that. If somebody else's argument is better he always accepts that. He's the real deal, the debater's debater.

There are a lot of hot button topics and they always attract an element of ranting and raving from some individuals whose only means of communication is to really get in there and first of all try to rip a great big strip off the messenger with threats, innuendo, etc., etc. Sometimes the personal attacks get downright banal.

That's why it has become evident that these forums are not really up to the par that you would expect when information of that depth is being offered because there are so many listeners who just simply do not understand any of it, period. And what you can't figure out, well in redneck country, you just shoot it through the head and drive away.

That's why you can't put a big pile of Type A personality pilots in the same room with a guy who has a lot of really complicated legal knowledge. The guys just don't understand any of it so it's like just get the hell out of the way, thanks. Most of them could get in a argument if they were all alone. Pilots are like that. That's why the divorce rate is about 700 times the national average. They just like a good old scrap.

If Raymond is not here the information that's being discussed on the 'hot' topic is generally just wrong, incomplete, or just misleading. There are a lot of guys who want the real correct info. Of all things the guy with the most correct information on it is not here and that's everybody's loss. But the rumor is there will shortly be another forum where anybody can go to get the facts straight as an arrow. This present forum is fun but as the moderators will attest it just gets too randy on these hot topics and it's too much work herding pilots.

Chuck Ellsworth

14th Aug 2010, 19:22

This present forum is fun but as the moderators will attest it just gets too randy on these hot topics and it's too much work herding pilots.

I'll risk getting told to sod off again to inject some humor here. :)

Question:

If you lock a pilot in a room with two steel balls in the evening, what will you find come morning?

Answer:

He has lost one and broken the other. :E

gasbag1

15th Aug 2010, 00:09

I will disagree with you in the mining comment. The legal record stands and many posts were submitted as evidence at the CHRT, whether I agree with the posts or their specific tone is another matter.

I still believe that a lawyer in an active legal case, representing clients, should not be on public or private forums, offering opinions and answering questions from his perspective. Whether he was/is a pilot, former MEC Chairman is not relevant. At this time he is an officer of the court acting in that position. Ray should be wise enough to stay well away from forums.

Itsaliving66

15th Aug 2010, 00:33

That notion has always puzzled me as well Gasbag. Most lawyers have always used the "no comment" line when legal matters are still pending. This, IMO, is why ACPA is unable to spout about the case. The nay-sayers will assert that ACPA wants to keep its' members in the dark because of the impending drubbing. One things for sure, the forums only provide the FP60 side of things.
Know this : Our opinions don't matter a lick.

bunkhog

15th Aug 2010, 11:54

Maybe Ray is hoping to have an airport named after him for his stellar legal advice....or an old age home more suitably!

clunckdriver

15th Aug 2010, 12:56

Itsaliving66, What you say is true, but if one is running for elected office, then public exposure is the way to go, this may be the reason Ray has gone this route, only he can answer this. {He is by the way running for election to "Fort Fumble" in Ottawa.} Maybe a bit of CRM can raise the level of debate in the house, it sure could use it!

777longhaul

20th Aug 2010, 19:34

The age 60 IVR vote that was used in the current news release by acpa.

The vote was taken in 2006. Not 2010. The rules, were different then.

For those of you, who like to see that 80% of the pilots supported the mandatory retirement of 60. Do the math, less than 50% of the ac pilots supported the age 60 issue.

IVR # 72
May 8 2006

Certified, Audited results:

3083 eligible voters

1840 voted

1382 yes

0458 no

so only 1382 of 3082 voted yes. LESS than 1/2 the members voted to fight this. acpa is not, representing its members.

A new poll, which acpa would never do, would show even less yes votes.

The world has changed, and so should acpa,ac, and the individuals who only see the world in the rearview mirror.

The issue of greed, well it is common to all of us. So, the constant flogging of the FP60 group is just plain greedy, is no more, or no less, than the greed of the middle and junior pilots, they want the seniors out of the way, so they can get more money, its greed on their part, no more no less than the FP60.

breguet

20th Aug 2010, 20:48

I believe that ACPA is representing the members who care to vote and express their opinion. The 50% or so (more or less) that did not vote are not interested in what is actually happening at ACPA and they should not be crying if a course of action they dislike is taken.

After 15 years at AC I retired at 60. And I am very happy about it because the work does not interfere with my life anymore... I am enjoying retirement.

Personally, I do not understand someone who got a full pension and still wants to work...those guys have a real big personnal problem more likely problems. Everybody that I know around me, just wishes to be retired and not work anymore and they are not pilots.

May be a psy could provide some explanation...

12435

21st Aug 2010, 14:57

re greed: Don't call the juniors greedy, please, you are not fooling anyone. We only want what you already had. The same. There is only one group that wants MORE, that is the 60+ group, that is greedy.

Again, expecting the same progression, status quo, not greedy.

Having advanced due to retirements and wanting to stay at the top, greedy, real simple.

Stop spreading distortions on the subject, it is straight forward, the courts will decide. Your propaganda machine is well oiled, I give you that.

Joseph Keisinger

12435

21st Aug 2010, 15:06

777longhaul, you have either been off the property for a while, OR you are one of the many that could not be bothered with the latetest WACON survey. I suspect the latter, in which case, thanks for taking the time to help out ACPA and therefore us all, not!

The press release numbers would be based on the recent survey held this year, very proportionate and therefore representative results.

Joseph Keisinger

MackTheKnife

21st Aug 2010, 16:15

"Again, expecting the same progression, status quo, not greedy"

Then I suggest you give up that First Officer job you were hired directly into and go back and spend 6 - 12 years as a Second Officer. Then and only then might you understand what progression is all about.

MTK

rick3333331

21st Aug 2010, 16:36

Hi Joseph Keisinger,

I congratulated you for letting us know who you are. So maybe Joseph, you can tell us why you deserve to be an Air Canada pilot. The reason i ask such a question is because you were hired when you were over the age of thirty.

Maybe you are unaware of the history of this great airline ???? Six Transport Canada pilots had to appear before a Human Rights Tribunal to raise the hiring age. It was Air Canada's position that once you were over the age of 27 they would not hire you. They also would not hire you if you were female, wore glasses, shorter than 5'7", to name but a few. There was some exceptions but for the vast majority their career at AC was not to be. To state the obvious, you most likely wouldn't be here.

I was one of the lucky one...I was hired over the age of thirty...as was everyone in our course and to this day I am eternally thankful. Since you don't know me...but maybe you do............many things i am but one of those is not greedy.

