Air Canada Age 60 Limit To End
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick3333331, sorry I am only getting back to you this late.
Actually I was 29 when I was hired, but I'll give you my view on your in my opinion flawed logic anyhow.
To start, I also consider myself lucky to be picked out of the vast pool of applicants, and I am grateful. Not better, just lucky. Having said that, please try to follow this approach.
When the age limit was 27 all the below 27 years of age pilots competed for the job. Even today with no limit on age for hiring, it is still true that the vast majority of pilots in Canada will not work for AC. So the only thing that changed when the limit was lifted was the pool of pilots the company could look at.
The average age of our new hires is high because the pool of pilots offers the company a great ratio of time/experience (safe) and time remaining to serve/return on investment (age). That is why most newhires have thousands of hours and years of experience, because the market can produce it. That is why we don't seem to hire 21 year old 500 hour wonders OR 56 year old widebody skippers. I am sure there are plenty of application from both those extreme demographics.
So back to your question: I submit that when the limit was 27, most of the people hired since the change would have been the (roughly) same type, just hired a bit sooner in their life, as they would have been looked at by AC BEFORE they hit 27, with what ever experience they had then.In other words, you and I might well have been hired with LESS time but EARLIER in our flying lives. You can't take your or my "hiring environment" and transplant it into the past. I had 3500 hours when I was 24, would that have made me competetive back in the day before the change? I think so.
In essence that change benefited a small group of people at the time (ie. late to start flying, career change from military to civilian etc.) For the rest of us the goal posts were moved. You now had to have thousands of hours (and would just by the nature of the beast be older).
Much like the present 60+ situation, where also a small group of people would benefit for the next 5 years, and for the rest of us, the goal posts would be moved. I know, I would also benefit by being able to go to 65, or still retire at 60...... we all know both comes at a great cost to my vintage, no, actually anybody not in the top paying position at AC not close to age 60 would pay dearly. Career earnings.....
MTK said:For some reason you think this only applies to your generation. Every one on the property has paid dearly the last 10 years for which you have a succession of gutless MEC members
and everyone who voted YES to blame for it.
Of course we all were hit with the same concessions (more or less). But there are about 1000 pilots here now that have never even been on a "good" pre CCAA contract. You were hired at age 28, even if you just retired you had 22 years (or more if you retired a while ago) when the job (any pilot job at AC with the exception of flat pay) paid very well.
Rick3333331, wrt the CHRA, CHRC, CHRT and their provincial and territorial counterparts; it has become an absolute racket. Government lawyers and civil servants keeping each other busy, on our dime. Please read Ezra Levants book Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights. McLelland & Stewart. 2009. ISBN 0771046189. We should all be outraged
BTW, PEN Canada,[39] the Canadian Association of Journalists[40], and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association[41] — all have called for reform of the commissions.
edit for spelling
Actually I was 29 when I was hired, but I'll give you my view on your in my opinion flawed logic anyhow.
To start, I also consider myself lucky to be picked out of the vast pool of applicants, and I am grateful. Not better, just lucky. Having said that, please try to follow this approach.
When the age limit was 27 all the below 27 years of age pilots competed for the job. Even today with no limit on age for hiring, it is still true that the vast majority of pilots in Canada will not work for AC. So the only thing that changed when the limit was lifted was the pool of pilots the company could look at.
The average age of our new hires is high because the pool of pilots offers the company a great ratio of time/experience (safe) and time remaining to serve/return on investment (age). That is why most newhires have thousands of hours and years of experience, because the market can produce it. That is why we don't seem to hire 21 year old 500 hour wonders OR 56 year old widebody skippers. I am sure there are plenty of application from both those extreme demographics.
So back to your question: I submit that when the limit was 27, most of the people hired since the change would have been the (roughly) same type, just hired a bit sooner in their life, as they would have been looked at by AC BEFORE they hit 27, with what ever experience they had then.In other words, you and I might well have been hired with LESS time but EARLIER in our flying lives. You can't take your or my "hiring environment" and transplant it into the past. I had 3500 hours when I was 24, would that have made me competetive back in the day before the change? I think so.
