Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End [Archive] - Page 3

777longhaul

27th Aug 2010, 21:01

The acpa mec posted their wawcon numbers. See acpa mec bulletin #27 on the acpa site, dated July 01 2010.

Your suggestion does not even suggest acpa has the correct data. Please...look at the numbers, of those who responed to the entire surrvey, and the total number of pilots who could have responded. This is to the entire survey, not just the age 60 issue(s).

This is from the acpa bulletin sent out to all the pilots.

MEC Newsletter #27
July 1, 2010

Fellow Pilots:
I will provide just a very brief report in this holiday week.
WAWCON
Thank you once again for providing your input through the WAWCON survey. The Wilson Center, which
conducted the survey and is in the process of analyzing the results, reports that a total of 1,880 pilots
completed the survey, for a participation rate of 58 per cent. This is a good turnout, as the Wilson Center has
been getting closer to 50 per cent participation in surveys of pilots at other companies. They also report that
the demographics of our sample are very good, with strong participation from all ranks and bases.
Once complete, the Wilson Center’s analysis will be reported through our WAWCON Committee and the
results will be used by our Negotiating Committee to create our bargaining strategy and priorities as we move
forward over the summer

end++++++++++++

It would serve all those who are opposed to the age 60 issue, to get real, honest information from acpa, and from their Age 60 Committee. When you get it, please, post it here, so we can all see the light of day.

Of the 58 percent who bothered to reply, only 80% of them were in favor of fighting the age 60 issue. So, 80% of 58% (of the total pilots) is the actual number, that expressed as personal desire to continue the fight, at the risk of loosing WAWCON gains, what a joke. This is less numbers, than the IVR vote in May of 2006. acpa, is screwing you over, and using your dues to do it with, does that not cause any of you to be concerned that you are not getting proper representation, and that the majority of the pilots do not want to trade bargining power, for the age 60 issue.

AC is doing exacatly what they planned, they have the pilots fighing each other, so that they will blow off contract gains, to get some pie in the sky result, that the laws of the land will shoot down very soon.

Over a decade of downhill sliding due to seniority fighting, pension fighing, and now the age 60 issue. Ever wonder why ac is so against the age 60 issue??? It will save them money if it was changed. They know they have lost, yet they spoon feed acpa and the pilots in general. What a loss for ALL the pilots.

Itsaliving66

28th Aug 2010, 03:01

I can tell you with certainty however that ACPA has not yet done a single realistic thing to minimize the impact.

How about taking it to the Federal Court. The best way to "minimize" it is to stop it...Now go ahead and chime in what a pounding you're going to deliver because it's "the law".
You should go back and read AC's response to V+K damage claims. Does that sound like a party that wants FP60 ? Do you think CR just fell of the turnip truck or what ? Me thinks he has spent a little more time lawyering than your counsel not to mention AC's firm. Go ahead and blame ACPA if it makes you feel better. If you truly are an active AC pilot why not just enjoy what you have man...sheesh.

engfireleft

28th Aug 2010, 03:19

How about taking it to the Federal Court. The best way to "minimize" it is to stop it...

Right, like I said: ACPA has not yet done a single realistic thing to minimize the impact.

ACPA has decided on their own to fight this change in apparent obliviousness to Canadian law and Canadian values on age based mandatory retirement. It defies explanation why they think Air Canada pilots live in isolation to the rest of the country according to their own standard. They continue to ignore the ruling last August as if they expect the whole country to slap their heads and come around to their way of thinking, discriminating against an increasing number of pilots making the situation worse every single month.

These are decisions made by the union. Who do you think should be held responsible?

August 28th.

Congratulations. For exactly one year ACPA has knowingly discriminated against every single one of their pilots who turned 60. We should all be proud.

Rubberbiscuit

28th Aug 2010, 13:48

"August 28th.

Congratulations. For exactly one year ACPA has knowingly discriminated against every single one of their pilots who turned 60. We should all be proud."

Are you suggesting that not a single pilot that retired in the last year from AC wanted to throw in the towel at 60? Are they all filing complaints against the CHRT?

555orange

28th Aug 2010, 18:08

Im not against higher retirement ages... but I personally don't believe this is discrimination, and I believe the CHRT is wrong to say it is. I believe there is a strong possibility that the surpeme court will rule against the CHRT. You guys say "its been decided". ..but really its not, not until the Supreme Court rules on it.

The thing is, freedom and order don't always agree. You have to have order and a system for the masses. Some may like it and some may not. That is the way it is. You cannot say retirement age for a group is dicrimination any more than you can say drinking at 18 is discrimination. You can't just say you can retire when you want or when the doc says you can't work anymore because obviously that would create chaos in a system designed to be fair and have order.

Since we are all staying healthier for longer, maybe there is a case to increase the retirement, but then the group as a whole would have to agree on it I think, and then the company would have to agree to it as well.

I have been told that because of my opinion, I "don't have adequate legal knowlege". Well I don't think you need to be a lawyer to see the logic here. I believe discrimination by definition is when one is treated different than the group for whatever reason. And thats not the case here. I don't believe the CHRT is considering all aspects of this issue specifically related to this group, and I believe the Supreme Court will flush that out.

engfireleft

28th Aug 2010, 19:35

Congratulations. For exactly one year ACPA has knowingly discriminated against every single one of their pilots who turned 60. We should all be proud."

Are you suggesting that not a single pilot that retired in the last year from AC wanted to throw in the towel at 60? Are they all filing complaints against the CHRT?

Not at all. I'm saying not a single one of them was asked, because their opinion on whether or not they wanted to retire does not matter to ACPA or Air Canada. They were forced from their job because of their age despite the ruling one year ago that doing so is discriminatory.

Most if not all of them have filed a complaint for that reason. If asked I'm sure most of them would have retired as planned...but they weren't asked.

cloudcity

29th Aug 2010, 04:30

Since we are all staying healthier for longer, maybe there is a case to increase the retirement, but then the group as a whole would have to agree on it I think, and then the company would have to agree to it as well.

You have the right to retire whenever you want and you do not have the right to decide when anybody else will retire? You've missed a huge amount of jurisprudence, past and present? V-K have already been offered reinstatement.

OverUnder

29th Aug 2010, 12:08

Well I don't think you need to be a lawyer to see the logic here. I believe discrimination by definition is when one is treated different than the group for whatever reason. And thats not the case here.

I don't think you have to be a lawyer to see the logic here, either. But you do need to understand the context of what affects you. You are dealing here not just with the collective agreement, but with the collective agreement in the context of the laws of Canada.

I don't think that you are correct in saying that discrimination, by definition, is when one is treated differently from the group. In fact, that was the problem that the federal court judge had with the mandatory retirement exemption under the Act. She opined that it didn't make any sense that although age discrimination is prohibited by the Act, it is OK to discriminate on the basis of age provided that you discriminate against everybody, and she suggested that the solution to that legislative failing lies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is why she said the mandatory retirement exemption provision violates Section 15 of the Charter. That is why Vilven and Kelly are going back to work.

And just a reminder, it was the Federal Court, not the Tribunal, that made that determination.

Discrimination occurs when you base your decision on one of the enumerated prohibited grounds of discrimination that are specfied in the Act (of which "age" is one) as Air Canada and ACPA have done. Race, sex, and religion are other enumerated prohibited grounds of discrimination specified in the Act.

Nevertheless, the "group" in consideration here is not solely the "group" of Air Canada pilots. Otherwise the law would have no effect--any "group" could do whatever it pleases and avoid the intent of the law. Absent the mandatory retirement exemption applicable to "individuals doing similar work," the group in question is the set of employees in the federal jurisdiction.

Even if the exemption were valid, the "group" would still not be made up of only Air Canada pilots--it would be made up of all pilots in the "comparator group," which includes other airline pilots in Canada (and will be identified by the Tribunal in the pending Thwaites decision, the hearing of which finished in January).

The point simply is that Air Canada pilots are not exempt from the law that affects everyone else in the federal jurisdiction, as much as they continue to delude themselves into thinking that they are something special.

And again, it is appalling to me that the Association that has a duty to inform you about the law while spending your money to fight the law, has done nothing to dispel your misunderstandings of the law, choosing instead to lead you blindly into the future, spending huge amounts of your money in litigation, pandering to your lack of legal knowledge with patronizing phrases like, "defending the contract," and "we believe the allegations have no merit."

555orange

29th Aug 2010, 16:46

Hi Cloudcity. I don't want to decide when you want to retire, in fact I think that maybe we should change the rules. Im just saying that to me, it seems no one individually is forcing anyone to retire. There is a system in place that does that. To be fair to a group, there has to be a compromise of freedoms and order. So if we decided to go to 65, then eveyrone must retire at 65. If you decided even then you don't want too, then its not discrimination, thats just what the system was decided to be, by whoever is in oversight of that system, and hopefully through a vote of the members backed up by the company. You have a right to say its discrimination and disagree with it, but that doesn't make it so. How many measures in society do we have that are influenced by age? Lots. From drinking, driving, when you can start school, when you can start flying, etc etc etc. Its not discrimination. But to me thats not to say we don't look at it and adjust it from time to time. If retirement was age discrimination, then what would stop someone from saying the duty limits are discrimination from when you want to fly?

About the groups, I agree that I think Transport Canada being the oversight over the industry would establishing solid clear rules establishing a max age etc, but then the AC pilots and AC as a sub-group will decide what they will want COLLECTIVELY to do within that limitation for their own operation. But I don't think this can be grouped into a pilots across canada fighting age 60, or lets go even further...pilots worldwide.

Cheers guys.

cloudcity

29th Aug 2010, 18:19

Im just saying that to me, it seems no one individually is forcing anyone to retire. There is a system in place that does that.

That system is illegal? - read the decisions.

To be fair to a group, there has to be a compromise of freedoms and order. So if we decided to go to 65, then eveyrone must retire at 65.

You to decide that?

If you decided even then you don't want too, then its not discrimination, thats just what the system was decided to be, by whoever is in oversight of that system, and hopefully through a vote of the members backed up by the company.

You can't vote anybody to the back of the bus any more than you can vote a black guy to the back of the bus or a girl to the back of the bus or anybody for that matter.

You have a right to say its discrimination and disagree with it, but that doesn't make it so

That's correct, it's the law that says it's discrimination.

About the groups, I agree that I think Transport Canada being the oversight over the industry would establishing solid clear rules establishing a max age etc,

Correct again. There is no age limit at Transport Canada. They've already established that.

but then the AC pilots and AC as a sub-group will decide what they will want COLLECTIVELY to do within that limitation for their own operation.

Won't that will be decided by the Tribunal?

29th Aug 2010, 19:44

It can be difficult to try and compare Canada to other states as our laws (current and future) are different from theirs. For example, in the US, there is an age limitation (which used to be 60 but was amended to become 65 in accordance with the ICAO SARPs). Their requirement doesn't specifically impose mandatory retirement but does restrict the kind of work that a pilot can perform once they turn 65 to conform with those ICAO SARPs.

Here is the present FAA limitation from 14 CFR 61.3(j):
(j) Age limitation for certain operations

(1) Age limitation. No person who holds a pilot certificate issued under this part may serve as a pilot on a civil airplane of U.S. registry in the following operations if the person has reached his or her 65th birthday:

(i) Scheduled international air services carrying passengers in turbojet-powered airplanes;

(ii) Scheduled international air services carrying passengers in airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than nine passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat;

(iii) Nonscheduled international air transportation for compensation or hire in airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of more than 30 passenger seats, excluding each crewmember seat; or

(iv) Scheduled international air services, or nonscheduled international air transportation for compensation or hire, in airplanes having a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds.

(2) Age Pairing Requirement. No person who has attained the age of 60 but who has not attained the age of 65 may serve as a pilot in command in any of the operations described in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section unless there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who has not yet attained 60 years of age.

(3) Definitions.

(i) "International air service," as used in this paragraph (j), means scheduled air service performed in airplanes for the public transport of passengers, mail, or cargo, in which the service passes through the airspace over the territory of more than one country.

(ii) "International air transportation," as used in this paragraph (j), means air transportation performed in airplanes for the public transport of passengers, mail, or cargo, in which the service passes through the airspace over the territory of more than one country.

Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/4918FD0A30096B078625768D00562C92?OpenDocument)

The thread "Age 70 for international pilots?" has more discussion on the global aspects up in Rumours and News.

OverUnder

29th Aug 2010, 20:22

It's a real hard uphill learning process for your association but they will no doubt push it right to the point where they're just stopped in their tracks by all the appropriate remedial measures that the legal system has at its disposal, at which point there will in all likeihood be one great big fit with a lot of flailing of arms and other appendages and then the dust will settle on the whole sordid mess.

My prediction is that when implications of losing the legal battle (on its several fronts) are ultimately spelled out to the pilots in the form of the final remedy imposed (reinstatement, cease and desist order, and monetary damages to almost 150 pilots) as well as other sanctions, not to mention the legal fees expended, the pilots will turn on their own Association the same way they have turned on their fellow pilots for asserting their legal rights, blaming their own elected and appointed representatives for the financial and legal disaster.

engfireleft

30th Aug 2010, 02:09

The union is of course responsible for what's coming along with every member who supported them because they either couldn't think this thing through properly on their own, or were content to let the union do their thinking for them. But the union has been constantly hammering the message they are only carrying out the wishes of the members, nevermind the fact the MEC decided to fight it before ever asking the members. So when the s**t hits the fan I think the union will point the finger right back at the members, and since nobody likes to think they are responsible they will continue to blame it on the same people they are now.

MackTheKnife

31st Aug 2010, 13:25

To highlight the importance of this subject, as of this morning this thread has had 44,723 hits on this site alone. If one could somehow add up the hits from all the other threads from all the Canadian based web sites over the years I would venture a wild guess that it is probably the hottest subject ever to hit the Aviation web.

Yet for some reason ACPA in their infinite wisdom,( or fear) felt the subject was only important enough to warrant a one liner type question in their latest Wawcon survey rather than have a separate vote /poll to truly gage the sentiment of the pilots.

What am I missing here? :confused:

Is the MEC really that far out to lunch ?

MTK

cloudcity

31st Aug 2010, 17:15

OverUnder

31st Aug 2010, 17:52

There likely would have been far more than 44,723 hits by now, had they not punted the only protagonist who was able to provide accurate, timely information about the substance of the ongoing legal proceedings.

engfireleft

31st Aug 2010, 17:59

"Don't worry, this ship is unsinkable."

Passengers aboard the RMS Titanic - April 14th, 1912

"This overwhelming support certainly strengthens our hand in the ongoing legal battle to protect our negotiated age of retirement and pension. Once all the legal proceedings have run their course, we believe our position will be upheld."

ACPA - 2009-2010

The water is lapping at our heels yet ACPA still spouts the same tripe despite losses already incurred and the glaringly obvious manner that mandatory age based retirement is regarded by Canadian society and our legal system. Amazingly many of our members are still willing to believe them.

777longhaul

31st Aug 2010, 20:03

There are many reasons a/all/some pilots want/need/desire to go past 60. This is one, of the many reasons, that ALL pilots want to be aware of.

This age 60 issue, could really bite you in the ass, if there are further/continuing losses in the world economy. Have a good look at both the pilot plans, (ac/cai) they are holding but just. Consider, that a very large portion of YOUR pension, comes from company everyday revenue. It is not set aside, so a pilot WANTS to be able, to have the option, of working longer if she/he decides to. It is just common sense.

Pension plan release statement for JAN 2010.

To illustrate the significant impact of these economic factors on pension plans:

��
A 1% increase in our pension plan assets means our solvency deficit decreases by $100 million.
��

If the long-term interest rate used to calculate pension plan liabilities increases by 0.25%, our solvency deficit decreases by $340 million.
��

Conversely, if that same interest rate decreases by 0.25%, our solvency deficit increases by $340 million.
Highlights of the January 1, 2010 Valuations
On June 30, 2010, Air Canada filed its actuarial valuations as at January 1, 2010 with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for all its defined benefit Canadian registered pension plans. These valuations determine the financial position of the plans at January 1, 2010 and the company’s 2010 contributions. The final results of the valuations summarized below are in line with previous estimates disclosed in the company’s financial reports and other various company communications.
2
1) Solvency Basis
The results, on a solvency basis (which assumes the plan’s termination) for all pension plans can be summarized as follows:

Jan.1,2010
Jan.1,2009
Jan.1,2008
Jan.1,2007
Jan.1,2006
Jan.1,2005
Assets
$10,053M
$9,228M
$10,961M
$11,360M
$10,092M
$9,118M
Liabilities
$12,781M
$12,063M
$12,129M
$11,902M
$11,747M
$10,534M
Deficit
$2,728M
$2,835M
$1,168M
$542M
$1,655M
$1,416M
Solvency ratio (assets/liabilities)
78.7%
76.5%
90.4%
95.4%
85.9%
86.6%
Valuation interest rate
4.5%
4.85%
4.5%
4.6%
4.5%
5.25%
Rate of return on assets in year
12.6%
-15.3%
-0.5%
13.6%
13.8%
9.8%

777longhaul

31st Aug 2010, 20:06

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

This entire information can be found on Aeronet under Pensions.

This is for the ac pension plans, all 10 of them.

A solvency ratio lower than 100% (78.7% as of January 1, 2010) means that if the plans terminated on that date the assets would not have been sufficient to cover the full value of the benefits promised to plan members.

The solvency ratio varies by plan. The following table compares the solvency results of the January 1, 2010 valuation with the January 1, 2009 results for all plans:
At January 1, 2010
At January 1, 2009
Plan
Solvency Ratio
Solvency Surplus (Deficit) ($M)
Solvency Ratio
Solvency Surplus (Deficit) ($M)
Main
78%
$(1,473)
76%
$(1,536)
Pilots
80%
$(419)
78%
$(437)
Executives
74%
$(12)
74%
$(12)
CAIL IAMAW
78%
$(214)
75%
$(224)
CAIL CUPE
77%
$(146)
74%
$(152)
CAIL CAW
76%
$(140)
74%
$(144)
CAIL CALDA
75%
$(5)
76%
$(5)
CAIL Pilots
78%
$(283)
76%
$(290)
CAIL Management
89%
$(35)
89%
$(34)
CAIL Executives
94%
$(0.6)
96%
$(0.4)
Total
79%
$(2,728)
76%
$(2,835)

R.Barry

1st Sep 2010, 05:44

Recently there have been decisions affecting the case law regarding mandatory retirement under the Canada Labour Code. Some interesting reading is:
· from a search of the Federal Court & the Federal Court of AppealVilven v. Air Canada (http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc367/2009fc367.html) 2009 FC 367 Date: April 9, 2009 http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc367/2009fc367.html (http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2009/2009fc367/2009fc367.html)]
·from a search of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal; 8/28/2009 Vilven v. Air Canada HTML (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=979&lg=_e&isruling=0) PDF (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1176_5806chrt24.pdf)

·from a third source; 2009-09-25 CKY-TV v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 816 (http://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbqb/doc/2009/2009mbqb252/2009mbqb252.html), 2009 MBQB 252 (CanLII)

rick3333331

1st Sep 2010, 15:42

I believe that the vast majority of AC pilots believe that the health of the pension plan is important but it would appear that the MEC does not share that concern.