Maybe you could tell us why you were the exception because hundreds of us here are grateful that we were given this opportunity by men and women that we do not know.

Respectfully submitted.

12435

21st Aug 2010, 16:42

MTK, with respect, but getting hired at age 20, being given a multi engine rating by Air Canada, and then sitting sideways seeing the world while building pension time and enjoying benefits is NOT a hardship. It was winning the lottery. Not to mention the purchasing power of that salary at the time. Or living in "the south".

Speaking strictly for myself here, but my story is more the norm and not the exception for pilots of my vintage/seniority. While you (your vintage/currently close to 60 pilots) enjoyed layovers I had 14 different employers (some shorter contracts) building my time to make myself marketable. Always new SOPs, different types, moving, different licences and validations, exams etc etc. Not whining here, I loved it.

By the time I got to the "direct entry FO" on the DC9 in 2000, I had 50 seat command time, tons of 12500+ turbinePIC, taken off and landed on eskers, roads, rough seas, ice, on the bare tundra, in and out of the fjords of Norway, moved god knows how many times, ALWAYS with the hope and goal in mind of that job at the major. And compared to the guys in my 550 class, I was low time. We had heavy jet command guys, highly experienced military pilots; We all paid our dues my friend. Just not in a cushy way/seat.

Finally here, my group has seen a lot of stagnation already, loss of purchasing power approaching 50% of what my seat paid a decade ago, and now you guys are coming for us too. Fair enough, but please spare us the " you didn't sit sideways". That is pathetic.

BTW, many of us were RP's/SO's too.

rant over, flame away or pm me with your real name if you want to chat.

Joseph

rick3333331

21st Aug 2010, 17:51

Joseph,

The Canadian Human Rights Act (1977), the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the Parliament of Canada,and individuals standing up for your rights helped you and I [to name but a few] fly for Air Canada....................Are you telling us that these institutions and these men and women played no part in your being hired ??

"I say again", Air Canada did not hire pilots over the age of 27. You were very close to being 31.

Would appreciate your views....Please share your wisdom with us.

Respectfully submitted.

R.

MackTheKnife

21st Aug 2010, 17:56

"MTK, with respect, but getting hired at age 20, being given a multi engine rating by Air Canada, and then sitting sideways seeing the world while building pension time and enjoying benefits is NOT a hardship. It was winning the lottery.

Your absolutely right about one thing. When I got hired I felt I had won the lottery. After 8 yrs in general aviation, being hired in my late 20's, FULLY QUALIFIED, spending 11 years as a Second Officer watching someone else do the job I wanted to do, then 9 as a First Officer, I finally got promoted when I was 48. No you didn't read that wrong. TWENTY years with the company to make left seat. Admittedly if I had bid to the bottom and moved to YWG I could have had it about 6 yrs sooner.

I actually got to spend 2 1/2 yrs in my dream job as a wide body Captain, until some outdated arbitrary line in a pension document said I could no longer enjoy what I had worked my entire life to attain.

"loss of purchasing power approaching 50% of what my seat paid a decade ago"

For some reason you think this only applies to your generation. Every one on the property has paid dearly the last 10 years for which you have a succession of gutless MEC members :yuk: and everyone who voted YES to blame for it.

Yes, I know, you voted NO, like every one else I talked to.

My "rant" is also over.

yycflyguy

21st Aug 2010, 18:06

Speaking strictly for myself here, but my story is more the norm and not the exception for pilots of my vintage/seniority. While you (your vintage/currently close to 60 pilots) enjoyed layovers I had 14 different employers (some shorter contracts) building my time to make myself marketable. Always new SOPs, different types, moving, different licences and validations, exams etc etc. Not whining here, I loved it.

By the time I got to the "direct entry FO" on the DC9 in 2000, I had 50 seat command time, tons of 12500+ turbinePIC, taken off and landed on eskers, roads, rough seas, ice, on the bare tundra, in and out of the fjords of Norway, moved god knows how many times, ALWAYS with the hope and goal in mind of that job at the major. And compared to the guys in my 550 class, I was low time. We had heavy jet command guys, highly experienced military pilots; We all paid our dues my friend. Just not in a cushy way/seat.

Finally here, my group has seen a lot of stagnation already, loss of purchasing power approaching 50% of what my seat paid a decade ago, and now you guys are coming for us too. Fair enough, but please spare us the " you didn't sit sideways". That is pathetic.

BTW, many of us were RP's/SO's too.

Your story is commonplace with the generation of pilots that were hired from 2000 and on. :ok:

engfireleft

21st Aug 2010, 20:52

Everybody has the worst "poor me and my pathetic life so far, further ruined forever by your disgusting greed" story, but here are the facts:

1. Mandatory age based retirement is over in this country, and that includes Air Canada.

2. Air Canada and ACPA can continue to bash their face against the wall but they will find it increasingly costly to do so, because they are not going to turn this tide around. If they haven't figured that out yet there is no hope whatsoever for this pilot group.

3. You can blame whoever you like for as long as you like, but it will not change fact number 1.

4. When the majority of those fighting this reach that magic age of 60 they may retire or they may not. But they will be grateful that someone endured the massive **** and abuse thrown at them by way of thanks for forcing Air Canada into the 21st century and obeying the law.

12435

22nd Aug 2010, 02:36

Rick3333331, sorry I am only getting back to you this late.

Actually I was 29 when I was hired, but I'll give you my view on your in my opinion flawed logic anyhow.

To start, I also consider myself lucky to be picked out of the vast pool of applicants, and I am grateful. Not better, just lucky. Having said that, please try to follow this approach.

When the age limit was 27 all the below 27 years of age pilots competed for the job. Even today with no limit on age for hiring, it is still true that the vast majority of pilots in Canada will not work for AC. So the only thing that changed when the limit was lifted was the pool of pilots the company could look at.

The average age of our new hires is high because the pool of pilots offers the company a great ratio of time/experience (safe) and time remaining to serve/return on investment (age). That is why most newhires have thousands of hours and years of experience, because the market can produce it. That is why we don't seem to hire 21 year old 500 hour wonders OR 56 year old widebody skippers. I am sure there are plenty of application from both those extreme demographics.

So back to your question: I submit that when the limit was 27, most of the people hired since the change would have been the (roughly) same type, just hired a bit sooner in their life, as they would have been looked at by AC BEFORE they hit 27, with what ever experience they had then.In other words, you and I might well have been hired with LESS time but EARLIER in our flying lives. You can't take your or my "hiring environment" and transplant it into the past. I had 3500 hours when I was 24, would that have made me competetive back in the day before the change? I think so.

