Federal Court Decision re V-K JR, February 3, 2011

[Doug Moore]

As you may recall, The Lusitania was a British ocean liner torpedoed during WWI by a German submarine. Might I suggest, Accumulous, that the more appropriate ship for Act 4 might be the Titanic that sets sail for the Supreme Court? People of the day believed that she was unsinkable, rumour going so far as to suggest that "even God Himself couldn't sink this ship!" And of course she had a Captain who was confidently oblivious to the dangers around him as he sailed at excessive speed into fog and iceberg-infested waters.

I am reminded of Pogo, who said: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

[Sage]

The same content removed by Sulako. Strike 2 now. You don't seem to get it. Next time is a vacation.

[accumulous]

As you may recall, The Lusitania was a British ocean liner torpedoed during WWI by a German submarine. Might I suggest, that the more appropriate ship for Act 4 might be the Titanic that sets sail for the Supreme Court?

Good catch on that – actually the Titanic was being saved for Act 5, after it picks up the survivors of the Lusitania and heads off for its final ‘Icy’ confrontation with the Membership.

[Doug Moore]

Sorry about that, I should have realized that there are still several Acts to follow. I suspect that the final Act will be the most dramatic ... should happen just before the lights go dim?

Cheers,

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

If ACPA is true to form, it will file an appeal of the Federal Court decision on the very last day possible. Namely, this coming Monday.

Good call. Hi ho. Hi ho. It's off to court we go. Hi ho hi ho hi ho hi ho, hi ho hi ho... Heard that ACPA filed the appeal today. If the Federal Court of Appeal is the next stop, can the Supreme Court of Canada be that far away?

I think that I missed my calling. Instead of taking flying lessons, I should have gone to law school. That's where the big bucks are, representing deep-pocketed clients in battles that never end, and getting paid handsomely regardless of the outcome.

[ole man fliver]

And, while were at it, why is you blame a union for following the majorities wishes??

Go on the ACPA website and read IVR vote #72 again. Then come back and tell us who is following who's wishes.

Other that working longer and dying earlier?

Second point first. Where do you get the idea people will die earlier by working past 60? If you're referring to the alleged Boeing study, Boeing themselves have exposed it as a lie. Go check.

Working longer. Well, when you reach that exalted age you might find that you are happy to retire. Nobody will be forcing you to stay longer so retire and be happy. On the other hand you might find that you do not want to retire, or are unable to retire for some reason you are incapable of imagining right now. Should that occur nobody will be forcing you to retire unlike the situation today. You might not see the benefit there, but that is a failure of imagination and foresight that hopefully won't afflict you forever. It does not alter the fact.

Well what did you expect Boeing to say, imagine the liability, however, the Doctor that conducted the study was a Nobel Laureate...

There is a direct link between shift work and heart attacks.

Here are some studies
1) http://www.circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/...ull/92/11/3178
Prospective study in female nurses

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10341746
Case-control study from Sweden

3) http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v2.../0802419a.html
Obesity and shift work study

4) http://www.springerlink.com/content/gxc2ahyhx2kqj3cn/
Shift work and HDL, glucose, etc

You need to dig, but there is lots of proof in this area.

As for my ability to retire at 60, you and your ilk will have effectively reduced my pension and career earnings by hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have already made my decision and its 60 and out, but your greed will cost me quality of life for the rest of my career and post retirement. I don't have to be happy about it, and you can shove any good will from me. Your "imagine" quote is just that , your "imagination" and you know it.

What about the rights of the workers negatively affected by this or do you even care?

So, I say again, show me a benefit???

quote... "Life is what happens when you are making other plans."

... and sometimes you just die earlier

... check this link/age of this commander...

http://arabnews.com/saudiarabia/article306259.ece

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4450 ... ost6296720

[Raymond Hall]

Yesterday, Arbitrator Martin Teplitsky released the text of his arbitration award regarding the second IAMAW arbitration conducted regarding mandatory retirement of its members at age 65. The following is the text of his award, reprinted with the permission of the Alberta-based IAM member who was the subject of the arbitration.
------------------------------------------------
This grievance raises the issue of mandatory retirement for mechanics. The grievor alleges a Charter breach, i.e. discrimination, based on age. This issue is currently before the CHRC as a result, I understand of a complaint by the grievor.

Although there is no doubt that an arbitrator has jurisdiction to deal with this matter, to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the potential for inconsistent decisions, I am prepared to defer to the CHRC on the merits. However, the question of interim relief remains.

