Kiwi Retirement Issues

[43S/172E]

Taken from PPRuNe

Kiwi Retirement Issues
________________________________________
Good Morning All:
It seems the age 60 issues has affected our friends in "Kiwi" land much to the advantage of the ones who stayed and to the detriment of ones caught under this demographic. According to the article it has caused headaches for the company for rostering as well.
This seems to beg the ongoing question what to do when "rights" of the few out weigh the needs of the many?
It has been years since I looked at the cost of acquiring a pilot's licence ie commercial, multi-engine, instrument etc to which some say is north of $40,000:00.
Therefore, when you get all your ratings no one will hire you because you have no experience. So up north of 60, doing circuits, ricochets as an instructor, a twin job doing freight, join the regional's and finally you get an airline job.
Historically there was progression as pilots at the top retired because wait for it "there was a mutually agreed contractual age for retirement"!
Now we have rightly or wrongly a fight by a vocal minority to overturn this provision. Ask yourself this do rights have any obligations? Do we owe anything to the next generation entering the work force? The sad thing is the emotional rhetoric has overtaken the intellectual discussion of the subject.
In this writers opinion I advanced through the seniority system to get where I got just before retirement. Were the working conditions, destinations, and pay great at the end? Yes they were and because those who went before me left it was my obligation to pass the torch to the next generation, which I did happily.
Did I involve myself in younger years to change this retirement? The answer is no because I felt that this is a fair and equitable way for all to benefit.
So for the young person today unless you have a really burning desire to spend all that money to get all the licences, have lousy working conditions for years to win the "lottery" for a airline job and than face the strong possibility of a stagnated career change your field of endeavour early.
Just my view of 44 years in the system so it is your choice and good luck!


Ageing Air NZ pilots 'refuse to retire'
Air New Zealand has dozens of pilots aged over 60, and some over 70, flying some of its biggest planes because they're "creaming it" and refuse to quit.
That's according to one pilot who has told the Nelson Mail their refusal to retire was hampering the career prospects of others – like him – and causing headaches for the airline.
His revelations follow an Employment Court case in which eight pilots are suing Air New Zealand for millions, claiming they retired or were demoted between 2003 and 2006 without being told that international rules were changing that would have allowed them to continue in their positions.
Air New Zealand, like other airlines around the world, promotes its pilots according to seniority and the lifting of retirement age restrictions has seen many hang on to top earning positions longer than they might have otherwise expected.
An Air New Zealand pilot who did not wish to be named said the company had about 850 pilots, with more than 100 of these aged over 60 and about three over 70.
"For the last 10 years no-one has been retiring. Everyone's been stuck where they are. Air NZ has not hired a pilot in over three years and any hiring in the last five to eight years was primarily due to new aircraft expansion."
The most senior pilots captain the biggest planes – those being 747s and now 777s – and they earn between $200,000 and $300,000 a year for doing so. It made no sense for them to retire when they were in such lucrative positions, the pilot said.
"The company can't make a redundancy package attractive enough to encourage older pilots to leave. It's all about the money. They're creaming it."
While New Zealand has a liberal approach to retirement, international aviation rules prevent anyone over the age of 65 captaining a plane and the combined captain and first officer age is not allowed to exceed more than 120 years. This generated "horrendous rostering problems" for Air New Zealand, the pilot said. "The company has to fudge admin days, which no-one comes to work for, to make the rosters look legitimate."
It meant that older pilots barely had to work and the younger ones, those under 60, often got horrible rosters to accommodate their senior peers, he said.
The pilot argues that many of those aged over 60 had been employed in their 20s on the premise that the retirement age was 55 and this had created promotion opportunities for them at an early age.
"So why should they continue on until 70 and beyond? These pilots do not represent the average Air NZ pilot both in attitude, income, and work."
An entry-level pilot on Air New Zealand's jet operations earned about $77,000. The pilot said it was no longer a valid career option, taking into account the cost of training, the low pay received while building up enough flying hours to gain employment with Air New Zealand and the slow career progression.
"My career is stuffed, basically, because there's not enough movement in the industry. I probably would have been better off being a plumber."
Air New Zealand spokeswoman Tracy Mills declined to discuss the issues raised by the pilot, instead issuing a statement saying the company operated under the rules and regulations set out by the relevant civil aviation authorities. "Air New Zealand has a comprehensive policy for our pilots which exceeds the regulatory requirements," she said.
New Zealand Airline Pilots Association acting president Glen Kenny, of Nelson, said Air New Zealand's promotion regime was no different to that used by other airlines around the world. New Zealand had led the way with human rights legislation preventing age discrimination, he said. "You have to look at the big picture."
The pilots now at retirement age were part of the baby boomer generation and had "probably enjoyed one of the best periods of prosperity in the industry that we'll see".
"They will eventually move on. I do know the younger generation, they want everything now. It's almost the green-eyed monster. They can see what's occurred and they wish it could have occurred for them."
However, there will still be opportunities for young pilots down the track, Mr Kenny said. The aviation industry in Asia-Pacific was expected to almost double in size during the next 20 years.
"We're seeing more pilots effectively work offshore but live in New Zealand. They enjoy far superior remuneration and working conditions than they will ever enjoy working for a New Zealand company. We're just becoming a far more globalised workforce. I think that's what the younger pilots have to keep in mind."