IMO, in their effort [MEC] to make the continuation of flying so unattractive past 60, one would no longer contribute to the pension plan but in actual fact, would start receiving his pension along with a top up from the company to equal what one would have made if he was under the age of 60.

Interesting for a couple of reasons: First, AC stated at the Tribunal that it would be inconceivable that it would allow a pilot to collect their pension and still fly for the company. Secondly, ACPA's internal documentation showed that it would be beneficial to the pension plan if pilots worked past 60 and continued to contribute to the plan....Imagine that.:rolleyes:

This would not be good for the plan and I find it hard to believe that the majority of pilots would view this as an acceptable solution to addressing the option of allowing pilots to fly past 60.

555orange

1st Sep 2010, 20:11

“You can't vote anybody to the back of the bus any more than you can vote a black guy to the back of the bus or a girl to the back of the bus or anybody for that matter. You vote counts for exactly jack in the legal system.”

Hi Cloudcity.

I like your analogy about the bus, however I think your particular take on it is incorrect.

First off, I would like to say that I believe in a democracy, votes DO count. It just depends what your voting on right? We vote on a lot of stuff don’t we? However, obviouly there are certain restrictions to voting. And age apparently is one restriction, but NOT in all cases. So yes, you could vote a certain group to the back of the bus, depending on the situation.

BUT… you still have to get on and off the bus at certain places. This would be a more accurate analogy. The Bus company has a route, and when that route is terminated, even though the bus drives on, you have to get off, and that is NOT discrimination. Maybe the route is incorrect, or maybe it can be extended, but that will not be one passenger’s decision alone for obvious reasons.

Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore.

OverUnder

1st Sep 2010, 20:26

Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore.

You (and others) need a reality check. Either you didn't read the Tribunal 2009 decision (no mandatory retirement at any specific age) or you don't read about what's currently going on at Air Canada, or you don't believe what you read.

Don't you know that a few weeks ago Air Canada made a written offer of reinstatement of employment to George Vilven? Don't you also know that yesterday was his 67th birthday? Did you know that that offer of reinstatement makes no mention whatsoever of any eventual required date of termination of employment based on age?

Don't you know that Air Canada currently terminates the employment of every employee in the company, other than pilots, at age 65? So that when the wording is finalized on the either his return to work agreement or the Tribunal order reinstating him, he will be the oldest employee at Air Canada, with no requirement to stop flying at any specific date?

engfireleft

2nd Sep 2010, 02:45

First off, I would like to say that I believe in a democracy, votes DO count. It just depends what your voting on right? We vote on a lot of stuff don’t we? However, obviouly there are certain restrictions to voting. And age apparently is one restriction, but NOT in all cases. So yes, you could vote a certain group to the back of the bus, depending on the situation.

BUT… you still have to get on and off the bus at certain places. This would be a more accurate analogy. The Bus company has a route, and when that route is terminated, even though the bus drives on, you have to get off, and that is NOT discrimination. Maybe the route is incorrect, or maybe it can be extended, but that will not be one passenger’s decision alone for obvious reasons.

Maybe the retirement age will increase, but I don’t believe its going to be because of discrimination, and its definitely NOT going to be increased to whenever you decide you want to retire, or when your individual doctor decides your not healthy enough anymore.

It is shocking how woefully uninformed many of our pilots are. It is to a large extend because our union has deliberately kept the information from the membership, but that doesn't excuse individual pilots from digging for the information themselves. I did it, so can anybody else.

Very early on in the process of educating myself on this issue I realized that the union's attempts to stop the elimination of mandatory retirement would fail. From the outset their attempts to stop it have been a collossal, pointless squandering of money and pilot solidarity. Every day I've watched them not doing what they should have been doing all along, and will end up doing eventually anyway, and that's finding a way to implement this with the minimum negative impact on those still wishing to retire at 60.

Through their silence the MEC has allowed to thrive the ridiculous opinions out there that everyone will have to work past 60, and that everyone's career will stagnate for years. Whether through true ignorance of the law or the overwhelming influence of hate and spite, the MEC has at every turn attempted to punish those that dare to stay beyond 60 and perpetuate age discrimination through other means.

Our tolerance and outright support of this as a pilot group makes us all look very bad.

a330pilotcanada

2nd Sep 2010, 03:12

Good Evening Over Under:

In one of Ray767's posts (since banned by PPRUNE moderators) which sadly has been deleted he used the term "over under" in his narrative.

Your personal profile at that time for your first posts just showed your age as being 28 and now it shows you reside on the "left coast".

You have a writing style that is well beyond your chronological age which suggests a very extensive legal background. Can you tell us a little more about your background? Are you a lawyer? Are you a pilot?

I really hope that this is not RAY767 using this as a back door approach so he use PPRUNE as his personal soap box on this subject.

Personally I would have hoped that the moderators would have melted silver into bullets shot this beast and driven a wooden stake through its heart.

Mid November will come soon enough so everyone take a deep breath and wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.

If one reads some of the posts it paints the profesional airline pilot in Canada in poor light.

rick3333331

2nd Sep 2010, 04:09

Yes it does..................You should actually do some research on what the SCC has to say on this issue.....In the early 1990's, two CP pilots took their complaint all the way to the SCC...One of the interesting facts was that although their MEC did not agree with extending the retirement age of their pilots...they decided to let the Court make the judgement call......as did the pilots association of Qantas and Air New Zealand. Of course, not our MEC.

The two CP pilots lost their complaint. In a number of ways their complaint was quite different from ours but it had many common arguments..........Sorry but you will have to do the reading of the case to understand the nuances. Their union's[CALPA stood down] position was quite different when comparing their position with ours. In this case there were two dissenting opinions. Now for the possible bad news for you.....the dissenting opinion was written by the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada....The Right Honorable Beverly McLachlin.

Now for a personal point of view.........In all my research, i have found that although the vast majority of the pilots unions throughout the western world did not agree with extending the age of retirement .....none were litigious. The Jazz pilots actually were very proactive.

UserName330

2nd Sep 2010, 04:36

a330pilotcanada says ...
I really hope that this is not RAY767 using this as a back door approach so he use PPRuNe as his personal soap box on this subject.Why do you feel this way? It makes no sense. Ray is one of the few who knows what he is talking about.
a330pilotcanada says ...
Mid November will come soon enough so everyone take a deep breath and wait for the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.I had no idea the SCC was deciding on this issue, where did you get that information? A330pilotcanada do you have any idea what you're talking about?

555orange

2nd Sep 2010, 07:50

Hi guys.

I am informed. I am simply stating that its not over until november, and I don't believe that the court will deem this case discrimination as the tribunal did. Its my opinion...

I am aware of Vilven and Kelly, I was suprised about it, but I think its political. To placate the issue until the decision is finally made. Then a framework to move forward can be made.

Im open minded about increasing the retirement age. Im just asking some of the hard questions that none of you can seemingly answer. Like what the difference between discrimination at 60 as opposed to 65? And what about the obvious problem about letting a guy fly until the doctor says no? No 2 doctors are the same. Etc Etc. As I said already, if this happens the way you guys say it will, it will be chaos...and all you guys seem to come up with is that..."thats not our problem". Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me, nor do I believe it will with the rest of the country. Those problems need to be addressed.

777longhaul

2nd Sep 2010, 08:19

Captains, can fly upto 65 years of age is an ICAO rule, as agreed to by over 800 airlines.

After 65, it is agreed that you can fly as a non Captain. A pilot, would be in the status of: F/O, S/O, relief pilot, cruise pilot, what ever each company wants to define it as. You seem unsure of this ICAO rule, which, if you were an active airline pilot, versed in this issue, you would answer your own question.

555orange

2nd Sep 2010, 10:06

engfireleft

2nd Sep 2010, 13:49

So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?

Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts. Your opinion doesn't count, but don't feel bad because nobody else's does either except the lawmakers and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Both of whom disagree with you and do very much see this as a discrimination argument. Furthermore they have ruled as such over a year ago but ACPA and Air Canada have as much respect for that ruling as you do and are simply ignoring it.

For your own clarification, the CHRT views any arbitrary age based mandatory retirement as discriminatory. ICAO and many countries have set 65 as the upper limit to be a Captain which is not the same thing, and the CHRT has no jurisdiction over ICAO or any of the signature countries except Canada anyway.

The CHRT will agree to a set age of retirement if the argument can be successfully made for a Bonafide Operational Requirement (BFOR). ACPA tried that with age 60 and failed miserably (and completely predictably) because of what the rest of the world outside of Air Canada is doing. As I've said many times before, when they finally pull their head out of their ass ACPA and Air Canada will get around to doing the same thing with age 65 standing a much better chance of success in my opinion.

Lost in Saigon

2nd Sep 2010, 13:55

Hi 777. I am well versed in this issue. And I am well aware of what the ICAO "LIMIT" is. And its just that... the upper limit.

So please tell me.... What is the difference between age 60 being discriminatory and the ICAO upper limit?

Btw. Please don't take me as being antagonistic here. I think this is a great issue. Thats it. I'm not a lawyer, I only have my own opinion. I hope the group can come to some agreement on an increase. I just simply don't see the discrimination argument. And I believe even my lowly opinion counts.

I don't think you are as well versed as you claim.

Vilven and Kelly are both over 65 now and have been offered employment at Air Canada. The ICAO rule does not mean pilots over 65 must retire. Pilots over 65 can still fly but not as Captains. The ICAO age 65 limit only applies to Captains. F/O's can be over 65 as long as the "over/under" rule is met. Even so, Canadian Human Rights actually have very little to do with ICAO or any other foreign body.

The CRHT can force Air Canada to raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 if it decides that 65 is the "Normal" retirement age in Canada. But they seemed to have gone one step farther to say that there will be NO max retirement age in Canada. (just as TC says there is no max age to hold an ATPL in Canada) If Air Canada only operated flights to other countries that have no max age, there would be no need at all for the ICAO rule.

The ICAO rule is just an arbitrary age rule designed to placate to certain countries which have it as law that the pilot-in-command can not fly over age 60. The "over/under" rule forces these countries to allow over 60 pilots into their airspace. Countries that have an age 65 law, like to USA, the ICAO rule allows pilots over 65 to operate, but not as Captains.

Standby for further changes because there are already some who want ICAO to raise to age from 65 to 70: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/422783-age-70-international-pilots.html

MackTheKnife

2nd Sep 2010, 14:14

Best Post of the Month goes to EngineFire Left:

" Through their silence the MEC has allowed to thrive the ridiculous opinions out there that everyone will have to work past 60, and that everyone's career will stagnate for years. Whether through true ignorance of the law or the overwhelming influence of hate and spite, the MEC has at every turn attempted to punish those that dare to stay beyond 60 and perpetuate age discrimination through other means."

cloudcity

2nd Sep 2010, 16:34

Im open minded about increasing the retirement age. Im just asking some of the hard questions that none of you can seemingly answer. Like what the difference between discrimination at 60 as opposed to 65? And what about the obvious problem about letting a guy fly until the doctor says no? No 2 doctors are the same.

You guys need to take all those types of questions and get on over to a WestJet thread or a Jazz thread or a Transat thread or any one of the threads for all the other air carriers in the entire country and you really do need to ask those kinds of questions over there. They've been doing it for eons. They've got the answers?

In addition to that get on down to Transport Canada and ask them about it. They and everybody else already go past 60 unlimited in this country since way back when.

R.Barry

5th Sep 2010, 19:19

There were a few comments earlier re ICAO "rules":

http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#4 (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#4)

Age limit for flight crew

The ICAO Council adopted on 10 March 2006 an amendment to Annex 1 — Personnel Licensing that increases by five years the upper age limit for commercial pilots operating two-pilot aircraft, subject to conditions. The new provisions become applicable on 23 November 2006 and read as follows:

2.1.10.1 A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, shall not permit the holders thereof to act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 60th birthday or, in the case of operations with more than one pilot where the other pilot is younger than 60 years of age, their 65th birthday.

2.1.10.2 Recommendation.— A Contracting State, having issued pilot licences, should not permit the holders thereof to act as co-pilot of an aircraft engaged in international commercial air transport operations if the licence holders have attained their 65th birthday.

In accordance with Article 33 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, the amendment means that if a pilot-in-command (PIC) is 60 years of age or over but less than 65 years of age and is engaged in operations with more than one pilot, he/she cannot be prevented by reason of age from operating in airports or the airspace of any ICAO Contracting State as long as at least one other pilot is under 60 years of age. For single-pilot commercial air transport operations, the upper age limit remains at 60 years. A State may impose a lower maximum age limit than that specified by ICAO in § 2.1.10.1 for the licenses it issues but it cannot prevent, by reason of age, an aircraft from another State operated by a PIC holding a licence issued or validated by that State, who is below the ICAO upper age limit, from operating in the airspace above its territory.

Articles 39 and 40 of the Convention are also relevant to the age limit of pilots-in-command engaged in commercial air transport operations as they authorize international flights by flight crew who do not meet all international licensing Standards, provided that an authorization is given by each State into which the aircraft is operated. Those seeking information concerning States that may authorize pilots to fly in their airspace after reaching the age of 65 years are advised to contact individual Civil Aviation Authorities

3) Augmented crews

In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of § 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.

4) Medical Assessment

When over 60, a six-monthly medical assessment is necessary (ICAO specifies an annual medical assessment for those under 60 years who are engaged in two-pilot operations

Links to Civil Aviation Authorities

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

http://www.icao.int/icaonet/anx/info/annexes_booklet_en.pdf (http://www.icao.int/icaonet/anx/info/annexes_booklet_en.pdf)

http://www.icao.int/anb/fls/flsannex1.html (http://www.icao.int/anb/fls/flsannex1.html)

Table of Contents of Annex 1
To meet these requirements,
Annex 1 (http://www.icao.int/anb/fls/flsannex1.html) specifies
Standards and Recommended Practices (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#4) covering medical fitness (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/med) , knowledge,

rick3333331

5th Sep 2010, 23:57

What's the point..............!

3) Augmented crews
In commercial long-range air transport, the designated flight crew may be augmented, and can number three, four or even more pilots. In the case of flight crew comprising more than two pilots, the intent of § 2.1.10.1 is to ensure that, when the pilot-in-command is over 60 but less than 65 years of age, the operating flight crew includes at least one other pilot, who is licensed, appropriately rated for all phases of flight, current, and younger than 60 years of age. It is suggested that during high workload phases of flight (such as flight below 10,000 feet above ground level) at least one pilot seated at the controls should be under 60 years of age.

One should realize that ICAO did not change the rules to accommodate pilots but did this to make the system work....The over 60/under 60 rule in the FAQ is the legal interpretation as to how this rules will be applied...notice the wording....."suggested"....As one large international airline stated after the legal interpretation of the over/under rules.............Interesting :D:zzz::oh: !!! All the world's major airlines have been doing this since 2006.........And the system has not collapsed but don't let the facts get in the way......Have a nice weekend.

Itsaliving66

6th Sep 2010, 14:03

This thread has become a joke. Same people under different aliases spouting the same one dimensional message. Your audience has just shrunks by one...adios.
At least the Federal Court feels that there is more to the case than the tribunal's V-K decision.

555orange

6th Sep 2010, 16:36

Yes yes Lost in Saigon... I am aware of all that re: ICAO limits vs country limits and how it applies intra boarder and the reasons thereof.

My point is that the ICAO limits are no more discriminatory than what we are dealing with here. Enginefireleft said it... its about "Bona fide operational requirement". The age at which the group as a whole will be deemed to be best suited to retire Mandatorily. Whatever that age is going to be may be necessary for some and not for others (health and skill-wise etc), but its not going to be discrimination (in my opinion).

The Supreme Court will hash this out and make the proper compromise between human rights and order for the masses.

If it was so clear as many of you advocating discrimination claim, then you wouldn't have so many people against you nor would this be going to supreme court.

engfireleft

6th Sep 2010, 16:53

Enginefireleft said it... its about "Bona fide operational requirement". The age at which the group as a whole will be deemed to be best suited to retire Mandatorily. Whatever that age is going to be may be necessary for some and not for others (health and skill-wise etc), but its not going to be discrimination (in my opinion).

Yes, I mentioned BFOR, but I think you are misunderstanding how that is used. An operator has to convince the tribunal that given the number of pilots over the age of 65 (or whatever) they cannot run the operation, and therefore must retire guys at that age. It certainly isn't a slamdunk because the tribunal could look at the numbers and operation and deny it if they feel over 65 pilots can be accommodated.

The union tried it with age 60 and were deservedly turfed on their ass for it. I'm just saying that when they finally pull their head out of each others ass they will try again with 65 and may stand a chance. But like I said they might not win that either if they fail to prove their case and the tribunal disagrees.

cloudcity

6th Sep 2010, 19:36

The strategy of trying to claim BFOR for the rationale behind setting an upper limit gets challenged by the fact that all the other carriers in the country just simply add some computer code to their bid programs and just carry on with it.

777longhaul

7th Sep 2010, 01:31

For those that dont know, air canada, and acpa, FAILED the BFOR test that was required by ALL parties at the CHRT hearings. The other interesting note about this, is, that acpa was not allowed to submit/denied, a BFOR test, as they were an association/union, and not a business/company. So, acpa was denied any BFOR representation, even though, they tried to do it.

air canada, is NOT the principal employeer in the country as per the BFOR criteria. Therefore, they, and acpa, can not, by law, set the retirement age. The BFOR test is very narrow, and requires a great deal of information, that is obtained from each of the country's airlines, by supena, from the courts. The information is certified by the courts. Both, ac, and acpa lost the BFOR case a long time ago.

Without the BFOR, they (ac and acpa) can not continue the course of action that they are still bent on doing, at great cost to all pilots. It will end in the near future, and the lack of information to the acpa pilots that say...they are against this, will be very disappointing to say the least.

The information from acpa, and ac is nil, and what has been said in the past has been washed down so much it is next to useless. Did NOT have to be this way, but ac/acpa sided together, (ac insisted acpa sign on to the liabiltiy side of the BFOR case, which they did, no one could believe they did that), that is going to cause problems in acpa when the CHRT rules on the Remedy side of this issue. That could be one of the reasons....that ac is fighting this issue, as they are hoping to collapse acpa. Ask yourself, why would ac fight this, when they are going to save money on many issues when this finally completes?? Does that not seem strange to any of you who are against the age 60 issue?

OverUnder

7th Sep 2010, 02:02

This thread has become a joke. Same people under different aliases spouting the same one dimensional message. Your audience has just shrunks by one.

Please do not turn off the lights when you leave. At least some of us appreciate getting SOME facts about what is going on.

If you want to get some real bias, why don't you sit in on one of your MEC meetings?

engfireleft

8th Sep 2010, 14:52

The recent veto has highlighted the secretive behavior of the MEC, and many people are angry at what they percieve as their elected representatives doing what they want behind closed doors while ignoring what's best for the membership.

Welcome to reality.

Perhaps...just perhaps...the MEC is doing the same thing with the retirement issue hmmm?

MackTheKnife

8th Sep 2010, 18:14

Everyone will retire eventually.

Instead of the present humiliating & outdated Mandatory Retirement, might this be the answer?