In essence that change benefited a small group of people at the time (ie. late to start flying, career change from military to civilian etc.) For the rest of us the goal posts were moved. You now had to have thousands of hours (and would just by the nature of the beast be older).
Much like the present 60+ situation, where also a small group of people would benefit for the next 5 years, and for the rest of us, the goal posts would be moved. I know, I would also benefit by being able to go to 65, or still retire at 60...... we all know both comes at a great cost to my vintage, no, actually anybody not in the top paying position at AC not close to age 60 would pay dearly. Career earnings.....
MTK said:For some reason you think this only applies to your generation. Every one on the property has paid dearly the last 10 years for which you have a succession of gutless MEC members
and everyone who voted YES to blame for it.Of course we all were hit with the same concessions (more or less). But there are about 1000 pilots here now that have never even been on a "good" pre CCAA contract. You were hired at age 28, even if you just retired you had 22 years (or more if you retired a while ago) when the job (any pilot job at AC with the exception of flat pay) paid very well.
Rick3333331, wrt the CHRA, CHRC, CHRT and their provincial and territorial counterparts; it has become an absolute racket. Government lawyers and civil servants keeping each other busy, on our dime. Please read Ezra Levants book Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights. McLelland & Stewart. 2009. ISBN 0771046189. We should all be outraged
BTW, PEN Canada,[39] the Canadian Association of Journalists[40], and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association[41] — all have called for reform of the commissions.
edit for spelling
Last edited by 12435; 22nd Aug 2010 at 02:56.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we all know both comes at a great cost to my vintage, no, actually anybody not in the top paying position at AC not close to age 60 would pay dearly. Career earnings.....
Rick3333331, wrt the CHRA, CHRC, CHRT and their provincial and territorial counterparts; it has become an absolute racket.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a group we choose to give up massive amounts of career earnings on our own, so it's more than a little disingenuous to use it as an argument against eliminating mandatory retirement.
The only thing dishonest is to deny the fact that we all balance lifestyle with pay. So, for example, one chooses to wait until 50% on any list, if you and your brethren plug up the top jobs, it will take longer to get to that next position at that ratio, ergo loss of earnings. This holds true all the way up the list, REGARDLESS of one bidding the best job one can hold to the bottom OR waiting until some magical percentile on the list. There is a limited number of jobs for us to choose from, and by not honouring your contractual retirement, you WILL be holding people up. Logical, undeniable and you know it. You are NOT fooling anyone.
There are no doubt excesses like requiring a flower shop to hire someone who is allergic to flowers, and there is a point where individual rights cross the boundry of absurd.
Can't but agree with you there, plenty of absurd and even disgusting rulings out there. To say nothing of the process itself.
outa here
The only thing dishonest is to deny the fact that we all balance lifestyle with pay. So, for example, one chooses to wait until 50% on any list, if you and your brethren plug up the top jobs, it will take longer to get to that next position at that ratio, ergo loss of earnings. This holds true all the way up the list, REGARDLESS of one bidding the best job one can hold to the bottom OR waiting until some magical percentile on the list. There is a limited number of jobs for us to choose from, and by not honouring your contractual retirement, you WILL be holding people up. Logical, undeniable and you know it. You are NOT fooling anyone.
There are no doubt excesses like requiring a flower shop to hire someone who is allergic to flowers, and there is a point where individual rights cross the boundry of absurd.
Can't but agree with you there, plenty of absurd and even disgusting rulings out there. To say nothing of the process itself.
outa here
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing dishonest is to deny the fact that we all balance lifestyle with pay.
So, it remains your choice to lose career earnings.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: canada
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhhh..but apparently coming back to the right seat of an EMB...even while making 777 FO pay isn't tolerable to some. And I asked the question to Mssr V a few years ago about what he could hold if he came back; he said 767 CA.
