Mandatory Retirement Repeal Passes 2nd Reading in Parliament

[Raymond Hall]

What is to stop the cronies from messing with the definition of BFOR just to suit this case given the very sympathetic ear of the government.

The BFOR defence is set out in the CHRA. That is not going to change anytime soon. The proper methodology for applying the BFOR defence was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999. That is not going to change anytime soon.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

While there are existing tests to the merits of BFOR, the case brought by the FP60 has sweeping change written all over it. What is to stop the cronies from messing with the definition of BFOR just to suit this case given the very sympathetic ear of the government.

I think you are missing the point. ACPA has already lost the BFOR argument because there is no link between age 60 and the ability to perform the job. Did you not read the following paragraphs in the Tribunal's August decision?

[333] The test to be applied for determining whether the employer has established a BFOR, is that set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia (P.S. Empl. Rel. Comm.) v. B.C.G.S.E.U., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3 (“Meiorin”).

[334] An employer must establish on a balance of probabilities that:

1) the employer adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job. The focus here is not on the validity of the standard but on the validity of its purpose;

2) the employer adopted the particular standard in an honest and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfillment of that work-related purpose;

…

[343] If the essence of what Air Canada pilots do is flying aircraft of varying sizes and types, transporting passengers to both domestic and international destinations, it is difficult to see how the age of the pilot bears any relationship to the performance of the job.

[344] It is very telling that Transport Canada, the federal regulatory agency responsible for licencing commercial pilots, does not impose any maximum age restriction. In fact, in its submission to ICAO on the question of raising the maximum age of PICs for international flights, Canada’s position was that there should not be any age restriction. Canada has no objections to pilots who are 60 years of age or older holding a medically valid licence from flying within Canadian airspace.

[345] As to the second step of Meiorin, I do not question that the age 60 rule was adopted with an honest and good faith belief. But if it was not adopted for a purpose connected to the performance of the job, it cannot be necessary for the fulfillment of that work-related purpose.

[Ah_yeah]

Ok thanks, I get it now. I was under the impression that BFOR was open to application after the abolition and that AC still had an avenue to pursue it.
So despite the governments continued meddling in anything Air Canada, there are no other avenues for them to "help out" Air Canada ? I think this question still bears importance inspite of it's speculative nature based on the events of the past 2 years.

Another question as I mull this over...It seems one arm of judiciary has said AC's practice is illegal but when the bill is passed a one year delay is applied. So if I connect the dots, one decision says you can carry on the practicce for a year the other says you can't. Who gets to pick ?

[Rockie]

Air Canada still has an avenue to pursue BFOR since it remains as the only exemption permitting mandatory retirement. Air Canada's problem is that they tried to convince the tribunal that age 60 was that age. The tribunal didn't buy it for a second and punted Air Canada squarely between the goal posts. Sooner or later Air Canada will do the same for age 65 where they stand a much better chance.

Others can explain it much better than I can, but the legislative change has to undergo its own procedural timelines which includes the one year wait after final approval. The CHRA challenges are completely separate and independant of the legislative timelines, but are nevertheless binding on the company and union. If both were smart (and so far they've shown no inclination in that direction) they would cease fighting the war they actually lost years ago and never stood a chance of winning in the first place.

[Raymond Hall]

Basically correct, Rockie. There are two defences available to Air Canada and ACPA, the statutory exemption defence (to the general prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age) for mandatory retirement and the BFOR defence.

While the statutory exemption defence is still on the books (prior to the date that its repeal comes into force) it can fail to be applicable for two reasons--either its conditions are not met (the Tribunal finds that age 60 is not the normal age of retirement) or it is found to be unconstitutional and consequently is of no force and effect. Those factors are determined by the Tribunal and the courts. As it stands now, both the Tribunal and the court have said that regardless of the fact that the legislation is still on the books, it is of no force and effect because it is unconstitutional--it is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When the repeal comes into force (one year from next week, assuming the Bill gets Royal Assent next week), that will eliminate the defence for all mandatory retirement terminations that would normally have occured after the date that the repeal comes into force, regardless of what the Tribunal and courts have to say about it beforehand. It will simply no longer exist as an exemption, and therefore, the only possible defence available is the BFOR defence, as of that date.