[Rockie]

This seems to beg the ongoing question what to do when "rights" of the few out weigh the needs of the many?

These rights apply to everybody, even you. Or do you not plan on ever being 60?

Perhaps you just can't think that far and don't realize yet that someday you will be 60 and might not want somebody telling you you're out of a job for no reason other than you reached that age.

[43S/172E]

Rockie:

Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt, sent the postcard, took the picture, ticked off the box

Now 61

[Rockie]

Congratulations.

I take it you're enjoying your retirement?

[43S/172E]

Rockie:

Very much so still can not figure out how I did things when I was working so little time.

The following is taken from PPRuNe from another young Kiwi have a good night.....


19th May 2011, 11:13 #2 (permalink)

jonnybravo98

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 27 I am one of the unlucky young ones getting shafted by these selfish old guys refusing the pass the torch. It really is pathetic. These guys all flew during the good days of aviation where they got hired by AirNZ in their early 20's after paying $12 an hour for their CPL training, got paid really well compared to todays standards and got long haul commands in 15 years max. My training cost me over $100,000 and I'm now in my late 20's and it looks like I won't be hired for a good 5 years yet. And when I do, command won't be for at least 20 years. I will be lucky to get one before I retire, so I won't be able to save as much money as these guys before packing it in. And before you tell me it's ok because I can also work until I'm 70 and make up the money then, why the hell would I want to do that?! To make things worse, as it said in the article, the company are being screwed over because they can't build the rosters properly and other guys have to work harder while they get paid less, how is that fair? Why can't these old guys just be made to become SO's when they hit 60, at least it would keep the movement in the airline going, even if it doesn't help guys like me that aren't in yet? Glen Kenny says 'there will be opportunities for young pilots down the track'. Well how am I meant to buy a house and start a family now, or do I just have to wait. And mentioning the Asia boom, who gives a sh!t? The reason we are pissed off is because we want to work for AirNZ, not live and work in China. I understand that AirNZ is never gonna progress as quick as Asian carriers and promotion will take longer, but this really is taking the piss. You old boys should hang your heads in shame.

[Mig29]

42S/172E

that is no "news" to me but still appreciated that you posted here. I knew all along that is what is going to happen here with us soon. And to tell you the truth, once the court decides what is right for us, I don't think there will be much we can do after that. I sure don't want to be here anywhere near 60 let alone past that age, my problem is that I will have a stagnating career and I will retire most likely with pension penalties as I did not elect to stay to 65 or even 70 as you nicely pointed out from the article about few ANZeland guys. Just wait, today is 60 or 65 will be a norm to retire with no pension hit, but give it 5-10 years and I will be FORCED to retire later.

My only solution that is fair to everyone is this. If "Joe" want's to work past 60 (at AC) or past 65 (at Jazz, WJ, TS) then the judge/company/union has to ALLOW one pilot to retire PRIOR to that normal retiring age WITHOUT pension penalties. Clear and simple!

As I said, I will gladly pass my torch at 55 to guys behind me....

P.S. Glad you are enjoying your well earned career, wish there were more guys like you!

[Rockie]

There are always people who cannot immediately see the benefit of something. I can only offer the fact that literally dozens of things will have a more dramatic effect on their career expectations than the end of mandatory retirement. Air Canada's current pilot contract woes are a case in point. Their assumptions on what the next 20 years will bring are based on the wildest and most pessimistic speculation, and their opinions on the issue itself are sure to change as they get older.