But that's only if everyone else ahead of him chose to retire as was in the contract. Otherwise...our Mssr V could be a 767 FO until well into his 90's...assuming everyone chooses to use their new found right to stay until whenever the hell they want.
Regarding "massive" losses of income...there is someone at 98% on every airplane in the fleet. The bottom guy on the 767 has captins junior to him on the 320. So if I choose to sit in the right seat a bit longer because my kids are still home and I want to coach them in hockey, I choose to do it. In fact, if I choose to stay there until I am 60, and then follow the contract and retire, it is my choice.
But when a bunch of guys who have benifited their whole career by the Lanks, and Burbanks, and Spracklins of the time retiring after 35 or 39 years and opening a spot at the top......now decide they are at the top and, well, damnit, I like it here...think I'll stay...affects my ability to move up, I have a problem with it.
But that's only if everyone else ahead of him chose to retire as was in the contract. Otherwise...our Mssr V could be a 767 FO until well into his 90's...assuming everyone chooses to use their new found right to stay until whenever the hell they want.
Regarding "massive" losses of income...there is someone at 98% on every airplane in the fleet. The bottom guy on the 767 has captins junior to him on the 320. So if I choose to sit in the right seat a bit longer because my kids are still home and I want to coach them in hockey, I choose to do it. In fact, if I choose to stay there until I am 60, and then follow the contract and retire, it is my choice.
But when a bunch of guys who have benifited their whole career by the Lanks, and Burbanks, and Spracklins of the time retiring after 35 or 39 years and opening a spot at the top......now decide they are at the top and, well, damnit, I like it here...think I'll stay...affects my ability to move up, I have a problem with it.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that I am retired from aviation but still travel by air occasionally I can't help but wonder if all this resentment between so many Air Canada pilots carries over into the cockpit thus degrading CRM and thus safety?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: YVR
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Movements up the seniority list:
All, the pilots that retired at 60, could have filed a complaint with the CHRC.
IF>>>>they did not, did not want to, why bother, or for what ever reason they choose not to, they do not have any legal rights to their lost seniority.
The pilot has one year to file a legal complaint. Thats it.
The pilot must do it him/her self. The CHRC has a very demanding course of action, and the paperwork etc, must be exactly correct, or they will not accept your individual application. It must be a factual issue, as they will not entertain non legal issues. In this case, it is age discrimination, as defined by the laws of Canada.
So, they (previous pilots under 60) gave up their positions with out a fight. So....the only way, a pilot can lay any claim to his/her position, when they reach the age of 60, is to file a legal claim with the CHRC, within one year of being discriminated against due to age, following the guidelines of the government, and the laws of the land.
So, by age 61, without a legal claim filed and accepted by the CHRC, they have no legal rights. As a result, their seniority number was given up by free will. Read that again, by free will.
So the fact that all the pilots (V/K) and the rest of the FP60 group, benefited by pilots following the contract before them is not correct. Only a small group of pilots filled the necesssary claims, and only a small group want to go past 60, for what ever their personal and varied reasons are.
V/K will get their rightful seniority, as per the courts view of the matter. The pilots that retired before them gave up their seniority number, by their own free will. They did not have to do that. They could have filed the discrimnation claim with the CHRC, but they choose, not to.
That would not be happening, if acpa would have gotten on the other side of this issue, they elected not to, have spent enourmous amounts of everyones dues, (including mine) fighting this issue.
Joesph
Please show me the certified audited results, with the time and date for the IVR vote that was specific to a CURRENT age 60 issue. The one that you are refering to.
I know you cant, as there is not such an IVR vote done, since the one I posted earlier on this forum. (May 2006) The current WACON surrvey, and that is just a survey, has not been posted, and we all, get only what acpa wants us to see. To say that 80% of the pilots voted against the age 60 issue is an outright lie, by acpa. How can you call that a Vote, it was a surrvey.