Terminations that occur prior to the repeal coming into force are still subject to the defence, but may be found to be contrary to law on either of the two grounds stated above: either the conditions in the exemption are not met (age 60 is not the normal age of retirement for individuals performing similar work) or the Tribunal and/or the court determination has found that the exemption is unconstitutional. The answer to that question has to be determined for each specific case, and will be determined by the Tribunal in due course, either prior to or after the repeal of the exemption comes into force, depending upon when specific complaints get adjudicated by the Tribunal. Some of this litigation could extend for some time after the repeal takes effect.

The BFOR defence is a completely separate defence and it continues to be available, regardless of whether the statutory exemption is applicable or not, because it is not being repealed now and it never will be repealed. This defence must remain, because it is necessary that employers not be denied the right to require that the person in the job is professionally qualified to perform the job. If a person is not qualified to perform the job, it cannot be a discriminatory practice to refuse to employ her or to refuse to continue to employ her, regardless of age or any other factor.

Air Canada pleaded the BFOR defence in both V-K and Thwaites on the basis of the ICAO restrictions on pilots-in-command over age 60 (and over age 65). There are no ICAO restrictions, based on age, for First Officers or for Relief Pilots at any age.

It is important to note, I believe, that ICAO restrictions are not based upon employment law. They are based on the operation of the flights. The ICAO restrictions do not and cannot say that a pilot’s employment must be terminated.

The Federal Court, in noting that fact, stated that in the case of both George Vilven and Neil Kelly, there was no evidence on the Tribunal hearing record to show why their employment should be terminated, given the fact that they could continue to be employed as pilots operating as First Officers if the ICAO restrictions foreclosed them from operating as Captains (pilots-in-command).

So in my view, the likelihood that mandatory retirement for all pilots (or for any pilots, for that matter) at Air Canada will be upheld based on a BFOR defence is extremely unlikely. There is no regulatory reason why pilots cannot continue to operate flights as First Officers or as Relief Pilots at any age, and there are provisions within the collective agreement to allow pilots to bid from the Captain position to the First Officer or Relief Pilot position, should Air Canada be unable to accommodate them operating as Captains.

[Edited to expand the explanation].

[777longhaul]

As Raymond said, the BFOR is still available, by law, BUT, AC/acpa failed to qualify for BFOR in V/K and in the Thwaites case. Read the awards.

This issue has dragged on, due to conflicting rulings, and the removal of the comparitor group in the Thwaites ruling. Who knows why that was done, since the criteria/definitions, were approved by the Federal Court. The CHRT is not allowed, to change/remove Court approved evidence. So, it all went to JR. again. Further delays, increasing costs, and more spy vs spy by AC and acpa.

As soon as AC gets its Conciliator/forced ARB acpa, contract, things will change at the CHRT and the Courts.

[Norwegianwood]

So did the Senate get to Bill C-13 today or did I get my date wrong? Cheers.....

[Raymond Hall]

So did the Senate get to Bill C-13 today or did I get my date wrong? Cheers.....

Yes. I was unable to watch it today, but apparently there was nothing concerning this issue discussed. They are continuing tomorrow afternoon.
Room 160-S, Centre Block
Wednesday, Dec 7, 2011
01:45 PM - 03:45 PMEST
120 Minute(s)
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx? ... Language=E

The witness list does not appear to include anyone to discuss this issue tomorrow:

Witnesses
Canadian Federation of Students
- Roxanne Dubois, Chairperson
- David Molenhuis, Past Chairperson
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
- Gregory Thomas, Federal Director
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
- Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
- Peter Shawn Taylor, Senior Fellow

From what I can discern, they may finish discussing the Bill tomorrow, as the Committee has a meeting scheduled for tomorrow evening, but the subject matter of that meeting is not Bill C-13.

[Raymond Hall]

The Senate Committee on National Finance completed its deliberations of Bill C-13 today at 4:52 PM ET, voting to report the Bill back to the full Senate, "on division" (which means that a formal vote was not taken but that at least one Senator opposed the motion), without amendment and without any observations being added. It will go back to the full Chamber of the Senate, in the words of the Chair, "at the earliest opportunity."

http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx? ... anguage=E#

That leaves only two steps left for the Bill to become law. The last step in the Senate is Third Reading and passage. That is now expected to occur within days.

