Blame the government for what we are trying to do? What we are trying to do is to bring you from the 1950's into the 21st Century. Evidently we are attempting to do that in the face of your unwillingness to consider the adverse consequences to you of your own resistence to change to meet the reality of the law, including your unwillingess to adapt your own contract to minimize the most obvious adverse consequences of that law.

Your assumption about delayed career advancement is not only unreasonably speculative in its numbers, but it ignores the fact that the law of Parliament supersedes the law of the collective agreement. One cannot contract out of human rights legislation, and sooner or later, regardless of who the parties are assisting the change, the change will take place, with or without your concurrence. The only issue is how much of your own money and effort you will waste attempting to delay or stop the inevitable.

''the law of Parliament supersedes the law of the collective agreement''

So Ray, where were you in the last 25-30 years or so not fighting this injustice...Only because you were moving up the list thanks to those ''force retirement'' was not a reason to ignore the law of the land.

Is that the best argument you have for keeping forced retirement at age 60?

And you could not have filed a complaint unless you had been forced to retire....You had to wait.

Please study up on the issues.

Flexable... Don't hold your breath waiting for Raymond767 to answer. The question of why he wasn't fighting for this when others were appealing it years ago has already been asked. Still no answer... I wouldn't waste your time on here.. Summer is much to short to spend it inside on a PC....

Rick333331 You don't have to file a complaint to represent someone in court.. Raymond767 has already stated he has been practicing law for a long time and could easily have been involved in changing the rules.. Funny thing, I don't seem to recall him standing in the courts when the first appeals to retirement age were made....

IMHO...
 

...a lot of the naysayers' arguments on this topic might've once held merit.

But in November of 2006 the world – the ICAO world anyway – changed. As we all know, the new (max) age of an international PIC then became 64.

Before that - in AC's world anyway - desiring to "fly past 60 as PIC" was problematic. Geography plays a huge part in the Great White North and, like it or not, we're influenced by our neighbours - both to the south and in the rest of the world. For a wannabe (over-60) AC commander to ONLY fly in domestic airspace would've - at the least - presented a scheduling challenge...

Today, staying past 60 is a given in most of the world. The majority of the world's airlines have dealt with it. They've moved on. Yet the AC Pilots' Association executive continues to fight to maintain the old status quo - and some members blame it on greed. Greed it is all right; but it's greed for advancement that's been blinded by a failure to recognize the current state of the industry.

As well, the ACPA approach to this issue has been exacerbated by a shortsighted view of the possibilities, a failure to grasp possible opportunities and - a woeful lack of planning for what is an eventuality.

From my seat out on the floe,

mic

Canadian Law has finally caught up with Air Canada pilots, but you and many of your cohorts still insist on throwing rocks which has absolutely no effect on anything. You might as well go yell at the tree in your back yard.

If you're going to point fingers you should save it for yourself because while you were distracted laying blame you haven't insisted ACPA deal with this realistically, and it will cost every one of us a lot of money.

No decision, yet.

The Tribunal Chair, prior to concluding the V-K hearing in April, suggested that he would try to render his decision by June 1st. In fact, given the number of legal issues to be decided, it could still be some time before that decision is actually ready to be released.

We are also waiting for the liability decision in the earlier case (70 pilots, non-Charter issues only). That hearing concluded in January. Both outstanding decisions could be rendered at the same time.

Tribunal practice, as mandated by the Federal Court, is to have all decisions rendered within four months of the close of the hearing.

Ray767,

Seeing the HRC is ruling on a discrimination case, by what manner does the HRC override pension statutes? How does a person who is retired and collecting a pension from the same company they are being returned to, by your assertion, collect both a pension and a wage. Pension law does not allow that to occur.

So, how does a pilot unretire?
Is the pension placed on hold?
Does the reinstated pilot get to acquire more pensionable service or is the service frozen? ...assuming they do not have 35 year of service.

I could likely ask about 40 more questions that are not simple nor unimportant. The HRC does not have the right to override the laws of Parliment as you have stated many times. The Pension Act is a enacted by Parliment but totally unrelated to the Human Rights Act.

I would assume the Chairman is trying to reconcile this and other issues of conflict that may not be clearly addressed. That being said I go back to the beginning, just by what means does the HRC override other Acts of Parliment and specifically the Pension Act which is closely related to Tax Laws?

You are correct. The Tribunal does not have the authority to override Acts of Parliament, such as the Pension Act. But it doesn't have to, in these cases.

