BFOR

Discuss topics relating to Air Canada.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: BFOR

Post by Rockie »

LeadingEdge wrote:Actually, in law, the contract is everything.
Actually in law, the law is everything. A contract is not law and it must comply with the law.
LeadingEdge wrote:When you took the job, you tacitly agreed to abide by the contract. You enjoyed the benefits, and in the eyes of the law, you must abide by its limitations.
I did not agree to never change the contract and neither did you or anybody else. Otherwise our working conditions would never change would they? Pointless, irrelevant argument that you consistently and conveniently fail to apply to every other section of the contract. Plus by now it should be obvious to everybody that the contract cannot violate Canadian Law. Age discrimination is illegal everywhere in Canada no matter how much you pretend not to notice. I also haven't enjoyed the benefits either. I'm quite likely junior to you, yet still manage to see the world from a perspective other than my progression up the seniority list.
LeadingEdge wrote:You are accusing a poster of "hatred" you need to step back and re-examine things, a difference of opinion is not hatred. I recommend that you apologize for that comment.
Recommendation noted and summarily rejected. I've read and been subjected to the comments on this board as well as the former ACPA forum and the current Air Canada pilot's forum. I've seen the comments squirreled away in clever spots on airplanes. It is naked hatred and contempt that has blotted out any ability for you people to reason. But don't worry, I'm not looking for an apology. I would be happy if you guys simply started using your heads.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Mig29 »

Hey, I'm not hating anyone here, trust me. My parents did not raise me to HATE people.

But I will NEVER agree to demands that your "group" wants and will ALWAYS be against it! And I realize we will never agree and be eye to eye, so luckily there is this thing called a LAW and VOTE of majority ....and for now it is doing it's job.

Have a good one folks :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: BFOR

Post by Rockie »

Mig29 wrote:But I will NEVER agree to demands that your "group" wants and will ALWAYS be against it!
I accept your word that you do not hate. I would caution your use of the word "never" though. You don't even know what next year will bring never mind how you will think when you are retirement age. Nobody knows.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Mig29
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:47 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Mig29 »

True, but as long as Canada is still the way it is, I will vote "NO" on this!

If we ever go through some insane hyperinflation and unemployment rates of over 25%, stock market and housing crashes and all out mayhem....then maybe I will think about it. But even in those crappy times, in which I lived as a young child and witness my of family go trough, my grandparents and many friends back home still retired early or on schedule. So, "maybe" just may in fact be NEVER :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
LeadingEdge
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by LeadingEdge »

Rockie,

All of ACPA's contracts have abided by the law of the time, they are vetted for that very thing. There are provisions and exemptions in the labour code that pertain to labour contracts. The current contract as of the recent ruling has been found to comply with the law, so it is legal and binding. I understand that you do not agree with this, but it does not change the facts as they are today.

I understand that Mr. Hall is going to appeal, so it may change in the future - who knows.

The majority of members have chosen to uphold age 60 retirement, probably for personal reasons. I know, that in my case, I just want the career that I signed on for, and no more. The fact that this is inconsistent with your desires, is unfortunate, but I am entitled to my opinion just as you are. Because, I along with the majority choose to retire at 60 as per our contract, does not constitute hate by any definition, and in fact I resent your use of it.

It is unfortunate that you choose to use a word that represents the very thing that you are against. I think that you should apologize.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 852
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Lost in Saigon »

LeadingEdge wrote: I know, that in my case, I just want the career that I signed on for, and no more.

Me too.

I want back my 15% pay, my vacation, my paid training, my full credit deadhead, my 14 year pay scale, and what ever else out contract had in it when I signed on.

Let's see how much of it we get back before I decide at what age I will be ready to retire.
---------- ADS -----------
 
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by accumulous »

Let's see how much of it we get back before I decide at what age I will be ready to retire.
Once the dust settles you'll have lots of time to get it back.

Thwaites has all the pertinent accommodation evidence and the Federal Court will get the same. The Tribunal from last Friday never had it.

Just surfing - here's a little tidbit from Dallas - we allegedly can't accommodate VK even though they're accommodated and there is no BFOR whatsoever for F/O's at any age. A Canadian Federal Court Judge will look at that over his/her specs and it'll be a very short hearing. Compare that to American Airlines - their accommodation miniscule piece of computer code doesn't apparently pose any problem for them whatsoever. No doubt just one of about a kazillion other examples.

12:10 PM on Fri., May. 6, 2011 | Permalink

American Airlines has nearly seven pilots over 60 for every one pilot under 40.

That's a little factoid included in the Allied Pilot Association's weekly News Digest that it sent to its members this week.