The final step in the legislative process is Royal Assent, which undoubtedly will be given immediately after the Bill passes Third Reading in the Senate.

[yycflyguy]

Ok, i'll be the dick to ask the question.

Yesterday in the Globe and Mail they are reporting that the Conservative Government broke the law in introducing legistlation to end the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board's) monopoly over the sale of wheat and barley.

How is this not related to the current attempts of the Conservative government to end mandatory retirement?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le2263351/

In his ruling, Judge Campbell noted that while a majority government has the right to introduce and pass legislation, it must still follow rules established in laws set by previous Parliaments. In the case of the Wheat Board, those rules date back to 1998 when the Canadian Wheat Board Act was amended to increase farmer control over the agency. The amendments included provisions requiring consultation and a vote by farmers before any major changes were made to the Act or the board’s operations.

“This fact requires that, in proposing that a fundamental change be made to the [Wheat Board’s] structure, the Minister must act democratically. This is what [the amended Act] says. Not adhering to these values is not only disrespectful, it is contrary to law,” the judge said in his ruling. Parliament’s intention, he added, “is not to alter this structure without consultation and consent.” Judge Campbell added that the government’s actions were an affront to the rule of law, which was a fundamental constitutional imperative.

The parallels are unmistakable.

[Morry Bund]

Yesterday in the Globe and Mail they are reporting that the Conservative Government broke the law in introducing legistlation to end the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board's) monopoly over the sale of wheat and barley. How is this not related to the current attempts of the Conservative government to end mandatory retirement?
The parallels are unmistakable.

I believe that you answered your own question. Where in the Canadian Human Rights Act does it say that Parliament must consult ACPA before it repeals the mandatory retirement exemption?

[Norwegianwood]

Yesterday in the Globe and Mail they are reporting that the Conservative Government broke the law in introducing legistlation to end the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board's) monopoly over the sale of wheat and barley. How is this not related to the current attempts of the Conservative government to end mandatory retirement?
The parallels are unmistakable.

I believe that you answered your own question. Where in the Canadian Human Rights Act does it say that Parliament must consult ACPA before it repeals the mandatory retirement exemption?

Morry, shirley (sp intended) you must be aware that acpa is above the law so therefore is not answerable to Parliament. Never have been, never will be! Law unto it's self, they are...............

[yycflyguy]

Yesterday in the Globe and Mail they are reporting that the Conservative Government broke the law in introducing legistlation to end the CWB (Canadian Wheat Board's) monopoly over the sale of wheat and barley. How is this not related to the current attempts of the Conservative government to end mandatory retirement?
The parallels are unmistakable.

I believe that you answered your own question. Where in the Canadian Human Rights Act does it say that Parliament must consult ACPA before it repeals the mandatory retirement exemption?

No. I see it that the current majority government is imposing its will over previous governments' rulings. Raymond has stated that mandatory retirement has been fought for over 20 years. Previous precedence dictates that a majority government cannot unilaterally impose its will without acknowledging the will of the "membership" of the CWB members, and in our case, the members would be ACPA.

Parliament’s intention, he added, “is not to alter this structure without consultation and consent.

Irrespective of the CHRT, which we could debate as being a quasi-judicial body, the CWB ruling casts doubt to the power of the legislation push that is being posted here.

[777longhaul]

yycflyguy

Please, please, show me the official acpa survey, that shows, that the TOTAL majority of acpa pilots voted against the age 60 rule. Was that a one time vote, or are there recent updated votes? How many acpa IVR votes specific to this issue were there?

I would really like to see all the MAJORITY vote results, that everyone keeps referring to. It would be very much appreciated, if you could post the entire surveys here, including the official results, along with the dates. That would be an official audited, IVR vote of ALL acpa pilots.

acpa uses the numbers, and spins the results in all their public/inhouse correspondence. BUT, I have never seen the IVR vote, that yielded those purported results that you and others constantly refer to.