A great deal of the testimony in the recently completed remedy hearing dealt with what the actuaries call "unwinding" of the pension plan. Unwinding is simply repayment of pension proceeds, then deduction of pension payments that would normally have been made in the course of the employment that was denied. The net effect is to put the person back into the position that he or she would have been, absent the wrongful termination of employment.

Once the pilot is back on the payroll, then the pension deductions would resume normally, to the date at which the individual acquires 35 years of service, where contributions cease. The pilot does not receive both a pension and a wage--only a wage. When he or she eventually retires, the pension would then be paid on the basis of the factors accrued as of the date of retirement.

IMHO most of the fly till you die crowd were hoping for a payout! Look at the pain and suffering amount that was filed. I've also heard about phone calls being made to those who were about to retire. It seems this was a good stage for someones political ambitions and some folks were told of $$$ to back his quest. These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple! If fly till you die is forced on ACPA I bet we will see some changes to the pension in the next contract.

BTW the pension doesn't have the same appeal to the newer generation of pilots as it did to those in the past. Most that were hired recently have rrsp's and other investment vehicles. The pension is a more like a bonus. IMHO:eek:

That's possible for an undetermined number of them, but so what? That doesn't effect the underlying principle of discrimination, and if someone gets a settlement because they were discriminated against long after the company and ACPA were told they were discriminating then who do you think bears the responsibility?

You're right in a sense. Judging by the number of "Maximum 60" stickers out there and the vociferous objection to respecting human rights among newer pilots, it is obvious they aren't thinking about their pension. If they were they would realize they are fighting to decrease the size of the one they will get.

As those pilots get closer to collecting that pension you can be assured their attitude will change.

"IMHO most of the fly till you die crowd were hoping for a payout! Look at the pain and suffering amount that was filed. I've also heard about phone calls being made to those who were about to retire. It seems this was a good stage for someones political ambitions and some folks were told of $$$ to back his quest. These people don't want to be reinstated! They want to be paid out plain and simple! If fly till you die is forced on ACPA I bet we will see some changes to the pension in the next contract."

These discrimination complaints are hinged on wrongful dismissal. If you filed a discrimination complaint in this case that's the first thing you would see. All filings are done on the basis that employment has been unlawfully terminated and the issue is reinstatement. In the case of those not yet retired, is the issue not about retaining employment?

Pension Pension Pension

It might actually only be the Air Canada pilots that really get what is at stake here and fully understand.

Pension earnings are not only based on your years of service, but also on your "best Years" of earnings.

So really, you are not increasing your pension at all by going longer (for the junior pilots), you will HAVE to work longer just to make it to that big paycheque. It is all about career earning potential. For the pilots at the top, it means more time at the trough, for the junior guys, it means catching up, working longer, just to get to the same pension they WOULD have gotten, had they advanced into the higher paying positions sooner, ie. at 56 years of age.

Ray and his supporters are doing a great job at staying on message. It will be good for you too.... just not the case, the ONLY group that will truly benefit from this are the guys at the top. Full Stop. Nothing short sighted about that, again, career earnings are what matters. Not to speak of the quality of life and the perk to go at 60 (for the group, collectivly).

The detriment to the group as a whole, in order to enable windfall gains for a few, is just not acceptable.

For some really enlightening insight on how the canadian HRC/HRT racket works, please read Ezra Levants book: Shake down.

BTW: What was wrong with the first ruling, the one that stated that your final responsibility is to retire gracefully after having benefited from the ones retirering before you???

This is long from over....... no, I am not just wishing......

Joseph Keisinger

Patently false, as is the assumption that every pilot will have their career stalled by 5 years.

That rule (which didn't say that in the first place) has been deemed ILLEGAL.

Except for remaining details, forcing Air Canada and ACPA to comply and determining damages it is.

Joseph: Thank you for showing the courage to sign your post with your name. I believe that that can only encourage honest, frank discussion.

May I support your observation above. We are on message, because it is extremely important for us to communicate a valuable message. Essentially, as I have posted above, we have only one message. Namely, that this isn't about fairness--it is about reality. The law is real.

Age discrimination in Canada is illegal. The mandatory retirement exemption under the CHRA no longer is applicable. ACPA and all of its pilots must deal with that fact to the benefit of all. Denial is not a strategy. Filibustering on side issues, such as the alleged motivation of those prosecuting this case or advocating a legally irrelevant issue such as how unfair the law may be only detracts from the attention necessary to deal with the real issue of making the required adjustments in such a way that minimizes the amount of damage that is done to those most vulnerable, namely the junior pilots.