If, acpa wants to post all the survey responses, and let us all see it, then maybe, we could trust what they are saying, and proof it out, now, it is just a propoganda item, with misleading numbers. Do you not find it unusual, that the last IVR vote, was in 2006, and less than 50% of the pilots were in favour of the fight against the age 60 issue, and now all of a sudden they are 80% against. When has a 80% number, in any kind of vote ever happened in acpa?
I assume you are in contact with acpa, why dont you suggest/insist, they have another IVR vote?
Do you think, that if, acpa wanted the numbers to look real good, that they would have had another IVR vote, so that they could show it to the CHRC and the CHRT? They did not, and for good reason they did not. It would not work to help their case.
The last IVR was in 2006. The pilots that voted against age 60 are now 4 years older. Some, of them will now be in favour of the right to fly past 60, as they are now there, and some, not all, might....want to stay. The IVR vote would be very different.
The food chain move up, is further down the road, it has not been taken away, disappeared, or vaporized, you and all of us will get to work past 60 if you want to. When the day comes for you, and you must decide to go or stay, you will have that option.
There are many pilots who say nothing about this issue, as was indicated by the last IVR vote. They do not want to pay personal money, out of their own pocket, to fight the legal battle, but they want the laws changed, before they get to 60, so they can have the choice. They are the silent majority, letting the FP60 group fight the fight, and they will just enjoy the benefit, at zero cost to them. Thats life.
Each year this drags out, the FP60 group gets bigger and bigger, so the stalling tactics that have been shoved at the FP60 group, have just compounded the issues. That was really dumb.
The courts will make the final decissions, and that is where it will end up.
Did not have to go that way, but the lack of thinking in acpa, and to some extend ac, have built a wall between the pilots. This is exactly, what ac wants, especially when it is negotiations time. Just anther example of how, ac plays the pilot group, around and around.
Your journey to ac was very long and difficult, more than some, and less than others. I hope you get to enjoy your time remaining at ac. It will be interesting to see, when your time comes, if you cross the line into the 60's, and continue to work via your own free will.
To bad we dont have an acpa list with the pilots putting their names on it, one side shows no I WILL not work past 60, and the others saying YES they will work past 60.
You should make an effort to read the contracts prior to the mid 1980's. You will not find the mandatory references to forced retirement, they were put in much later. So to say that everyone is supposed to follow the contract, doesnt hold up. You were not there, so there is no way you would know that.
What will you do?
All, the pilots that retired at 60, could have filed a complaint with the CHRC.
IF>>>>they did not, did not want to, why bother, or for what ever reason they choose not to, they do not have any legal rights to their lost seniority.
The pilot has one year to file a legal complaint. Thats it.
The pilot must do it him/her self. The CHRC has a very demanding course of action, and the paperwork etc, must be exactly correct, or they will not accept your individual application. It must be a factual issue, as they will not entertain non legal issues. In this case, it is age discrimination, as defined by the laws of Canada.
So, they (previous pilots under 60) gave up their positions with out a fight. So....the only way, a pilot can lay any claim to his/her position, when they reach the age of 60, is to file a legal claim with the CHRC, within one year of being discriminated against due to age, following the guidelines of the government, and the laws of the land.
So, by age 61, without a legal claim filed and accepted by the CHRC, they have no legal rights. As a result, their seniority number was given up by free will. Read that again, by free will.
So the fact that all the pilots (V/K) and the rest of the FP60 group, benefited by pilots following the contract before them is not correct. Only a small group of pilots filled the necesssary claims, and only a small group want to go past 60, for what ever their personal and varied reasons are.
V/K will get their rightful seniority, as per the courts view of the matter. The pilots that retired before them gave up their seniority number, by their own free will. They did not have to do that. They could have filed the discrimnation claim with the CHRC, but they choose, not to.
That would not be happening, if acpa would have gotten on the other side of this issue, they elected not to, have spent enourmous amounts of everyones dues, (including mine) fighting this issue.