>>> Phased Retirement (http://www.hrcomplianceinsider.com/homepage/age-discrimination-phased-retirement-new-laws-practical-implications?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=age-discrimination-phased-retirement-new-laws-practical-implications)

Where once they couldn’t wait to shove older employees out the door, many companies are now bending over backwards to keep them from retiring. Recent changes to pension laws have made it possible with employers to keep up with the new retirement dynamics. The most significant change are the so called “phased retirement” laws that allow employees to collect and accrue a pension from the same employer at the same time. Here’s a look at the new phased retirement rules and how to take advantage of them to keep older employees in the fold.

The New Retirement Dynamics

Once upon a time, when employees turned 65, they’d get their gold watch and pension and ride off, willingly or unwillingly, into retirement. But times have changed. Now that mandatory retirement has been largely abolished, employers who force employees to retire at 65—or any other pre-determined age—run the risk of age discrimination liability.
But the new dynamics are really the product of fundamental economic and demographic changes. The Canadian workforce is getting older. Skilled and experienced labour is more expensive to recruit or develop organically via training. Faced with these realities, many companies are finding it not only expedient but imperative to keep 60- and 70-something employees working, even if it means making accommodations in scheduling and compensation.

WHAT THE LAW SAYS

Retaining senior employees often involves letting them transition gradually from full-time employment to retirement instead of in one fell swoop. This process of gradually decreasing work hours or workloads is referred to as “phased retirement.” Common arrangements include letting employees work fewer hours for less pay while continuing to receive pension benefits they’ve accrued from previous service. For example, the employer may let a valuable 71-year-old employee work half time for 50% of her salary plus retirement plan income.
Employers might also want to let employees keep accruing pensionable time while they work toward retirement. Legal changes had to be made to clear the way. It started when AB and QC changed their pension laws to allow for phased retirement. In 2007, the federal government blew the thing wide open by:

Eliminating the Section 8503(e)(b) ban on employees’ receiving and accruing DB benefits from the same employer; and
Adding a new provision (Section 16.1) to the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act allowing pension plans to implement phased retirement arrangements with members (and former members).Still, doubt remains as to the legality of phased retirement in different parts of Canada:

Where Phased Retirement Is Allowed.

Seven jurisdictions—Federal, AB, BC, MB, NS, ON and QC—specifically let employees receive a partial in-service withdrawal of benefits from a registered DB pension plan and continue to work and accrue benefits under that same plan. The 3 territories follow federal pension rules. So, as of now, phased retirement is okay in at least 10 of Canada’s 14 jurisdictions.

Where Status of Phased Retirement Is Unclear.

The pension laws of NB, NL, PE and SK don’t specifically permit phased retirement. But they don’t ban it, either. Consequently, some have argued that phased retirement is okay in these provinces, especially now that it’s allowed under federal rules. “As long as the law doesn’t say it’s prohibited, phased retirement is implicitly permitted,” according to one consultant.

Conclusion

But most experts disagree with this assessment and counsel caution. “If the law doesn’t say phased retirement is allowed, it probably isn’t,” according to an Alberta lawyer. “Legislation is needed to clarify if phased retirement is permissible in these other provinces,” he cautions.

OverUnder

18th Sep 2010, 02:41

Just received my copy of today's joint MEC Chair / President Newsletter. I just love the line near the end that says..

"Of course, the constitutional requirement for a membership vote on any tentative agreement that changes our CA remains and will apply..."

Now, lets talk about that amendment to the collective agreement to reinstate wrongfully terminated pilots out of seniority to the entry-level EMJ F/O position with no bidding rights. When will we see the membership vote on that?

engfireleft

18th Sep 2010, 15:15

cloudcity

18th Sep 2010, 17:29

Why would we vote on that? Unless the vote were to eliminate seniority bidding rights to every member and not just returning pilots it would be arbitrary and discriminatory which, as everyone except ACPA and some of our members knows, is against the law.

The complainants would have to be treated the same as everyone else under the contract.

As mentioned above, AC did get ACPA to agree to 50 percent of the liability issue?

bunkhog

20th Sep 2010, 13:58

Funny how "retired" has acquiesced into "wrongfully terminated"

You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.

I do know a guy who told me one day..."only four years 3 months and 21 days..."

Now he wants to come back! Or at least get his name on the list for possible cash settlements to point the nose toward the sunset again.

Pathetic!

clunckdriver

20th Sep 2010, 15:34

Bunckhog, interesting post, reminds me of those who had so little life outside the airline that they could be seen hanging around the Toronto ramp after retirment loging push back/gate times to report if pilots were cheating, {Which we were!} I wonder what portion (a) Really feel they are being fired unjustly. (b) Are trying for the jackpot. (c) Just cant leave the big corporate "womb" and like wearing a cheap uniform, I know of at least one of these.(d) Have made very bad decisions and really do need the money. Having met the spouse of one pilot recently I can well understand why he wants to stay working, his I think is the most valid reason of the whole lot! To each his own but a quick look at pilot longevity might be in order for some.

Understated

21st Sep 2010, 05:30

You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.

You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he wanted it all NOW!

rick3333331

26th Sep 2010, 16:16

CUPE's Latest news release !!LATEST NEWS
Issue 51 September 22, 2010
“Mandatory Retirement Update”
In our last bulletin regarding mandatory retirement, we let you know that given recent court decisions, it was our expectation that Air Canada would be reviewing its mandatory retirement policy.
We also committed to seeking legal counsel to determine the effect that these court decisions would have on us. Given the importance of this issue to the Membership, legal opinions were sought from three different lawyers. All three lawyers were unanimous in their opinion that given the recent court decisions, the Union now has an obligation to represent Members who may wish to grieve the Company’s refusal to allow them to work past the age of 65. Further, any refusal on the Union’s part to grieve on a Member’s behalf could result in complaints being filed against the Union at the Human Rights Commission, or the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
In a recent case involving four Air Canada Flight Attendants, the Human Rights Tribunal ruled that the mandatory retirement provision of the Canadian Human Rights Charter is not applicable where an application of this provision would be discriminatory. This means that we must now challenge Air Canada’s policy of mandatory retirement in order to protect the Membership from future liability. Accordingly, the Union will fulfill its obligation to file and pursue grievances as members who request to continue their employment with Air Canada beyond the age of 65 are refused by the Company.
In Unity,

OverUnder

26th Sep 2010, 16:54

Although the message regarding their view of the union's duty is clear (three separate legal opinions say that they must fairly represent their members who may launch challenges to mandatory retirement) I don't believe that their following statements are correct. However, the errors are most likely unintentional; it would interesting to see the union clarify the statements.

First, the exemption clause allowing mandatory retirement is in the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or as the Bulletin states, the "Canadian Human Rights Charter." In the V-K hearing, the Tribunal was asked whether the exemption was justified under Section 1 of the Charter, and it found that it was not. That decision is going to judicial review by the Federal Court this November.

Second, on the CHR Tribunal web site there is no decision of the Tribunal dealing with four flight attendants. Perhaps the decision was rendered, but by a different body? In any event, if it had been, we should have heard about it by now. There was a hearing scheduled by the Tribunal this past week in Montreal regarding mandatory retirement of a sales agent, but it was apparently adjourned indefinitely, awaiting the V-K Tribunal decision.

Finally, there actually are cases now before the Canada Industrial Relations Board by Air Canada employees alleging breach of duty of fair representation re their union's alleged failure to represent them regarding their mandatory retirement. The first one, apparently, was launched by a Toronto airport sales agent over a year ago. The biggest one, though, is the complaint filed by 75 Air Canada pilots against ACPA in the first week of August.

In other words, the issue of duty of fair representation will be dealt with by the Board before very long, and we will know where the Board stands on the issue. By the looks of it, the CIRB moves at lightning speed in comparison to the glacial pace of the CHRT.

engfireleft

26th Sep 2010, 17:27

All of this was completely predictable from the beginning for anybody not blinded by their own extremely narrow perspective and immediate desires. Does anybody at ACPA or the pilots supporting them on this issue see the fat lady standing at the microphone yet?

Willie Everlearn

27th Sep 2010, 14:39

What an unbelievable number of posts on such a non starter.

Age discrimination is against the law in Canada. It's that simple. What aspect of that fact do ACPA members not respect? What aspect of that law do the lawyers representing Air Canada or ACPA not understand?

Isn't this simply about (selfish greed) money? Some junior crewmember thinks he/she is missing out on the extra bucks he/she'd be earning sitting in the left seat. Calling it career planning or entitlement (there's that word again). The lawyers on both sides are raking in the bucks arguing something they know they can't win and the union members are depleting their war chest 'fighting' a ruling that simply won't be overturned despite the assurances of their non-lawyer MEC types. I think they're confusing wishful thinking with reality but, I'd also like to point out I'M no lawyer either.

If I were in either party I'd be looking for a law firm that understood the laws of the land and a law firm that didn't salivate over the money it costs to fight this AND who wasn't interested in breaking the financial back of my union. Our labour laws changed to reflect that reality years ago and the idea of negotiating any labour agreement that used age to draw lines in the sand disappeared years ago as laws against age discrimination came into being and with them labour contracts were required to reflect that fact. Apparently not at CALPA, or ACPA.

The suggestion that an age 60 pilot can retire and go off to foreign lands to find employment begs the question that, as a 60 year old I have to ask. Why should I have my entire life tossed upside down and have to leave Canada over such a ridiculous suggestion that purly and simply is against the law?

Surely, any union agreement, not just AC-ACPA, that discriminates anything based on age is worthless and needs to be invalidated.

What was wrong in the past should be put right today, and the ACPA members should be leading the charge not trying to derail it. They should be making their bed for when they reach that arbitrary number and find themselves mentally alert and physically fit. Able to work beyond that 'magic' number (if they want to, that is)

Unless the present membership doesn't intend to reach age 60.

that old f**ker,
Willie :ok:

Mechanic787

29th Sep 2010, 22:42

Interesting cases out of the CHRT today (all related to family status):

CHRT - Tribunal Decisions (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/decisions/index-eng.asp?filter=year)

Richards v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1356_8608de.pdf
Seely v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1355_8508de.pdf
White v CNR: http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1354_8408de.pdf
Reinstatement, full back pay (only 30% discount for failure to mitigate), full seniority, and up to $40,000 per complainant for pain and suffering and willful/reckless conduct of the employer, plus interest and expenses.

OverUnder

30th Sep 2010, 02:15

The Tribunal speaks: CHRT - Tribunal Decisions (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/decisions/index-eng.asp?filter=year)

No, today's three decisions are not about Air Canada pilots, at least not directly.

But the principles are clear: reinstatement, full back-pay (less 30% for failure to mitigate, in one case), full seniority, and $40,000 for pain and suffering and for wilfull or flagrant discrimination on the part of the employer, and more and more and more.

Oh, yes. Reinstatement not to an entry-level job in the same department, but to where they would have been, had they not been wrongfully terminated!

Now, what kind of number would I get if I were to apply these factors to the Air Canada pilot wrongful termination scenario, then multiply that by 150?

Didn't Air Canada put evidence into the hearing admitting that it owed over $10,000 per month from August, 2009 to the date of reinstatement? That's an admitted $130,000, and counting, so far, per pilot, not even counting any damages being awarded for the four and six years respectively for each pilot's termination prior to the 2009 Tribunal decision finding liability, and separate from the potential $40,000 special compensation awarded today.

$200,000 times 150 = ?????

Is anybody listening yet?

clunckdriver

30th Sep 2010, 11:35

So, over under, what effect on the viability of AC do you think such cash awards would have on the future of AC? Not to mention the pensions of those already retired! If the airline simply closes up shop, or morphes into another company, {Have you by chance noticed what Jaz will be flying soon?} then it will I fear be a rather hollow victory for the "Fly till you die" group. Im not on any side here, just be carefull what you wish for, lest you get it all.

Idle Thrust

30th Sep 2010, 11:45

You got it Clunk - it's nothing but a cash-grab. And if it bankrupts the company?
Puts a whole new meaning on the ME TOO generation.

OverUnder

30th Sep 2010, 11:52

[W]hat effect on the viability of AC do you think such cash awards would have on the future of AC?

Compared to the fuel hedge fiasco of a couple of years ago, these damage awards will be a drop in the proverbial bucket.

Some mitigating factors: first, Air Canada has taken the position that ACPA is jointly liable. 50/50.

Second, some of those who will be entitled to return will have significantly mitigated their potential damages. Indeed, some are making more money, so their wage damage award will be zero. The special compensation awards will remain intact, but may vary, depending of the facts of the pilot cases, versus the CNR cases.

Third, Air Canada's own evidence before the Tribunal is that it saves $40,000 per pilot in immediate cash flow outlay for every course delayed one year. At 10 courses triggered for each pilot electing to delay retirement one year, that is almost a half million dollars in reduced negative cash flow, per pilot, times X pilots per year. Assume that as many as 20 of the 125 or so eligible to retire at age 60 elect to stay, that translates to approximately $9 million in immediate cash flow savings.

OverUnder

30th Sep 2010, 12:03

[I]t's nothing but a cash-grab. And if it bankrupts the company?

Stop and ask yourself, why the damages? Air Canada itself stated at the hearings that after August, 2009, it was on the hook for over $10,000 per month, per pilot complainant, for not ending its policy that was ruled illegal.

So, before you start with the doomsday scenarios, blaming only those who would have preferred to remain employed, causing no damages whatsoever, ask yourself who is responsible for an admitted illegal action that was, at least for the last year, flagrant and consciously committed by a legally savvy employer.

One of the reasons that damages are awarded is to put the persons back into the position that they would have been, had they not been subjected to the illegal action. But another, very valid purpose, is to send a clear message to the offending party that if you don't stop violating the law, you will be held accountable in damages. That is an impact that Air Canada has obviously considered, then discarded, deciding to take the hit, for reasons that only it knows.

clunckdriver

30th Sep 2010, 12:07

Over under, my wife and I ran what was most likely the most stable/profitable outfit in GA in Canada, sold to customers and staff, let me explain the only system that works, each week you take in more penies than you put out, all else in nonsense! You can project all the saving you want under any system you want, if you get hit with coins going the wrong way you are done! Simplistic? you bet! but it worked. I think such complex financial discusions should be left to Wall Street, niether they or most pilots have a record of being financial wizards.{ Of to see the bean counters today, might even get the Pulitzer prize for fiction!}

OverUnder

30th Sep 2010, 12:16

let me explain the only system that works, each week you take in more penies than you put out, all else in nonsense!

Maybe you were in the fortunate position of being able to make your capital purchases (aircraft) for cash, and not having to spread your decision making out over several business quarters. Air Canada is obviously not able to do that, and it needs to work with a budget that meets projected cash inflows with projected cash outflows. Same principle, longer time frame.

The projected cash outflow of taking 10 pilots out of productivity, in sequence, for over two months each, to retrain them, is not something that is foreign to this airline. It has been doing it for 60 years, and can predict with a high degree of accuracy, the cash flow impact resulting for the next four business quarters from a simple strategic change, such as not forcing removal of pilots who are happy to stay.

engfireleft

30th Sep 2010, 13:30

This is nothing for Air Canada. How much did they pay for the nice blue paint job and to have Celine Dion sing a song during CCAA? Air Canada can't really afford it, but they blow millions anyway for worse things than this. And it wasn't that long ago they felt flush enough to give $2 BILLION dollars in cash away. This is a fart in a hurricane.

But the company may actually see this as an investment because ACPA definitely cannot afford it. ACPA is not a public company already billions in debt, and we have limited means of raising money. Plus look at the division this has caused in our membership. I can't really see a downside in this for the company no matter what it costs them.

I think Air Canada played ACPA like a Stradivari violin on this issue.

cloudcity

30th Sep 2010, 16:04

I think Air Canada played ACPA like a Stradivari violin on this issue.

The concept of individual rights, set the stage for this because the legal system is designed to protect individual rights, and it does that very well.

clunckdriver

30th Sep 2010, 16:49

Over under, no we didnt have the cash to buy six brand new aircraft, but we did pay for them in five years, if you visit a certain aircraft factory and drop our name you may not pay for lunch! I find the most interesting aspect of this thread is tracking the IP location/addresses of various posters, seems we have a few split personalities here, what say you Over Under? {There is no such thing as a secure internet by the way}

bunkhog

1st Oct 2010, 01:04

Understated (http://www.pprune.org/members/338779-understated)
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/avatars/th_new.gif

Probationary PPRuNer

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by bunkhog
You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he couldn't friggin wait to get out of this hell-hole.

You were probably one of the ones I heard in flight planning 6 years ago saying he wanted it all NOW!
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5946915) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5946915&noquote=1)

Nope. I'll pay my dues. But when all of a sudden guys start saying they want to stay around into their 80's...I gotta start wondering how long I will pay dues!

Some of these poor bastards had to be oilers for 8 years. Imagine. If the Captains of the day had decided THEY wanted to stay for life...with no chance of parole...these poor guys would have been oilers for DECADES. Imagine that! They got hired with 212 hours and had to be oilers. Oh, the humanity!

So, fast forward a couple of decades, and AC is hiring 37/39/42 year olds with 9000/11000/14000 hours on the prospect that their previous oilers /now 777 Captains are winking at 60...the AGREED upon age of retirement by the majority as ratified in decades of contracts.

Well...the injustice of having to retire at retirement age. Who the heck do these young greed bastards think they are knipping at my heels, they say. I paid my dues and even though I am only in the left seat of a large Boeing product because the guys that taught me the job and tried to foster some sort of professionalism are all dead and gone now...I'm gonna fire up a law suit to stay put, they say.

So now I am a greedy self centred guy for wanting what all those bed-****ters that are trying to stay here forever got because of those that followed the contract.

That's TOO friggin rich!

MackTheKnife

1st Oct 2010, 12:08

Bunkhog wrote:

"So now I am a greedy self centred guy for wanting what all those bed-****ters that are trying to stay here forever got."

:=

Did you forget your daily dose of Ritalin ?? Did you not read the precautions on the prescription ? "Do not stop taking this medication without consulting your doctor."

In todays world, an individual's retirement decision is complex, with many interrelated determinants, including health, family considerations, employment options, pension eligibility, health insurance, status and personal preferences .

The present system of "forcing" an individual to abandon their life long goals just because, "thats the way it's always been" belongs in the 60's which it appears where your mindset is stuck in. Around the globe, the concept of Mandatory retirement and retirement ages in general are evolving to a more progressive transition.

It's comforting to know that cooler educated minds will decide this issue instead of the nescient.

MTK

YYZBeacher

5th Oct 2010, 19:12

There's two sides to this story like every other and if 60 is the new 40 then we are all completely screwed whether in aviation or not!

Just as a matter of interest, if there are any Speedbird, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM drivers out there reading this can you give us interested Canucks a sense of your mandatory retirement age from the line (if any) and the time of entry - at say - 25 - as a junior F/O on a junior fleet to command on Short Haul and then Long Haul, if indeed it works that way at your outfit?

I've heard many comments from SLFs on the likes of the 856 or 880 etc. heading over the pond that being served by grannies in bi-focals is not the image the national carrier of Canada should be portraying - and to SOME extent before the flamers come - they have a point. But no matter the age, if good service is offered and safety isn't compromised, why would it be such a big issue? Mind you, most of them wouldn't fit in a Virgin Atlantic red uniform anyway :}:}

MackTheKnife

18th Oct 2010, 00:58

Justice delayed is justice denied.

This entire CHRT legal process is becoming a joke.

777longhaul

19th Oct 2010, 07:02

for those that are interested in facts:

Raymond is posting again, on the other forum.

cloudcity

19th Oct 2010, 17:43

Justice delayed is justice denied.