In essence that change benefited a small group of people at the time (ie. late to start flying, career change from military to civilian etc.) For the rest of us the goal posts were moved. You now had to have thousands of hours (and would just by the nature of the beast be older).

Much like the present 60+ situation, where also a small group of people would benefit for the next 5 years, and for the rest of us, the goal posts would be moved. I know, I would also benefit by being able to go to 65, or still retire at 60...... we all know both comes at a great cost to my vintage, no, actually anybody not in the top paying position at AC not close to age 60 would pay dearly. Career earnings.....

MTK said:For some reason you think this only applies to your generation. Every one on the property has paid dearly the last 10 years for which you have a succession of gutless MEC members http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/pukey.gif and everyone who voted YES to blame for it.

Of course we all were hit with the same concessions (more or less). But there are about 1000 pilots here now that have never even been on a "good" pre CCAA contract. You were hired at age 28, even if you just retired you had 22 years (or more if you retired a while ago) when the job (any pilot job at AC with the exception of flat pay) paid very well.

Rick3333331, wrt the CHRA, CHRC, CHRT and their provincial and territorial counterparts; it has become an absolute racket. Government lawyers and civil servants keeping each other busy, on our dime. Please read Ezra Levants book Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights (http://books.google.com/books?id=Cf10fE2hP4cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=shakedown+levant&ei=Wy7CSrf1KYG0yQTuh63NBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false). McLelland & Stewart. 2009. ISBN (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0771046189 (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0771046189). We should all be outraged

BTW, PEN Canada (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/PEN_Canada),[39] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-38) the Canadian Association of Journalists (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Canadian_Association_of_Journalists)[40] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-39), and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Canadian_Civil_Liberties_Association)[41] (http://www.pprune.org/#cite_note-40) — all have called for reform of the commissions.

edit for spelling

engfireleft

22nd Aug 2010, 16:54

we all know both comes at a great cost to my vintage, no, actually anybody not in the top paying position at AC not close to age 60 would pay dearly. Career earnings.....

Career earnings is an empty argument. The junior 320 FO in Toronto with reinstatements rights back to EMJ CA sits at 98% on the 320 list. That means 98% of the 320 FO's in Toronto could have had his position and could be making 30K more a year, but chose not to. It is a similar story as you work up the line. As a group we choose to give up massive amounts of career earnings on our own, so it's more than a little disingenuous to use it as an argument against eliminating mandatory retirement.

Rick3333331, wrt the CHRA, CHRC, CHRT and their provincial and territorial counterparts; it has become an absolute racket.

There are no doubt excesses like requiring a flower shop to hire someone who is allergic to flowers, and there is a point where individual rights cross the boundry of absurd. But that doesn't mean everything the human rights protectorate in this country does is bad. Age discrimination is still being practiced at Air Canada, and the only reason people agree with it is because they want to progress up the chain faster. That's not a good enough reason to force someone out of a job against their will.

12435

22nd Aug 2010, 18:33

As a group we choose to give up massive amounts of career earnings on our own, so it's more than a little disingenuous to use it as an argument against eliminating mandatory retirement.

The only thing dishonest is to deny the fact that we all balance lifestyle with pay. So, for example, one chooses to wait until 50% on any list, if you and your brethren plug up the top jobs, it will take longer to get to that next position at that ratio, ergo loss of earnings. This holds true all the way up the list, REGARDLESS of one bidding the best job one can hold to the bottom OR waiting until some magical percentile on the list. There is a limited number of jobs for us to choose from, and by not honouring your contractual retirement, you WILL be holding people up. Logical, undeniable and you know it. You are NOT fooling anyone.

There are no doubt excesses like requiring a flower shop to hire someone who is allergic to flowers, and there is a point where individual rights cross the boundry of absurd.

Can't but agree with you there, plenty of absurd and even disgusting rulings out there. To say nothing of the process itself.

outa here

engfireleft

22nd Aug 2010, 18:59

The only thing dishonest is to deny the fact that we all balance lifestyle with pay.

I don't deny it at all. There are many valid reasons why someone would delay upgrading to the next higher paying position. However expecting people to leave their job unwillingly so that you can upgrade when you feel your lifestyle won't be too inconvenienced is kind of like having your cake and eating it too isn't it? The fact of the matter is any delay in reaching that magical mix of pay and lifestyle is more than made up for by upgrading earlier and working the occasional weekend.

So, it remains your choice to lose career earnings.

bunkhog

22nd Aug 2010, 20:25

Ahhhhh..but apparently coming back to the right seat of an EMB...even while making 777 FO pay isn't tolerable to some. And I asked the question to Mssr V a few years ago about what he could hold if he came back; he said 767 CA.

But that's only if everyone else ahead of him chose to retire as was in the contract. Otherwise...our Mssr V could be a 767 FO until well into his 90's...assuming everyone chooses to use their new found right to stay until whenever the hell they want.

Regarding "massive" losses of income...there is someone at 98% on every airplane in the fleet. The bottom guy on the 767 has captins junior to him on the 320. So if I choose to sit in the right seat a bit longer because my kids are still home and I want to coach them in hockey, I choose to do it. In fact, if I choose to stay there until I am 60, and then follow the contract and retire, it is my choice.

But when a bunch of guys who have benifited their whole career by the Lanks, and Burbanks, and Spracklins of the time retiring after 35 or 39 years and opening a spot at the top......now decide they are at the top and, well, damnit, I like it here...think I'll stay...affects my ability to move up, I have a problem with it.

Chuck Ellsworth

22nd Aug 2010, 20:32

Now that I am retired from aviation but still travel by air occasionally I can't help but wonder if all this resentment between so many Air Canada pilots carries over into the cockpit thus degrading CRM and thus safety?

777longhaul

22nd Aug 2010, 23:16

Movements up the seniority list:

All, the pilots that retired at 60, could have filed a complaint with the CHRC.

IF>>>>they did not, did not want to, why bother, or for what ever reason they choose not to, they do not have any legal rights to their lost seniority.

The pilot has one year to file a legal complaint. Thats it.

The pilot must do it him/her self. The CHRC has a very demanding course of action, and the paperwork etc, must be exactly correct, or they will not accept your individual application. It must be a factual issue, as they will not entertain non legal issues. In this case, it is age discrimination, as defined by the laws of Canada.

So, they (previous pilots under 60) gave up their positions with out a fight. So....the only way, a pilot can lay any claim to his/her position, when they reach the age of 60, is to file a legal claim with the CHRC, within one year of being discriminated against due to age, following the guidelines of the government, and the laws of the land.