• AA pilots under 40 years old: 83

• AA pilots over 60 years old: 560

Accommodation? BFOR? Problem? Nope.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by accumulous on Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: BFOR

Post by bcflyer »

The question wasn't whether or not AC could accomodate them, the question was whether or not it would cause undue hardship to do so.. BIG difference.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Norwegianwood
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:16 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Norwegianwood »

accumulous wrote:
• AA pilots under 40 years old: 83

• AA pilots over 60 years old: 560

Accommodation? BFOR? Problem? Nope.
Yes there is a problem, this is Canada and Air Canada and acpa have said there is a problem, so has an 83 year retired Judge who has a problem reading so there must be a problem!!

Rant over..........................
---------- ADS -----------
 
vic777
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:00 am

Re: BFOR

Post by vic777 »

bcflyer wrote: the question was whether or not it would cause undue hardship to do so.. BIG difference.
Thwaites is just trying to save AC from paying their share of the damages. This has coloured his judgement. Once ICAO removes their senseless over/under concept, the World will unfold as it should. ICAO will remove this senseless over/under concept in three years or less. Governments and Airlines should lobby ICAO to remove this senseless restriction as it is costing Airlines like AC big bucks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by vic777 on Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by accumulous »

bcflyer wrote:The question wasn't whether or not AC could accomodate them, the question was whether or not it would cause undue hardship to do so.. BIG difference.
Well News Flash Number 1 and submitted in Evidence for Round 2 - it doesn't cause undue hardship anywhere else on the Continent and

News Flash Number 2, ACPA says you're going to be the only guy in North America causing undue hardship, on your 60th birthday. Do you have a green card? It's easy shopping elsewhere. It's back to the bottom of the list, but it's out there in spades.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by cdnpilot77 »

accumulous wrote:
American Airlines has nearly seven pilots over 60 for every one pilot under 40.

That's a little factoid included in the Allied Pilot Association's weekly News Digest that it sent to its members this week.

• AA pilots under 40 years old: 83

• AA pilots over 60 years old: 560
This sounds like hanging an elephant over the cliff by a daisy, anything can be proven in a laboratory number crunching. What exactly is it proving? Its proving that guys stay on and stagnate growth and development of younger pilots. It also shows us that there are 11,400 +/- AA pilots in the 41-59 range...so what?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: BFOR

Post by Rockie »

Undue hardship.

The over/under rule states that at least one crew member must be under the age of sixty. Air Canada claims that since 80% of their flights are international in nature that constitutes an undue hardship. Let's see...

It is extremely rare for anybody to retire off the EMJ, so that's not a problem.

It is almost as rare for someone to retire off the A320 but nobody retires off it in the right seat, so that's not a problem.

People do retire off the B767 but very rarely out of the right seat, plus many flights have an RP who most certainly is nowhere near retirement. So that's not a problem.

The 330 retires many people but again hardly ever out of the right seat. If the average age split between a CA and FO is five years or more then having Captain's work until 65 should pose no problem whatsoever for a halfway competent company to manage.

The 777 retires most Captains. Some FO's may approach age 60, however I doubt many RP's do if any. As long as the average age difference between the Captain and the FO or RP is five years or more there should be no problem accommodating Captain's to age 65 either. Did Air Canada bother to survey the average age difference on the 777 between the oldest and youngest crewmember? Was that little bit of critical information included in their testimony?

No? I'm not surprised.

Accommodation for this is child's play for a company like Air Canada, and any limitations put on people should only be the minimum required to preserve the principle of protection from age discrimination. The idea that this would impact 80%, or even 5% of Air Canada's flight is absurdly easy to disprove. It certainly doesn't justify a blanket BFOR at age 60, and there is little doubt in my mind this ruling will not stand. I don't think anybody else seriously thinks so either regardless of what side of the issue they're on.

A more disturbing thing to me is the willingness of our pilot group to perpetuate what is considered age discrimination in Canada. Whether you agree with it or not, it is the morality and the law in Canada now. What was considered normal when mandatory retirement at 60 was concieved is no longer relevant, nor is a contract that contravenes the discrimination laws.
LeadingEdge wrote:I along with the majority choose to retire at 60 as per our contract, does not constitute hate by any definition, and in fact I resent your use of it.It is unfortunate that you choose to use a word that represents the very thing that you are against. I think that you should apologize.
The personal attacks and vitriol which those of us who support ending mandatory retirement have been subjected to, and you have not, constitutes hate. I don't care if you resent my use of the word because it is what it is, so don't hold your breath waiting for my apology.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Whether you agree with it or not, it is the morality and the law in Canada now
Is it? Seems to me that many peoples morals do not support this and if it was a law in the canadian code, there would be no need for the ongoing litigation and appeals and character attacks, it would be a simple black and white/legal not legal solution, but its not!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: BFOR

Post by Rockie »

The normal age of retirement exemption in the discrimination laws was disallowed in August 2009. That's pretty black and white yet Air Canada continued to force retire people with ACPA's wholehearted enthusiastic support. In fact ACPA, you and me, are paying half the damages and awards.

