CHRT Remedy Ruling?

[duranium]

Sorry you feel so sour about it .. but it appears all regulators are on the same page when it comes to over/under. They all subscribe to the same idea .. and my interpretation is that if they require someone under 60 to fly with someone over 60 then they must feel that the odds of an incident are greater.

Take your pick....the Aerospace Medical Association's study or Localizer's musings ?

I'm sure I can dig around on the internet and find research from other prominent doctor's saying a pilot shouldn't be in the flight-deck past 60, so I don't find your article to hold water Mack. The difference is that my argument come's from the regulatory body, not a magazine article.

Your key word here is interpretation as in your phrase '' ..and my interpretation is that if they require someone under 60 to fly with someone over 60 then they must feel that the odds of an incident are greater.

From this observer's outlook, if you are not part of the regulatory body, your statement is your opinion only and does not hold any more water than Mack's and you are only presuming on the intents of the regulators.

[Thirteentennorth]

Hey Iain,

I very much agree with you; were any of the FP60ers 35 or 40 years old today then they too would very likely have similar misgivings such as those being expressed by the current junior folks, the operative word here being “expressed”. This “empathy” door swings both ways, with the “visceral and palpable hostility on the part of some ACPA members” having the effect of estranging not only themselves, but also those towards whom their displeasure is directed. We both know that it takes two to tango, with the “fly til you die” mantra no different than “sixty is your grandfather’s 40” for its ability to generate hostility. There’s lots of blame that can be spread around here, and as the saying goes: “In a pissing contest, everybody gets wet.”

Change is almost always uncomfortable and most times unwanted. None of us has to like change but we all have to learn to cope with it. Unfortunately, some never do. Sometimes, those who protest the loudest against the change happening around them do little more than present their resistance as proof of their convictions.

There will never be a group hug over this issue, but for mutual self-interest both sides should learn to live with one another; and perhaps over time even learn to respect one another. I believe that change in the area of mandatory retirement based on age is inevitable, so what is gained by fighting it? At the end of the day, and I have said this many times before, we pilots have much more in common than that which sets us apart. Why not accentuate the positives and mitigate the negatives? Make it work for the benefit of all – and there can be benefit found for all if one works hard enough at it. Fight the employer all you want (that’s the figurative you) … but fighting each other? How productive is that?

Cheers,

Hey Doug!

As usual, the voice of wisdom, deep perception and being able to cut to the core of the issue! Thanks.

Unfortunately, this issue has become so polarized that normal civilized discourse now seems impossible. Hopefully the passage of time will improve things.

Hope all is well with you.

Very Best Regards,

Iain.

[Thirteentennorth]

...This whole situation could have been totally avoided years ago with proper leadership, with ACPA's willingness to have all pilots engage in a fair, open debate, with equal representation on the Age 60 Committee, and with a serious attempt at obtaining a valid strategic analysis of the fundamental legal issues that we all were facing.

Sorry, my friend, I disagree. This whole situation is so emotionally-fraught that, no matter how proactive ACPA might have tried to be, no matter how much dialogue there may have been, special interests on both sides would always have trumped "fair, open debate." Unfortunately, IMO, that is one of the most regrettable consequences of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [note: not ONE mention about duties], the rise of Special-Interest Group politics.

It has always struck me as naive, and rose-coloured-glasses-utopian, for the FP60 Coalition to come along and EXPECT that there would be no adverse reaction to their plans [although I am sure that Raymond knew enough of the contentious nature of the debate to realize that there would be a swift and predictable reaction: it was that way with the Ross Stephenson Affair, and there are enough parallels, given that most of the fp60 litigants are/were in the top quarter of the seniority list].

In a way, your reactions and those of others sympathetic to the fp60 cause, confirm this naivete. Demonizing ACPA, and those who offer opinions that differ to yours, merely confirms the perception that the fp60 litigants don't really care about anyone other than themselves, despite having been, and some continuing to be, members of a collective.

One of the greatest "rights" and "freedoms" that we who live in a democracy have is the freedom to disagree. I can accept your views but I don't necessarily have to agree with them. To agree to disagree and, despite that, to find, as Doug Moore so perceptively stated, a consensus from the things that unite us, rather than the things that divide us, is true wisdom.

Kind Regards,

Iain Edghill.

P.S. I can personally attest to the fact that this is possible, due to the fact that Raymond and I, based on many years of friendship going back to 1973, and despite being on opposing sides of this particular issue, have kept up a cordial and candid debate in private, away from the public pages of these various forums. It can be done. Unfortunately, when one side or another decides to resort to litigation, that forecloses any possibility of further productive dialogue, and consensus become virtually impossible. IE.

[vic777]

Unfortunately, when one side or another decides to resort to litigation, that forecloses any possibility of further productive dialogue, and consensus become virtually impossible. IE.