So, by age 61, without a legal claim filed and accepted by the CHRC, they have no legal rights. As a result, their seniority number was given up by free will. Read that again, by free will.

So the fact that all the pilots (V/K) and the rest of the FP60 group, benefited by pilots following the contract before them is not correct. Only a small group of pilots filled the necesssary claims, and only a small group want to go past 60, for what ever their personal and varied reasons are.

V/K will get their rightful seniority, as per the courts view of the matter. The pilots that retired before them gave up their seniority number, by their own free will. They did not have to do that. They could have filed the discrimnation claim with the CHRC, but they choose, not to.

That would not be happening, if acpa would have gotten on the other side of this issue, they elected not to, have spent enourmous amounts of everyones dues, (including mine) fighting this issue.

Joesph

Please show me the certified audited results, with the time and date for the IVR vote that was specific to a CURRENT age 60 issue. The one that you are refering to.

I know you cant, as there is not such an IVR vote done, since the one I posted earlier on this forum. (May 2006) The current WACON surrvey, and that is just a survey, has not been posted, and we all, get only what acpa wants us to see. To say that 80% of the pilots voted against the age 60 issue is an outright lie, by acpa. How can you call that a Vote, it was a surrvey.

If, acpa wants to post all the survey responses, and let us all see it, then maybe, we could trust what they are saying, and proof it out, now, it is just a propoganda item, with misleading numbers. Do you not find it unusual, that the last IVR vote, was in 2006, and less than 50% of the pilots were in favour of the fight against the age 60 issue, and now all of a sudden they are 80% against. When has a 80% number, in any kind of vote ever happened in acpa?

I assume you are in contact with acpa, why dont you suggest/insist, they have another IVR vote?

Do you think, that if, acpa wanted the numbers to look real good, that they would have had another IVR vote, so that they could show it to the CHRC and the CHRT? They did not, and for good reason they did not. It would not work to help their case.

The last IVR was in 2006. The pilots that voted against age 60 are now 4 years older. Some, of them will now be in favour of the right to fly past 60, as they are now there, and some, not all, might....want to stay. The IVR vote would be very different.

The food chain move up, is further down the road, it has not been taken away, disappeared, or vaporized, you and all of us will get to work past 60 if you want to. When the day comes for you, and you must decide to go or stay, you will have that option.

There are many pilots who say nothing about this issue, as was indicated by the last IVR vote. They do not want to pay personal money, out of their own pocket, to fight the legal battle, but they want the laws changed, before they get to 60, so they can have the choice. They are the silent majority, letting the FP60 group fight the fight, and they will just enjoy the benefit, at zero cost to them. Thats life.

Each year this drags out, the FP60 group gets bigger and bigger, so the stalling tactics that have been shoved at the FP60 group, have just compounded the issues. That was really dumb.

The courts will make the final decissions, and that is where it will end up.

Did not have to go that way, but the lack of thinking in acpa, and to some extend ac, have built a wall between the pilots. This is exactly, what ac wants, especially when it is negotiations time. Just anther example of how, ac plays the pilot group, around and around.

Your journey to ac was very long and difficult, more than some, and less than others. I hope you get to enjoy your time remaining at ac. It will be interesting to see, when your time comes, if you cross the line into the 60's, and continue to work via your own free will.

To bad we dont have an acpa list with the pilots putting their names on it, one side shows no I WILL not work past 60, and the others saying YES they will work past 60.

You should make an effort to read the contracts prior to the mid 1980's. You will not find the mandatory references to forced retirement, they were put in much later. So to say that everyone is supposed to follow the contract, doesnt hold up. You were not there, so there is no way you would know that.

What will you do?

OKFINE

23rd Aug 2010, 00:35

Regards the status of Mssr V. To my knowledge he was never a Cmdt. at AC.
And in my opinion he ought never be one. Said opinion has nothing to do with his seniority or entitlement. Do you catch my drift; or am I being obtuse?

Last line with acknowledgment to "The Shawshank Redemption.

cloudcity

23rd Aug 2010, 02:04

OKFINE Wrote

Regards the status of Mssr V. To my knowledge he was never a Cmdt. at AC.
And in my opinion he ought never be one. Said opinion has nothing to do with his seniority or entitlement. Do you catch my drift; or am I being obtuse?
Last line with acknowledgment to "The Shawshank Redemption.

Warden Samuel Norton (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0348409/): [icy] Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Sodomites. You'll think you've been ****** by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?

Your best strategy would be to play up the obtuse thing.

obtuse: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/obtuse)

adj., -tus·er, -tus·est.
Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.The alternate route of not being obtuse leads down a couple of different roads.

H. Offence Provisions (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp394-e.htm#H.%20Offence)
Under sections 59 and 60 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is an offence for anyone to threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that person has made a complaint of discrimination or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of a complaint or other proceeding under the Act. Section 60 specifically provides that anyone who fails to comply with the terms of an approved settlement under the Act, who obstructs a tribunal in carrying out its duties, or contravenes certain statutory prohibitions, such as section 59, is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine. In the case of an employer, employer association or employee organization, this fine is not to exceed $50,000; in any other case, the fine is not to exceed $5,000.
A prosecution for an offence under the Act is by way of summary proceedings, which may be initiated either by the complainant or by the Commission. Once the matter is turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation, however, it is for the Attorney General of Canada to determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted, and if so, to carry it through the criminal court system. Section 60(4) provides that no prosecution can be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

OKFINE

23rd Aug 2010, 03:58

"Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one."

Thanks for the insight. Obtuse it shall be then. Better still I'll make it an acute case of obtuse, if you think that should be my angle.

engfireleft

23rd Aug 2010, 06:31

Ahhhhh..but apparently coming back to the right seat of an EMB...even while making 777 FO pay isn't tolerable to some.

Well, would you accept being forced to the right seat of the EMJ at 320 captain pay when you're 45? If not I don't blame you, because it would mean you weren't being treated with the same equality as the rest of the pilots who could bid whatever their seniority allowed them to. If you wouldn't accept the same "special" treatment now, you can't expect anybody else to no matter what their age is. Otherwise guess what? It's age discrimination.

That's not permitted...remember.

But that's only if everyone else ahead of him chose to retire as was in the contract. Otherwise...our Mssr V could be a 767 FO until well into his 90's...assuming everyone chooses to use their new found right to stay until whenever the hell they want.

No. Because when the union and company finally gets their head out of their respective asses they will submit to the CHRT a BFOR case of age 65. It's what they should have been doing all along. Remember you heard it here first.