[rudder]

The Air NZ mess is an example of what happens when the matter is not managed properly. This may well be where we all find ourselves here in Canada because AC and ACPA have failed utterly to grasp reality and advance a credible BFOR argument based on the ICAO standards and rostering, not the pension language contained in the pilot collective agreement and the inane concept of 'deferred compensation'.

The Americans have a commercial air system that dwarfs the rest of the world. Yet they have figured this all out. And while they have the benefit of regulation that precludes any discussion of post age 65, they have found a way to manage the over/under sscenarios without all of the drama.

[Rockie]

It's a bit like trying to paddle up the Niagara River. You can paddle as if your life depended on it directly upstream and end up going over the falls. Or, you could accept that you're going downstream no matter what, go sideways instead and have some control over where you reach land before you go over the edge.

It's called managing the problem toward a realistic outcome.

Unbelievably, not only have ACPA and Air Canada still not noticed the trees going by in the wrong direction, but they doggedly ignore all the people on shore yelling at them and pointing toward the falls.

[accumulous]

It's a bit like trying to paddle up the Niagara River. You can paddle as if your life depended on it directly upstream and end up going over the falls. Or, you could accept that you're going downstream no matter what, go sideways instead and have some control over where you reach land before you go over the edge.

It's called managing the problem toward a realistic outcome.

Unbelievably, not only have ACPA and Air Canada still not noticed the trees going by in the wrong direction, but they doggedly ignore all the people on shore yelling at them and pointing toward the falls.

Because this is the Gig.

About 700 AC pilots were scheduled to retire in the next 5-7 years.

Almost every single pilot on the current system seniority list cannot make max contributions on years of service because they were hired late, a huge number in their late 30’s and into their 40’s.

Out of 2900 pilots on the list, way in excess of 2600 can’t make the pension on years of service. A full half of them have to work past the age of 65 to max their pension.

Everybody knows this. It’s common knowledge. At first it was a back room nudge, nudge, wink, wink, but now it’s common street knowledge.

How do we get to max our pension on years of service, how do we get up the list if we’re hired late as almost every pilot is these days?

By being the only airline in North America to have a multi-million dollar Musical Chairs Sheer Folly Plan to try to exterminate as many senior pilots as possible before Mandatory Retirement folds.

Boys and girls, this isn’t complicated.

We all know the Charade.

We all know the Gig.

The HRC knows the Gig.

The recent Arbitrations knew the Gig.

Half of Air Canada’s Mandatory Retirement, all of the CAW and the IAM Mandatory Retirement is done with, the Federal Budget is about to take care of the rest, but there is so much committed to this Certified Gong Show Charade right now, there is simply no way to back out of the House of Cards erected on a miserable failure of an attempt at blitzing the senior pilots, without bringing down the entire deck.

There is no way out, except to be shown the door by the Federal Agencies we've handed the case to on a platter. The whole sordid mess is cavitating in public, in broad daylight, and the clear signal to the rest of the entire aviation community of North America is the complete ineptitude of the lot at Air Canada in managing their own future.

The Hindenburg we’re floundering around in, has one of those light signs traversing the full length of both sides of its 7 million cubic foot gas bag. It reads, “Watch Us Implode, Please Stand Well Clear".

[RogerCheckCopy]

I don't think there is much doubt that mandatory retirement is coming to an end in Canada, right across the board. I think the difficulty will lie in scheduling and planning as some will continue to work as long as they can hold a Cat I medical. For some this will mean well into their 70's or even longer. The company will also have difficulty palnning staffing and pension expenditures in the long term. If you are getting rid of the age 60 limit it will mean mean no limit at all going forward. The question is if unions and associations will be allowed to negotiate a retirement age into their agreement. Maybe it is unrealistic, but does the CHRT ruling against mandatory retirement, or legislating it necessarily mean no ability for a union or association to set their own age limits as voted upon? Probably not, but impossible? The other questions (and I know they have all been beaten to death in other threads) is if there will be any room for the company or unions to decide in which capacity someone is allowed to continue past certain age milestones, such as 60 and 65? From the outside looking in I can honestly say I am on the fence, sympathizing with both parties to a certain extent.