The Federal Government has announced their intention to do away with that exemption altogether because it is anachronistic and long past its due date. That's pretty black and white too, yet Air Canada is still pushing a completely untenable BFOR of age 60, ostensibly because they are the only company not competent enough to manage this kind of thing, to continue discriminating against their pilots. Again with the cheering support of its younger pilots.

There is black and white written all over this issue predominately against ACPA and Air Canada. This anomoly that everybody is giving high fives for will be shortlived, and that too will be in black and white. And still Air Canada and ACPA will be trying to force retire pilots when every single other employee group can read the same black and white you're talking about and has come up with a common conclusion that only the pilots disagree with.

Why hasn't anybody in the pilot group asked themselves why Air Canada wants this so bad?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Johnny Mapleleaf
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 5:42 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Johnny Mapleleaf »

Perhaps I am a little thick, but can someone please explain for me how the Tribunal concluded that it would cause Air Canada undue hardship to continue the employment of Vilven, Kelly or any other First Officer, for that matter, based on the ICAO requirements, when ICAO places no restrictions whatsoever, age or otherwise, on First Officers? What did the Tribunal see that I apparently can't see?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Fanblade »

Rockie wrote:
Why hasn't anybody in the pilot group asked themselves why Air Canada wants this so bad?
Cause it is obvious? Money. Remember the failed TA was 4 years of lousy pay. What do you think they would prefer? High turn over and lots of people starting at the the bottom pay year? Or low turn over and few entering at the bottom pay year? (High percentage at year 12.)

Yes less training will offset the cost of the payroll increase. Increased training will will also eat into the cost savings of lower payroll. The tax treatment of the two are different (pay vs. training) and certainly at the end of the day the balance is in favor attrition.

Why do you think VSP's are so often used to entice attrition? But of course getting free attrition is preferable to buying it.

With that said. I wonder about the ruling for the same reason as everyone else. If all post age 60 pilots were FO's? There is no issue. Capt Dukes testimony of hardship to negotiate the change seems to be accepted. However it has been pointed out to me it may be a stop gap to legislation from the federal gov't. That wouldn't surprise me at all. I have very little trust that quasi judicial bodies are immune to political interference. Absolutely none. Think about it. The removal of Sinclair from the file. The speed at which this ruling was made by the new entrant. Combined with the lethargic pace of Thwaites?

This gov't is very corporate friendly. The biggest thing corporations want is orderly change. Then their liability on the issue to be extinguished. Then they will want continued orderly attrition without having to pay for it.

Thus their push for continued mandatory retirement for those who have pension plans.

They are not worried about the pension deficit because it is clear that little gem will be handed to them for free with the help of Lisa Raitt.

JMO. But you asked.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Fanblade on Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: BFOR

Post by Rockie »

I don't know why Air Canada wants this so bad because they don't consult me as much as I would like. :D

But if history has proven anything, especially lately, it is not to benefit the pilots. So not only are we giving them something they want for free, we're helping them do it and volunteered to pay half the penalties for it at the same time. Hence my question.

Why aren't people questioning Air Canada's desire to cashier pilots at age 60?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Fanblade
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1772
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by Fanblade »

Does anyone know if the proposed new legislation wrt mandatory retirement is public? Not the old private members Bill. The new Harper Gov't Bill that is expected to be introduced.
---------- ADS -----------
 
accumulous
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:05 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by accumulous »

Fanblade wrote:Does anyone know if the proposed new legislation wrt mandatory retirement is public? Not the old private members Bill. The new Harper Gov't Bill that is expected to be introduced.
The new legislation will end Mandatory Retirement in the Federally regulated sector so it covers a lot of groups including transportation which is the Airline industry.

ACPA continues to insist that you are redundant at 60. They've made personal appearances in Parliament to that effect. Unless it can be proven otherwise, you in fact will be redundant at 60 and Mandatory Retirement will still be forced upon you by ACPA. How that gets written into the Bill remains to be seen but make no mistake, ACPA will be there holding the pen. You will exit via the revolving door on your 60th birthday.

If you are one of the 2600+ AC Pilots who can't meet the pension cap on years of service due to your hiring age, and if you want to finish your career, you will be applying to all the other National and International carriers in North America, and they are all available to you.

Remember. Age is no barrier with anyone else except ACPA. If you are one of the AC Pilots in the majority who was hired in their thirties or later you would be wise to start scouting the job market well in advance of ACPA showing you the door because like everything else it will be competitive when you hit the street. The majors like to get you fresh coming out the door. The only plus is that you will be well qualified. None of them finds that age is a barrier whatsoever when you go knocking on their doors, in fact you will be absolutely amazed at how much they welcome your experience, but you will be going to the bottom of their list.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SilentMajority
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:57 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by SilentMajority »

We just might be getting worked up about something that will eventually sort itself out....all on it's own.