There's likely a valid reason for the delay. It appears that just about every important Canadian government agency is hard into the case including the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT), the Canadian Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Attorney General's Office, the Federal Court of Canada, etc., etc.

sleeper

19th Oct 2010, 20:53

Just as a matter of interest, if there are any Speedbird, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM drivers out there reading this can you give us interested Canucks a sense of your mandatory retirement age from the line (if any) and the time of entry - at say - 25 - as a junior F/O on a junior fleet to command on Short Haul and then Long Haul, if indeed it works that way at your outfit?

For KLM:

For a full time contract, retirement age is 56 mandatory. This can be stretched to 60 if you start working 80% or 67% (both with equivalently reduced pay) at a certain time before 56.
Time to command varies greatly with the economic situation of the moment. I joined in booming times and made captain 737 after 6 years. Nowadays that takes more than 10 years.

777longhaul

19th Oct 2010, 23:42

Time to command

Well, have a look at Cathay. All seats, all types.

Have a look at their retirement age, it went up, and what they had to do to get it to go there.

Vic777

20th Oct 2010, 14:02

for those that are interested in facts:

Raymond is posting again, on the other forum.

Come on 777longhaul, tell me where ... what is the forum URL?

I want to know the facts!

Lost in Saigon

20th Oct 2010, 14:17

Come on 777longhaul, tell me where ... what is the forum URL?

I want to know the facts!

AVCANADA • View topic - CUPE (AC) Supports Those Opposing Mandatory Retirement (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=67912&sid=4a7ea6c044c60ed2ec8fb8de46767489)

Vic777

20th Oct 2010, 16:02

Lost in Saigon ... thanks ... it's nice to be able to hear from an honest source ...

777longhaul

21st Oct 2010, 01:58

AVCANADA.CA

Look under Fight attendant and other retirement headers.

MackTheKnife

28th Oct 2010, 17:39

>>> Why Your Retirement Age Matters (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39852674)

An independent survey of 431 U.S. retirees who are 65 and older conducted by Extend Health this year found that 85% of respondents opposed a mandatory retirement age. Of those who disagreed, 42% say the retirement age should be 65; 31% say it should be 70; 21% say it should be 67; and the remaining 6% say it should be 72.

MackTheKnife

28th Oct 2010, 22:10

>>> BMO: The later you retire the better (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/27/bmo-the-later-you-retire-the-better-unless-you-plan-to-die-early/)

(unless you plan to die early)

It should come as no surprise that when it comes to choosing when to

retire, age matters - that basically argues retirees will be better off, the

longer they keep working.

yycflyguy

30th Oct 2010, 17:15

ENGFIRELEFT
ACPA is not a public company already billions in debt

Really? Billions in debt? What is your source for that?

Shell Management

30th Oct 2010, 18:48

I wonder how the Air Canada SMS justified this.

MackTheKnife

30th Oct 2010, 22:39

What does SMS have to do with mandatory retirement?

Mechanic787

30th Oct 2010, 23:21

Madame Folco's Bill C-481 goes to second reading November 15th;

From Hansard, when Bill was given First Reading:

Bill C-481 | openparliament.ca (http://openparliament.ca/bills/2168/)

Raymonde Folco (http://openparliament.ca/politicians/raymonde-folco/) Laval—Les Îles, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age) (http://openparliament.ca/bills/2168/).

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in this House to introduce my bill on human rights and the Canada Labour Code to prohibit federally regulated employers from setting a mandatory retirement age. This would include private-sector employers subject to federal acts and regulations, as well as the federal public administration

The purpose of my bill goes one step beyond the decision of April 9 by the Federal Court of Canada, which found that age discrimination violated the charter following complaints by two Air Canada pilots. This was followed by a Human Rights Tribunal decision on August 28, which said, in part, that mandatory retirement was an affront to the right to equality and found that the infringement of equality rights through mandatory retirement could no longer be justified.

My bill would remove the offending provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Code and other federal acts and regulations.

These changes would affect more than 840,000 Canadians, or 10% of the country's labour force, at a time when our birth rate is on the decline. I hope that members on both sides of this house will support the swift passage of this bill.

engfireleft

31st Oct 2010, 01:16

Really? Billions in debt? What is your source for that?

Air Canada AC.A Balance sheet for the years 2008, 2007 and 2006 (http://ca.hotstocked.com/companies/a/air-canada-AC.A-balance-sheet-44.html)

yycflyguy

31st Oct 2010, 21:44

Quote:
Really? Billions in debt? What is your source for that?
Air Canada AC.A Balance sheet for the years 2008, 2007 and 2006

So you meant Air Canada and not ACPA.

engfireleft

31st Oct 2010, 23:49

Correct.

This is what I said

ACPA is not a public company already billions in debt, and we have limited means of raising money.

rick3333331

5th Nov 2010, 17:59

All the parties to the Vilven-Kelly Tribunal hearing were informed this morning that the Tribunal's decision will be released Monday, November 8th, at 9:30 AM Eastern time.

777longhaul

7th Nov 2010, 16:47

FlyPast60 Web Update Page -- Fly Past 60 Coalition Recent Events (http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm)

http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm (http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm)

http://www.flypast60.com/Documents/2010-11-07-CARP.pdf (http://www.flypast60.com/Documents/2010-11-07-CARP.pdf)

MidgetBoy

8th Nov 2010, 07:51

Pretty sure most pilots nearing retirement have more than $500,000 saved up in the bank. If not triple of that. Pilots at that age are raking in a ton...

Drboeing

8th Nov 2010, 13:43

here it is:

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=1028&lg=_e&isruling=0)

Vic777

8th Nov 2010, 14:00

WOW!

Congratulations, George, Neil and Ray.

Ray, this is what you said two years ago, would happen, (or was it five years ago)?

royalterrace

8th Nov 2010, 14:22

ACPA has a history of not accepting reality.

I wonder whether they will accept THIS REALITY or continue to waste their time and money in some sort of futile attempt to strike or modify the decisions that have been announced today.

errbus

8th Nov 2010, 15:37

True the TWO individuals are permitted to return, but that was never really in question. However, this was not the slam dunk that some here had envisioned. There is no Cease and Desist Order, there is no huge windfall compensation, and the two individuals can only be reinstated IF they have a current Pilots License, Medical and Instrument Rating. Apparently one has the requirements and the other not.

All in all, not nearly the result that many were hoping for.

ex-beagle

8th Nov 2010, 15:49

Very true errbus. No doubt Ray will try to spin this to make it appear to be a huge victory for the FlyPast60 group. However, as you mentioned, their victory is very small indeed.

clunckdriver

8th Nov 2010, 16:18

Let me see now, one of these persons claimed he wanted to keep flying but didnt maintain a medical or IR? Dear Lord, does he now want AC or the taxpayers to cover this? Is he serious in this, or just along for the ride and cash?

rick3333331

8th Nov 2010, 16:58

Just talked to the pilot....He has and had a class 1 medical for over one year......recently wrote the Instrument rating exam and passed with a high mark....Also recently had a medical with the AC occupational health department and was welcomed back.

clunckdriver

8th Nov 2010, 17:08

Passing the INRAT does NOT give you a current IR, just a piece of paper saying you passed the INRAT, nothing more.

767-300ER

8th Nov 2010, 17:34

Well, no slam dunk in this ruling...actually, it basically refined the offer that ACPA/Air Canada made earlier this year....

the lack of a cease and desist order is a huge defeat to the "greedy" gang...the way Ray was telling us, they were going to win big big big...and the Judicial Review hasn't even happened yet...

So don't start planning the renos or the new car or new boat yet...

Maybe the group can go out and buy bulk group therapy sessions to calm their shattered dignity of having to retire.

Vic777

8th Nov 2010, 17:45

Does this mean that the next group of 120 Pilots will be paid 81 hrs. 1/2 day 1/2 night etc. from Sept 01/09 etc. And it will be paid 50% by AC and 50% by ACPA? Remember the definition of insanity?

767-300ER

8th Nov 2010, 20:54

Does this mean that the next group of 120 Pilots will be paid 81 hrs. 1/2 day 1/2 night etc. from Sept 01/09 etc. And it will be paid 50% by AC and 50% by ACPA? Remember the definition of insanity?

No it doesn't...too bad:{

Each case has to be decided individually, and only when(if) the ruling is made in their favour does the compensation clock start...

So nice try...too bad....maybe the weak-kneed complainants will fold and go back to their retirement lodges...

777longhaul

9th Nov 2010, 01:20

CHRT - Tribunal Decisions (http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/NS/decisions/index-eng.asp?filter=year)

767-300ER

9th Nov 2010, 02:21

[92] With respect to Vilven and Kelly claims for pain and suffering, in my opinion these claims should not be allowed. They both ask for the maximum of $20,000 without explaining why they are entitled to the maximum. The Tribunal jurisprudence clearly indicates that the maximum award is reserved for the most egregious discriminatory practice. The facts presented by the complainants do not meet this standard.

[93] Rather the facts of this case militate against any award for pain and suffering. From the time Vilven and Kelly joined Air Canada they were well aware of the mandatory retirement age of 60. Yet they did nothing to challenge this as being discriminatory until after they were retired from Air Canada at age 60.

[94] On the contrary, they benefitted from this discriminatory practice by being able to move up more quickly in terms of seniority, higher paid positions, preferred monthly schedules and vacation schedules. This was because the pilots ahead of and more senior to them were obliged to retire at age 60.

Geez...some common sense from the Tribunal....whodda thunk it.....

I guess all the kool-aid drinkers are out partying tonight.

where is the slam-dunk here?

Bueller? Bueller?

bunkhog

9th Nov 2010, 21:29

Wish I got paid for 81 hours half/half. On the 320 we are lucky to get a 73 hour block!

Pain and suffering sitting at home indeed.

777longhaul

9th Nov 2010, 22:44

The reason, you are reading about this, is due to your union, acpa, insisting, against all reason, that they fight this issue.

West Jet settled the issue with their management in less than a month.

If you want to be pissed off, direct it to acpa.

767-300ER

9th Nov 2010, 22:56

A. Vilven
[88] Vilven claims $20,000 as compensation for pain and suffering, the maximum under s.53(2)(e) of the CHRA. In terms of how his forced retirement affected him personally, he said flying has always been a significant part of his life. Most of his friends are pilots who continue to fly but he was not able to do so.

[89] Vilven said that the impact on his personal life is that he paid a terrible price for instituting and pursuing his complaint. His wife is extremely disappointed and saddened the way he's been treated. He has lost family friends. He was told that at the Winnipeg retirement dinner for Air Canada pilots on June 16, 2006, there was a mannequin portraying him in a very unflattering way. He said his wife would have been very upset if she had been there and so would he but he did not attend that dinner.

B. Kelly
[90] Kelly is claiming $20,000 for pain and suffering. He said that the impact of the termination of employment at Air Canada on his personal life has been very difficult. He has lost the comradeship of a lot of friends. He has lost the ability to visit regularly with his son who was resident in Hong Kong and which was a regular destination when he was flying.

[91] Kelly says that he's been employed continuously since the age of 16 and this is the first time in his life that he hasn't been employed. He finds it's very damaging to his dignity and sense of self worth, particularly the fact that he still has two younger children, one in university and one still in high school. He has to rely on his wife to earn the additional income required to maintain their lifestyle when he is perfectly fit and able to continue employment. He said relationships with friends have been strained.

Boy, these claims are laughable...what stopped them from being friends with their friends after they retired???

Their wife is disappointed??? WTF???

What prevented them from visiting their son in Hong Kong when they were retired???

they think they have suffered a terrible price so far...sounds like it was 100% self-inflicted

engfireleft

10th Nov 2010, 12:30

While you and others devote 100% of your energy into a nonstop river of vitriol aimed at the people who challenged this, something rather significant happened right under your noses.

Mandatory retirement at age 60 in this country died and Air Canada pilots have done NOTHING to prepare for it either mentally or in more tangible terms.

Mechanic787

10th Nov 2010, 14:28

One of my key interests in this quasi-judicial decision is the organizational dynamic resulting from it. How will the decision be received by both the union and the employer? From what I can see of the entrenched positions of the parties, they are far from a final resolution.

Massive changes resulting from judicial re-interpretations of legislative provisions rarely occur all at once. Usually there are clear pre-cursors, followed by a few steps forward combined with a step or two backwards. The lack of a full stand by the Tribunal on the most controversial issue in the case (its refusal to issue the cease order, despite the fact that it found the collective agreement provision, not the facts surrounding the individuals themselves, to violate the provisions of the Act) means that those defending the status quo will likely be even more reluctant to accept the general thrust of the change, probably leading to more polarized viewpoints and more legal expenses.

I believe that the next two major developments, namely the release of the second case decision by the Tribunal, which I understand to be imminent, and the planned judicial review hearing by the Federal Court, will put Air Canada in a position where it will have no choice but to reverse its opposition to mandatory retirement. If it loses the second case on the merits of the mandatory retirement exemption provision in the statute, that outcome will be virtually impossible to overturn at appeal, given that the determination at the Tribunal level is based on evidence (fact), not law, which the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to change (Tribunals are allowed to err in their decisions, so long as those errors do not exceed the Tribunals exclusive jurisdiction).

Although the legal determinations will play a huge role in the final outcome, in the end it will almost certainly come down to money. How much is Air Canada willing to spend fighting the wrong side of a huge public policy issue before it says enough is enough? That will be basically a business decision, not an emotional one.

For unions, the exact opposite is usually the case, from my experience. But given what appears to be the precedent-setting decision by the Tribunal to hold the union 50% accountable for the lost compensation resulting from the wrongful termination of employment of these two individuals, there is arguably a strong business decision to be made by the union, as well. If I were a member of that union following this decision I would be demanding some very pointed answers from my elected representatives about what the potential liability really is in that regard, given the number of similar complainants in the queue behind these two.

777longhaul

10th Nov 2010, 16:54

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/09/c2525.html (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/09/c2525.html)
Quote:

Air Canada confirmed today that the European Commission issued a decision finding that 12 air cargo carriers (including groups of related carriers) had infringed European Union competition law in the setting of certain cargo charges and rates for various periods between 1999 and 2006. Air Canada is among the carriers subject to the decision and a fine of 21,037,500 Euros (approximately C$29.4 million at an exchange rate of $1.3970) has been imposed on it.

767-300ER

10th Nov 2010, 19:00

AIR CANADA | AIR CANADA NOTIFIED OF EUROPEAN COMMISSION DECISION IN CARGO RATES AND CHARGES COMPETITION MATTER (1999-2006) (http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/09/c2525.html)
Quote:

Air Canada confirmed today that the European Commission issued a decision finding that 12 air cargo carriers (including groups of related carriers) had infringed European Union competition law in the setting of certain cargo charges and rates for various periods between 1999 and 2006. Air Canada is among the carriers subject to the decision and a fine of 21,037,500 Euros (approximately C$29.4 million at an exchange rate of $1.3970) has been imposed on it.

...and this has what to do with flying 'til ya die????

767-300ER

10th Nov 2010, 19:08

and the planned judicial review hearing by the Federal Court, will put Air Canada in a position where it will have no choice but to reverse its opposition to mandatory retirement.

Hey 737 Mechanic

I think you should give up your day job and start charging for psychic readings....how do you know what the Federal Court is going to rule, and regardless, how is the Supreme Court going to rule on this?

Given the slam-dunk ruling that was promised by one of the "fly 'til ya die" lawyers, I don't think I would be too sure of where this is going, except to say that there are many more chapters to be written...and many more lawyers to get rich, all to appease a few dozen greedy pilots.

Mechanic787

11th Nov 2010, 02:52

Hey 737 Mechanic I think you should give up your day job and start charging for psychic readings....

Hey Mister 767-300ER: the UserName is "Mechanic787," not "737 Mechanic". The nomenclature is chosen for a reason. The 787 signifies a totally different generation of research, design and analytics in comparison to the 737, as you know, and moves us forever away from the traditional moribund thinking, problem-solving analysis and operational methodology of the previous century when the age-60 rule was the norm.

Now, being one who has absolutely nothing to gain or lose by the impending changes in your work environment, may I ask you to please tell me, have you ever mistaken cumulogranite for altocumulous? A few of my long-departed friends have, both figuratively (in the boardroom) and literally (in the stratosphere) and I promised myself as a consequence that I would never repeat their mistakes.

Keep on your path. Don't look at any of the obvious indications around you that your reality is about to undergo a profound change. Criticize the well-founded, reasoned prognostications of those who have perhaps decades more knowledge and analytical experience than you in this hardball game, and enjoy your obliviously smug viewpoint while it lasts before you run full-speed into the huge rocks hiding in the clouds that you are approaching.

trop_rider

12th Nov 2010, 15:52

"...The 787 signifies a totally different generation of research, design and analytics in comparison to the 737, as you know, and moves us forever away from the traditional moribund thinking, problem-solving analysis and operational methodology of the previous century when the age-60 rule was the norm. ..."

Wow, that is some impressive writing! The writer demonstrates quite the command of the written word, and hints at an intellect unsurpassed for some time around here. A magnificent metaphorical marvel, no less!

What I would like to understand further though, is how, in this generation of research, design and analytics (the era that is moving us forever away from the traditional moribund thinking, problem-solving analysis and operational methodology of the previous century when the age-60 rule was the norm) that Alto Cu may have ever managed to manifest itself in the Stratosphere. Now THAT would be some interesting stuff to deviate around on a dark and dirty moonless night on min fuel while the suits held hands and whimpered in the back...

Chuck Ellsworth

12th Nov 2010, 23:53

Now THAT would be some interesting stuff to deviate around on a dark and dirty moonless night on min fuel while the suits held hands and whimpered in the back...

Pardon me for being naive, but is being a pilot really that difficult a job?

Understated

13th Nov 2010, 05:35

I think you should give up your day job and start charging for psychic readings....how do you know what the Federal Court is going to rule, and regardless, how is the Supreme Court going to rule on this?

May I suggest your next verses:

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you

If your heart is in your dreams, no request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star as dreamers do

(Fate is kind, she brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of their secret longing)

Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you thru
When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true

(Writer: Leigh Harline; Lyrics: Ned Washington)

So, let’s do an inventory of the Tribunal's first (of many) damage awards...

Full reinstatement, full seniority, and no maximum age limit whatsoever. Compensation of over $100,000 each. No notice period required to eventually leave employment, no blended salary (pension and wage) and no restriction to junior aircraft or position. Damages payable to be shared equally by Air Canada and the Association.

Mandatory retirement at Air Canada has been successfully overturned, at least partially, despite Air Canada's and ACPA's monumental effort to prevent this from happening. More importantly, the dam has been cracked. Two down, 148 or more to go, so far. Liability accruing at the rate of in excess of $1.5 million per month (using Air Canada's numbers, times the number of pilots awaiting their day in court).

True, the Tribunal said that this week's decision applied to those two only pilots, not to the others in the queue. What does that mean? Does it imply that the others may not also be successful in their demands for reinstatement and compensation? Not likely.

It means only that the remaining complainants have to go through the same hearing process to get what the Tribunal finds to be approporiate in their circumstances before they receive a similar outcome. The Tribunal gave no suggestion that the remaining complainants would not receive the same or even larger awards. Hence, the total potential payout is shaping up to be quite problematic, especially for the union.