Joesph
Please show me the certified audited results, with the time and date for the IVR vote that was specific to a CURRENT age 60 issue. The one that you are refering to.
I know you cant, as there is not such an IVR vote done, since the one I posted earlier on this forum. (May 2006) The current WACON surrvey, and that is just a survey, has not been posted, and we all, get only what acpa wants us to see. To say that 80% of the pilots voted against the age 60 issue is an outright lie, by acpa. How can you call that a Vote, it was a surrvey.
If, acpa wants to post all the survey responses, and let us all see it, then maybe, we could trust what they are saying, and proof it out, now, it is just a propoganda item, with misleading numbers. Do you not find it unusual, that the last IVR vote, was in 2006, and less than 50% of the pilots were in favour of the fight against the age 60 issue, and now all of a sudden they are 80% against. When has a 80% number, in any kind of vote ever happened in acpa?
I assume you are in contact with acpa, why dont you suggest/insist, they have another IVR vote?
Do you think, that if, acpa wanted the numbers to look real good, that they would have had another IVR vote, so that they could show it to the CHRC and the CHRT? They did not, and for good reason they did not. It would not work to help their case.
The last IVR was in 2006. The pilots that voted against age 60 are now 4 years older. Some, of them will now be in favour of the right to fly past 60, as they are now there, and some, not all, might....want to stay. The IVR vote would be very different.
The food chain move up, is further down the road, it has not been taken away, disappeared, or vaporized, you and all of us will get to work past 60 if you want to. When the day comes for you, and you must decide to go or stay, you will have that option.
There are many pilots who say nothing about this issue, as was indicated by the last IVR vote. They do not want to pay personal money, out of their own pocket, to fight the legal battle, but they want the laws changed, before they get to 60, so they can have the choice. They are the silent majority, letting the FP60 group fight the fight, and they will just enjoy the benefit, at zero cost to them. Thats life.
Each year this drags out, the FP60 group gets bigger and bigger, so the stalling tactics that have been shoved at the FP60 group, have just compounded the issues. That was really dumb.
The courts will make the final decissions, and that is where it will end up.
Did not have to go that way, but the lack of thinking in acpa, and to some extend ac, have built a wall between the pilots. This is exactly, what ac wants, especially when it is negotiations time. Just anther example of how, ac plays the pilot group, around and around.
Your journey to ac was very long and difficult, more than some, and less than others. I hope you get to enjoy your time remaining at ac. It will be interesting to see, when your time comes, if you cross the line into the 60's, and continue to work via your own free will.
To bad we dont have an acpa list with the pilots putting their names on it, one side shows no I WILL not work past 60, and the others saying YES they will work past 60.
You should make an effort to read the contracts prior to the mid 1980's. You will not find the mandatory references to forced retirement, they were put in much later. So to say that everyone is supposed to follow the contract, doesnt hold up. You were not there, so there is no way you would know that.
What will you do?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regards the status of Mssr V. To my knowledge he was never a Cmdt. at AC.
And in my opinion he ought never be one. Said opinion has nothing to do with his seniority or entitlement. Do you catch my drift; or am I being obtuse?
Last line with acknowledgment to "The Shawshank Redemption.
And in my opinion he ought never be one. Said opinion has nothing to do with his seniority or entitlement. Do you catch my drift; or am I being obtuse?
Last line with acknowledgment to "The Shawshank Redemption.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OKFINE Wrote
Your best strategy would be to play up the obtuse thing.
obtuse: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
adj., -tus·er, -tus·est.
H. Offence Provisions
Under sections 59 and 60 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is an offence for anyone to threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that person has made a complaint of discrimination or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of a complaint or other proceeding under the Act. Section 60 specifically provides that anyone who fails to comply with the terms of an approved settlement under the Act, who obstructs a tribunal in carrying out its duties, or contravenes certain statutory prohibitions, such as section 59, is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine. In the case of an employer, employer association or employee organization, this fine is not to exceed $50,000; in any other case, the fine is not to exceed $5,000.