To award interim relief, the following factors must be shown: First, that the grievor has an arguable case. Second, that the balance of convenience favours the grievor. Third, that irreparable harm may otherwise result.

In my opinion, there is an arguable case that mandatory retirement at age 65 cannot be supported. This result prevails provincially. In the Federal sector, Air Canada pilots were successful in defeating a mandatory retirement provision. The balance of convenience favours the grievor. First, he wants to work. Assuming he still qualifies from a health and license perspective, his desire should be respected. No adverse employer interest was disclosed. Although the employer expressed a willingness to pay "armchair money" if the grievor succeeded on the merits, I consider that payments for not working should be avoided wherever possible. As for irreparable harm, at the grievor's age, the length of time he will be able to work is uncertain. There is great value in work beyond the remuneration. Many persons' self-worth is directly tied to working. The payment of damages does not compensate for the loss of psychological and emotional benefits from gainful employment. Accordingly, on an interim basis, the grievor is reinstated subject to the following conditions:

1. He must provide medical evidence of fitness to work without restrictions and/or satisfy OHS of his ability.

2. The grievor must have the necessary licences.

3. This decision is without prejudice to any pension issues. These can be dealt with after a determination on the merits.

4. Until finally resolved, it would be simpler if no deduction from the employee or payments by the employer were made in respect of pension.

5. The grievor may participate in the transition process and complete and submit an Option Selections Form.

I remain seized. This decision is without prejudice or precedence for the parties.

DATED the 30th day of March, 2011.

[yycflyguy]

Question. What happens to bill C-481 now that the federal government has fallen and a Federal Election has been announced? Does the bill die regardless of the election results?

[rudder]

All Bills on the Order Paper are dead.

[Understated]

Early retirement may be hazardous to your health

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 1827.story

[Martin Tamme]

It's not the only difference: The other is the cost associated with planning; the time required to replace a pilot who has retired.


If you look at the Equipment Bids, you will notice that retiring pilot names are stricken off the list as much as 18 months before the pilot retires. In other words, the Company has been given an 18 month time allotment to replace a pilot. Most of the retiring pilots are coming off the B777 Captain position. So, how long does it take to replace a B777 Captain?

Well let's see. It takes approximately 2 months to train an A330 Captain to replace a B777 Captain. However, before the A330 Captain can be trained off, a B767 Captain has to be trained in order to replace him. Before that can happen, an A320 captain would have to be trained on to the B767. This exercise is repeated right down to the lowest equipment/position on the equipment list.

At the end of the day, the Company almost needs to know 18 months into the future as to their hiring requirements, just to replace one B777 Captain.

At the present time, the Company knows exactly the number of pilots they need to hire, because pilots are leaving at the top level at a pre-determined date (within a small margin of error - if pilots were to leave any earlier than 60, they would be financially penalised on their pension).

Now, let’s suppose that pilots, who are mostly B777 Captains, are given the choice of date as to when to retire. How can the Company plan for this? For example, one B777 captain may still wish to retire at age 60. However, another one would like to go until 60½ , while another wants to go until 61⅜ , and another goes to 62¾, etc. Everybody will be going at a different time than expected, not giving the Company any notice as to when they want to leave.

The Company’s planning is shot out the window. Either they will hire too many pilots (most of the excess will sit on the B777, as you've seen with the latest bid with Vilven & Kelly being listed as additional pilots to the needed requirement of pilots), or not enough to crew the airline.

So, if you don’t have enough pilots, how much will this cost the Company in cancelled flights over an 18-months period?





Now, let’s take everything that I said above and take it to the extreme.

On what equipment/position will most pilots who are between the ages of 60 and 65 find themselves on?
On what equipment/position will most pilots who are over the age of 65 find themselves on?

If you answered B777 Captain and B777 F/O respectively, then you are correct.
So again, taking this to the extreme, let’s assume that every single B777 Captain is between 60 and 65, and every F/O is over 65. Is there anything preventing these pilots from leaving all at the same time?

Let’s assume that the Company pisses us off once again like they’ve done so many times in the past. Unfortunately for those of us who are under 60, we have to take it on the chin, because in our seniority-based industry, we cannot leave; we cannot take our seniority with us to go somewhere else.

However, there is nothing holding back a person who has nothing to lose; he can just hang it all up, and live off a lavish pension. So under this extreme case, if at the same time, every over 60 pilot had enough, the entire B777 fleet would be grounded for up to 18 months.