Enginefireleft, Patently false, eh?

Article 25 of our collective agreement has at present 13 positions one can hold.

On a status quo bid (no increase in total number of positions/jobs) ONE individual allowed to remain past their contractual date of retirement will hold back (theoretically) 12 other pilots from moving up. That one person is affecting a lot of other people.

In other words, if your progression to the better paying jobs is only based on attrition, (no growth, and there hasn't been any in a looong time)and people would get to stay past 60, there are no places for folks to move up into. So YES, ABSOLUTELY, your career earnings and therefore pension will be reduced/suffer, compared to how things are now, or better yet, how they have been for you all along, as you moved up through the ranks.

Perhaps not here online, but should we meet in person, please have the balls to introduce yourself to me, so we can have a chat:}

Joseph

Right. Now look at who's in those positions and see what they could be holding instead. The inescapable fact is most pilots choose to sit in a lower paying position. That makes the "delayed advancement" argument moot since almost everyone does it to themselves anyway.

Since most people wait until they can hold a fairly senior position, any delay could be eliminated by simply accepting the position at a lower seniority level. But of course if they don't want to do that then that's their decision and eliminating age 60 cannot be blamed. What is also false is your statement that the pension does not increase by additional years service. That is utter nonsense.


My pleasure. I have no problem expressing my opinion to anybody I meet or fly with, and you can be assured ACPA knows who I am and what my opinion is as well. Don't mistake anonymity on the internet for anonymity on this issue.

Oh boy, your kind of reply is exactly what made me jump into this, although I shouldn't have.

Look, real simple, you stay beyond 60 and people below you are negatively impacted, no matter what one's bidding preferences are.

What good does a few hundred bucks of pension do me, when my career earnings were reduced by tens of thousands of dollars? I don't think I'll live long enough to catch up.

So I WILL have to work longer just to catch up to my total career earnings I should have had.

I am tuning out now; you can have the last word. I've said my piece, and them' s the FACTS. Just no way around those.
Enjoy life, and your upcoming retirement:)

I just have one simple question. Have you ever delayed bidding a higher paying position because you didn't want to be on the bottom?

Interesting comparison between France and Canada these days, the French are fighting mad over their governments plan to raise the retirement age back up to 62 from 60, in Canada some wish to go the other way, I gues being retired in France is a better quality of life than being retired in Winnipeg {sorry all you "Peggers" just cant help myself when it comes to takeing a dig at your home town , just kidding!}

That's because the French have a hardcore socialist sense of entitlement and expect the government to support them no matter what. Any good right winger should realize that the government can't afford it and people have to start paying their own way. Especially now that the boomers are leaving the work force and there are fewer and fewer people to generate tax revenue.

Engine fire, the real reason is its much nicer eating and drinking in the "Cafe Rouge" on The Grande Boulavard in retirment than the White Spot in downtown Winter Peg, thats my take on it any way! Politics has nothing to do with it! {a joke, OK?}

That's true. The French also have some very nice tropical islands and the Mediterranean whereas Winnipeg is just a short drive away from Gimli.

now, thats funny!!

Fire Left, the Grimli chamber of commerce are gunning for you! Sugest you donate five gallons of Deet to them ASAP, that should get them of your back! {Only Canadians take joy in this sort of thing, the rest of the world thinks we are nuts!}For those not Canadian, just remember, God was only joking when he created Canada!

Today on the ACPA forum, a junior member blasted away with a trashy personal attack against the FlyPast60 movement and (as yet) the moderators are letting a personal attack against a respected retired AC pilot stand unaltered.

Typical ACPA moderator double standard. :mad:. If a retired pilot had made the same post it would have been edited or the thread closed in a New York Minute.

I think the correct terminology would be "formerly" respected retired pilot. Any pilots thinking about coming back had best get used to it.

As one AC F/O said to me last week, "If those guys come back and delay our promotions then Twitchel bids are going to be the norm",should be fun to watch to say the least!

then ... AC might have to crew the YYZ-HKG route with four 60+ guys.

Vic777, that will be really interesting to watch, will be like a Tampa flight, "Four more wheelchairs please" I supose Geritol will replace coffee as the drink of choice!