A prosecution for an offence under the Act is by way of summary proceedings, which may be initiated either by the complainant or by the Commission. Once the matter is turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation, however, it is for the Attorney General of Canada to determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted, and if so, to carry it through the criminal court system. Section 60(4) provides that no prosecution can be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Regards the status of Mssr V. To my knowledge he was never a Cmdt. at AC.
And in my opinion he ought never be one. Said opinion has nothing to do with his seniority or entitlement. Do you catch my drift; or am I being obtuse?
Last line with acknowledgment to "The Shawshank Redemption.
And in my opinion he ought never be one. Said opinion has nothing to do with his seniority or entitlement. Do you catch my drift; or am I being obtuse?
Last line with acknowledgment to "The Shawshank Redemption.
Warden Samuel Norton: [icy] Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Sodomites. You'll think you've been ****** by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?
Your best strategy would be to play up the obtuse thing.
obtuse: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
adj., -tus·er, -tus·est.
- Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
- Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.
H. Offence Provisions
Under sections 59 and 60 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is an offence for anyone to threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that person has made a complaint of discrimination or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of a complaint or other proceeding under the Act. Section 60 specifically provides that anyone who fails to comply with the terms of an approved settlement under the Act, who obstructs a tribunal in carrying out its duties, or contravenes certain statutory prohibitions, such as section 59, is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine. In the case of an employer, employer association or employee organization, this fine is not to exceed $50,000; in any other case, the fine is not to exceed $5,000.
A prosecution for an offence under the Act is by way of summary proceedings, which may be initiated either by the complainant or by the Commission. Once the matter is turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation, however, it is for the Attorney General of Canada to determine whether or not the case should be prosecuted, and if so, to carry it through the criminal court system. Section 60(4) provides that no prosecution can be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one."
Thanks for the insight. Obtuse it shall be then. Better still I'll make it an acute case of obtuse, if you think that should be my angle.
Thanks for the insight. Obtuse it shall be then. Better still I'll make it an acute case of obtuse, if you think that should be my angle.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhhhh..but apparently coming back to the right seat of an EMB...even while making 777 FO pay isn't tolerable to some.
That's not permitted...remember.
But that's only if everyone else ahead of him chose to retire as was in the contract. Otherwise...our Mssr V could be a 767 FO until well into his 90's...assuming everyone chooses to use their new found right to stay until whenever the hell they want.
So if I choose to sit in the right seat a bit longer because my kids are still home and I want to coach them in hockey, I choose to do it. In fact, if I choose to stay there until I am 60, and then follow the contract and retire, it is my choice.
Last edited by engfireleft; 23rd Aug 2010 at 06:48.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has now been one month since ACPA announced the memorandum of agreement to the collective agreement that is to place both Vilven and Kelly back as EMJ F/O's. But the MOA has still not been put out to the membership for an IVR vote. Has anyone other than the MEC even seen the actual wording of the agreement?
Why not? Is the membership not going to be able to have any say in whether this amendment to the collective agreement is put into effect, especially given the significant impact that the agreement has on the future of our contract and pay structure, regardless of on which side of the age 60 issue one sits? Or is it already in effect? Did the MEC already make the agreement without any intention of ever having the membership approve the deal? Did the MEC usurp the membership's constitutional right to either accept or reject the proposed amendment by signing the agreement itself, and not making it tentative, based on ratification?
If so, wasn't this sort of arbitrary deal-making the precise reason why Air Canada pilots left CALPA--the executive of that organization made binding, compromizing contractual commitments without consulting the members of the Association that would be affected by those arrangements?
Why not? Is the membership not going to be able to have any say in whether this amendment to the collective agreement is put into effect, especially given the significant impact that the agreement has on the future of our contract and pay structure, regardless of on which side of the age 60 issue one sits? Or is it already in effect? Did the MEC already make the agreement without any intention of ever having the membership approve the deal? Did the MEC usurp the membership's constitutional right to either accept or reject the proposed amendment by signing the agreement itself, and not making it tentative, based on ratification?