So what is the probability that any of the remaining pilots in the queue will get a less generous award than what these two received? Does it make any sense that Vilven and Kelly, who have been away for over seven years and five years respectively, would get full seniority and full rights without bidding restrictions, but that someone whose employment was terminated later would not? Not likely. Will they be awarded less monetary compensation? Not likely.

Why? Because this damage award was limited by the fact that the damages started after the Charter decision was rendered. The remaining complainants will not be limited by that factor because their arguments are not (yet) based upon the Charter. If they lose their case on the numbers (normal age of retirement), they can still be awarded the Charter damages outcome that Vilven and Kelly were awarded, because that argument has not yet been made in their hearings.

If the Federal Court or a higher court overturns the Vilven-Kelly Charter decision and consequent damage award, the remaining pilots can still reasonably expect the same outcome or better than what was awarded this week by the Tribunal in the Vilven-Kelly case.

Why? Because the other complainants can still be awarded even more damages on the basis of the normal age of retirement argument (the impending Thwaites decision). That outcome will be almost impossible to successfully appeal, because it will be based on evidence, not on esoteric legal argument about Charter principles. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to decide evidentiary-based outcomes, and appeal courts do not generally interfere with factual findings of Tribunals. Their role, in judicial review, is to review the legality of the process used by the Tribunal, not the findings of fact.

One does not need to use Tarot cards, nor does one need to be a next-generation technologist to see the stars aligning on this one. Of course, you can always avail yourself of the two alternative options used by ACPA for the past five years: denial and wishful thinking.

Vic777

14th Nov 2010, 13:16

Is there a way out for the AC Pilots? Can the AC Pilots "get out" of ACPA and join ALPA? Can ACPA sell it's assets and distribute these back to the Pilots? Then ACPA would be penniless and disappear. Is this course of action legal? Is it possible? Would AC rather negotiate with ALPA or with their ACPA bedfellows?
The ruling gives AC a stranglehold over ACPA. ACPA has been rendered totally impotent.

ACAV8R

14th Nov 2010, 19:24

Understated wrote, "Mandatory retirement at Air Canada has been successfully overturned, at least partially...

Partially correct, very partially. The CHRT denied the cease-and-desist order. Further they made it quite clear that Vilven/Kelly was not precedent-setting so therefore none of the future litigants can appeal to VK as precedental. Because Canadian jurisprudence is based on Stare Decisis, precedental law, that is a huge setback for future litigants.

VK is a one-off. Age 60 retirement stays...for now.

cloudcity

14th Nov 2010, 19:54

Further they made it quite clear that Vilven/Kelly was not precedent-setting so therefore none of the future litigants can appeal to VK as precedental

Seems correct. For now, pending retirees still need to apply to the Human Rights Commission in Ottawa to join the process. You have 1 year from your date of mandatory retirement to file a complaint. At this point that includes everyone since last November, 2009. The process is very straightforward. Once you contact the Commission they will fax you all the required forms.

Canadian Human Rights Commission :: Home :: Contact Us (http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/contact/default-eng.aspx)

a330pilotcanada

14th Nov 2010, 21:41

Good Afternoon ACAV8R:

That was a very good post as it seems you have read the process very carefully to navigate this minefield. When you get a chance please expand your thoughts on this ongoing progression in order to give it some stability.
As far as "Understated" is concerned please explain why your posts share the same sentence structure, tempo and tenor as "Over/Under" who has been conspicuously absent from this discussion?

Understated

14th Nov 2010, 23:38

Further they made it quite clear that Vilven/Kelly was not precedent-setting so therefore none of the future litigants can appeal to VK as precedental. Because Canadian jurisprudence is based on Stare Decisis, precedental law, that is a huge setback for future litigants.

I believe that you are not reading the words in the decision correctly. It did not say that the VK decision was not "precedent-setting" so therefore none of the future litigants can appeal to VK as precedent. The decision said that the decision was not a "legal precedent," meaning, I would infer, that it is a non-binding precedent, not that it is not a precedent.

I will leave it up to the lawyers to labour over the proposition that this decision is not a legal precedent, but from my lay point of view the implications of that finding should come from the person who decides the next case, not from the person that decided this one. It will be up to later Tribunal panels to decide whether or not to follow the decision.

Frankly, to a layman the proposition that the case does not represent a "legal" (i.e. non-binding) precedent does make some sense. But that should not stop another Tribunal from deciding the outcome of the next case on the basis of the same reasoning followed in this case, or from even crediting this case as precedent if the essential facts and issues in the next case are identical. I believe it only means that the next Tribunal is not required to follow this decision.

The interpretation that this decision does not represent a "precedent" at all does not make a lot of sense. Can't any decision from any tribunal be a precedent if the decision is followed in subsequent cases? Wasn't the August 2009 decision a precedent in that it marked the first time that the Tribunal refused to uphold the prior case law permitting mandatory retirement? This case marks the first time that this collective agreement provision has not been upheld. Can the same collective agreement provision be contrary to the Human Rights Act in this case, but not in the next? I doubt it.

If the Tribunal's statement was intended to imply that subsequent Tribunals could not cite this decision as precedent (albeit, non-binding) it would not surprise me if the Tribunal is wrong on that point. That wouldn't be the only error in the decision, however. The award of damages payable by an "interested party" (as opposed to a "respondent") to a complainant (ACPA to Vilven) is an embarrassment to the Tribunal.

If Air Canada loses the Thwaites case ("normal age of retirement") should it make the same assumption, namely that that case as well is not a precedent, and that it should therefore recklessly continue its policy of terminating the employment of pilots at age 60, without regard to the potential adverse consequences? Only at the risk of allowing the damages payable to continue to mount, in the desperate hope that it can now overturn both decisions on appeal.

Moreover, is there any implication anywhere in this decision or the prior one that would lead anyone to suspect that any of the litigants in the queue will not eventually be reinstated with full seniority, with full rights under the collective agreement and with substantial damages, with interest payable to the date of their award, just as Vilven and Kelly were? If there is, I didn’t see it.

Contrary to what you suggest, I don't see this decision as being a huge setback to the future litigants because it is likely to be mooted very soon in either or both of the decisions that are pending, especially the Federal Court decision. If the Federal Court upholds the Tribunal’s August, 2009 decision that the violation of the Charter by the mandatory retirement exemption in the statute is not justified under Section 1 of the Charter, that will end mandatory retirement for everyone in the federal jurisdiction, including all of the future litigants. That decision will be a legal precedent.

trop_rider

15th Nov 2010, 03:08

"...Pardon me for being naive, but is being a pilot really that difficult a job?..."

I guess if you are seriously seeking an answer to such a question (even after the 1943 or so posts your profile attributes to you) that perhaps you might consider addressing that question to the family,colleagues, and friends of the airmen who perished on AF 447... (may their souls rest in peace)

Chuck Ellsworth

15th Nov 2010, 06:33

I fail to see what the Air France 447 has to do with this comment you made.

Now THAT would be some interesting stuff to deviate around on a dark and dirty moonless night on min fuel while the suits held hands and whimpered in the back...

My personal opinion is pilots as a group are not all that much different from any other group of people working in any other occupation.

And I have flown with a few airline types who were marginal with regard to their aircraft handling skills, which leads me to believe that being a pilot is not all that difficult an occupation relatively speaking.

Islanderguy

15th Nov 2010, 07:03

I've flown with several airline types who are beyond reproach with regard to their handling skills. Which has led me to believe that piloting may not be that difficult, those that spend their career seeking to improve their knowledge base and skill continously, often leave those surfing mediocrity far behind. the airplane someone operates and their skill level shouldn't be painted with the same brush.

Vic777

15th Nov 2010, 12:11

My personal opinion is pilots as a group are not all that much different from any other group of people working in any other occupation.Any job, once you're trained for it and skilled at it, becomes, "easy". Lee Westwood finds Golf easy ... but I don't want him flying my airplanes ... in fact I would have a far better chance at parring the last hole to win the British Open than he would have at landing the AF 447 flight. I would probably bat over 500 on the "golf" while he would bat zero. Now here's a difficult job that the lads are neither trained at, nor experienced in ... The ACPA exec's who have to get themselves out of the hole they dug. (and pushed everyone into, I might add)

ACAV8R

15th Nov 2010, 12:51

Understated, maybe we are coming at the question from different angles. You are correct that the CHRT said that the VK decision was not "legal-precedent." The way I read that is that, because it is NOT legal precedent, or precedent-setting, future cases could NOT appeal to the VK decision as precedent-setting. IOW because the decision to order V&K reinstated was not precedent-setting, was a one-off, future litigants could not say, "You reinstated V&K so therefore, on the basis of Stare Decisis, legal precedent, you must order us to also be reinstated."

That's how I see it anyway.

Regards.

Understated

15th Nov 2010, 13:10

IOW because the decision to order V&K reinstated was not precedent-setting, was a one-off, future litigants could not say, "You reinstated V&K so therefore, on the basis of Stare Decisis, legal precedent, you must order us to also be reinstated."

I agree. We are both saying the same thing. The precedent is not binding, so it cannot be used by future litigants to force the Tribunal to arrive at the same outcome.

However, I believe that we must be very careful not to draw the incorrect inference from the decision, namely that this outcome will be an anomoly. There is nothing to stop the next Tribunal from arriving at the same outcome, nor is there any suggestion that it should not do so, given the same factual situation; in fact the opposite is true--all factors point towards the Tribunal arriving at the same outcome, especially regarding reinstatement.

With respect to reinstatement (as opposed to damages and recovery of lost compensation), nothing in the VK decision is dependent upon the factual circumstances of these two individuals. The termination, like all the following terminations, was based solely upon the collective agreement provision. That fact will not change. So, reinstatement of all those who wish it should logically follow in all of the succeeding cases.

Damages and payment for lost compensation must be determined on a case by case basis, however, taking into consideration the nature of the discriminatory practice (violation of the exemption provision, versus Charter damages), mitigation, and other relevant factors specific to the individual litigants.

The bottom line is that no matter what the Tribunal said about this not being a "legal precedent" the implications are substantial. The dam will not just get a bigger crack, it is about to burst.

trop_rider

15th Nov 2010, 15:12

Mr. Ellsworth, I agree with you. It is my opinion as well that pilots are not all that different from people working in other occupations. People, after all, are just people: we all come from different backgrounds, cultures, geographic regions, and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. The descriptor "professional pilot" or "airline pilot" (or whatever) should not bring with it any suggestion that one is 'superior' or different than any other individual. I have personally flown with "all shapes and sizes" in my brief 24 year career, and as you can well imagine, assigning expectations or pre-judging any individual before one spends time getting to know him or her is an exercise in futility and frankly, a waste of energy.

My comment regarding deviating around nasty cells in a fuel-critical situation was borne out of frustration with my perception that although the poster wrote with great style and is clearly an intelligent and well-read individual, that he is apparently not even familiar with the layers of our atmosphere. Put simply, it is very difficult to accept commentary about one's profession from a person who has not sat in the seat, or signed the logbook.

Flying airplanes is nothing special at all. Professionals make it look easy day in and day out, around the world, all year long. However, there is a HELL of a lot that goes on behind the scenes to make the journey as safe, routine, and seamless as possible for those who are paying my salary. I am just fine with them neither knowing about, or caring about these "details". That is what I get paid for, and I accept the responsibility with quiet pride. But when someone who clearly knows very little about what happens in the pointy end spouts off about my profession on a "professional pilots" forum, I sometimes feel the need to speak out.

My apologies for playing a part in the side-tracking of this thread...if you wish to continue on this topic, I would respectfully suggest starting a new one; I am sure there will be many varying opinions on the profession...

Understated

15th Nov 2010, 21:29

As far as "Understated" is concerned please explain why your posts share the same sentence structure, tempo and tenor as "Over/Under" who has been conspicuously absent from this discussion?

Because he too is a cunning linguist?

Please explain why your posts share the same sentence structure, tempo and tenor as Tommy Smothers ("Mom always like you best!")

OverUnder

16th Nov 2010, 04:39

I am truly flattered. But conspicuously absent? When I have something meaningful to add to the discussion, I will add it.

clunckdriver

16th Nov 2010, 11:38

I hear that HR at Air Canada are having the odd chat with the new intakes re the ramifications of all this . Question, all those in Air Canada at this time knew the rules when they joined, why therefore isnt this change to the retirment age simply applied to those who have joined since the decision?{If it does in fact become binding} Strikes me as being fair to all and wont screw those who are waiting for upgrades at this time and wont generate the hostility so evident amoungst this group or slow their upgrades/pay raises.For this to be implemented one would of course have to ignore the bloody silly stuff coming from the two complainents at the hearing.

Vic777

16th Nov 2010, 12:47

why therefore isnt this change to the retirment age simply applied to those who have joined since the decision?It's an indication of the astuteness and managerial talents of those running AC, just reactive not proactive, shaped by events, not shaping events, you know the guys that did the fuel hedging and got the PTV's on the 777. ACPA should be eating them for breakfast, unfortunately, it's the other way around.
... ignore the bloody silly stuff coming from the two complainents at the hearing.Thank goodness the Commission has ignored AC and ACPA.

Understated

16th Nov 2010, 14:05

I hear that HR at Air Canada are having the odd chat with the new intakes re the ramifications of all this .

What a pile of crap. Do you not have anything better to do than to stir the pot with complete fabrications?

The first pilot new-hires in years at Air Canada arrived for their first day on the premises yesterday morning and you are saying that despite the fact that you do not work for Air Canada, you have the inside scoop on the nuances and innuendos of conversations that took place during their coffee breaks yesterday?

What do you mean by the expression, "the ramifications of all this?" Are you suggesting that Air Canada's "HR" (Human Resources?) personnel, who work in a different building from the training centre, were brought in to start engaging in discussions with new employees about issues that are still before the court, without the authorization of senior management or corporate legal counsel?

Or do you mean that Flight Operations line managers or training staff working at the training centre would make that kind of mistake? Regardless, you obviously don't understand corporate culture, you don't give them much credit, or both. Get real.

Then you re-lob the now judicially defeated proposition about fairness and the contract, and pilots knowing when they joined that they would be required to retire at age 60--like you haven't read a single post here for the past five years, you have no understanding of the law and you haven't bothered to read the two Tribunal decisions that buried that concept. Thanks for your contribution.

clunckdriver

16th Nov 2010, 14:27

Understated, in fact one of the new hires had a discussion during the hiring process re this subject, with HR, I dont think he/she dreamed this up, as for the rest of your rant , my computer shut down half way through it! Must have an Auto Rant Shut Down feature! Relax, keep your blood presure down if you want to keep flying!

Vic777

16th Nov 2010, 14:44

Hey clunkdriver ... Is this you?

A Japanese Soldier Who Continued Fighting WWII 29 Years After the Japanese Surrendered, Because He Didn?t Know (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/a-japanese-soldier-who-continued-fighting-wwii-29-years-after-the-japanese-surrendered-because-he-didnt-know/)

Understated

16th Nov 2010, 14:54

in fact one of the new hires had a discussion during the hiring process re this subject, with HR

During the hiring process? Like, weeks ago? Before the reinstatement order was issued last Monday, when Air Canada was still maintaining that these pilots would be forced onto the Embraer? Before the CIRB stated that it was ordering a hearing into the DFR complaint?

Don't be surprised to see a major shift in attitude with respect to returning pilots from both Air Canada management and from ACPA executives, given the fact that these two individuals, since last Monday, are both active employees and active members of the union.

clunckdriver

16th Nov 2010, 14:55

Vicc777, I dont know how you can missread so badly, I am in no way affected by this stuff, nor do I feel I have taken extreame positions on either side, but am a more than interested observer, {Flying four legs today, at age 72} As for the previous post about AC scewing up the fuel futures, been there! Got it right four times but not the fith for sure, went back to paying the price and inflicting "Fuel Surcharge" on the SLF, belive me, it aint as easy as it looks, so if any of you have a better crystal ball, I would like the use of it! And yes, Understated, some of these discussions took place some time back during the interview process, in fact those at the bottom of the food chain that I deal with seem to be very up to date and well read with the facts in this hearing , wouldnt you be if you were in their shoes?

Understated

16th Nov 2010, 15:05

Vicc777 [sic], I dont [sic] know how you can missread [sic] so badly...

Poetic! Misread his name (Vic777, versus Vicc777) while complaining about him misreading your posts!

I am in no way affected by this stuff, nor do I feel I have taken extreame [sic] positions on either side...

Argumentum ad avoidum. His point is that you don't seem to recognize either that human rights legislation supercedes collective agreements (the argument about this applying only to new-hires is totally dead--you obviously can't get your mind around that), nor do you seem to recognize that the die has now been cast--the arbitrary age 60 limit has been broken by a legally enforceable Tribunal order, and that there are two pilots on the Air Canada payroll who are not only over age 60, but over age 65.

Vic777

16th Nov 2010, 15:09

{Flying four legs today, at age 72}So, I guess it's fair to say that if this battle had been won Ten years ago, you'd only be flying One leg today ... to Beijing!

clunckdriver

16th Nov 2010, 15:23

Actually no, I always felt that thirty years in one company was more than enough, in fact if it were not for our home grown kids and a bunch of Foster Kids I would have pulled the plug much earlier, when I did quit we had a charter OC and a bunch of FTUs, since sold. Nowadays a split between charity flying{Cancer cases for the most part} and normall short haul corporate flying using the aircraft as a training tool to give kids real life IFR multi PIC, and they get paid for it. Just renewed my IFR, this may be the last time, the kid flying with me is more than able to take over as soon as we can convince the insurance company that she has enough time.Oh, and by the way we dont wear any bloody uniforms, that I dont miss one jot! Also dont ever have to deal with airport security, now thats a real plus!

a330pilotcanada

16th Nov 2010, 20:18

Good Afternoon Understated:

Is that you Buck???

Anyhow it appears you and over/under might be "shilling" for Ray767 who is banned from the web site and I have brought up the reasons why he was banned for your edification.

Post 437
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.

Post 438 from Vic777
Quote: 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.

Please kick me off ... as I don't want to be able to read or post anything here ....

Post 439 Moderator to Vic777

Nah, simply stop visiting you posturing ninny.

Rpob

Understated

16th Nov 2010, 22:02

Anyhow it appears you and over/under might be "shilling" for Ray767 who is banned from the web site and I have brought up the reasons why he was banned for your edification.

Thanks for the history lesson on what can happen to posters who make use of dangerous tools, like original thinking. I will try to govern myself accordingly, so that I do not suffer the same fate.

Don't give up the witch hunt. I know that he is out there somewhere, because he sends a couple hundred of us regular factual updates that, as you can see from my posts, give us a solid understanding of what is happening, outside of the ACPA cocoon.

Pray tell, the name a330pilotcanada is a shill for whom?

a330pilotcanada

16th Nov 2010, 22:59

Good Evening Understated:
No it was not a history lesson but a reminder that a moderator such as in the employ of PPRuNe based on their years of experience acknowledged this thread for what it is, an exercise in self aggrandizement.
Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to. I will not pass on some of the comments from the European side as this would only inflame positions that have been already been stated.
As far as a witch hunt not in the least bit interested as I have moved on. This deliberation will be decided by the senior jurists of the Supreme Court of Canada who are the legal intelligentsia of our country. No doubt which way the decision goes this will be debated long past our communal best before dates.
A.C.P.A. cocoon? I can remember the time when C.A.L.P.A. was derided in the same fashion yet there are others who wish to return to that canard.
With regards to a shill I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.