So if I choose to sit in the right seat a bit longer because my kids are still home and I want to coach them in hockey, I choose to do it. In fact, if I choose to stay there until I am 60, and then follow the contract and retire, it is my choice.

Right you are. Do we disagree here somewhere? It would be your choice to do so as the majority of Air Canada pilots also choose. But need I repeat it again...it is your choice. It is hypocritical to then complain about something else impacting your career earnings when you choose to do so yourself, and you could easily eliminate any negative impact by bidding up earlier.

OverUnder

23rd Aug 2010, 10:48

It has now been one month since ACPA announced the memorandum of agreement to the collective agreement that is to place both Vilven and Kelly back as EMJ F/O's. But the MOA has still not been put out to the membership for an IVR vote. Has anyone other than the MEC even seen the actual wording of the agreement?

Why not? Is the membership not going to be able to have any say in whether this amendment to the collective agreement is put into effect, especially given the significant impact that the agreement has on the future of our contract and pay structure, regardless of on which side of the age 60 issue one sits? Or is it already in effect? Did the MEC already make the agreement without any intention of ever having the membership approve the deal? Did the MEC usurp the membership's constitutional right to either accept or reject the proposed amendment by signing the agreement itself, and not making it tentative, based on ratification?

If so, wasn't this sort of arbitrary deal-making the precise reason why Air Canada pilots left CALPA--the executive of that organization made binding, compromizing contractual commitments without consulting the members of the Association that would be affected by those arrangements?

MackTheKnife

23rd Aug 2010, 13:02

From AVcanada thread- (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=66845&p=635917&sid=60a809f0d37bbd074d69ad8d7c4b0e59#p635917)

Thanks to >>> "Mechanic787" for this enlightening perspective;

May I encourage you to, as much as possible, look outside of your fish bowl, to get a better perspective on this dispute. I would expect that one of the reasons that the Tribunal is taking so long in rendering its decisions is that it must look at the fundamental legal issues involved here from a much broader perspective than that of the pilots who have presented their cases to the Tribunal.

Not only are there many other airline workers coming along in the Tribunal queue, but there is also a whole series of employees outside of the airline industry itself, including truckers, longshoremen and financial industry personnel, including those at the highest levels of management who are challenging the existing law. Even the major television networks still employ individuals on contracts that specify retirement at a specific age.

As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind. So too, then, issues such as specific pay systems and specific seniority and benefit systems are largely irrelevant to the questions that the Tribunal must decide. The corollary of this assertion is that regardless of the specific impact on the individual organizations involved in these cases, the determinations will be made from a more systemic perspective; therefore individual organizations, especially individual employers and their unions will have to find means within their own processes to adapt to the consequences of the changing law, regardless of the apparent imbalance that the decisions may create within specific organizations and regardless of the motivation of the specific protagonists and/or their associates.

Focusing on these imbalances or on the assumed motivation of any of the players, therefore, while compelling, does little more than distract one from the more pressing social/legal issue question of how and when mandatory retirement provisions will be diminished and eliminated entirely—in short, how and when mandatory retirement will be mandatorily retired in the federal sector.

yycflyguy

23rd Aug 2010, 16:10

Career earnings is an empty argument. The junior 320 FO in Toronto with reinstatements rights back to EMJ CA sits at 98% on the 320 list. That means 98% of the 320 FO's in Toronto could have had his position and could be making 30K more a year, but chose not to. It is a similar story as you work up the line. As a group we choose to give up massive amounts of career earnings on our own, so it's more than a little disingenuous to use it as an argument against eliminating mandatory retirement.

Not exactly as you portray it. You haven't include the many inequalities of our contract, especially when comparing Capt EMB vs. FO A320 salary. The EMB Captain position is not true formula, as such, there is no day/night split (only day rate) no NAV pay, no Overseas pay (with the exception of YYZ-HAV), and generally the perdiems are much less than what can be generated in the right seat on the A320. When you factor in all the additional pay awarded to the FO A320 position the pay IS comparable. Now consider the lifestyle difference between sitting 50% on the A320 list vs 98% CA EMJ list. Weekends off, Christmas/Summer vacation (maybe), bidding control, overseas options for essentially the same money.

I have had colleagues tell me they have done the math between where they would sit on the 767 CA list vs A320 CA list and with all the "perks" available to senior bidding privileges they make MORE than someone of similar vintage on the bigger equipment. Haven't done the math myself, but I take them at their word as I have looked at the option of A320 FO vs EMB CA and agree with the choice of sitting senior on junior equipment.

When those claiming discrimination return to list it affects everyone below them in BOTH salary earning potential AND lifestyle.

cloudcity

23rd Aug 2010, 16:13

OKFINE wrote:

"Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one."

Thanks for the insight. Obtuse it shall be then. Better still I'll make it an acute case of obtuse, if you think that should be my angle.

Don't you have any original material at all??

Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one - Google Search (http://www.google.ca/search?q=Well+gee%2C+golly+gosh...I+got+the+all+over+fidgets +on+that+one&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

ACAV8R

23rd Aug 2010, 21:56

777LongHaul, despite the length of your post, I believe you have missed the point. V/K benefited during their flying career from other pilots senior to them respecting the Age 60 Retirement Age provision of the collective agreement, as did I. Had Age 60 Retirement not been in place, Vilven may have ended up as a 767 F/O and Kelly as a 767 Capt., IOW in a lower rated position at age 60. So to say that they did not benefit from others retiring as per the contract is disingenuous on your part.

I am one of those who chose not to file an action with the CHRT and as a consequence, since I have now been retired for over 3 years, I supposedly have lost the right of appeal against Age 60 Retirement. But, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that 1 year Statute of Limitations is itself discriminatory and I am thinking of filing a motion against the CHRT to that effect. There is no Statute of Limitations on injustice and the 1 year limit is unjust and discriminatory.

Standby for a further addition to this can of worms.

OverUnder

23rd Aug 2010, 23:53

...according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that 1 year Statute of Limitations is itself discriminatory and I am thinking of filing a motion against the CHRT to that effect. There is no Statute of Limitations on injustice and the 1 year limit is unjust and discriminatory.

...which illustrates why you are a pilot, not a lawyer.

Itsaliving66

24th Aug 2010, 02:14

What's missing here is some good old fashioned common sense. The whole foundation of a seniority system is an orderly movement through the ranks to achieve the trappings at the top. If that conveyer belt is broken, the system as it operates now can no longer exist. Who knows, maybe it's day has already come for numerous other reasons ? Just saying, if the judgment is 100% in favour of the Fly till Whenever coalition it will inevitabley be the catalyst for major change. The present state of affairs looks like monkeys in a $h!t fight so a sweeping overhaul to the contract may prevent us from further damage to ourselves.

