Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the latest post to get axed at AvCanada. I guess they are not too good at handling criticism or competition.
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 12th Aug 2010 at 02:00.
The following is a cut and paste from AVCANADA:
It has come to my attention that AVCANADA has banned Raymond Hall from posting on the Forum. I find this to be VERY disturbing as he was the only person who could accurately comment on the whole age 60 fiasco.
I never read anything from him inflammatory. The only inflammatory remarks were made by others.
Why has Raymond Hall been banned?[/font]
yycflyguy response
Really Lost? Nothing inflammatory from Ray? Threatening former colleagues with litigation based on legitimate questions?
While I agree that he could accurately comment on the flypast60 perspective he certainly hasn't offered solutions to the questions many have been asking him. Threats of future lawsuits, accusations of defamation, slander and libel, RCMP discrimination investigations against those who he has worked with resulting in the ACPA forum shutting down, meanwhile blindly leading the charge of "discrimination" which will adversely affect every ACPA member with a seniority number lower than those victimized by this unjust system that HE supported and benefited from... until 60.
I find this entire "fiasco" inflammatory.
R.O.E. from Avcanada
Just coming back after a tour at work, I'm astounded at what's going on in here.
I don't know much about the Retirement at 60 subject, nor do I particularly care. However, after reviewing the manner in which it has been "discussed," and I use the term loosely, I have wonder if there's something in the water at Air Canada lately?
This is a private site, and as such there are clear forum rules for conduct and they must be followed if posting privileges are to be kept. It is that simple. The vitriol, slander, attacks, and general bickering on display in the removed topic(s) are in contravention of those rules - rules to which we have all agreed on upon registration to the site. There is a PM button available, if you really feel the need to say something along those lines, use it.
This has generally been the most professional forum on the site, but this last round has certainly not lived up to that billing. To clarify where Avcanada stands on this topic:
It is NOT a taboo subject - yet. Joe is very close to giving the whole topic a 6 month holiday.
If the subject can be discussed without contravention of the site rules, then it will stay. The CHRT Remedy Ruling thread will stay, but some of the latest posts have been removed as they are not on topic.
Any personal attacks, slander, naming of names, or vicious posts will be removed, the users warned accordingly, and they will be given a small vacation.
It is not WHAT is being discussed, or who is discussing it as some of you would like to believe, nor is it political censorship, it is simply how it is being discussed that is the issue for Joe and the Moderators.
I hope we are clear on this, and if there are any further questions, please feel free to PM me as I'm between fire flaps at the moment and should have time to respond.
It has come to my attention that AVCANADA has banned Raymond Hall from posting on the Forum. I find this to be VERY disturbing as he was the only person who could accurately comment on the whole age 60 fiasco.
I never read anything from him inflammatory. The only inflammatory remarks were made by others.
Why has Raymond Hall been banned?[/font]
yycflyguy response
Really Lost? Nothing inflammatory from Ray? Threatening former colleagues with litigation based on legitimate questions?
While I agree that he could accurately comment on the flypast60 perspective he certainly hasn't offered solutions to the questions many have been asking him. Threats of future lawsuits, accusations of defamation, slander and libel, RCMP discrimination investigations against those who he has worked with resulting in the ACPA forum shutting down, meanwhile blindly leading the charge of "discrimination" which will adversely affect every ACPA member with a seniority number lower than those victimized by this unjust system that HE supported and benefited from... until 60.
I find this entire "fiasco" inflammatory.
R.O.E. from Avcanada
Just coming back after a tour at work, I'm astounded at what's going on in here.
I don't know much about the Retirement at 60 subject, nor do I particularly care. However, after reviewing the manner in which it has been "discussed," and I use the term loosely, I have wonder if there's something in the water at Air Canada lately?
This is a private site, and as such there are clear forum rules for conduct and they must be followed if posting privileges are to be kept. It is that simple. The vitriol, slander, attacks, and general bickering on display in the removed topic(s) are in contravention of those rules - rules to which we have all agreed on upon registration to the site. There is a PM button available, if you really feel the need to say something along those lines, use it.
This has generally been the most professional forum on the site, but this last round has certainly not lived up to that billing. To clarify where Avcanada stands on this topic:
It is NOT a taboo subject - yet. Joe is very close to giving the whole topic a 6 month holiday.
If the subject can be discussed without contravention of the site rules, then it will stay. The CHRT Remedy Ruling thread will stay, but some of the latest posts have been removed as they are not on topic.
Any personal attacks, slander, naming of names, or vicious posts will be removed, the users warned accordingly, and they will be given a small vacation.
It is not WHAT is being discussed, or who is discussing it as some of you would like to believe, nor is it political censorship, it is simply how it is being discussed that is the issue for Joe and the Moderators.