If so, wasn't this sort of arbitrary deal-making the precise reason why Air Canada pilots left CALPA--the executive of that organization made binding, compromizing contractual commitments without consulting the members of the Association that would be affected by those arrangements?
Last edited by OverUnder; 23rd Aug 2010 at 11:00.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From AVcanada thread-
Thanks to >>> "Mechanic787" for this enlightening perspective;
May I encourage you to, as much as possible, look outside of your fish bowl, to get a better perspective on this dispute. I would expect that one of the reasons that the Tribunal is taking so long in rendering its decisions is that it must look at the fundamental legal issues involved here from a much broader perspective than that of the pilots who have presented their cases to the Tribunal.
Not only are there many other airline workers coming along in the Tribunal queue, but there is also a whole series of employees outside of the airline industry itself, including truckers, longshoremen and financial industry personnel, including those at the highest levels of management who are challenging the existing law. Even the major television networks still employ individuals on contracts that specify retirement at a specific age.
As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind. So too, then, issues such as specific pay systems and specific seniority and benefit systems are largely irrelevant to the questions that the Tribunal must decide. The corollary of this assertion is that regardless of the specific impact on the individual organizations involved in these cases, the determinations will be made from a more systemic perspective; therefore individual organizations, especially individual employers and their unions will have to find means within their own processes to adapt to the consequences of the changing law, regardless of the apparent imbalance that the decisions may create within specific organizations and regardless of the motivation of the specific protagonists and/or their associates.
Focusing on these imbalances or on the assumed motivation of any of the players, therefore, while compelling, does little more than distract one from the more pressing social/legal issue question of how and when mandatory retirement provisions will be diminished and eliminated entirely—in short, how and when mandatory retirement will be mandatorily retired in the federal sector.
Thanks to >>> "Mechanic787" for this enlightening perspective;
May I encourage you to, as much as possible, look outside of your fish bowl, to get a better perspective on this dispute. I would expect that one of the reasons that the Tribunal is taking so long in rendering its decisions is that it must look at the fundamental legal issues involved here from a much broader perspective than that of the pilots who have presented their cases to the Tribunal.
Not only are there many other airline workers coming along in the Tribunal queue, but there is also a whole series of employees outside of the airline industry itself, including truckers, longshoremen and financial industry personnel, including those at the highest levels of management who are challenging the existing law. Even the major television networks still employ individuals on contracts that specify retirement at a specific age.
As I understand it, the Canadian Human Rights Act was not written with Air Canada pilots in mind. So too, then, issues such as specific pay systems and specific seniority and benefit systems are largely irrelevant to the questions that the Tribunal must decide. The corollary of this assertion is that regardless of the specific impact on the individual organizations involved in these cases, the determinations will be made from a more systemic perspective; therefore individual organizations, especially individual employers and their unions will have to find means within their own processes to adapt to the consequences of the changing law, regardless of the apparent imbalance that the decisions may create within specific organizations and regardless of the motivation of the specific protagonists and/or their associates.
Focusing on these imbalances or on the assumed motivation of any of the players, therefore, while compelling, does little more than distract one from the more pressing social/legal issue question of how and when mandatory retirement provisions will be diminished and eliminated entirely—in short, how and when mandatory retirement will be mandatorily retired in the federal sector.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Career earnings is an empty argument. The junior 320 FO in Toronto with reinstatements rights back to EMJ CA sits at 98% on the 320 list. That means 98% of the 320 FO's in Toronto could have had his position and could be making 30K more a year, but chose not to. It is a similar story as you work up the line. As a group we choose to give up massive amounts of career earnings on our own, so it's more than a little disingenuous to use it as an argument against eliminating mandatory retirement.
I have had colleagues tell me they have done the math between where they would sit on the 767 CA list vs A320 CA list and with all the "perks" available to senior bidding privileges they make MORE than someone of similar vintage on the bigger equipment. Haven't done the math myself, but I take them at their word as I have looked at the option of A320 FO vs EMB CA and agree with the choice of sitting senior on junior equipment.