Just a quick question to wanabe lawyers. When rumours were heard of ending age 60 retirement and installing a reformed pension schedule for those that chose to stay, some of you guys howled "discrimination". If this is so, how does the gov't get away with it with CPP ? Ie, the issue of full pension at 65 vs decreased at 60 ?

bcflyer

24th Aug 2010, 04:06

1. Mandatory age based retirement is over in this country, and that includes Air Canada.

Engine left fire... Please quote the current federal law (as A/C is governed by federal law) that backs up your claim.

engfireleft

24th Aug 2010, 16:03

Engine left fire... Please quote the current federal law (as A/C is governed by federal law) that backs up your claim.

Oh come on. The CHRT ruling on Vilven and Kelly almost exactly one year ago is all we need to know. If that's not enough look at how provincial and territorial jurisdictions have changed, and look at recent measures the federal government is taking. Look at similar rulings the CHRT has taken that have nothing to do with Air Canada.

Tell me you don't see a trend here.

It is ACPA's deliberate blindness to this trend that, with the company's help, is going to be so expensive and destructive to our pilot group. Failing to recognize the significance of last august's ruling and continuing to force pilots out as if it didn't even happen is an ongoing disaster in the making.

yycflyguy said:

Haven't done the math myself, but I take them at their word as I have looked at the option of A320 FO vs EMB CA and agree with the choice of sitting senior on junior equipment.

Do the math yourself. Better yet, try being an EMJ captain and you will see the difference. From personal experience the difference is around $30,000 no matter which way you want to slice it. But you stay on the 320 if you want and give up the pay, just don't expect sympathy from me for your loss of career earnings.

bcflyer

25th Aug 2010, 05:31

The CHRT does not make law. Their ruling contradicts the fact that mandatory retirement is still legal at a federal level in Canada. You can say all you want about the "trend" and what has happened at the provincial level. The fact is that until there is an actual law on the books for federally governed companies stating otherwise, mandatory retirement is NOT illegal.

OverUnder

25th Aug 2010, 10:29

The CHRT does not make law. Their ruling contradicts the fact that mandatory retirement is still legal at a federal level in Canada.

That's not what the Constitution Act, 1867 says.

There are two broad categories of law. The first is statutory law. The second is case law. The CHRT does not make statutory law, nor does it have the power to strike down statutory law--it has only the power to interpret the law in making its decisions (case law).

It does make case law. Regarding case law, if your read the jurisprudence, you will find that the CHRT has exclusive jurisdiction within its own domain. That means that even the courts cannot "step into the shoes" of the tribunal to substitute their own determination of the facts of each case. Only the tribunals can make the determinations (case law) for which they have been delegated exclusive jurisdiction. The courts supervise the Tribunals to ensure compliance with legal principles, but they do not have the power to make the determinations (case law) based on the facts of the case in the context of the statutory law. That is why their role is called "judicial review," not "appeal." They review the decisions for compliance with the law, and even if they do not agree with the decisions, they cannot change them so long as the tribunal has properly exercised its jurisdiction to arrive at its determination.

You may come across the term, "to err within its own jurisdiction;" you can find the term in the case law databases (www.canlii.org (http://www.canlii.org)) as well as in administrative law textbooks. Tribunals are allowed to err within their own jurisdiction, so long as the error does not violate their duty to comply with their statutory obligation to act fairly, in compliance with the principles of administrative law.

So, the CHRT's decision of August 28, 2009 is law. It is law that is precedent. And although the precedent is not binding on other courts, other tribunals or even the CHRT itself, it is highly persuasive and may be cited as authority by other tribunals or by the courts themselves as authority for their own decisions. In fact, that is just what happened in the Federal Court judicial review of the original V-K Tribunal decision. The court cited, with approval, the case of the CKY television station employee that was decided by a labour arbitrator, in arriving at its decision on Section 15(1) of the Charter.

Case law is called "jurisprudence." There is a slew of case law text series that are regularly cited by counsel in argument of their cases and relied upon by the tribunals, arbitrators and judges as arbitral jurisprudence, human rights jurisprudence, etc. as authority for the arbitrators, tribunals and courts to follow in subsequent cases. Even the Supreme Court of Canada frequently cites arbitral and tribunal jurisprudence as authority for its own decisions.

The whole point, of course, is to establish a record of precedent so that each ensuing case does not have to be argued from scratch, solely on first principles, and so that we have a fairly good expectation of the outcome of similar cases, minimizing the need to litigate.

So, tribunals do make law. And right now, the law in the federal jurisdiction, subject to judicial review, is that the mandatory retirement exemption to the general prohibition against age discrimination found in the Canadian Human Rights Act violates Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is not saved by Section 1 of the Charter.

In summary, mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction is illegal, according to the existing law.

Rubberbiscuit

25th Aug 2010, 12:49

I am not an AC employee, but have followed the "Flypast60" discussion with interest. My current employer does not have a mandatory retirement age, nor did any of my previous ones. I honestly do believe this is the way it is headed right across the board. However, there are a couple of questions I still have not seen a clearcut answer for. How can it be discriminatory by AC to make pilots retire at an age limit voted in by the pilots themselves? Also, did anyone in the pilot group, in particular those who are fighting it now, rally against the age 60 limit back in the 80's when it was voted into the collective agreement, and if they didn't, why not?

Lost in Saigon

25th Aug 2010, 13:13

How can it be discriminatory by AC to make pilots retire at an age limit voted in by the pilots themselves?

The pilots have never actually voted on the retirement age in the contract. (Age 60 retirement is not even in the contract. It is only in the Air Canada Pension Plan).

There was only a vote held that asked if the membership supported ACPA in fighting to maintain age 60 retirement. There was also Wages and working Conditions survey that asked if age 60 should be maintained.

Even so, you can't just vote in something that contradicts basic human rights(age, sex, religion, race, etc). Imagine if the pilots got together and voted in:

No women pilots can be Captain.

No visible minority pilots can be Captain.

No pilot under age 45 pilot can be a Captain.

No pilot over age 60 can be Captain.

Also, did anyone in the pilot group, in particular those who are fighting it now, rally against the age 60 limit back in the 80's when it was voted into the collective agreement, and if they didn't, why not?