The latest ruling was provided by an 83 yr. old retired justice from the Vancouver Criminal Court system. As the CHRT had wisely decided that ex-Chair Sinclair was "unavailable" to "Meiorin test" the BFOR side of the VK ruling, Wallace ("Wally") Craig was handed the file on May 11, 2011.

Wally had never attended any hearings related to the Vilven and Kelly case and has precious little insight into the airline world. Unfortunately, due to the continuing debacle known as the CHRT , Mr. Craig was told to "get it done" fast.

And fast he did. He ignored any cross examination of Duke's speculations, completely botched the required Step1-2-3 Meiorin test requirement (probably had never heard of it prior to May 11th), forgot about the whole "1st Officer thing" and then completely ignored the fact that every other carrier in the world doesn't find it "undue hardship"....etc etc, etc.

It will no doubt get sidelined by the Thwaites ruling (whenever that arrives) and then quashed in it's entirety by an amazed Federal Court Judge at the impending JR.

It is also interesting to note that "Wally" himself, didn't retire from the bench until he was 73.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by SilentMajority on Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: BFOR

Post by Rockie »

According to the latest MEC newsletter ACPA appears to be sitting back with cigars lit thinking it's a done deal and all that's left is the clean up. They are asking the company what's going on with the two reinstated pilots because they cannot wait to kick them back onto the street.

Hopefully some day ACPA and its pilots will consider the fact that pilots had to go to court to prevent their own union from discriminating against them as much of a disgrace as I do now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
FADEC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by FADEC »

Couple of things;

DB Pensions don't have to go away. A few years ago, Trans Canada Piple Line dumped their DB Pension in favour of DC. After a couple of years, the CEO looked at the situation and declared something along the lines of "This is Immoral, the average person cannot do as well as professional Pension Managers" and reinstated the DB Pension. Mind you, he obviously had morals, something in short supply among CEO's.

All you have to do to fix a Pension Shortfall is eliminate Mandatory Retirement, and adjust contribution rate. An hours work for any competent Actuary.

Big point; Pilots hired in Canada into the early fifties faced a legislated Mandatory Retirement age of 45. Nobody expected them to retire at 45 when the age changed; just because that was the age when they were hired. In fact. CALPA opposed a fixed retirement age till the mid eighties when they accepted. (not negotiated) having 60 in the Pension Agreement. (not the Contract) CALPA only slipped this into the Pension Agreement to get rid of someone few people liked. That individual had won reinstatement after forced Retirement. At that time it was illegal to work full time for a Company while drawing a pension from that Company. It was a sneaky way to get rid of the over 60's who might want to continue working; it was never put to a vote.
---------- ADS -----------
 
turbo-beaver
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm
Location: vancouver

Re: BFOR

Post by turbo-beaver »

FADAC.....

once and awhile, there is a post really worth reading on here. Thank you for that.
Air Canada does have people on staff as passenger agents collecting full pension, and working part time in a phase in agreement. Granted a lot of there folks went over to Aeroplan but, they are getting full pensions and still working for the Mothercorp.
Too bad they havent figured out something like this for the pilot group, or even spent some of the money on packages instead of litigation. Perhaps, this problem would not be as bad as it is now.
regards
---------- ADS -----------
 
frog
43S/172E
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: BFOR

Post by 43S/172E »

This is taken from PPRuNe and maybe your "learned friend" Ray Hall can comment on calling a senior Jurist an idiot constitutes "slander or defamation" of character.

Good Afternoon Lost in Saigon:

Maybe it is time for you to go back to the roof top bar at the Rex Hotel in Saigon and have another cold beer.

Please get in touch with your "learned friend" in CYWG and see if calling a senior Jurist an idiot as you did is slander and defamation of character as I would consider that you are on very thin ice here.

Alternatively, if the ruling came out against this ruling I am sure your view of this senior Jurist would be complimentary and that you are happy he is part of the legal intelligentsia of our country.

As J.O. stated very succinctly just reread the ruling on an "intellectual" basis as opposed to an "emotional" one as you will see his logic in his ruling.

Also take comfort in this that this will be going through the courts for review and will most likely end up for review by the nine senior Jurists in Canada providing if they want to discuss it.

As an aside as one that has lived in the United States the elections of Judges can be a tricky affair as not only politics but money enter into the equation. So take an "independent" judiciary over an elected one any day.

Again I will caution you on calling a Jurist incompetent as you have exposed yourself here and I would strongly suggest you either delete your post or modify it for your personal protection.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Air Canada”