Wasn't one of the first complainants told by ACPA that they would not "fight" for them but they would supply a Lawyer? Where would V&K be today if they had not had legal counsel? What was the response to their initial letters to ACPA and AC that they did not want to be retired? V&K most certainly did try a dialogue, it fell on totally deaf ears. ACPA had absolutely no intention of discussing this issue. V&K were forced to take legal action. The "mess" is totally 100% the result of ACPA's naivety and rose coloured approach to reality. It was ACPA who forced the litigation. ACPA was not interested in productive dialogue.

[Localizer]

To someone else, it could also mean that an over 60 pilot has much more '' smarts ''

If the regulations stated a pilot under 60 requires another pilot over 60 then I can see your interpretation, but it doesn't say that.

From this observer's outlook, if you are not part of the regulatory body, your statement is your opinion only and does not hold any more water than Mack's and you are only presuming on the intents of the regulators.

My interpretation is only my opinion of what is written .. You can try and twist it anyway you'd like, but the point of the regulation is obvious.

Understated, there will be no empathy shared with the FP60 group .. you enjoyed the hay-day of aviation, you made big money for years beyond what anyone today will make, you lived playboy lifestyles and expect the next generation to sit back and wait till you finally decide to hang up the gloves. You progressed on the same rule you now fight .. it was ok for those before you to leave on the age 60 grounds.

You had your time .. if you wasted it .. that's your problem, and that burden shouldn't be shouldered by the next generation. There is no sense of entitlement or greed from the next generation, they just want there chance. The only sense or entitlement or greed I see is from the FP60 group who had there time, and the best of times.



(Why I keep posting on this thread i'll never know .. argh!)

[Understated]

In a way, your reactions and those of others sympathetic to the fp60 cause, confirm this naivete. Demonizing ACPA, and those who offer opinions that differ to yours, merely confirms the perception that the fp60 litigants don't really care about anyone other than themselves, despite having been, and some continuing to be, members of a collective.

Bravo on maintaining your true friendship with a person with whom you do not share the same perspective on a critical issue. It would be fantastic to see more individuals keep their personal assessments of individuals separate from their assessments of the issues.

Can't agree on the naïvety, suggestion, however, and I say so in a conscious attempt to avoid being defensive. There has been a great deal of discussion on these Forums over the past five years with regard to strategic perspective, and anticipating developments and changes in advance of their arrival, so as to allow oneself to be properly positioned for the change, and to minimize the adverse impact of the change on the most vulnerable.

I hate to sound dogmatic, but who five years ago saw the probable outcomes of this issue more clearly than the Coalition members? Who recommended that ACPA engage, rather than oppose? Who got nowhere in appealing to the average pilots to open their minds to change? Who kept warning of the disastrous consequences of the union pursuing a path that was incompatible with contemporary societal changes? Naïve? Who indeed was naïve? And with the four critical judicial and legislative pronouncements coming within the next few weeks, all in which the union must triumph in order to maintain the status quo, who is now naïve?

[Understated]

Understated, there will be no empathy shared with the FP60 group .. you enjoyed the hay-day of aviation, you made big money for years beyond what anyone today will make, you lived playboy lifestyles and expect the next generation to sit back and wait till you finally decide to hang up the gloves. You progressed on the same rule you now fight .. it was ok for those before you to leave on the age 60 grounds.

Nice presumption. But the fact is that you know diddely squat about what I have endured during my tenure here. Even if your presumptions were correct, which they are not, it is all irrelevant anyway.

Go talk to your Member of Parliament about stopping the train, now, before it is too late for you to wake up to what is about to happen to you. Ask him or her about whom you should hold accountable for your own dissatisfaction with the unfolding events of this century. Chances are that you will get a much more honest and candid opinion from that exchange than you ever will from any exchange with your biased union representatives.

[Localizer]

Nice presumption. But the fact is that you know diddely squat about what I have endured during my tenure here.

I never claimed to know anything about you personally, I was making a general assessment of your group.

Go talk to your Member of Parliament about stopping the train, now, before it is too late for you to wake up to what is about to happen to you. Ask him or her about whom you should hold accountable for your own dissatisfaction with the unfolding events of this century.

My member of Parliament should have a very full message box by now .. don't worry. As for holding someone accountable? .. I do .. you and your generation. Your numbers allow you to manipulate the system to your benefit .. MP's express the intentions of their constituents .. that's you.

[Thirteentennorth]

Can't agree on the naïvety, suggestion, however, and I say so in a conscious attempt to avoid being defensive. There has been a great deal of discussion on these Forums over the past five years with regard to strategic perspective, and anticipating developments and changes in advance of their arrival, so as to allow oneself to be properly positioned for the change, and to minimize the adverse impact of the change on the most vulnerable.