I hope we are clear on this, and if there are any further questions, please feel free to PM me as I'm between fire flaps at the moment and should have time to respond.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a lawyer, perhaps you could clarify a few things to those mere pilots that don't have law books in their library.
To successfully win a defamation lawsuit do you not need to prove:
1. Malicious intent directed solely at you.
2. Public humiliation.
3. Some sort of financial penalty incurred as a result of the slander.
AvCanada is a private forum (contrary to point #2) requiring a membership and there were no comments made towards you that would alter your status as Retired Airline Pilot or Barrister. You chose to post under your real name and that is not required anywhere under the terms of use.
Looks like you wouldn't have much of a defamation case but you still brought out the heavy guns.
Yup.
To successfully win a defamation lawsuit do you not need to prove:
1. Malicious intent directed solely at you.
2. Public humiliation.
3. Some sort of financial penalty incurred as a result of the slander.
AvCanada is a private forum (contrary to point #2) requiring a membership and there were no comments made towards you that would alter your status as Retired Airline Pilot or Barrister. You chose to post under your real name and that is not required anywhere under the terms of use.
Looks like you wouldn't have much of a defamation case but you still brought out the heavy guns.
Interesting.. Ray is banned from the ACPA forum, not allowed to attend LEC meetings and now is banned from AVCANADA... Anyone see a constant here?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AvCanada is not a private forum. You can do a Google search find Raymond Hall or anyone else on the AvCanada Forum.
AvCanada should have deleted the offending posters who slandered Raymond Hall. All he did was remind the offenders that slandering someone is not good and could have consequences.
Instead of banning the slanderers, they banned Ray for speaking the truth, and banned me for asking why he was banned.
They also deleted posts that called the whole thing censorship.
AvCanada should have deleted the offending posters who slandered Raymond Hall. All he did was remind the offenders that slandering someone is not good and could have consequences.
Instead of banning the slanderers, they banned Ray for speaking the truth, and banned me for asking why he was banned.
They also deleted posts that called the whole thing censorship.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting how threats of loss of bidding privileges, loss of pension benefits, and an intentionally hostile work environment are perfectly acceptable to the ACPA and AvCanada moderators. But advise someone of the possibility of legal action absent a retraction of online libel and you find yourself tossed from the premises.
It's a screwy world we live in.
It's a screwy world we live in.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what venue you want to name, Ray Hall has provided nothing but the finest solid unbiased information with regard to the current case of discrimination that is before the courts.
He has given countless hours of his time to provide the most comprehensive summaries of legal information with regard to all aspects of the issue, in response to the questions of a huge number of individuals.
In fact, most of the pertinent questions have been repeated ad infinitum and despite that, have always been met with the same factual measured response. In fact, the wealth of factual information is nothing short of amazing. Anybody can attest to that, and where all of the factual information has not been right at hand the response has always been measured and qualified.
In anybody's opinion, the value of that kind of resource is immeasurable.
The ACPA Forum had the distinct advantage of his generous input but chose to exclude him to the detriment of their own membership. So too with his denied participation in meetings. The first thing you would assume is that the Association would have an obligation to permit their own members to learn the real facts, and the real case. It's their loss unfortunately because there are no doubt a lot of guys out there who have serious questions and who want the real correct straightforward serious answers. But those avenues seem to be systematically closed down.
The recent display at AvCanada on their Forum included a string of outright personal slander against Mr. Hall and in response he was banned from that Forum as well, through no fault of his own. If you can't even protect yourself against that kind of activity without incurring retribution yourself, that speaks volumes about what went completely wrong. Sure there were a lot of guys over there who got the afterburners on way too early, and it's a hot topic but where was the response to that.
It was however a good move by the Moderators to bring the hammer down on that Forum and those particular threads, but unfortunately the element that was clearly at error was somehow missed. Not to criticize the Moderators. Trying to ride herd on that is like trying to herd a bunch of cats that are on fire. It's not easy and kudos to them for at least diving in there and taking some kind of action.
But as anyone who has read the items in question, surely an apology must be due to Mr. Hall for the part of that action that saw him adversely affected for no reason and which only served to reinforce the actions of those who are in it for a brawl.
He has given countless hours of his time to provide the most comprehensive summaries of legal information with regard to all aspects of the issue, in response to the questions of a huge number of individuals.
In fact, most of the pertinent questions have been repeated ad infinitum and despite that, have always been met with the same factual measured response. In fact, the wealth of factual information is nothing short of amazing. Anybody can attest to that, and where all of the factual information has not been right at hand the response has always been measured and qualified.
In anybody's opinion, the value of that kind of resource is immeasurable.