The other part of your post:

The provinces banned mandatory retirement a long time ago. The Federal Govt is just catching up, with Federally Regulated Companies, and that captured AC, as it is regulated by the Federal Govt, like it or not. The MOT has NO age restrictions.

acpa, is not the Wheat Board.

acpa, can not set any parameters, other than a in-house contract, as they are NOT an employeer, so they can not decide what is or is not law.
This should be seen soon,.......if the CLRB rules on the next DFR using the Federal Court ruling. That will force acpa, to represent all its members, and it will require acpa, to go to grievance hearings, at the request of the active pilots. It might/should capture the retired pilots as well. Who knows for sure, but more court cases, will ensue.

The Govt isnt going after acpa, it is changing the laws, (updating them) to current day standards with the rest of the world. You and I won't ever agree to see the changes at the same level, and so of to court we all go. The courts will decide the end results.

[Raymond Hall]

You may wish to look at comments made by the Federal Court of Appeal in a decision that dealt with Justice Campbell's reasons in another recent case, that of the disposal of the DND lands in central Winnipeg known as Kapyong Barracks:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/201 ... ca148.html

However, with respect, the remainder of the Judge’s Reasons is rife with uncertainty and contradiction. I see at least eight problems, six of which bear on the adequacy of his reasons and two of which reveals a different kind of error. ...

[36] First, it is unclear to which respondents Canada owes the duty of consultation.

…

[The Court then deals with each additional error in sequence]

Conclusion

[50] I therefore conclude that the Judge’s reasons are inadequate. They do not grapple with and attempt to resolve the difficult legal issues and the confusing evidentiary record that were before him. …

[51] In my view, the Judge failed to seize the substance of the critical issues before him. He also failed to deal adequately with the evidence before him in that he did not address key aspects thereof and did not, as a result, make any findings in regard thereto which would have allowed this Court to conduct a meaningful appellate review.

…

[54] For these reasons, I would therefore allow the appeal with costs, I would set aside the Judge’s decision and I would refer the matter back to the Chief Justice of the Federal Court or to a judge, other than Campbell J., designated by the Chief Justice for redetermination of the issues in the light of these Reasons.

[Rockie]

yycflyguy

I can't comment on the legal arguments of the point you raise, but nevertheless I cannot see the parallels between the CWB and mandatory retirement.

Any changes to the CWB legislation effects wheat farmers, and you may have a point in that their wishes should be taken into account (I have no idea if they were or not). However the mandatory retirement issue effects every working Canadian, not just ACPA. Given that every provincial and territorial jurisdiction has already gone down the road the feds are only now getting around to, and that the proposed change to the CHRA enjoys unanimous support of every political party in Canada, don't you think the chances of turning that ship around to suit ACPA's preference is extremely unlikely?

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

Previous precedence dictates that a majority government cannot unilaterally impose its will without acknowledging the will of the "membership" of the CWB members, and in our case, the members would be ACPA.

Hey, Fly Guy from the Center of the Universe, West.

It's time that you took your nose out of your butt and looked around. There are 800,000 workers affected by this legislative change, including tens of thousand of senior women who are currently being placed below the poverty line by being forced out of their jobs at age 65 with no pension. The legislation isn't just about the 3/4 of the membership of ACPA that believe that the world revolves around their right to make a $200,000+ per year income by the time they reach age 55.

[Lt. Daniel Kaffee]

That's right Johnny....Its about the 10% of ACPA members, making $200,000+, top of the seniority list and wanting to become seniority list squatters...

the debate reminds me of the US presidential election where George W Bush's campaign portrayed the combat evading W as a war hero and John Kerry, the decorated Vietnam war veteran as a traitor...

Amazing how the FTYD group call ACPA pilots "greedy" for wanting to keep the "deal" the same, the same deal every Air Canada pilot has had for about 75 years til now. The same deal everyone of the FTYD group benefited from over their entire career. It's an interesting lexical shift of the meaning of greed.