I hate to sound dogmatic, but who five years ago saw the probable outcomes of this issue more clearly than the Coalition members? Who recommended that ACPA engage, rather than oppose? Who got nowhere in appealing to the average pilots to open their minds to change? Who kept warning of the disastrous consequences of the union pursuing a path that was incompatible with contemporary societal changes? Naïve? Who indeed was naïve? And with the four critical judicial and legislative pronouncements coming within the next few weeks, all in which the union must triumph in order to maintain the status quo, who is now naïve?

Understated, my reference to naivete was solely in the context of the reactions of some members of ACPA to the actions of the fp60 coalition, as when you expressed your disappointment at the behaviour of members at ACPA meetings and in flight planning. My discussion was in that context alone, and on that basis I suggested that it was naive to expect any other reaction. I think that you may have misunderstood my meaning. I hope this explanation suffices.

And you won't get any argument from me on the necessity to properly and positively manage change. You're spot on with your assessment.

All the Best,

Iain Edghill.

P.S. Care to send me a PM? I'd like to take this further, but not here.

[Understated]

My member of Parliament should have a very full message box by now .. don't worry. As for holding someone accountable? .. I do .. you and your generation. Your numbers allow you to manipulate the system to your benefit .. MP's express the intentions of their constituents .. that's you.

So are you planning to light a candle, or are you going to sit and curse the dark?

If you are able to clearly discern what is about to happen, why aren't you on the union's case, shouting at them to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers' fees fighting this, and persuading them to start managing the change and healing the organization? Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind.

[Understated]

Understated, my reference to naivete was solely in the context of the reactions of some members of ACPA to the actions of the fp60 coalition, as when you expressed your disappointment at the behaviour of members at ACPA meetings and in flight planning.

Roger that. Perhaps some of my peers are still surprised at the visceral reactions about this emotional debate, but I would expect that most are not. I cannot speak for them, for one of the characteristics of the way that our group is organized is that most of those who are in the coalition have no knowledge whatsoever of the names of others in the group, save for the litigants who have already had their hearing before the Tribunal.

As I said earlier, unfortunately there have been hints of threats of personal harm to some of us, and those messages are taken very, very seriously.

[Localizer]

So are you planning to light a candle, or are you going to sit and curse the dark?

If you are able to clearly discern what is about to happen, why aren't you on the union's case, shouting at them to stop spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers' fees fighting this, and persuading them to start managing the change and healing the organization? Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind.

I, along with many many others DON'T want this to happen. Its nothing more then bullying the system your way, and stealing other peoples careers. I can't stand for that ..

[Understated]

I, along with many many others DON'T want this to happen. Its nothing more then bullying the system your way, and stealing other peoples careers. I can't stand for that ..

So, your answer then is, "Sit and curse the dark?" Is that your final answer?

[Localizer]

Do you like the fact that your screwing people?

[Rockie]

I, along with many many others DON'T want this to happen. Its nothing more then bullying the system your way, and stealing other peoples careers. I can't stand for that ..

You're a bit behind the program because it already has happened in the rest of the world, and now at Air Canada as well. Your attitude and refusal to deal with it in any realistic way is unfortunately shared by far too many of your fellow pilots at Air Canada and is the reason you are having your lunch handed to you.

There is plenty Air Canada pilots could have done years ago to address their concerns about unfair distribution of the pie, but instead they chose the only path that stood no chance of succeeding from the beginning and have steadfastly rejected any other option. We will still do those things eventually, but now there is a huge monetary cost to pay, bottomless rift in the pilot ranks and an utterly discredited union.

Do you like the fact that your screwing people?

You screwed yourself. Progress and social evolution cannot be stopped but it can be managed. Hopefully next time you will realize that.

[accumulous]

You screwed yourself.

I don’t think that any one of us is labouring under any misconception that we can all kiss and make up.

‘Misconception’ is a key word.

In our present case, the membership has been ‘impregnated’ with the notion that individual rights count for nothing in the midst of a group frenzy brought about by a front end loaded vote with its sole purpose to stop any and all attempts to realize those individual rights, regardless of the fact that individual rights cannot be voted away.

The membership has been pushed right up against Parliament in an utterly futile attempt to get all the big buildings in Ottawa to change direction and just blindly follow the wreckage to to the scene of the crash.

Not going to happen kids, not going to happen. Never was, never will.

The train was commandeered, switched right off the legal rails, and headed in the exact opposite direction, 180 degrees to reality, and there’s no getting off. Complete absence of forethought and foreplay.

Misconception.

Just call it a rape of sensibility.

The Flight Attendants recently asked for independent legal advice on the odds of surviving on the same set of tracks.

Zero.

They folded their tent in oh, about five seconds, and they’ll watch this mess from the bleachers, thanks very much. In so many areas, the Flight Attendants have always had the market cornered in the brains department.