So, how much would this cost Air Canada? Now, you know why their lawyers are worried?

You have got to be kidding? Every other airlne in North America has figured this out but AC is incapable?

DAL watched almost 2000 Captains retire in just over a year on very short notice and they still managed to keep the engines turning. Your post sums up the institutional paralysis that plagues AC.

I guess the CHRT has now ruled that AC is incapable.

[Martin Tamme]

As we are presently in Negots, I'm sure the Company is clamoring for a Status-based pay system to ensure that they aren't held hostage by the pilots wishing to remain past 60.

Let's just revisit this statement once again, you're not sure about this at all, are you? Do you know something about, "the Company is clamoring for a Status-based pay system", and the current negotiations? Answer, NO, (I'm guessing). Were you awake at 3:04AM when you posted this?

Considering that my post was made on Feb 3rd (page 3 of this thread), I guess I can say YES, I did know something about the negotiations. What do you think the Aircraft Pay Groupings were all about?

[Rockie]

Someday the company will succeed in reducing or eliminating their DB pension obligations, probably within Harper's current mandate. They will end DB pensions completely for all newhires. We will look upon today's working conditions with envy as we voluntarily gut them even further to keep Air Canada pilots flying. Some of us might even pull our heads out of our asses and realize even under today's conditions we were never going to get the kind of pension we are so jealous of because we were hired too old to get in the requisite years of service.

When that day comes the same short sighted people applauding today's ruling will be lamenting how unfair it is to be force retired with an inadequate, or no pension.

Take a good, hard, long look in the mirror when that day comes and congratulate yourself.

[yycflyguy]

Someday the company will succeed in reducing or eliminating their DB pension obligations, probably within Harper's current mandate. They will end DB pensions completely for all newhires. We will look upon today's working conditions with envy as we voluntarily gut them even further to keep Air Canada pilots flying. Some of us might even pull our heads out of our asses and realize even under today's conditions we were never going to get the kind of pension we are so jealous of because we were hired too old to get in the requisite years of service.

When that day comes the same short sighted people applauding today's ruling will be lamenting how unfair it is to be force retired with an inadequate, or no pension.

Take a good, hard, long look in the mirror when that day comes and congratulate yourself.

Weird. For a group that was so passionate and righteous the flypast60 posters sure are quick to throw in the towel. This is far from over. Appeals and the SCC still await.

An extremely shocking development but many innings left to play in this game.

FWIW, you can come drink cuba libres with me on the beach when I turn 60 and am awarded my reduced-due-to-length-of-service-pension because I knew yesterday that it was under attack and am making other plans. I doubt I will lament for long how I have to do ANOTHER crossing.

[turbo-beaver]

Now, let’s suppose that pilots, who are mostly B777 Captains, are given the choice of date as to when to retire. How can the Company plan for this? For example, one B777 captain may still wish to retire at age 60. However, another one would like to go until 60½ , while another wants to go until 61⅜ , and another goes to 62¾, etc. Everybody will be going at a different time than expected, not giving the Company any notice as to when they want to leave.

The Company’s planning is shot out the window. Either they will hire too many pilots (most of the excess will sit on the B777, as you've seen with the latest bid with Vilven & Kelly being listed as additional pilots to the needed requirement of pilots), or not enough to crew the airline.

So, if you don’t have enough pilots, how much will this cost the Company in cancelled flights over an 18-months period?


Its funny......the company's planning goes right out the window as well every time a guy gets sick and is off on GIDIP for the balance of his career but that does not seem to give them the same unsurmountable problem a guy staying a year or two past 60 does. Why not? And remember a lot of guys never make it to retirement age 60.

[Rockie]

Hardly throwing in the towel, but I admit it's very discouraging at times to be in a pilot group so enslaved by the seniority ladder it wipes out their ability to think beyond those extremely narrow limits.

As for the ruling, the tribunal appears to have completely ignored all evidence except what the company presented. Was anybody else there? The tribunal also bought the company assumptions apparently based on an over 60 pilot onboard every Air Canada flight that leaves the ground. They also failed to consider that all it takes is for one crew member to be under 60, which in reality would happen on every single long range 777 flight without having to make any scheduling accommodations whatsoever. The ruling also justifies the BFOR in part on collective bargaining rights, which is completely improper.

No, this is far from over.