When those claiming discrimination return to list it affects everyone below them in BOTH salary earning potential AND lifestyle.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Barrie
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OKFINE wrote:
Don't you have any original material at all??
Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one - Google Search
"Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one."
Thanks for the insight. Obtuse it shall be then. Better still I'll make it an acute case of obtuse, if you think that should be my angle.
Thanks for the insight. Obtuse it shall be then. Better still I'll make it an acute case of obtuse, if you think that should be my angle.
Well gee, golly gosh...I got the all over fidgets on that one - Google Search
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The Late Great Planet Earth
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
777LongHaul, despite the length of your post, I believe you have missed the point. V/K benefited during their flying career from other pilots senior to them respecting the Age 60 Retirement Age provision of the collective agreement, as did I. Had Age 60 Retirement not been in place, Vilven may have ended up as a 767 F/O and Kelly as a 767 Capt., IOW in a lower rated position at age 60. So to say that they did not benefit from others retiring as per the contract is disingenuous on your part.
I am one of those who chose not to file an action with the CHRT and as a consequence, since I have now been retired for over 3 years, I supposedly have lost the right of appeal against Age 60 Retirement. But, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that 1 year Statute of Limitations is itself discriminatory and I am thinking of filing a motion against the CHRT to that effect. There is no Statute of Limitations on injustice and the 1 year limit is unjust and discriminatory.
Standby for a further addition to this can of worms.
I am one of those who chose not to file an action with the CHRT and as a consequence, since I have now been retired for over 3 years, I supposedly have lost the right of appeal against Age 60 Retirement. But, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that 1 year Statute of Limitations is itself discriminatory and I am thinking of filing a motion against the CHRT to that effect. There is no Statute of Limitations on injustice and the 1 year limit is unjust and discriminatory.
Standby for a further addition to this can of worms.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ACAV8R
...according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that 1 year Statute of Limitations is itself discriminatory and I am thinking of filing a motion against the CHRT to that effect. There is no Statute of Limitations on injustice and the 1 year limit is unjust and discriminatory.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's missing here is some good old fashioned common sense. The whole foundation of a seniority system is an orderly movement through the ranks to achieve the trappings at the top. If that conveyer belt is broken, the system as it operates now can no longer exist. Who knows, maybe it's day has already come for numerous other reasons ? Just saying, if the judgment is 100% in favour of the Fly till Whenever coalition it will inevitabley be the catalyst for major change. The present state of affairs looks like monkeys in a $h!t fight so a sweeping overhaul to the contract may prevent us from further damage to ourselves.
Just a quick question to wanabe lawyers. When rumours were heard of ending age 60 retirement and installing a reformed pension schedule for those that chose to stay, some of you guys howled "discrimination". If this is so, how does the gov't get away with it with CPP ? Ie, the issue of full pension at 65 vs decreased at 60 ?
Just a quick question to wanabe lawyers. When rumours were heard of ending age 60 retirement and installing a reformed pension schedule for those that chose to stay, some of you guys howled "discrimination". If this is so, how does the gov't get away with it with CPP ? Ie, the issue of full pension at 65 vs decreased at 60 ?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Mandatory age based retirement is over in this country, and that includes Air Canada.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine left fire... Please quote the current federal law (as A/C is governed by federal law) that backs up your claim.
Tell me you don't see a trend here.
It is ACPA's deliberate blindness to this trend that, with the company's help, is going to be so expensive and destructive to our pilot group. Failing to recognize the significance of last august's ruling and continuing to force pilots out as if it didn't even happen is an ongoing disaster in the making.
yycflyguy said:
Haven't done the math myself, but I take them at their word as I have looked at the option of A320 FO vs EMB CA and agree with the choice of sitting senior on junior equipment.
Last edited by engfireleft; 24th Aug 2010 at 19:22.