Yes, there have been previous, unsuccessful attempts to change the retirement age. But as you see all around the world, The Times They Are a-Changin'

engfireleft

25th Aug 2010, 13:14

The fact is that until there is an actual law on the books for federally governed companies stating otherwise, mandatory retirement is NOT illegal.

Age discrimination is illegal though, and last august the CHRT rejected ACPA's argument and agreed with Vilven and Kelly that they were being discriminated against. You may have heard they are being reinstated?

Your argument (and ACPA's actions) are a bit like the Captain of the Titanic ignoring the iceberg warning because he hadn't actually hit it yet. But the collision is coming and no one including you will like the results.

clevlandHD

25th Aug 2010, 14:27

What a mess!

Age discremination is everywhere in Canada: CPP, vote, drinking and smoking, you name it.

As for comparing retirement age to being black or a women, that's a bit too much. Everybody at AC will turn 60! a handful will change sex and none will change ethnic background.

The court should perhaps force the limit to go with the next contract. Time for all parties to find solutions to the problem(like no two +60s in the cockpit).

Also, I thought the there was such a concept as "no retroactivity" when it comes to law, ie the guys who were forced to retire could not come back.

Still, I cannot see too many winners here...

Lost in Saigon

25th Aug 2010, 14:52

Age discrimination is everywhere in Canada: CPP, vote, drinking and smoking, you name it.

Yes, age discrimination is allowed in certain instances. But haven't you heard yet? Just like almost every other jurisdiction in the world, the CHRT has decided that retirement age is not one of them.

engfireleft

25th Aug 2010, 14:53

It's a mess because ACPA and many of our pilots are incapable of recognizing inexorably changing conditions and adapting to them. Not a good characteristic for airline pilots in my opinion, but one that Air Canada seems overly inflicted with nevertheless.

Your opinion that age discrimination is not as serious as the other types is shared by our union and many of our pilots as well. The law however does not agree with you, and that is what counts here.

You are right though that every pilot at Air Canada will (hopefully) turn 60 at some point. One would think they wouldn't want to be discriminated against when they do reach that age. I know I don't want to be.

ACAV8R

25th Aug 2010, 16:36

Lost in Saigon

25th Aug 2010, 17:09

Lost in Saigon wrote "The pilots have never actually voted on the retirement age in the contract. (Age 60 retirement is not even in the contract. It is only in the Air Canada Pension Plan)."

LIS, the pension provisions are part of the overall collective agreement, which was approved by a majority of the pilots, so thus the pilots have voted on the retirement age, albeit indirectly.

The "Air Canada Pension Plan - Pilots" is mentioned in the collective agreement, but it is not part of the collective agreement. Retirement age is not mentioned anywhere in the collective agreement.

If it is, please point out where, because I have never seen it, and I certainly have never voted on it.

OverUnder

25th Aug 2010, 17:51

LIS, the pension provisions are part of the overall collective agreement, which was approved by a majority of the pilots, so thus the pilots have voted on the retirement age, albeit indirectly.

Not correct. When the proposed contractual changes are sent out for vote by the membership, the union does not send out the whole collective agreement for approval, nor does it send out the Pension Plan agreement for ratification. Rather, it sends out only the proposed changes to the collective agreement.

The fact is that the age 60 restriction has never been included in the ratification package, so the pilots have never voted on it, either in favour or against, in the context of contract ratification.

Just like they didn't vote on the newest MOA that is intended to put both George Vilven and Neil Kelly back to work in a subordinate, discriminatory class of work, with total disregard of their seniority rights under the collective agreement. The Association simply executed that agreement with Air Canada, creating a whole new subclass of members (and a whole new set of complex implications for all future contract negotiations) without even consulting with the two pilots in question and without giving the membership an opportunity to review, discuss, deliberate the serous long-term implications of the agreement or approve the agreement through ratification. This is called democracy, ACPA style. Another name for the MOA could be "Picher 2010."

MackTheKnife

25th Aug 2010, 18:54

In numerous threads I have heard the term "You signed up for age 60".

To begin with I cannot find any reference to it in the contract.

I have also searched both the Air Canada and the ACPA web sites trying to find an actual copy of the "Air Canada Pilots Pension Plan " to find where it categorically states age 60 and came away empty handed.

Where can this elusive document "Air Canada Pension Plan - Pilots" be found?

777longhaul

26th Aug 2010, 04:54

The pension plan is not part of the acpa contract. WE ALL got SCREWED right up the wazo, on the pension issues, by ac and the fing govt judge, who is squarely in the ac field of influence.

We lost our indexing, and many other issues with the pension. That is just insane, considering what we all gave up to get an indexed pension. For those that dont know this, the pension is not part of the contract, it is a separate issue, that was kept that way, so that the "books" would look better at ac over the past years. The insane part, is the pilots at ac agreed to help them out with fixing the books, and then got totally screwed by the co. Then, when Milton and crowd, found out about this issue, they laid waste to us. Milton's pension is enormous, PLUS it is indexed. I have been told his pension is $500K per year, plus indexing. Other senior management types, have fantastic pensions and medical perks as well.

The ac pilots pension, and the cai pension, are still separate pensions. That is another complete fiasco.

Some...not all of the FP60 pilots are very worried about the ac pension. If...ac goes back into bankruptcy, as they almost did last summer, the pilots pension could be destroyed by the courts etc. The defined contribution will still be there, but the general revenue section could be destroyed by the creditors, and courts etc.

It is another reason why the age 60 issue will benefit others who are approaching that age, but are not yet 60.

My friend at West Jet told me the age 60 issue was over very quickly, and that it was a no brainer for the pilots, management agreements. Wow, what a concept. They go to 65 as Captains, and then more as F/O, if they want/need to.

bcflyer

26th Aug 2010, 08:00

My friend at West Jet told me the age 60 issue was over very quickly, and that it was a no brainer for the pilots, management agreements. Wow, what a concept. They go to 65 as Captains, and then more as F/O, if they want/need to.

I'm curious to know what kind of pension they have at Westjet? Is it based on your best 5 yrs? Oh wait they only have one aircraft type so everyones pay is the same once you top out anyway. (which will happen well before you reach retirement age) Come on, at least compare apples to apples...

bcflyer

26th Aug 2010, 08:04

In summary, mandatory retirement in the federal jurisdiction is illegal, according to the existing law

So every federal employee who had to retire at 65 can sue the government for unlawful dismissal and be re-enstated at their previous pay position and pay scale?
Funny I haven't heard of many doing that....