Vic777

16th Nov 2010, 23:11

Understated

17th Nov 2010, 01:07

Over the years I have cultivated friendships amongst other airline pilots around the world and almost to man they are wondering how the pilots of Air Canada have developed such tunnel vision in this pursuit of staying longer in the job than they have to.

Disturbingly familar. Right out of the ACPA Age 60 Newsletter of December 11, 2006:

"They got to their positions, not because of any particular anointment – but simply because others left in front of them when it was their time to move into the next phase of their lives."

The ones with the tunnel vision are not those who wish to continue working. No. The ones with the tunnel vision are the ones who cannot see that the law that permitted mandatory retirement in Canada is no longer sustainable and that "staying longer in a job" is not something that a union or an employer continues to have any control over, period.

It is their vision of never changing, of fighting the inevitable, of maintaining the status quo, that is causing the damage here, not the vision of those who choose to extend their professional work life.

I will restate I have no interest in this other than to see the world wide regard for the pilots at Air Canada be brought back.

A good start along that path would be for Air Canada pilots to start respecting themselves by respecting their own peers who wish to work in an age discrimination-free work environment. How can we expect anybody to respect us when we don't respect ourselves?

picture

17th Nov 2010, 07:29

I have flown with many of you who want to come back and keep flying at AC.
Unlike many pilots in the states you have a pension and you are the worst of the baby boomers. You do not want to leave the profession in a better state than when you found it. You are the worst of the ME generation . Listening to your arguments reminds me of discrimination from the gay community from the fifties. Except most of you had a 30 plus career and have a pension better than half the pilots salaries still working.

You are from the me generation and feel your wants needs trump all others. You are the reason this industry is in the state it's in after selling your young members down the river for years with the standard line let's protect the widebody working conditions because someday you will be senior.

You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man.

trop_rider

17th Nov 2010, 13:18

"...the law that permitted mandatory retirement in Canada is no longer sustainable..."

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. What happens if they decide that it is permissible for a group of employees to collectively and democratically decide they wish to retire at a specific age, like 62, or 55, or 60, or whatever?

Are there any other parts of the collective agreement that could be construed to be discriminatory to identifiable groups?

Perhaps those in the AC "Pay Group" have been unfairly discriminated against? Oh, wait a minute...ahhh, I see...that's not quite the same thing; those are conditions that the pilot group AS A WHOLE have agreed upon, like scheduling rules, GDIP, vacation allotment, pay rates, etc. etc.

Not AT ALL like Age 60 Retirement....hmmm

cloudcity

17th Nov 2010, 17:08

You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man.

With all respect to your personal dismal level of frustration, you really need to take statements like that to an audience that can reflect a real litmus test for you.
Take it to the HRC, or to the House of Commons, stand there and say just exactly what you're saying here and listen carefully to the answers.

engfireleft

17th Nov 2010, 17:18

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about that. What happens if they decide that it is permissible for a group of employees to collectively and democratically decide they wish to retire at a specific age, like 62, or 55, or 60, or whatever?

It's amazing to me that after all this time there is still this kind of fundamental misunderstanding of what this issue is all about. It is already permissible for a group of employees to collectively and democratically decide when they wish to retire at a certain age, like 62, or 55, or 60 or whatever. Furthermore no one wishes to change that.

What is not permissible now is for a group of employees to collectively decide when someone must retire. That is an infringement on individual human rights in Canada. Can you not see the difference?

av8tor68

17th Nov 2010, 19:00

Quote picture: "I have flown with many of you who want to come back and keep flying at AC.
Unlike many pilots in the states you have a pension and you are the worst of the baby boomers. You do not want to leave the profession in a better state than when you found it. You are the worst of the ME generation . Listening to your arguments reminds me of discrimination from the gay community from the fifties. Except most of you had a 30 plus career and have a pension better than half the pilots salaries still working.

You are from the me generation and feel your wants needs trump all others. You are the reason this industry is in the state it's in after selling your young members down the river for years with the standard line let's protect the widebody working conditions because someday you will be senior.

You can come back but don't think it's for any moral reason . You are not an old lady on a bus . Just an old greedy man."

To this reader, it is apparent that anger is feeding your own greed to the extent that you are unable to disagree without yourself being disagreeable, which in turn tends to make your entire position on the issue of mandatory retirement irrelevant and immaterial.

Mechanic787

18th Nov 2010, 01:20

You are not an old lady on a bus. Just an old greedy man

Sir: In the organization where I work, we have developed incentives to keep our most experienced personnel from leaving their employment with us. We value their experience and their continued contribution to the welfare of the entire corporate entity. We consider ourselves enrichened by their continued contribution.

What is it about your employment circumstances that would lead you to take such umbrage at those of your peers who would express a desire to continue to contribute to your employer's objectives? Is their exercise of their desire and legal right, in the context of the existing legislation, to continue their employment beyond what has traditionally been considered a "best before" date, so worthy of your rebuke?

777longhaul

18th Nov 2010, 01:36

If.....you want to read the official update(s) from the FP60 (Fly past 60) website:

FlyPast60 Web Update Page -- Fly Past 60 Coalition Recent Events (http://www.flypast60.com/Update.htm)

Regardless of what you want to believe, read, desire, etc, please, re read the above post from Engine Fire Left, it covers the entire story.

The BFOR (legal term) that ac/acpa failed to demonstrate during the hearings, removes the legal right to force retire someone due to age in aviation, in Canada. Thats the HRA law, period. Air Canada, is NOT the principle employer in Canada, it is well under the 50% mark, and therefore, AC can not set mandatory retirement under the HRA. They have no legal right to do so.

ACPA can not apply the BFOR argument, (they tried it in court) and it was rejected. ACPA is NOT an employer, so they can not even apply to the court for relief, under the HRA to discriminate on the age 60 issue. They have no legal right. ACPA can negoiate a retirement age with AC, and Vice/Versa, but neither can FORCE anyone to retire at age 60.

The CHRC, has told the CHRT, and the Federal Review Court, in their written submissions, for this months pending JR, that air canada failed the BFOR test. They, (ac) lost the BFOR, and they can not legally hide behind it any longer.

So, for those who are thinking like they are to only ones that have an interest that is being changed, you need to try....and see the issues, from a legal standpoint.

A response to the above posting by "Picture"

Since you called me a greedy old man, (all of us) no females on the FP60 group yet.... may I assume you would want to sit in my seat as soon as I left? That would make you just as greedy, only younger.

The difference between a greedy old man, and a greedy young man, is just plain old time, experience, and wisdom. We are all greedy, no more, no less,.....just at different ages in life.

767-300ER

18th Nov 2010, 01:48

Sir: In the organization where I work, we have developed incentives to keep our most experienced personnel from leaving their employment with us. We value their experience and their continued contribution to the welfare of the entire corporate entity. We consider ourselves enrichened by their continued contribution.

What is it about your employment circumstances that would lead you to take such umbrage at those of your peers who would express a desire to continue to contribute to your employer's objectives? Is their exercise of their desire and legal right, in the context of the existing legislation, to continue their employment beyond what has traditionally been considered a "best before" date, so worthy of your rebuke?

Dear Mr Mechanic....

by your own words, this is not your issue...your lack of understanding of this issue at Air Canada is apparent - unless of course you are not who you say you are (and for someone who is not involved in this, you seem to be posting a lot on PPrune and AVCanada about this)

lots of professions, work well beyond 60 or 65 or 70....

a colleague of my father's, still works full time as a lawyer at 82....good for him....but that's apples and oranges to the Air Canada pilot situation.

maybe you can explain to us, from your workplace, how people are compensated, derive their work, their work schedules, and their vacations???

Most pilots can't jump from company to company and sell their work experience to another company, certainly not in unionized workplaces or even non-unionized workplaces that employee seniority lists.

If your work-place is based on a seniority driven work environment, then maybe the junior members aren't quite as happy with the idea of old codgers sticking around as you think

777longhaul

18th Nov 2010, 02:02

For 767-300ER posting above

It is his issue. This case, will affect all aspects of retirement in Canada, not just little old air canada. This issue, is the test case for all other companies in Canada. It is huge, and it is being monitored by a very wide range of corporations, lawyers, and other interested parties in Canada.

I like your call sign, the 767-300ER is a great airplane.

Mechanic787

18th Nov 2010, 03:01

...maybe the junior members aren't quite as happy with the idea of old codgers sticking around as you think...

And you wonder why you are having legal problems...

Au revoir.

Canoli Driver

18th Nov 2010, 08:19

Understated

18th Nov 2010, 13:20

I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering.

You don't have to read 100 pages. Read the first few pages of this thread and you will get a pretty good idea of the issues. Don't expect someone here to go to the effort of writing an executive summary for you when you cannot be bothered to read any of the information that has already been posted.

engfireleft

18th Nov 2010, 13:26

Enginefireleft,

Pardon my ignorance here... as I don't spend alot of time on this forum and cannot be bothered to read 100 pages of bickering. Just interested in the issue.

Would it not be chaos to allow people to retire as pilots at any age THEY wish? There are obvious problems with this? Or is this just about establishing a higher age limit?

Unless you are an Air Canada pilot, or someone else in Canada directly effected by this issue there is no need to apologize for not knowing. If you are effected then I encourage you to get up to speed as quickly as possible.

In answer to your first question, no, it would not be chaos to allow pilots to retire at any age they wish. There is a caveat that goes along with that though that dictates the pilot must be capable of doing their job both from a physical health and competency aspect. Pilots the world over work beyond age 60, and it is only creating chaos at Air Canada because the company, union and many of the pilots are making it that way.

The problems you allude to in your second question relate only to the health and competency issue as a pilot grows older. Many people at Air Canada would have you believe there are unknown and unacceptable risks with allowing pilots to fly over the age of 60. That argument might have a little bit of credibility if not for the fact everybody else in the world goes to 65 and it hasn't been a problem. You see, we at Air Canada in both the management and pilot side think that if Air Canada doesn't do it, or the idea didn't originate from Air Canada then it must be bad.

The CHRT is only concerned with the human rights aspect of this, and they will not by themselves put in place an upper limit on pilot age. It is up to the operator to make the case for an upper limit but so far Air Canada has completely failed to do so because they are arguing for age 60, and that is just not supportable or realistic today. Eventually they will wise up to what is supportable, but so far they show no indication of thinking that far.

For your third question, no, this isn't just about establishing a higher age limit. For the people challenging the age 60 rule it is about not being forced to retire against their will. To them it is an age discriminatory practice to be told to leave their job at the arbitrary age of 60. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agrees, so does every province in Canada and soon the Federal Government as well. Air Canada and ACPA maintain it is their right as a group to discriminate against an individual as long as it is voted on by a simple majority. That kind of intractable thinking is what's causing the chaos now because it is in direct conflict with contemporary Canadian standards and law. We are caught up in the minutia of a single case spending very large amounts of money defending a practice that has been rendered obsolete and illegal in all but one remaining (and disappearing) bastion in Canada. In doing so Air Canada and ACPA pilots are failing to see the overall reality.

Canoli Driver

18th Nov 2010, 16:49

Thanks.

I suppose Im having a bit of trouble grasping this age discrimination thing with you AC guys. I alway thought you had a great pension so it would be nice to have the retirement. (unless you still love flying).

Some retire at 60, some at 65, some at 55 still? Not sure. Didn't Cathay just increase their retirment age?

Anyway, I just was wondering if you guys are going for unlimited age...ie: you dedice. Because that to me seems crazy. But then who is really qualified to say what the age should be?

You mention its up to the operator to decide. Is not Air Canada weighing in on this? Did they not decide 60 previously...

Regards.

cloudcity

18th Nov 2010, 17:33

I suppose Im having a bit of trouble grasping this age discrimination thing with you AC guys. I alway thought you had a great pension so it would be nice to have the retirement. (unless you still love flying). Great questions but it's not really complicated.

The planet Earth flies past 60 and has done so for eons, with the exception of Air Canada.

Virtually ALL of Air Canada's pilots cannot meet the maximum years of pensionable service if they go out the door at the arbitrary age of 60 due to previous jurisprudence which allowed them to be hired past the age of 28.

The membership, virtually all of whom cannot reach max pensionable years of service at 60 because of the hiring age factor, in lieu of a sensible plan, appear to have wound up misrepresenting themselves to the extent that they have no other road to continued employment and pension accrual, other than through Human Rights action, the only avenue presently available.

Is there enough leadership out there on either side to break the hugely expensive logjam without the courts doing it for them? That's the big question.

engfireleft

18th Nov 2010, 17:38

Yes, we have a pretty good pension. But you have to have 35 years service to get the full amount because it was designed when people got hired at 25 years old or younger. For years now the average age of a new hire has been 35, which means at best under the rules to date they would only get 25 years service and the proportionately reduced pension. Most people fighting this lack the foresight to see that now, but you can be sure in 20 or so years it will become front and centre in their minds and they will undergo a truly miraculous change of attitude.

I don't think anybody realistically expects to be flying when they are much older than 65 because that is the age ICAO has specified as a recommended maximum. But it isn't up to them to make the case for the upper limit, it is up to the industry and operator who hasn't done so yet. The operator doesn't decide either. They present a case for BFOR, or Bonafide Occupational Requirement to the CHRT arguing that beyond a certain age pilots are not employable given certain restrictions to their ability to fly airplanes. The CHRT then decides if it is a valid argument or not to permit age based mandatory retirement.

Of course it may be in the company's best interests to force as many pilots out as they can before the law makes them stop. Because each guy that comes back has most of their salary paid for by the pension plan instead of the company. Pretty good deal for them I'd say, and the union is fully supporting it.

Canoli Driver

19th Nov 2010, 08:00

Interesting. Where I am, we dont have a pension, but rather a % of salary per year. Which is better, I don't know, but many have parlayed the annual investment into small fortunes, and some have wasted it. Also, we have ab initio, which is a contentious issue... and creates a huge expense as well...some measurable, and some not. How can you measure the cost of hard landings over time?

Anyway, its easier to see now how this thread has been so strong for so long as after your explanation, its more clear how the parties are polarized depending on what side they are on. Its certianly not as simple an issue as it is at first glance. Maybe Air Canada should realize the money it saves and the value it has in hiring older more experienced pilots and shorten the time to max pension as well as increasing the retirement age.

One thing is for sure, you cannot satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Good luck with the battle.

ACAV8R

19th Nov 2010, 15:05

"Because each guy that comes back has most of their salary paid for by the pension plan instead of the company..."

EFL, I'm not sure that this is correct. Because of the CHRT Remedy Ruling, both Vilven & Kelly are once more active pilots [or will be once they pass their requalification course]. They will no longer be retired pilots, drawing a pension from Air Canada Pensions Administration but will be drawing a salary from Air Canada. They will both be accumulating further pension credits, at least Vilven will, something that they could not do if they were drawing down a pension. I believe that Neil Kelly had in his max 35 years of pensionable service time when he retired so he would no longer accumulate pension credits.

Both, however, will be on the Air Canada payroll, not the AC Retirement Payroll.

Rgds.

engfireleft

19th Nov 2010, 19:24

That's what I would have thought too ACAV8R, but the MOU signed by ACPA and the company before the CHRT remedy came out specified they would continue to receive their pension with their salary topped up by the company to whatever equipment pay they could hold. As well others have mentioned the legal requirement to continue collecting the pension once you start. For what it's worth I certainly hope I'm wrong.

OverUnder

19th Nov 2010, 20:00

I'm not sure that this is correct. Because of the CHRT Remedy Ruling, both Vilven & Kelly are once more active pilots [or will be once they pass their requalification course.]

The last two pages of the Tribunal decision contain the order. Paragraph 5 states, "Upon reinstatement, the complainants are to receive the wages and benefits of an active employee including accrual of pension benefits on the same terms and conditions as before their retirement."

Paragraph 2 states, "The complainants are to be reinstated to employment with Air Canada as of the date of this decision..."

In fact, their reinstatement was effected November 8th, the date of the decision. They are active employees undergoing training in the Air Canada training facility and they are being paid wages, not a blended payment composed of wages and pension.

One cannot contribute to a pension plan at the same time one receives benefit payments from a pension plan. In other words, their pension plan contributions are recommenced. The payments that they are receiving as salary come 100% from pilot payroll; none of it comes from the pension plan.

As I understand it, the status of the Memorandum of Agreement that dictated otherwise is now uncertain, but nobody to my knowledge has heard that it has been formally rescinded.

cloudcity

19th Nov 2010, 20:06

It's all laid out in the Order isn't it? The pertinent paragraphs:

X. Order

[174] The Tribunal orders as follows:

1) The respondents are to cease applying to the complainants, s.5.1 of the Air Canada Pilots Pension Plan and the corresponding provisions of the collective agreement Plan;

5) Upon reinstatement, the complainants are to receive the wages and benefits of an active employee including continual accrual of pension benefits on the same terms and conditions as before their retirement;

7) The compensation for lost wages shall be net of the amounts of the pension paid to the complainants from September 1, 2009 to the date of their reinstatement.

9) Air Canada is to pay fifty per cent and ACPA is to pay fifty per cent of the net compensation and profit sharing/bonus and the interest payable.

In other words is it not the case that their entire status as employees is returned to the condition that would have existed had they not been unlawfully forced into retirement in the first place??

That is noted under Seniority:

D. Conclusion on Seniority
[158] It is well established in human rights jurisprudence that the purpose of awarding a remedy is to make whole the victim of the discrimination in the appropriate circumstances.

As in section 7, is it not the case that the pension woud be 'unwound' as noted in the notes that you can see online from the original remedy hearings, the pension received while awaiting reinstatement would be repaid to the pension plan. If it is to be repaid to the plan, are AC and ACPA liable for that, because the Order seems to read that V-K are operating under the contract the same as any other employee, not per the MOA that was issued contrary to the laws of the ACT.

In other words, the damages to the Complainants being net of the pension received only addresses the Complainants but it is the Respondents, AC and ACPA who will also have to bring the pension adjustments back to zero in addition to the damages??

ACAV8R

19th Nov 2010, 20:49

"One cannot contribute to a pension plan at the same time one receives benefit payments from a pension plan. In other words, their pension plan contributions are recommenced. The payments that they are receiving as salary come 100% from pilot payroll; none of it comes from the pension plan."

OverUnder, that is correct and is a CRA rule. I am sure that the CRA will be taking a very close look at this remedy ruling, and will be wringing their hands in glee at the prospect of taxing the settlement amount.

ACAV8R

19th Nov 2010, 20:58

"That's what I would have thought too ACAV8R, but the MOU signed by ACPA and the company before the CHRT remedy came out specified they would continue to receive their pension with their salary topped up by the company to whatever equipment pay they could hold.."

EFL, that MOA is dead in the water, effective with the issuing of the remedy ruling. Vilven & Kelly are now active employees.

OverUnder

19th Nov 2010, 21:18

that MOA is dead in the water, effective with the issuing of the remedy ruling.

Not necessarily. The most significant of its provisions have been negatived by the Tribunal order of reinstatement, but that was contemplated in the agreement. It was made subject to the Tribunal order. But I believe that the status of it is largely uncertain.