Therein lies the problem. Although it isn't only the ACPA forum that suffers from unfairly biased moderating (AvCanada). I can only hope this junior member and all others like him remember what they said when they reach their fifties and are benefiting from the changes made by those they are vilifying now. Somehow I doubt they will though.


Forgive my ignorance, but what is a "Twitchel" bid?

Avcanada is becoming a forum for the P.C. true believers as a couple of moderators weed out anyone who has opinions or beliefs that do not meet their smell test.

The thought police will soon have only each other to talk to.

Fire Left, A "Twitchel" bid {spelling?} Was named after a Captain Twitchell of AC who like many of us objected to flying with smokers, thus the F/Os bid a day after the Captains bids closed so they could bid around the nicotine addicts, of course it was also a way to avoid folks you just didnt want to fly with.These days of course all one has to do is to punch the persons employee number you wish to avoid into the computer and it will take care of the problem.

Thanks Clunk.

Harold Twitchell, hired by Trans-Canada Airlines in 1955 at age 20. Retired from Air Canada in 1994. When he was a First Officer, he persuaded the company and the union to stagger the (then "canned" block) bid closing dates by one day, as described above, in order to allow First Officers to surreptitiously avoid flying a whole month with specific Captains, for any reason of their own choosing.

His name thus forever identifies the process, now encapsulated in the PBS bid "Avoid Employee # XXXXX," and is ensconsced in labour relations and legal history for that reason.


Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

DECISION RENDERED ON MARCH 18, 1982
T. D. 5/ 82 IN THE MATTER OF THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, S. C. 1976- 77, C. 33, as amended;
AND IN THE MATTER of a Hearing before a Human Rights Tribunal Appointed Under Section 39 of The Canadian Human Rights Act.

BETWEEN:
PAUL S. CARSON, RAMON SANZ, WILLIAM NASH, BARRY JAMES, ARIE TALL, COMPLAINANTS,

- and

AIR CANADA, RESPONDENT.

TRIBUNAL: SIDNEY N. LEDERMAN, Q. C.

[About 10 pages from the beginning]:

The United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, in Smallwood v United Airlines Inc., supra, at p. 10 said:

"In short, there is no reliable evidence that United’s ’crew concept’ would be impaired by the sole factor of hiring Flight Officers, starting as Second Officers, over the age of 35. This alleged harm to the ’crew concept’ is a function of prior experience, not age at hire."

This kind of personality defect can be ascertained either by a proper assessment by the interviewer during the pilot selection process or alternatively through psychological testing of candidates.

The possibility of personality differences which could give rise to confrontations on the flight deck is in fact contemplated by Air Canada since it does consider and assess personality characteristics of the pilot applicant during the initial interview process. Furthermore, it is also considered the basis of the "Twitchell Bid" process whereby Air Canada first officers do not select their assignments until after the captains have chosen their assignments and they have been made known to the lower rank officers. By this process, personality conflicts can be avoided by a first officer steering clear of a captain with whom he may have some problems of compatibility.

I must conclude that there is no probative evidence to suggest that the removal of Air Canada’s age hiring policy could be a potential source of poor crew inter-action.
...

Poor crew interaction? If the F/Os that live in my area an indication then it wont happen as they to a person seem to be planing to "Twitchell Bid" any of the over sixty group, thus there will be no interaction. So glad to be flying my little corporate aircraft away from all this!

Clunkdriver wrote:

"Poor crew interaction? If the F/Os that live in my area an indication then it wont happen as they to a person seem to be planing to "Twitchell Bid" any of the over sixty group, thus there will be no interaction. So glad to be flying my little corporate aircraft away from all this!"

How do they plan to Twitchell over 200 pilots every month and why would they want to give up that many great trips.

Who cares? Let them. If they have enough seniority in their equipment to make it work, it means they have enough seniority to hold a better paying position but at a lower seniority level and are actually screwing themselves out of higher pay and career advancement. The screeching about career stagnation would mean more if most of us didn't choose to do it to ourselves anyway.

Eventually they will figure out how childish they are being and realize that this is actually a good thing. Then they will quietly stop whining and bitching about it.

Fire Left, Who cares? Well I do, it seems feelings run fairly high on this subject and the history of serious acidents due to friction/hostility between crew members at the pointy end is well documented, thus I hope that those who are upset/hostile to this situation {on both sides} have the common sense to indeed avoid flying together, again I am not taking sides, just stating the obvious. It would be nice to think that no pilot would ever let personel feelings enter the flight deck, but we all know this just aint so, back to my little corporate aircraft today away from all this stuff!