It’s no wonder the membership is flipping out. The blinders are about ten sizes too big for the horse we were strapped onto backwards when this odyssey began.

Consequently it has been patently impossible to see the entire North American continent already on track going the other way, and most of it in Canada for a decade or more.

When you’re just feeling your way around in the dark, you keep stubbing your toes and banging into things, and well, just getting generally pissed right off.

Retribution and retaliation are all part and parcel of the individual rights package. That’s all covered in the Human Rights Act right up to and including the criminal code so if anybody is contemplating jumping off the crazy train onto the crazier train, some prudent googling will suffice for those who want to see where that path leads in the career perspective.

In the insanity department, we continue to squander bazillions in an effort to, in effect, stamp out our own individual rights. It’s no wonder we’re so pissed off. Shots through both feet never calmed anybody down.

[MackTheKnife]

You screwed yourself.

Retribution and retaliation are all part and parcel of the individual rights package. That’s all covered in the Human Rights Act right up to and including the criminal code so if anybody is contemplating jumping off the crazy train onto the crazier train, some prudent googling will suffice for those who want to see where that path leads in the career perspective.

I look forward to the day when an F/O or any other pilot for that matter tries or says something in my presence. It will be my utmost pleasure to march immediately into DL's office with complaint in hand and have him call crew sked to get me a replacement.

We all know it's going to happen sooner or later and I pity the one thats dumb enough to be the first up to bat as AC makes an example of him to the rest of the troops.

[accumulous]

Court/Tribunal rulings sometimes include direct reference to the consequences of retaliation against the award of individual rights, and the applicable sections are spelled out.

A recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling contains an example of these types of references:

"...Should anyone engage in any forms of retaliation or intimidation within the meanings of ss. 14.1 and 59 of the CHRA, a separate recourse may be available under these provisions..."

Information with regard to any of these issues is readily available online.

Retaliation
14.1 It is a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a complaint has been filed under Part III, or any person acting on their behalf, to retaliate or threaten retaliation against the individual who filed the complaint or the alleged victim.

Intimidation or discrimination
59. No person shall threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that individual has made a complaint or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of the initiation or prosecution of a complaint or other proceeding under this Part, or because that individual proposes to do so.

Offences and Punishment
Offence
60. (1) Every person is guilty of an offence who
(a) [Repealed, 1998, c. 9, s. 31]
(b) obstructs a member or panel in carrying out its functions under this Part; or
(c) contravenes subsection 11(6) or 43(3) or section 59.
Punishment
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
Prosecution of employer or employee organization
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought against an employer organization or employee organization and in the name of the organization and, for the purpose of the prosecution, the organization is deemed to be a person and any act or thing done or omitted by an officer or agent of the organization within the scope of their authority to act on behalf of the organization is deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted by the organization.
Consent of Attorney General
(4) A prosecution for an offence under this section may not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Do you like the fact that your screwing people?

Right. We are screwing people? Like, it was our idea to put Bill C-481 before Parliament? Hello?

One day, should you ever come out of that subterranean cave that you live in, you just might just wake up to the fact that the issues that affect the 800,000 workers in the federal jurisdiction do not revolve exclusively around your narrow-minded, self-centered interests--interests that are now largely determined by a resolute failure to listen to wiser voices among your peers long, long ago when you still had the chance to exercise some control over the outcome.

[Localizer]

I look forward to the day when an F/O or any other pilot for that matter tries or says something in my presence. It will be my utmost pleasure to march immediately into DL's office with complaint in hand and have him call crew sked to get me a replacement.

We all know it's going to happen sooner or later and I pity the one thats dumb enough to be the first up to bat as AC makes an example of him to the rest of the troops.

I look forward to that day as well .. you can't penalize someone for there opinion on an issue. Speaking of which, I'm developing an opinion on you as I type. The point is there will be no example made of anyone with an opinion .. unless someone's interested in another lawsuit. If you choose not to fly with that person, then that's totally up to you ..

In either case .. no examples will be made.

For what its worth .. I bet you're a treat to fly with.

We are screwing people?

Since you asked me a question .. the answer is YES .. You are screwing people. Thanks for asking your question ..

[Rockie]

The world ticks along, time does not stop, and smart people adapt to succeed in that world.

Others just cry in their soup.

[fish4life]

I just hope this whole thing will get figured out before negotiations are done

[Rockie]

There may be rulings issued before that, but coming to terms with them will take a very long time I'm afraid.

[vic777]

I just hope this whole thing will get figured out before negotiations are done

Of course it could be literally over tomorrow, all ACPA has to do is say to AC, "Obviously, 'Pilots will be flying till they die', let's negotiate now accepting this new reality". Maybe then, ACPA can get some of the windfall profits for the Pilots.

[fish4life]

could you see a more balanced pay scale between junior and senior positions then?