There may be provisions of the MOA that were not overwritten by the agreement that are still valid. We won't know until the agreement is disclosed (if it ever is).

Also, to my understanding, once an agreement in writing is made, it is valid, unless there is some supervening reason (such as an order) that it is not valid. The Tribunal order did not strike down the MOA any more than it did not strike down the application of the mandatory retirement provision to other pilots.

There is one other point about that MOA: it constitutes a signficant precedent for the Association and the employer. Such as being an agreement that creates a second tier of pilots. Such as an agreement that blends wages and pension payments. Such as an agreement that is executed by the Association without ratification by the membership as required by the Association's constitution. Those are all dark clouds, just waiting to unleash their thunder, lightning and hail on those out there without an umbrella.

767-300ER

19th Nov 2010, 22:56

OverUnder

I think you'll find that the MOA was signed with a "no prejudice" caveat....it means squat to anyone else...

engfireleft

19th Nov 2010, 23:11

It seems that I am (thankfully) wrong about the pension paying active Air Canada pilot's salaries. Wouldn't it be nice, not to mention ethically correct and necessary to receive this information from the union so we don't have to sit around with giant question marks over our heads wondering about basic stuff like this?

Our membership is completely in the dark.

OverUnder

20th Nov 2010, 02:09

I think you'll find that the MOA was signed with a "no prejudice" caveat....it means squat to anyone else...

Frankly, I have no idea how a "no prejudice" caveat, whatever that is, changes the fact that the MOA resulted in no benefit to us because it was not only rejected by the two pilots that it was intended to affect, but its objectives were totally frustrated by the Tribunal order giving them precisely what the MOA was designed to prevent them from having.

It did, however, generate a lot more legal expenses for us, and it may have opened the door to further intrusions by government bodies into the workings of our union and the management of our collective agreement. A total fiasco.

If it means "squat" to everyone else, why are we facing a four-day hearing before the CIRB to deal with it, and what is that going to cost us, both financially and otherwise?

767-300ER

22nd Nov 2010, 13:40

why are we facing a four-day hearing before the CIRB to deal with it

Because some of ACPA members are greedy and are happy to take advantage of "human rights legislation"
their lawyer(s) believe(s) in the maxim, "throw enough sh!t at a wall and some of it will stick..."

That's why we will be in front of the CIRB....

engfireleft

22nd Nov 2010, 14:21

A union has legal obligations 767, and ignoring those obligations in favour of something you happen to agree this time doesn't mean you will agree with it the next time. It's called "duty of fair representation" and is enshrined in Labour Law for a reason. Read it.

"A trade union or representative of a trade union that is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of any of the employees in the unit with respect to their rights under the collective agreement that is applicable to them."

If you recall CUPE is doing the exact opposite of what ACPA is doing based on three independent legal opinions, each stating that CUPE would be subject to DFR complaints if they did what ACPA is doing. Why would anybody be surprised at the DFR complaint against ACPA, and how smart is it in your opinion to keep bashing our heads up against the law?

777longhaul

22nd Nov 2010, 22:46

This is for 767-300ER

Quote from your above post:

I think you'll find that the MOA was signed with a "no prejudice" caveat....it means squat to anyone else...

Since, you state that the MOA was signed with a "no Prejudice" basis, the only way you would know that, is for you to have seen the MOU. Since no one else has been able to see the MOU, either active, or retired pilots, what else is in the MOU?

Please post the MOU on this site, so the pilots who are affected by it, (active and retired) can see what acpa attempted to do, by having the pension plan pay for a large portion of a pilots salary. That would overload the pension plan in nothing flat. acpa, actually signed off on this issue?

767-300ER

23rd Nov 2010, 03:23

Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss EngineLeftFire

The only reason that this whole issue is in front of the CHRT and the CIRB is because of several greedy pilots from ACPA shrouding themselves in the cloak of "human rights"...full stop.

The AC pilot's pension plan language has been there years, and guess what, it was never declared illegal by anyone...it's only a problem when someone complains... The CHRT wasn't going around looking in Collective Agreements to see if every clause was in compliance with the legislation.

I take no lessons from CUPE, and frankly anyone who does, should be a little ashamed of themselves. CUPE, the union that would bankrupt Air Canada if they got their way by ensuring that Service Directors get pay equity with First Officers...need anyone say anymore?

Let's just review where we are....

Fly til You Die group promised or was promised, return to work for V & K, punitive damages, willful and reckless damages, $big payouts, and a cease and desist order for all future retirements, and a legal precedent.....

What did they get? return to work for V & K, no damages for pain and suffering, no willfull/reckless damages, no cease and desist order and no legal precedent....

It will be interesting to see where this goes...and unlike the 'fly til ya die' sycophants I make no prognostications, I will wait for the courts to decide...and I am not holding my breath on this.

767-300ER

23rd Nov 2010, 03:28

777longhaul....

Maybe I have seen the agreement, and maybe not...but why don't you ask your illustrious legal team to publish it on their website??? That way you could all get morally outraged together...

From the reading of the rest of your post, your conjecture is way off the mark in too many respects to make it worthwhile responding.

So ask the other side to publish the agreement....and if they won't, why not???? What do they have to hide????

777longhaul

23rd Nov 2010, 03:43

For those that have not looked at the FP60 website. Please read the updates from the following link:

FlyPast60 Index Page (http://www.flypast60.com/)

This is the last update from the FP60 site:

Update
http://www.flypast60.com/picts/paragraph-line.jpg
Thursday, November 11th, 2010
We have now turned the corner. George Vilven and Neil Kelly will be reporting to work at Air Canada next Wednesday, November 17th. Two days ago, on Tuesday, the morning after the release of the Tribunal's remedy decision, Air Canada Flight Operations personnel called both George and Neil to confirm that they are available to start work immediately, and to ask them which aircraft they each wish to be trained on, and which base they would like to select. Initially they were advised that they would sit in on a new-hire course starting next Monday in order to bring them up to date on the most recent operations procedures. Later in the week they were informed that instead of starting on Monday, they would start on Wednesday next, and that their procedures indoctrination training would last only three days.
Both elected to be trained as First Officers on the B777. Neil elected to be based in YYZ. George elected to be based in YVR. They will commence aircraft ground school immediately after the procedures training, and then be slotted into simulator training as soon as feasible. They are expected to complete their line indoctrination training in January or shortly thereafter, depending upon simulator availability and Homeland Security processing (for the U.S.-based simulator).
The Coaltion is disappointed that the Tribunal did not issue the cease order to prohibit Air Canada from continuing to terminate the employment of other pilots at age 60. However, given the impending other developments, that issue may soon become moot.
The first major development is the impending release of the Thwaites decision, which will likely occur within the next few weeks. Should the 70 complainants in that proceeding win their case on the merits of the actual exemption clause in the Canadian Human Rights Act (i.e. should the Tribunal find that age 60 is not the "normal age of retirement for individuals doing similar work") it is unlikely, in our view, that Air Canada will continue its practice of mandatory retirement of pilots.
Although the Tribunal decision explicitly stated that the decision applied to only those two pilots, the underlying principles of the decision stand to be followed by subsequent decisions. For one thing, Air Canada's evidence before the Tribunal was that Captain Kelly should be paid for lost salary from September 1, 2009 until his date of reinstatement (as a Captain, until he turned age 65, and then as a First Officer during subsequent months) inthe amount of $10,000 per month as the difference between his pension and the Captain's salary that he would have earned, had his employment not been wrongfully terminated. Of course, a lesser sum would apply for the period after he turned 65.
Obviously, $10,000 per month, when considered for virtually all of the other pilots before the Commission and the Tribunal (almost 150, and growing every month), leads to a potential liability of $1.5 million per month, assuming the Tribunal accepts the same Air Canada argument in the impending additional cases, should they be successful on liability, as were Vilven and Kelly. The number is staggering, but quite within the realm of a possible award, especially given that it was based on Air Canada's ownsubmission to the Tribunal. Of particular note is that the Tribunal ordered ACPA to pay 50% of the awarded lost compensation. However, no matter how one looks at the award, the implications are compelling for both Air Canada and ACPA, given the number of complainants in the queue with the almost identical salary profiles.
Should the Thwaites complainants be successful in the impending decision, liability for lost salary to be determined in the subsequent remedy hearing for each of those complainants will not be limited to post-September 1, 2009, because their damage award will not be based on Charter-limited factors, but rather will flow from the respective dates of those complainants' termination of employment, less any discount for mitigation or failure to mitigate. The numbers thus get very large, very quickly.
The combination of these two cases, then, if both are successful for us, will likely lead Air Canada and ACPA to finally reconsider their entrenched opposition to lifting the mandatory retirement provisions in the collective agreement and pension plan.
Aside from these two Tribunal decisions, the outcome of the judicial review that will be heard by the Federal Court commencing November 22nd, may very well end Air Canada's practice of arbitrarily terminating the employment of pilots, based on age. Should the judicial review decision, which is expected to be rendered in February or March, be unsuccessful for Air Canada and ACPA, the Court will then be striking down the mandatory retirement exemption clause within the Act. If that happens, its all over. Mandatory retirement will be eliminated in the entire federal jurisdiction.

The following is from acpa. Please....have a look at the information that is being put out in the acpa bulletin, vs the information on the FP60 updates. Suggest....you compare the dollar figures. Just a suggestion. The back wages should show, (as they do on the FP60 website updates) that they were awarded by the CHRT, wages from Sept to Nov. acpa, has shown it as Sept to Mar.

V/K are group one on the FP60 coalition, there are 4 groups in total, and the numbers are increasing. Aprx 150 pilots so far.

One of the major concerns, for the FP60 pilots, is the state of the Pension Plan, the difference between the AC pilots pension plan, and the CAI pilots pension plan, and the general condition of the funding for the pension plans. They are both, underfunded, and another bankruptcy by ac, and the ensuing raping of the pension plan by the courts, has scared the hell out of many of the retiring pilots. There are many, many reasons, the FP60 group want to have the legal right, to continue employment.

from acpa AGE 60 committee

CHRT Remedy Decision
Age 60 Legal Support Committee - Newsletter #03
November 16, 2010
Fellow Pilots:
On November 8th the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) released its Remedy Decision on the Vilven & Kelly complaints. The decision applies to complainants Vilven & Kelly only and sets no precedent on subsequent complaints.
The issue of reinstatement of Vilven & Kelly had already been conceded by Air Canada and agreed to by ACPA at the time of the hearing as there was no argument available to prohibit AC from absorbing just two pilots. All pilots junior to Vilven and Kelly will be impacted, but the greatest effect will be to those on the same position. This issue and the impact on the pilot group should be of concern to all pilots and not to just the pilots who may be adversely affected.
We will be reviewing the Decision with our legal counsel and the MEC and will meet with Air Canada on a going forward process. During this process we will take the appropriate steps to ensure your contractual rights are protected.
With reinstatement out of the way the Tribunal was asked to address other remedy issues. The following table compares what the complainants sought as remedy and what the Tribunal ordered. Claims Sought by George Vilven & Kelly
Tribunal Decision
1
Cease and Desist – an Order that Air Canada and ACPA cease applying the mandatory retirement provisions of the Collective Agreement
Denied
2
Reinstatement to employment with Air Canada and may only bid their seniority for FO positions following their 65th birthday
Reinstatement as requested and not opposed by Air Canada
3
Compensation for lost wages from date of retirement to date of reinstatement
a
Vilven – August 31, 2003 to April 30, 2010 - $1,086,093 plus compensation to date of reinstatement
Vilven – September 1, 2009 to March 2010 - $45,897 plus compensation to date of reinstatement
b
Kelly – May 1, 2005 to April 30, 2010 – $1,040,128 plus compensation to date reinstatement
Kelly – September 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010 - $62,711 plus compensation to date reinstatement
4
Damage for pain and suffering $20,000
Denied
5
Damages for willful, reckless, conduct $20,000
Denied

OverUnder

23rd Nov 2010, 07:26

Maybe I have seen the agreement, and maybe not...but why don't you ask your illustrious legal team to publish it on their website??? So ask the other side to publish the agreement....and if they won't, why not???? What do they have to hide????

They have nothing to hide. What you suggest is simply not legally permissible, at this time. Their solicitor received a copy of the agreement within the context of a legal proceeding. That's where that copy resides right now, with the lawyers. It is a privileged document not subject to publication, at least until it is put into evidence before the Board during the public hearing, next year.

So we are all still speculating as to its content. The most we know about it is what the MEC Chair told us about it in his newsletter announcing it. Evidently, you know more than we do about it.

engfireleft

23rd Nov 2010, 12:11

The only reason that this whole issue is in front of the CHRT and the CIRB is because of several greedy pilots from ACPA shrouding themselves in the cloak of "human rights"...full stop.

The AC pilot's pension plan language has been there years, and guess what, it was never declared illegal by anyone...it's only a problem when someone complains... The CHRT wasn't going around looking in Collective Agreements to see if every clause was in compliance with the legislation.

I take no lessons from CUPE, and frankly anyone who does, should be a little ashamed of themselves. CUPE, the union that would bankrupt Air Canada if they got their way by ensuring that Service Directors get pay equity with First Officers...need anyone say anymore?

This issue is in front of the CHRT because standards have changed in Canada and it is no longer acceptable for a group to decide when an individual must retire. The fact that the Federal Government hasn't gotten around to changing their rules yet is a short term reprieve at best because it is happening as we speak. You think Air Canada can just duck their heads and evade that reality forever? You want to blame an entire shift in Canadian Society's standards and law on a few Air Canada pilots?

This issue is in front of the CIRB because ACPA forgot they are a trade union and have legal obligations. They wear that one...no one else. And you can be thankful someone has undertaken to remind them of that fact because YOU might have been the next person they decided to cast off.

Finally, yes we can take lessons from CUPE and should. In fact we should take lessons from anybody who does anything better and smarter than we do. The old saying "you wouldn't recognize a good idea if it ran you over in a cement truck" applies here, as it does in far too many instances at Air Canada and ACPA.

Johnny767

23rd Nov 2010, 15:30

This is over the heads of the CHRT and will ultimately be decided by the courts.

There are many Professions in Canada (including the Law Profession) that mandates Retirement age. Whether by Collective Agreement (as in our case) or simply Corporate policy.

The thought the every single Pilot, that has ever retired from Air Canada, can simply come waltzing back is ridiculous.

Pinning this on ACPA is absurd. Leave it to the Courts and see what happens. They are the big picture department and the decision will impact every working person in Canada.

Unlike the Socialist Clowns down at the CHRT.

In the intervening time, welcome back boys....better stay awake!

engfireleft

23rd Nov 2010, 18:03

They are the big picture department and the decision will impact every working person in Canada.

No it won't. Currently New Brunswick is the only province or territory that permits mandatory retirement, and legislation is working its way through parliament to eliminate it federally. Every other jurisdiction has already abolished it which means mandatory retirement for the vast majority of working people in Canada is history, and nothing the Supreme Court says is going to change that. Even if ACPA persists in taking Vilven and Kelly to the SC and win, the law is changing and it will all have been for nothing. One big unbelievably useless and self-destructive waste of time.

CaptW5

23rd Nov 2010, 23:28

ACPA fights to keep age-60 rule

Air Canada's pilots union fights to keep age-60 rule (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/22/350053/air-canadas-pilots-union-fights-to-keep-age-60-rule.html)

Air Canada's pilots union fights to keep age-60 rule
By Mary Kirby

Air Canada's pilots union has appealed to the country's Federal Court to maintain a mandatory age-60 retirement rule at the carrier.

The Federal Court is conducting hearings into the matter this week, after a rights tribunal determined that two Air Canada pilots were unfairly forced to retire after reaching age 60, and called for their reinstatement.

"We are asking the Federal Court to reaffirm that the law and previous Supreme Court decisions recognize our members' democratic right to determine their age of retirement through collective bargaining," says Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) president Captain Paul Strachan.

Retirement at age 60 is currently set in the Air Canada pilots' contract and pension plan. The ACPA warns that the Federal Court's decision "could potentially impact the wages and benefits of thousands of federally-regulated employees working under collective agreements containing a fixed age of retirement".

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal recently decided to reinstate two retired Air Canada pilots, although it did not extend the reinstatement to all Air Canada pilots. The reinstatement comes on condition that each pilot hold a valid pilot license, a medical certificate showing that he is fit to fly, and current instrument flight rating.

Counsel for ACPA will argue that the tribunal erred at law by ignoring Supreme Court decisions which found it acceptable for employers and employees to negotiate a normal age of retirement.

A recent survey of more than 1,800 Air Canada pilots showed that 82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger, according to the ACPA.

777longhaul

23rd Nov 2010, 23:43

W5.

It is very important to note, that it is a survey, not a specific poll, re the fly past 60 issue.

Less than 50% of the pilots responded to the poll, when you get the real numbers. There are 3300 pilots at ac. Only, 1800 responded, and of that amount, only 82% were in favour of not going past 60. Less than 50% of the pilots.

If, acpa, wanted to get real with their numbers, they would do a specific poll, and ask how many pilots wanted to be able, to fly past 60, at their choice. The retirement age can stay at 60, if a pilot wants to retire then, but it would not be mandatory.

acpa has never, had more than 50% of the pilots wanting to keep the age of 60, as the mandatory retirement age.

Lost in Saigon

23rd Nov 2010, 23:44

ACPA fights to keep age-60 rule

"We are asking the Federal Court to reaffirm that the law and previous Supreme Court decisions recognize our members' democratic right to determine their age of retirement through collective bargaining," says Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA) president Captain Paul Strachan.

A recent survey of more than 1,800 Air Canada pilots showed that 82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger, according to the ACPA.

I see a problem here.

Vilven and Kelly, or Thwaites et al, returning to work or working past 60 does not restrict anyone from retiring at age "60 or younger".

So then the next question is, "What is the problem if you can still retire at 60?"

The answer is..... "We won't make as much money if we let them have their human right to continue working past 60".

Who looks greedy now?

OverUnder

24th Nov 2010, 03:43

There are many Professions in Canada (including the Law Profession) that mandates Retirement age. Whether by Collective Agreement (as in our case) or simply Corporate policy. The thought the every single Pilot, that has ever retired from Air Canada, can simply come waltzing back is ridiculous.

Your posts would be much more effective if you had even the slightest clue about what you are talking. Lawyers have mandatory retirement? With which law firm?

Every single pilot that ever retired from Air Canada can come back? Is the rock that you are living under the big one in Australia?

OverUnder

24th Nov 2010, 11:17

A recent survey of more than 1,800 Air Canada pilots showed that 82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger, according to the ACPA.

This intentionally misleading statement reminds of the words of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Note very carefully the wording: "82% supported retirement at age 60 or younger." Not 82% supported retirement mandatory retirement at age 60 or younger.

Who doesn't support the option to retire at age 60 or younger. That is not the proper question. The issue before the Tribunal and the courts is whether the retirement at age 60 should be mandatory.

According to the survey, what percentage of pilots supported mandatory retirement at age 60? Instead of couching the media message in the form of a statistic that is expressly intended to mislead the public and the union membership, why not state the truth?

bcflyer

25th Nov 2010, 02:53

Give me a break. Now you are going to nitpick the wording of the question? Everyone who answered it knew they were talking about MANDATORY retirement at age 60. Thats the way it is now and thats what the question was refering to.