Hopefully you can work it out in a matter that has the least impact and best longterm answers for all.

RCC

[accumulous]

I don't think there is much doubt that mandatory retirement is coming to an end in Canada, right across the board. I think the difficulty will lie in scheduling and planning as some will continue to work as long as they can hold a Cat I medical.

Not a problem – the big airlines in the USA, and that includes every one of them having no problem with scheduling. Scheduling problems are part of the ruling club’s ‘Boutique Clique Snow Job’.

For some this will mean well into their 70's or even longer.

That’s a given as 2600 pilots currently on the list can’t make the pension numbers as they are all late hires. Now they’ll be able to do what they want, and there will be numbers to support others who wish to go early just to give everybody a good shot at options.

Tossing out the DB plan was predicated on the ‘Boutique Clique’ being able to maintain the Senior Pilot Extermination Program ad infinitum until the music stopped and they were able to plunk down a little farther up the list. Ain’t gonna and twernt never gonna happen that way. Ask the voters.

The company will also have difficulty planning staffing and pension expenditures in the long term.

Nobody else in North America has any problem with that aspect of it. A few lines of computer code and it’s done. Borrow the code from any of the 50 or so other big carriers in North America. ‘Difficulties’ are just another ‘Boutique Clique’ ploy.

If you are getting rid of the age 60 limit it will mean mean no limit at all going forward.

First of all we would have to shift into Forward. The rest of the planet has been in Forward for a long time. JAZZ and WestJet since 2002, as well as most of the others – the entire USA since 2007. AC is still in Reverse. First they have to bring their Antique Clique to a full stop. That’s presently being done for them. Then shift into Forward. It takes a lot of ocean to stop the Lusitania. It took a couple of thousand votes to bring down the Hindenburg.

We’re almost there.

The question is if unions and associations will be allowed to negotiate a retirement age into their agreement.

No.

Maybe it is unrealistic, but does the CHRT ruling against mandatory retirement, or legislating it necessarily mean no ability for a union or association to set their own age limits as voted upon?

Yes.

Probably not, but impossible?

Yes.

The other questions (and I know they have all been beaten to death in other threads) is if there will be any room for the company or unions to decide in which capacity someone is allowed to continue past certain age milestones, such as 60 and 65?

No.

From the outside looking in I can honestly say I am on the fence, sympathizing with both parties to a certain extent.

Hopefully you can work it out in a matter that has the least impact and best long term answers for all.

That will take Leadership.

[Rockie]

The company will also have difficulty palnning staffing and pension expenditures in the long term.

They will have no more difficulty planning staffing than they have now, they only have to put their big brains to the task. Pension expenditures will go down as every actuary in the country says. That's not a bad problem to have.

If you are getting rid of the age 60 limit it will mean mean no limit at all going forward.

No, that's not what it means. When Air Canada and ACPA pull their head out of their asses they will make the argument for the only remaining exception permitting mandatory retirement. Their attempt to have a BFOR of age 60 will fail miserably and embarrassingly for them, and they will then try for age 65 which may actually be successful. But first we have to demonstrate to the whole world how hopelessly out of touch and anachronistic we are.

The question is if unions and associations will be allowed to negotiate a retirement age into their agreement.

That's what this whole fight is about and the answer is no.

The other questions (and I know they have all been beaten to death in other threads) is if there will be any room for the company or unions to decide in which capacity someone is allowed to continue past certain age milestones, such as 60 and 65?

If a person is capable of doing a job and is not permitted to because they've reached a certain age that is called age discrimination, so again the answer is no. See the above comments on BFOR which would be the only avenue open to restrict a person in their normal career progression.

[RogerCheckCopy]

Thanks for breaking it down. However, if I understand it correctly, 65 is a hard age in the US, as stipulated by the FAA. So the way I see it there is no comparison to Air Canada. If 65 was a hard retirement age that commercial pilots had to abide by, AC would be able to plan retirements fairly accurately since no-one could continue past 65. That will not be the case here if things continue on the current track. If 60 is discriminatory according to the CHRT, and legislation coming down the pipe, then surely 65 will be deemed discriminatory as well and on and on and on... Sure it can be worked around, but I am thinking that from a management point of view it will somewhat of a pain in a$$ having 3,500+ pilots and not knowing when anyone of them might or will retire.