OverUnder

26th Aug 2010, 12:51

So every federal employee who had to retire at 65 can sue the government for unlawful dismissal and be re-enstated at their previous pay position and pay scale? Funny I haven't heard of many doing that....

It is important to get the terminology and context correct. First, the federal jurisdiction encompasses multiple industries, in addition to the federal civil service. Transportation, communications etc., most of which involve private or public companies, not government employees.

Second, many federal government employees are covered by separate statutes with respect to mandatory retirement. For example, the military, the police, the judges and some of the public service unions.

Third, one doesn't "sue the government for unlawful dismissal." One files a complaint with the CHRC, or a grievance with one's union. Big difference. There are currently many, many complaints filed with the CHRC by non-airline employees. And yes, most seek the same remedies as in this dispute: reinstatement, damages etc. In other words, to be put back in the position they would have been had their rights not been breached.

One of the most recent cases involved a television station in Winnipeg. That case was decided in favour of the employee by a labour arbitrator, and was cited by Federal Court in the V-K decision.

Fourth, in most cases it is not even necessary to file a complaint because the employers have already abandoned their previous policies of mandatory retirement, in advance of either legislative change or court-determined change.

engfireleft

26th Aug 2010, 13:59

bcflyer

Your arguments are based on emotion and what you think is right concerning your progress up the seniority ladder at Air Canada. It should be obvious to you by now that this issue is national in scope, and is not at all concerned with Air Canada seniority or how we are paid. It should also be obvious to you that ACPA has not given you any of the facts you need to properly understand this issue and how it effects you. All of the information posted here and on other sites that you refuse to believe should have been provided by ACPA in explaining how they are complying with Canadian law.

Instead of spinning your wheels repeating irrelevant and uninformed arguments like so many do, why don't you demand your union address this issue in the responsible manner they are obliged to?

bcflyer

27th Aug 2010, 06:54

Lets see... 80% of Air Canada pilots are still in favor of age 60 retirements. ACPA is the representative of said pilots and as such has decided to continue the fight. I don't see a problem with that at all.

The information you talk about has been mostly posted by the Age 60 group and is obviously biased towards their way of thinking. (Remember the statement that both Vivien and Kelly would be reinstated on the 777? Doesn't look like thats going to happen does it?)

This battle is far from finished....

Back to enjoying my summer!

P.S. Engine Left Fire, I've never seen anyone as eager to have their career progression stymied as you appear to be..

OverUnder

27th Aug 2010, 12:19

Lets see... 80% of Air Canada pilots are still in favor of age 60 retirements. ACPA is the representative of said pilots and as such has decided to continue the fight. I don't see a problem with that at all.

Let’s see. ACPA calls it “defending the contract.” A more appropriate phrase would be “defending the delusion.” Defending the delusion that because 80% of ACPA pilots wish it to be so, it will be so. Defending the delusion that the collective agreement provision could ever supersede the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act that make the collective agreement provision illegal. Defending the delusion that the law that applies to everyone else in this country doesn’t apply to ACPA pilots. Why doesn't it apply to them? Because they don’t like it, so therefore they can just ignore it with impugnity.

You don’t see a problem with that? I do.

Remember the statement that both Vilven and Kelly would be reinstated on the 777? Doesn't look like thats going to happen does it?

Wrong. The Tribunal remedy decision that will answer that question hasn't yet been released, so your assertion has no merit. Further, it contradicts the evidence and argument at the hearing, which suggested just the opposite.

According to information provided by the Fly Past 60 updates (that has not been contradicted) at the hearing neither Air Canada nor ACPA opposed the reinstatement of either individual. The only reason that they were not reinstated immediately, according to the same information, was that there was an argument by Air Canada that their seniority should be discounted by the time period of their absence, and although the Tribunal Chair pushed for agreement on immediate reinstatement at the hearing in April, he was ultimately not willing to order reinstatement until the seniority issue was resolved in his final decision.

The key, however, is that even accepting Air Canada's argument on the discount (which, quite frankly, is absurd, given the fact that never in the history of ACPA or CALPA has a returning pilot had his seniority discounted, with one pilot returning after a 17-year absence to the seniority position he would have held, had he not left), both pilots would be able to hold the right seat of the B777. Kelly would be #1 on the list, obviously, and Vilven would be near the middle of the list on the Toronto base. Hence, even using Air Canada's argument, they both will wind up on the B777.

So, the suggestion that they won't be returned as B777 First Officers is totally unfounded.

One other thing. Don't you find it appalling that you have been provided almost no factual information by your Association regarding the substance of the proceedings as well as the status of the various proceedings on this issue? Don't you find it appalling that the Association has effectively censored any internal debate whatsoever on the issue, and refused to allow anyone present any viewpoint other than their own, as a balance to their own determination to continue the process forever, at any risk?

At the outset of this dispute, at least the Association published the transcripts of the proceedings. But since the Tribunal went to an electronic recording basis, rather than using a court-reporter transcript basis, you have had practically zero factual information regarding substance of the main proceedings.

Further, with the shutdown of the ACPA Forum, you essentially have no effective internal means of getting or exchanging any information whatsoever, leaving you almost completely in the dark as to what is going on. Are you happy with that?

God help you when these proceeding decisions are ultimately rendered and the chickens eventually come home to roost—you are likely to wind up in shock and it will be nobody's fault but your own for not demanding continuing full, timely and proper disclosure of the facts from those who have accepted the responsibility to look out after your interests.

engfireleft

27th Aug 2010, 13:06

P.S. Engine Left Fire, I've never seen anyone as eager to have their career progression stymied as you appear to be..

There are many things that will delay my career progression far worse than this issue will, and already have. Moreover, the level of stagnation provided by this has yet to be determined, but will not be anywhere near as cataclysmic as ACPA would have you believe. I can tell you with certainty however that ACPA has not yet done a single realistic thing to minimize the impact.

I believe forcing people from their jobs based solely on their age is discriminatory and I will not condone doing so to further my own interests. A big part of that is knowing that I will eventually be that age and have no wish to be discriminated against myself...an example of forward thinking that many of our number appear incapable of.

Most of all, I believe that a union has an obligation to responsibly represent the best interests of all its members in compliance with the laws of Canada. In this case our union is pursuing their own agenda with total disregard for the reality of the situation and is flagrantly violating their duty to provide fair representation. If the officers of the union were the only people hurt by their actions I would be content to sit and watch them bury themselves, but this is causing grievous harm to all of us who will end up paying the price in ways beyond the huge financial penalties.

I encourage you to extend your thought process beyond your own immediate self-interest and instant gratification of moving up a number on the seniority list.