The ACPA Forum had the distinct advantage of his generous input but chose to exclude him to the detriment of their own membership. So too with his denied participation in meetings. The first thing you would assume is that the Association would have an obligation to permit their own members to learn the real facts, and the real case. It's their loss unfortunately because there are no doubt a lot of guys out there who have serious questions and who want the real correct straightforward serious answers. But those avenues seem to be systematically closed down.
The recent display at AvCanada on their Forum included a string of outright personal slander against Mr. Hall and in response he was banned from that Forum as well, through no fault of his own. If you can't even protect yourself against that kind of activity without incurring retribution yourself, that speaks volumes about what went completely wrong. Sure there were a lot of guys over there who got the afterburners on way too early, and it's a hot topic but where was the response to that.
It was however a good move by the Moderators to bring the hammer down on that Forum and those particular threads, but unfortunately the element that was clearly at error was somehow missed. Not to criticize the Moderators. Trying to ride herd on that is like trying to herd a bunch of cats that are on fire. It's not easy and kudos to them for at least diving in there and taking some kind of action.
But as anyone who has read the items in question, surely an apology must be due to Mr. Hall for the part of that action that saw him adversely affected for no reason and which only served to reinforce the actions of those who are in it for a brawl.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a long time reader, but non-poster here, and a far longer time aviator in Canada and around the world, I am embarrassed, disgusted, and truly appalled at the behavior of pretty much everyone here.
This is professional pilots/lawyers "discussing" a topic? This is what is representing our profession to the public? You people are like a cohort of school-ground children squabbling over a nickel for lunch. There is no wonder why the profession has eroded to the point where it is today if this is representative of the level of intelligence, patience, and communication used to further our cause.
To all of you sitting behind your computers posting this childish drivel, please keep you mouths shut when at work, because if I have to knowingly share a flight deck with any one of you it'll push me to early retirement. What has the world come to that this behavior is acceptable? Everyone shouts, nobody listens, and you're all big men when there's no requirement to speak face to face.
Truly disgusted.
Jim
This is professional pilots/lawyers "discussing" a topic? This is what is representing our profession to the public? You people are like a cohort of school-ground children squabbling over a nickel for lunch. There is no wonder why the profession has eroded to the point where it is today if this is representative of the level of intelligence, patience, and communication used to further our cause.
To all of you sitting behind your computers posting this childish drivel, please keep you mouths shut when at work, because if I have to knowingly share a flight deck with any one of you it'll push me to early retirement. What has the world come to that this behavior is acceptable? Everyone shouts, nobody listens, and you're all big men when there's no requirement to speak face to face.
Truly disgusted.
Jim
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I don't see any real problem with a few of us undesirables getting punted off their forum because they still have 30,000 desirables left.
It's a shame though because there is not enough discussion about this and it is getting harder and harder to find a venue for it. When this issue first landed at the CHRT I knew very little about it, but made sure I read up. After looking at what is happening in the rest of the country vis-a-vis mandatory retirement, and specifically at the worldwide pilot issue with ICAO's initiative, it was obvious to me this was a done deal. No amount of hot air from the peanut gallery would change it even a tiny bit.
I didn't get vocal about it until I saw what ACPA was doing, and I saw nothing but disaster on the horizon if they persisted on this course. Their behavior on this issue from the start has violated their obligation to provide responsible representation to the membership. Their most recent actions flagrantly violate their duty to provide fair representation to all their members. And since August 28th, 2009 they have been violating Canadian law through unabated discrimination of it's pilots over the age of 60.
These have resulted in legal action against them and while they of course deny everything, what will they do when these legal actions go against them? Will they admit they were wrong? Oooops...sorry about that. By the way, here's a special assessment against each and every one of you for $??,???, please pay as quickly as you can because after all, we were only doing what you wanted us to do.
Last edited by engfireleft; 12th Aug 2010 at 21:48.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, I see Pprune has banned a couple of people.
I vote we shut down any and all discussion everywhere it may appear. Then we'll just let the various legal processes run their course and figure out a way to live with the results afterwards without benefit of discourse. Nothing anybody says here will effect the outcome anyway.
I'll go first.
Ciao
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is there's not enough knowledge outside of the few on this forum who have a sound legal grasp of the issues to make any kind of reasonable exchange possible, and the one with the most knowledge gets excluded and you know what? It might just be because this is just too complicated for 99 percent of everybody to understand so the 1 percent with the knowledge base gets punted.
It's like you're at the library and you don't take the big book home because you just don't get what's in it.
So once you exclude the guys with the brains this is what you're left with.
YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic
It's like you're at the library and you don't take the big book home because you just don't get what's in it.
So once you exclude the guys with the brains this is what you're left with.
YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would guess that Mr Halls behaviour away from the forums could have the owners of Pprune and Avcanada running scared. If I was one of them I certainly wouldn't want to get dragged into court over something that was posted on my site...
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.