I do not work for AC, but find the whole mandatory retirement issue to very interesting. I agree as mentioned already that mandatory retirement is coming to an end right across the board, not only for pilots. It is interesting to see how different groups from various walks of life are dealing with it.

RCC

[Rockie]

Please go back and read some of the ton of information on this forum on the issue.

Age discrimination is illegal but there are two exceptions that apply here. 15)1)(c) is the clause that Air Canada and ACPA depend on to force people out at age 60, and is the clause that has been abolished everywhere in Canada except federally. The federal government is abolishing it with their next budget, and it has also been denied as a reason by the CHRT and federal court in recent legal proceedings.

ACPA and Air Canada are also trying to make 15(1)(a) effective as a reason to retire people at age 60, but will not win because everybody else in Canada and the world has no problem working pilots until they are 65. Making that argument is only making them look stupid. As I said Air Canada and ACPA will eventually get around to applying for a BFOR of age 65, but not before they've exhausted every other rational and irrational argument at massive cost beforehand. When they do, and assuming they win, retiring people at age 65 will not be considered discriminatory.




15. (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if

(a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;

(b) employment of an individual is refused or terminated because that individual has not reached the minimum age, or has reached the maximum age, that applies to that employment by law or under regulations, which may be made by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this paragraph;

(c) an individual’s employment is terminated because that individual has reached the normal age of retirement for employees working in positions similar to the position of that individual;

(d) the terms and conditions of any pension fund or plan established by an employer, employee organization or employer organization provide for the compulsory vesting or locking-in of pension contributions at a fixed or determinable age in accordance with sections 17 and 18 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985;

(e) an individual is discriminated against on a prohibited ground of discrimination in a manner that is prescribed by guidelines, issued by the Canadian Human Rights Commission pursuant to subsection 27(2), to be reasonable;

(f) an employer, employee organization or employer organization grants a female employee special leave or benefits in connection with pregnancy or child-birth or grants employees special leave or benefits to assist them in the care of their children; or

(g) in the circumstances described in section 5 or 6, an individual is denied any goods, services, facilities or accommodation or access thereto or occupancy of any commercial premises or residential accommodation or is a victim of any adverse differentiation and there is bona fide justification for that denial or differentiation.

[Rubberbiscuit]

.

[Rockie]

The latest revisionist history from ACPA.

"In nearly every case, ACPA has been effective in proving the Fly Past 60 complaints and maneuverings to be frivolous and, one might argue, vexatious."

ACPA has lost every single legal challenge to date on this issue, but I guess that's what they call being effective.

[RogerCheckCopy]

I have read a lot of the info, but that doesn't make me an expert. I just don't think all aspects of it is as clear cut as some suggest. Of course, if you ask anyone on either side of the fence they might tell you otherwise. I am getting the impression that some feel mandatory retirement at 60 is discriminatory but at age 65 it isn't. Between the CHRT's and new legislation more than likely coming down the pipe I don't see how 65 can or will be used as a hard number either. I think that door is closed now. You will have on your hands what this thread was originally about, (ANZ) pilots continuing to fly / work as long as they can hold a medical.

RCC

[Rockie]

I am getting the impression that some feel mandatory retirement at 60 is discriminatory but at age 65 it isn't. Between the CHRT's and new legislation more than likely coming down the pipe I don't see how 65 can or will be used as a hard number either. I

It doesn't matter what people feel, the CHRT, courts and parliament will determine what is discriminatory and what isn't. If Air Canada doesn't make a BFOR case then there will be no mandatory retirement age, but they will try and make a case with the help of ACPA. They are currently arguing that 60 is that age. It will fail because everybody else in the world has no problem using pilots up to 65. When that fails they will make the case for age 65, and that will likely pass.

[Raymond Hall]

I think that it is important to distinguish between what may be termed the “normal age of retirement” and the “bona fide occupational requirement.”

Normal age of retirement requires the selection of a comparator group. The Federal Court in 2009 gave its view of what comparator group should be used to determine the “normal age of retirement” for airline pilots in Canada. But as the House of Lords in Britain has said, there may not be a “normal age of retirement.” It may not exist.