Now it's "greedy" for pilots to :

• expect their older peers to retire when reaching the negotiated collective retirement age (have a look at the strikes, riots etc, when certain countries discuss raising the retirement age)
  
  hope that their seniority wouldn't stagnate for years (because unlike the USA, this apparent new deal in Canada is an open ended fly-til-ya-die scenario)
  
  not wanting to pay $millions of dollars in damages to pilots who have no, repeat no, intention of ever returning to the cockpit

[vic777]

Daniel, you seem to be a little late to the discussion. You are way behind the power curve in this debate. The fact is, FlyPast60 is about to become a reality. The Government of Canada says so. What we have to do is find a way to implement the NWO for the betterment of all and not get hosed by AC and the ACPA Elite. Forget George Bush. Get with the program.

[Johnny Mapleleaf]

That's right Johnny....Its about the 10% of ACPA members, making $200,000+, top of the seniority list and wanting to become seniority list squatters...

Thanks for the insight. That is indeed what is about. For you. But for many of the 800,000 others affected by this legislation in the year 2012 it is not about that at all. It's about being able to continue to put bread on the table.

Do you seriously believe that this government would even bother to ask any one of us for our thoughts on this issue? As some here told you years ago, this change was coming. Now, even after the legislation is through Parliament and almost through the Senate, you too have your nose up your butt. This government never called me up, prior to introducing this legislation, to ask me for my opinion. So I, like you, had nothing to do with what has happened to change the law.

Wake up, for heaven's sake. It is not about you. It is not about us. We could have collectively chosen to work within the constraints, given the clear warning signs broadcast by some of our more prescient peers over five years ago. We might have been able to avoid most of the potential harm resulting from this inevitable change. But because of our inability to do anything but deny reality, that opportunity obviously escaped us. Instead, we now have to find scapegoats. Blame me, please. I plead guilty. I could have done more to help you light a candle instead of cursing the dark, but I didn't. So I plead guilty.

But don't worry. You can still remain in denial. You can continue to spew your hate messages about greed and selfishness of others, even after some of us get back into "your" cockpit. And the only person that you will harm will be yourself.

[Rockie]

The end of mandatory retirement has been a foregone conclusion from the beginning and the only thing we had control over was how prepared and in what condition we would be in when we got there.

Stupidity prevailed and we're hitting the wall without even slowing down.

[Raymond Hall]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Chamb ... /ord-e.htm

The Senate of Canada
Order Paper and Notice Paper
________________________________________
Issue 40
Monday, December 12, 2011
6:00 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills

No. 1.
December 8, 2011—Third reading of Bill C-13, An Act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated on June 6, 2011 and other measures.

[Old fella]

"It's about being able to continue to put bread on the table......"

If you are 60+ yrs old(like me) and can't put bread on the table, WTF were you doing the past 30-40 yrs previous - that is the question

[TheStig]

Doesn't seem like anyone is about to change anyone else's opinion on this subject, most are firmly entrenched on one side of the fence or the other, but for those on the FlyPast60 side please allow me to humour you with a bit of perspective. Careful, it contains my personal bias.

The FP60 groups leadership has being dealing with this issue very publicly, never missing an opportunity to argue the case to anyone that will listen. To the FP60 coalition this is a political campaign in need of funding and supporters, the result seems to have been a lot of lobbying. This appears to have worked well, as there are dozens of posters here more than happy to repeat the same rhetoric over and over again contesting any post against their cause (as I'm sure will happen shortly to this post).

Don't kid yourselves, this is not something the large majority of pilots want. Question ACPA's survey's all you want, there is a thread right below this one with 70,000+ hits from pilots who hope to land the job they've spent their whole career working towards. The only reason Air Canada is hiring is to replace retirement vacancies. Pilots staying at the top in this pyramid scheme that aviation has become is not a feasible outcome. There was a rumour that the previously written Bill repealing mandatory retirement in Canada contained exemptions for (former crown) corporations with defined benefit pension plans, not sure if it's true, but it's interesting to think about? Did anyone on the FP60 side of the fence hear that rumour?

ACPA and AC have remained quiet with respect to this issue largely because they do not need to gather support, they've got a directive and are following it. Also, because these are complicated, ongoing, legal matters, how much involvement do they need from employees/members?