You can twist it anyway you like.. The vast majority of pilots who participated in the wawcon survey supported retirement exactly the way it is now.

777longhaul

25th Nov 2010, 05:29

BCFLYER

You would be well advised to re read the acpa poll, and the acpa survey, that I posted ealier on this forum.

acpa, is not giving you and the membership, real numbers. They are providing watered down, disinformation to all of us.

I have posted the following "poll" and "survey" from acpa. The only 2 acpa accounts of any actual membership numbers.

Note:

there is no "vast majority".

Never, was.

Less than 50% of the total pilots at ac have indicated that they want mandatory retirement at 60. Please, read the poll numbers, and the survey numbers. They both show less than 50% of the total amount of ac pilots want this.

It is acpa's numbers, just read the poll, and the survey numbers. They are availables on the acpa site, if you are an acpa member?

777longhaul

25th Nov 2010, 05:40

The acpa mec posted their wawcon numbers. See acpa mec bulletin #27 on the acpa site, dated July 01 2010.

Your suggestion does not even suggest acpa has the correct data. Please...look at the numbers, of those who responed to the entire surrvey, and the total number of pilots who could have responded. This is to the entire survey, not just the age 60 issue(s).

This is from the acpa bulletin sent out to all the pilots.

MEC Newsletter #27
July 1, 2010
Fellow Pilots:
I will provide just a very brief report in this holiday week.
WAWCONThank you once again for providing your input through the WAWCON survey. The Wilson Center, which
conducted the survey and is in the process of analyzing the results, reports that a total of 1,880 pilots
completed the survey, for a participation rate of 58 per cent. This is a good turnout, as the Wilson Center has
been getting closer to 50 per cent participation in surveys of pilots at other companies. They also report that
the demographics of our sample are very good, with strong participation from all ranks and bases.
Once complete, the Wilson Center’s analysis will be reported through our WAWCON Committee and the
results will be used by our Negotiating Committee to create our bargaining strategy and priorities as we move

forward over the summer

end++++++++++++

It would serve all those who are opposed to the age 60 issue, to get real, honest information from acpa, and from their Age 60 Committee. When you get it, please, post it here, so we can all see the light of day.

Of the 58 percent who bothered to reply, only 80% of them were in favor of fighting the age 60 issue. So, 80% of 58% (of the total pilots) is the actual number, that expressed as personal desire to continue the fight, at the risk of loosing WAWCON gains, what a joke. This is less numbers, than the IVR vote in May of 2006. acpa, is screwing you over, and using your dues to do it with, does that not cause any of you to be concerned that you are not getting proper representation, and that the majority of the pilots do not want to trade bargining power, for the age 60 issue.

AC is doing exacatly what they planned, they have the pilots fighing each other, so that they will blow off contract gains, to get some pie in the sky result, that the laws of the land will shoot down very soon.

Over a decade of downhill sliding due to seniority fighting, pension fighing, and now the age 60 issue. Ever wonder why ac is so against the age 60 issue??? It will save them money if it was changed. They know they have lost, yet they spoon feed acpa and the pilots in general. What a loss for ALL the pilots.

777longhaul

25th Nov 2010, 05:42

There is NO CURRENT IVR VOTE POLL showing that 80% of ALL ac pilots favor fighting the age 60 issue(s). THAT is a lie.

If you really believe that bs, from acpa, why dont you man up, and show us the certified results?

THE LAST IVR VOTE WAS IN 2006. LESS than 50% of the pilots voted to fight the issues. 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.

If....acpa, wanted to, they could have another IVR vote, They dont want to, as they clearly know that less than 1/2 of the pilots wanted to fight this issue. And that was way back in 2006. All the rules have changed.

The special interest group(s) that are running acpa, and ran acpa in the past, are closed to any type of change, except the specific ones that they are after.

Have any of you seen a briefing from the Age 60 Committee in recent times?

Has acpa clearly told any of you what they think is going to happen?
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5896610) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/misc/progress.gif

777longhaul

25th Nov 2010, 05:52

The JR hearings closed 1.5 days early. Ruling possible,......in 3 to 4 months.

trop_rider

25th Nov 2010, 06:49

Thoughts while trying to fall asleep on the wrong side of my body clock: Why are certain posters still hammering away here? If it all is such a slam dunk, why do they not just sit quietly and rub their hands in joyful anticipation of the sound of the Brinks truck backing up? (Oooops, sorry, I meant to say in joyful anticipation of the restoration of the dignity that was snatched so ignobly from them when they fell victim to such horrible discrimination...) If ACPA are as inept as they say, and the issue is as clear cut as some would have us believe (not sure how many on here actually...so many sound like the same person...) then they have nothing at all to worry about, do they?

IMHO, I think they are actually getting a little worried....hmmmm

p.s. Anyone want to hazard a guess on how Mssrs. V and K would have voted on contractual retirement age as they rose through the ranks at AC in their respective pursuits of lifestyle and equipment status?

I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?

engfireleft

25th Nov 2010, 13:32

ACPA has never told the members how much money they have spent so far defending age 60.

ACPA has never told the members how much liability they are exposing them to.

ACPA has never told the members the realistic odds of winning the VK case.

ACPA has never told the members the realistic odds of winning, or anything for that matter, about the Thwaites case due for an imminent ruling.

ACPA has never told the members anything at all about the next approximately 70 cases after that, or the open ended number sure to keep on coming.

ACPA has never told the membership what legal advice they received regarding this issue, unlike CUPE who was completely open and honest with their membership.

ACPA has never given the members an objective analysis of mandatory retirement in Canada, how the issue is evolving, and what it means for Air Canada pilots.

ACPA has never presented to the membership anything but the most dire scenario of career destruction if mandatory retirement is abolished. They have never investigated or even considered any options to mitigate the inevitable end of mandatory retirement, and they for sure have never encouraged the membership to think along those lines.

What ACPA has done is conveniently ignore the fundamental losses while touting the small victories as proof that their take on the issue will prevail. Much of our membership seems willing to accept this fantasy at face value without asking any questions, and is inexplicably disinterested in knowing the answers they should be demanding from our union.

ACPA can hold as many surveys and votes as they want, but until they give the membership the information they need to make an informed choice it is as legitimate as an election in Zimbabwe.

trop_rider

25th Nov 2010, 16:39

ACPA can hold as many surveys and votes as they want, but until they give the membership the information they need to make an informed choice it is as legitimate as an election in Zimbabwe.

One also may wonder if Zimbabwean 'Campaign Managers' would post under multiple usernames while accusing the 'Government' of dishonesty and ineptness....

Vic777

25th Nov 2010, 17:38

Why are certain posters still hammering away here? If it all is such a slam dunk, why do they not just sit quietly and rub their hands in joyful anticipation of the sound of the Brinks truck backing up?
It's no problem to make the odd post whilst one rubs their hands. In fact I suspect your post is just made out of boredom and frustration as this story is all but over.
IMHO, I think they are actually getting a little worried....hmmmmIt's a free Country you can think what you want. Why not think about how much your UNION is costing you and if they have their own agenda as they did during the last negotiations, or are you one of them?I think we all know the answer to that one, don't we?You're babbling, what difference does it make? That was then, this is now. What is your UNION doing to you, er I mean for you, now?

engfireleft

25th Nov 2010, 17:42

I like to make informed decisions Trop_rider as I'm sure you do under any circumstances other than this one. If you are aware of the union providing any of the things mentioned in my post above please tell me where I can find it.

Understated

25th Nov 2010, 19:41

ACPA has never ...

Your list could be the start of a long thread in and of itself. How about:

ACPA has never complied with its duty to fairly represent all of its members.

At the last Toronto general council meeting, the Base Chair stated, "We don't represent those people..." meaning, not just the retired pilots who have filed complaints, but the pilots who object to their impending mandatory retirement.

Like, it can pick and choose the select groups of its members that it represents and doesn't represent (the "in" crowd) with impugnity, despite its legal obligation under the Canada Labour Code to fairly represent all of its members, and despite the fact that those members pay the same proportion of union dues as the ones that it says that it does represent.

What other union in Canada has joined in legal proceedings in support of the employer's termination of employment of their own members? Talk about precedent!

Can't wait for the chickens to come home to roost.

J.O.

25th Nov 2010, 20:07

A fair question Understated, and I have a feeling that the day is coming soon when ACPA must accept that mandatory retirement is a thing of the past. But one must also ask if any other union has had a group of its own members dining on the fruit from the poisonous tree (i.e. advancing as others retired at 60), only to complain that the fruit was poisonous when it came their turn to step away from the table. That, IMHO, is what is leaving so many people with a bad feeling about this issue. I understand that it may be irrelevant to the legal discussions, but it's completely relevant to the human beings that are being affected by it going forward.

It wouldn't matter if they were the most popular pilots in the company, whomever chose to take on this fight first was destined to be faced with the bad feelings that are now occurring.

engfireleft

25th Nov 2010, 21:09

But one must also ask if any other union has had a group of its own members dining on the fruit from the poisonous tree (i.e. advancing as others retired at 60), only to complain that the fruit was poisonous when it came their turn to step away from the table.

I wouldn't have put it that way, but yes there has been right here at Air Canada...CUPE. Their response could not have been more different than ACPA's, and it is for the express reason that they have a duty to fairly represent all members as stated in their newsletter regarding this issue.

Other unions in this country also have dealt with the same issue (ACPA is not the centre of the universe afterall) and they too have seniority systems.

Please explain why it is OK for ACPA, and ACPA alone to ignore their legal obligations?

777longhaul

26th Nov 2010, 02:24

J.O.

Good question. Why the court action now.

This has been attempted in the 70's, 80' and 90's. There were different USA rules, ICAO RULES etc. The cost to do this is enourmous. The court time, legal time, personal time etc is not possible on a small group bases.

Remember, Transport Canada has NO maximum, age restriction on a pilots licence. That was done a couple of decades ago.

The current V/K issue has been going since 2003-2005. It is not something new.

There are many pilots who are on the silent list for this issue. That is to say, they are not vocal to the acpa types that are bent on fighting this issue. Many pilots need to go longer to get a better pension, assuming there is a pension to get in the future. The pensions, are under funded, both the AC pilots pension, and the CAI pilots pension. If....there is a change to the contract, to allow pilots to go past the mandatory 60, then the pension plans will be in better shape, due to less initial draw down on them. The indexing was stolen out of the plan, by the courts after ac went bankrupt. However, senior management still has all their benefits and indexing in the management fund. Nice eh.

There are not thousands of pilots trying to get this issue changed. So the impact is not massive. It does affect progression, no doubt, but it is not on a large scale. The pilots at ac, have taken many pay cuts, reduced hours, etc etc, to avoid layoffs of the junior pilots. That is a good thing, and the right thing to do. It saves them and it save the company money in reductions, and training etc. It also, allows the co to ramp up quickly when times improve.

I know of several pilots, who are hoping that this issue changes, to allow a pilot to fly past 60. They are in their mid 50's, and they want to work longer to obtain max pension. There are many varied reasons why a pilot might want to work longer, and to force him/her to retire at 60 is not right. If the anti 60 group want to retire at 60, fine, make the option to retire at 60, an option. They can still go if they want to. They wont though. This whole refusal by acpa is to get rid of as many senior pilots as possible, and then as the younger pilots approach 60, they will insist that the law be changed. Nothing surprising about that, it is just the way life is. Look at the age, and seniority, of the acpa structure. It is all about choices. So, now the courts will decide this, and the opportunity, that acpa had, to mitigate this issue, will be out of their hands, and into the mindset of the judges. Sad, that the line pilots are not given real life information by acpa.

J.O.

26th Nov 2010, 21:45

777;

Thanks for a very reasoned and thoughtful response. I should say, if it's not clear, that I am not a pilot at AC so I don't have a specific axe to grind. In fact, I honestly see and can sympathize with both sides of the argument. It's also quite likely that my financial situation will mean that my career will need to go past 60, so it would be hypocritical to come down hard on the side of mandatory retirement at that, or any other age specifically.

Obviously it would have been better if an amicable solution could have been reached, but having been somewhat of a monkey in the middle in the union / company ebb and flow in the past, I can see how it became polarized. The tipping point for me was when the V & K case included a demand for punitive compensation. They lost some of my sympathy right then and there.

Have a good weekend! :cool:

777longhaul

27th Nov 2010, 00:02

J.O. and others

If....you want other POV's, (points of view) please have a look at the other active forum on this topic. Click the link below.

Scroll down to AIRLINES and then AIR CANADA

Also the Fly Past 60 (FP 60) website:

Thanks

AVCANADA • Index page (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/)

FlyPast60 Index Page (http://www.flypast60.com/)

Understated

27th Nov 2010, 04:20

AvCanada moderators did it again. Good discussion re the Federal Court hearing. Almost no slander. Nothing very contentious. Then, ZAP! Nothing. The whole thread is deleted.

Update: See below. The thread has been reinstated. Thanks to them.

Vic777

27th Nov 2010, 14:02

Not meant to be a thread hijack but, the above post compels me to ask if everyone is aware of the Obama Administration's attempts to put controls on the Internet? The Days of Freedom of speech are coming to an end. Obviously the Internet is censured in China, will controls and regulation and censorship become the norm in every jurisdiction? A major threat to Obama's control of "thought" by the MSM is the free speech emanating from the internet. It is about to be silenced. It's one thing when moderators control the discussion on a private forum but when the Government censures the Internet, Freedom is curtailed.

rick3333331

6th Dec 2010, 19:08

The House of Commons this morning unanimously passed Second Reading of Bill C-481, the bill that will repeal the mandatory retirement exemption under Section 15(1)(c) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Bill was supported by all parties, including the government. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Justice, in debate, stated that the government, with two qualifications, unequivocally supports passage of the Bill. The qualifications are to be dealt with in Committee, via amendment.

From here the Bill goes to a Parliamentary Committee for review and amendment. The two amendments contemplated are as follows. The first one is a transition provision that will allow a short time period, likely six months, from the date of the enactment of the legislation until the date that the legislation comes into force. The second one has to do with the Canadian military.

When the law takes effect, likely in the summer of 2011, the repeal of the mandatory retirement provision will affect approximately 12,000 organizations in the federal sector that employ over 840,000 employees in the transportation, telecommunications and finance industries.

Parliamentary Committee hearings are being scheduled for mid-January.

engfireleft

8th Dec 2010, 15:32

Let's pretend for a few minutes that no Air Canada pilots were challenging mandatory retirement or ever will.

What we are left with are the other employee groups at Air Canada filing their own complaints that ACPA has no control over. We are left with the approximately 840,000 other federally regulated employees in thousands of organizations, many of whom have filed or will file their own complaints into the indefinitely foreseeable future, which ACPA also has no control over. We have pensions under extreme pressure in this country because of greatly increased lifespans and a growing elderly demographic that must be supported by fewer workers. We have mandatory retirement already abolished in every provincial and territorial jurisdiction in Canada. And we have a federal government well along the process of doing the same with the unanimous support of every single Member of Parliament regardless of their political affiliation.

Hmmm.

Since no Air Canada pilots are challenging mandatory retirement in this fictitious world there is no one in our group for the others to hate and spend all their time and energy vilifying. So what would they be doing then?

One would hope they would look at the situation going on outside their little realm and recognize that things are about to change and they had better f*****g well prepare for it. However I'm not so sure that would be happening even in this fantasy world because afterall, we are Air Canada pilots and we don't have to do what the rest of Canada is doing.

But alas, there are Air Canada pilots challenging mandatory retirement which does give us someone to hate and vilify. So we are spending all our time, energy and vast quantities of money fighting those dirty bastards we despise so much, and pretending instead that it is the rest of it that isn't happening.

Great job!:ok:

breguet

8th Dec 2010, 17:02

How ironic....In France they went on strike because the Government is increasing the retirement age. Most of French citizen are against it.

Furthermore, fresh graduates are jobless or working as cleaners or other no qualification jobs and even then they have a hard time to find one.

What about all those pilots waiting for openings that will not come soon? And those pilots are almost working for nothing. Oh yea, I forgot about that absurd "you have to pay your dues" coming from the simple minded greedy who are coming back with a full pension...

engfireleft

8th Dec 2010, 17:28

Can you please tell me Breguet, how your post and the thousands of identical ones from like-minded individuals are helping Air Canada pilots prepare for the change that is happening, and would have happened if the flypast60 group never existed in the first place?

ACAV8R

14th Dec 2010, 15:57

Smokescreen. Straw man!

engfireleft

14th Dec 2010, 17:41

How so?

I think the question of what ACPA would do if this wasn't challenged by Air Canada pilots is very relevant. Everybody seems to want to blame those pilots who issued this challenge, but nobody including ACPA has stopped for a minute to think that this would be happening anyway. That was the point of my previous post and is why our current strategy makes absolutely no sense. If Air Canada pilots were not challenging this I would hope ACPA would look at the situation and prepare for the coming change as their responsibility as our representatives would dictate. But that's not what they're doing now is it?

So, what do you think would have happened given everything else that's going on? Can you seriously say no other Air Canada employee group would have made their own challenge. How about any of the other 800,000+ other federally regulated employees? Would the federal government not be moving to eliminate mandatory retirement?

J.O.

6th May 2011, 22:16

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - May 6, 2011) - The Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has completely dismissed all complaints filed by 67 pilots opposed to retirement at age 60 who alleged that they had not been fairly represented by the Air Canada Pilots Association (ACPA).

Full article here.

CIRB Dismisses All Complaints Against Air Canada Pilots Association (http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/cirb-dismisses-all-complaints-against-air-canada-pilots-association-1511203.htm)

777longhaul

6th May 2011, 23:08

Please, read the entire ruling. Then look at the context. It was done prior to the Aug 2009 CHRT ruling, and the Feb 2011 Federal court ruling.

It is also done with the Charter as the focal point, and not the HRA. Different issues.

The spin, by acpa is very misleading.

There is a very good debate on AVCANADA.CA re this issue, and information from Raymond Hall, from the FP60 coalition.

=================

The title of the ACPA Press Release is not accurate. The Board has not dismissed all of the complaints before it. It dismissed only the complaint filed last August on behalf of originally 67 pilots, later increased to 75 pilots.

The Board has not yet ruled on the complaint filed in March of this year regarding ACPA's refusal to file a grievance on behalf of the three pilot complainants whose termination of employment was pending in April and May.

===============

rudder wrote:
Perhaps Ray or somebody in the know would care to explain why the CHRT has not provided decisions in cases where proceedings have been completed? There is no reason for the CHRT to take pause as the matter is not being dealt with at the bargaining table and the CIRB has now made its view on the representational issue quite clear. Please don't tell me that the CHRT is waiting for the new government to enact new legislation http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/images/smilies/icon_eek.gif

The CHRT is a quasi-judicial body. It does not provide reasons or justifications for any delay in rendering its decisions. Nor can anyone "call up the judge" to ask why the decision has not been yet rendered. Similarly, there is no basis for any speculation whatsoever as to any purported reason for a delay in rendering the decision. It will come when it will come. The only person who truly knows why the decision has not yet been rendered is the person writing the decision.

The Tribunal is charged with the responsibility of rendering its decisions on the basis of the evidence and law before it at the hearing. Any consideration of extraneous outside matters by the Tribunal in the result would be reviewable by a court, and is therefore not likely to play a factor in the timing of the release of the decision.

====================