In litigation under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Paragraph 15(1)(c), the onus is on the employer to demonstrate that termination according to a mandatory retirement policy was done in a manner that complies with the “normal age of retirement” wording in that Paragraph. If it cannot do that, then then terminations contravene the statute, assuming that the statutory provision is constitutionally valid. This was one of the two principal issues in the Thwaites hearing (decision pending). If the employer cannot demonstrate a “normal age of retirement,” then there is no specific age restriction that would be applicable as a result of that Paragraph. That is why Vilven and Kelly were reinstated post-age 65. No restriction on employment, subject to competency (as determined by Transport Canada).

Bona fide occupational requirement is totally separate. This involves both Paragraph 15(1)(a) of the Act, and Section 15(2), accommodation to the point of undue hardship. The BFOR issue for us has to do with the ICAO restrictions on international flights. There are two of them. PIC only to age 65. Member states of ICAO that adhere to the ICAO standards (the USA does, but Canada does not) do not recognize the licences of PICs over age 65. That makes operation of flights that either cross international boundaries, or that use international alternates, problematic. Both Vilven and Kelly waived their right to reinstatement as Captains because they were over age 65. But their waiver has no impact on anyone else’s argument.

The second ICAO restriction that causes a BFOR is the Over-Under Rule. The issue is fact-based, and the resolution of this issue on the two cases so far is still before the Tribunal. In the V-K case, the Federal Court referred the issue back to the Tribunal with the following words:

[470] However, I have found that there were a number of errors in the Tribunal’s bona fide occupational requirement analysis as it related to the post-November 2006 period, rendering this aspect of the Tribunal’s decision unreasonable.

[471] As a result, the question of whether being under 60 was a bona fide occupational requirement for Air Canada pilots after November of 2006 will be remitted to the same panel of the Tribunal, with the direction that the issue must be examined in light of all three elements of the Meiorin test.

In other words, the Court said only that the Tribunal must reconsider the evidence, based on the record, and provide a new decision, taking into consideration the tests required by the Court.

It should be noted that the ICAO clarification about meeting compliance with the Over-Under rule in the case of augmented crews (not RPs) was not put before the Tribunal in the V-K case (the clarification was issued by ICAO after the evidence portion of the hearing was closed). It was put before the Tribunal in the Thwaites case. So the V-K BFOR decision must be treated in isolation—it will affect only them, if it is negative.

The onus of demonstrating a BFOR rests upon the employer, and given a BFOR, there must be accommodation up to the point of undue hardship. That should give one some idea of the difficulty that Air Canada must overcome in sustaining its allegations before the Tribunal.

One final point. As I read the statute, it says that a BFOR may be established by the employer. It does not say that it may be established by a union. There was much legal argument in the Thwaites hearing over this statutory issue, and hopefully the Tribunal will speak to that issue when it eventually renders its decision.

That is also an issue in the forthcoming cases before the Tribunal. ACPA has pleaded a BFOR and the Coalition has filed a motion with the Tribunal to strike that portion of the pleading from its Statement of Particulars. That motion has not yet been decided.

[tailgunner]

Ray, you may have misspoke when you said " both Vilven and Kelly waived their right to reinstatement as captains ..." As far as I know, Vilven never upgraded to Captain at Air Canada. I stand to be corrected though.

[Raymond Hall]

Ray, you may have misspoke when you said " both Vilven and Kelly waived their right to reinstatement as captains ..." As far as I know, Vilven never upgraded to Captain at Air Canada. I stand to be corrected though.

Semantics. George Vilven left Air Canada in 2003 as a First Officer.

Upon reinstatement pilots are normally offered the equivalent of a "free bid." In this case, both Vilven and Kelly were "asked" which position that they wanted to be assigned to. The seniority of either obviously entitles them to be assigned a position of Captain, but both elected to waive that right during the proceedings at the Tribunal, subject to changes in the ICAO restrictions regarding pilot-in-command over age 65, in order to avoid the complex hearing that would result on the issue of BFOR, had they both not agreed to be reinstated as First Officers.

[tailgunner]

Ray,
Can you confirm that Mr. Vilven ever completed an upgrade course,( Command course) at Air Canada.
If he hadn't, then him being "reinstated" as a Captain is moot. He would have had to complete his command course prior to being "reinstated".
To point out that he gave up something that he was never qualified to hold in the first place is.., well not quite right.
Thanks.

[tailgunner]

Helloooo Ray?
I see that you were active on another topic, so I am just asking again...