You have to ask yourself, if this is such a foregone conclusion, why hasn't it happened already? Is it because judges keep messing up, misinterpreting the intent of the law, and making the "wrong" judgements, or is it because you're only being given the information that your leadership wants you to have to further their cause? I'll admit, ACPA and AC don't say much about this, but would you rather be uninformed, misinformed, or both? Do the groups supporters still think they're coming back to the line? Do they still believe they are getting a big payout for this injustice? How much influence do they believe they have with Legislators in Ottawa?

The 'blog' on flypast60.com and posts on this forum treat opinion as if they were fact and are full of bias. Of coarse this message is an easy sell to the groups supporters, simply just keep telling them "we are winning" and find some loosely related case precedents which agree with your opinion and post.

Here's an example, this is from flypast60.com. I've highlighted the portions which are speculation, person interpretation of the law, opinion, bias, etc.

"Friday, December 2nd, 2011

....

Because the second DFR Reconsideration decision concerns itself with a DFR complaint filed after the Federal Court's February decision, from the Board's statement today, it is reasonable to assume that the Board will conclude that the mandatory retirement provision of the collective agreement is invalid. Consequently, ACPA's actions must be determined in light of that determination.

Should that happen, there will be many, many implications, including, perhaps, a remedial order issued by the Board. The decision is expected very, very soon, so now we wait. But it would appear that we have indeed turned a corner."

Just consider how many variables are alluded to, and how much speculation was in those paragraphs, and then re-read some older post and see how many of the previously state convictions actually unfolded as predicted.

Reading through this thread there is rampant misinformation, which is certainly understandable, but simply repeating the wrong information doesn't make it true. For example:

The two pilots who were reinstated by order of the Tribunal were paid jointly by Air Canada and ACPA over $100,000 each in damages because the rules changed with the Tribunal's decision in August, 2009, and both Air Canada and ACPA failed to comply with the new rules by reinstating them at that point. There are almost 200 in the queue behind them.

That reinstatement was overturned by appeal, I'd be interested to know if ACPA and AC are going to try and get their $200,000 back?

There are repeated assertions that ACPA, AC, and others have their head in the sand, but maybe none of us are being given all of the information we need to properly assess this issue?

[777longhaul]

Interesting point of view. We all have one, or more.....

Bottom of the bottom line, the courts will decide what is, or what is not true. And, we will all have to live with it, regardless of which way it goes in the end. I am prepared to do that.

Doesnt matter one bit what I think, or what anyone else thinks, it has been decided by the Government for the December 2012 date, and the courts will decide on what is going to finally happen to those, directly effected, prior to that date.

Many of the FP60 types, have tried to pass on information that AC/acpa are not passing on. Dont shoot/hate the messenger(s). It is better to be informed of what is happening, and Raymond has done that in an effort to let everyone know what is happening. What is posted here and on other forums for all to read, and access, will have zero effect on the courts. It is information and opinions.

AC is playing acpa, and when they have the contract concessions, (TA1) or what ever it will be referred to, they will let go of acpa in regards to this issue. acpa, can not go it alone on the age 60 issue, as they are not an employer, and they have lost the BFOR issues, even though that is a grey area, that they are even allowed to try and use it. But, regardless, they failed to qualify.

In 2009 I was told directly, by an acpa LEC member, that they know they will loose this long term court case, they just want to achieve two things, one, to get rid of as many senior pilots, regardless of their postion, (CA/FO/RP) and they, (acpa) hoped that the Federal Government would not make any retroactive enforcements, re the pending changes in the age discrimination law. Draw your own conclusions from that one.

If the age 60 issue had no legal value, the courts would have tossed it out a long time ago.

Would be very interesting, to see acpa, take an IVR vote this month, on the age 60 issue, now that the Federal Government has changed the act. Would, the acpa pilots still pay, to fight to retire at 60? Or, now, that the vast majority of the acpa pilots can now have the choice to decide when they want to retire, and have the abiltiy to increase their pension years, want to continue the fight? By the way.....still waiting for the acpa official, IVR "majority of the acpa pilots" survey, that shows that the majority of all the pilots (total amount of pilots represented by acpa)wanted to fight this issue in the first place. Wish someone would post the audited results here, so we can all read it.

acpa talks about it all the time, in public, in the press, to the acpa pilots, to the goverment, to AC, and anyone who will listen.