No Clear Winner in FCA Mandatory Retirement Decision

[Raymond Hall]

... this dog is dead ...

I am not sure to which “dog” you refer, Doug, but “this” dog is not dead—at least not yet. Not only is the issue that is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada very real, regardless of the outcome of the Leave To Appeal decision there are over 100 other complainants before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal whose cases are still awaiting adjudication. The wheels of justice turn slowly, indeed, but they do turn, nevertheless.

The case before the SCC may be influential, but it will not necessarily be determinative of the subsequent cases before the Tribunal.

If nothing else, this ten-year controversy has raised significant existential issues. At the core is the fundamental methodology of the formula pay and seniority system, a career-long game of musical chairs that is truly at the heart of the conflict. That system was the genus of the conflict and the division among ACPA members that resulted in the union placing itself as an adversary in court to many of its own members.

I wonder, sometimes, if we would have had the same conflict and disagreement if we were somehow to have taken the personal income progression factors out of the equation. Would the opinions on age discrimination have been so polarized? If it didn’t hit so deeply in the pocketbook, would anyone have wanted to endure such a long legal contest?

There still remain other problems with any sort of age-based criterion in employment environments. One issue that is about to bubble up to the top fairly soon is the issue of disability benefits for individuals who are approaching or beyond the “normal age of retirement.” That is because the repeal of mandatory retirement laws has not yet been matched with a change in the regulations that deal with disability benefits for individuals who choose to work beyond what is termed as the “normal age of retirement.” The result is a total denial of disability benefits for those who elect to avail themselves of the opportunity to delay their ultimate retirement. You will see cases on this issue gradually appearing in the news, not just for pilots, but for other occupations, including professions in the health care industry.

Over the course of the past few years I have often wondered what distinguishes progressive societies from regressive societies and progressive groups from regressive groups. What distinguishes intellectual growth from intellectual regression? Tolerance? Accepting others, despite their differences? Possessing a willingness to be open to change? Especially when the world around us is changing and there is ample evidence that if we are not willing to change, the change will be foisted upon us, despite our reluctance?

[Doug Moore]

Hi Raymond,

The dog to which I refer is “my” dog. As you are probably aware, I am not now and never have been one of the complainants but I have always been a sympathetic supporter of the abolishment of mandatory retirement based on age.

When it became obvious to me that ACPA leadership lacked the maturity to debate and settle this matter in-house then I foresaw the timeline (and expense and frustrations) of the legal route that was surely to follow. If we use 2003 as a start point then here we are some 14 years later! I, myself, could very well be dead before this matter has finally run its course.

I agree with your comments on formula pay, seniority system and income progression and that they are “truly at the heart of the conflict.” As they were, I would suggest, at the heart of the acrimony that consumed our merger disputes. I have always maintained that as human beings and as pilots, we share much more in common than that which sets us apart. But that never seemed to give us cause to focus on the former rather than the latter. Not even when, as you put it: “… there is ample evidence that if we are not willing to change, the change will be foisted upon us …”

In any event, you raise some questions requiring much thought and self-analysis. Is ACPA a “progressive” group or is it a “regressive” group? I suspect that it thinks of itself as progressive but it seems not to behave that way when it feels threatened.

Cheers,

[Raymond Hall]

... ACPA leadership lacked the maturity to debate and settle this matter in-house ...

Remember, ACPA was formed in protest to the top-down leadership style of its predecessor, CALPA. Its constitution was conceived on the basis of a “consensus” management style—government by the members, with the individual elected representatives, including the President and the MEC Chair having virtually no direct authority whatsoever, in order that no Executive member could ever again purport to bind to Association to something like the Picher Award.

When I was Chair, my authority was limited to nothing more than calling meetings. I could suggest strategy, potential actions, and means of resolving problems, but I had no direct authority to make any decisions, and I did not have a vote, except to break a tie of the other MEC members. Every decision required an MEC conference call, at a minimum, to determine a consensus on the issue.

This type of management structure, of course, has immense negative implications for leadership of the union as a whole. Essentially, leadership is inhibited by design.

A case is point was the Vilven request for union representation on his age discrimination case. Initially the then MEC Chair told him that the union would represent him (I have a copy of that e-mail). However, after the implications of that decision became obvious, the issue went to the entire MEC, and the MEC ultimately decided to hold a referendum, sending the issue to the members to decide. We know the outcome of that process--75% to 25% in favour of supporting the employer's litigation to end his employment.

So here is my point. There is a very recent parallel in law. In 2014 the Law Society of B.C. had to wrestle with the issue of whether to grant status to Trinity Western University (TWU), given the University’s requirement that students sign a “Community Covenant” in which they pledge to maintain Biblical ideals and eschew sex outside of traditional heterosexual marriage.

The school received approval from the Law Society in April, 2014, but that triggered a revolt among the majority of lawyers in B.C., leading the Law Society to hold a referendum of all members on the issue. You can guess the result—almost identical to the result of the mandatory retirement referendum undertaken by ACPA in 2006—74% voted against granting TWU status. Consequently, the Law Society executive voted to deny TWU certification.

Then what? Judicial review, of course. And what did the Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court who heard the judicial review think of the Law Society’s action? Here is how the Vancouver Sun described it:

“In a stinging 43-page rebuke, the Chief Justice said the regulator’s Board of Directors, known as Benchers, abrogated their responsibilities after calling a referendum on TWU’s proposed law school. The benchers didn’t do their duty, infringed the school’s freedom of religion and ‘allowed the members to dictate.' ”

In legal parlance, the Benchers improperly sub-delegated the decision that they themselves were required to make, fettered their own decision-making and did not allow the opposing parties to have a fair opportunity to address the decision-maker (the members at large) before deciding the fate of the party affected.

The Chief Justice also criticized the members’ decision for the members' failure to consider, let alone balance, the petitioners’ Charter rights against the competing rights of … the community.

Sound familiar?

In the end, the Chief Justice struck down the Benchers' second decision and reinstated TWU's certification. An appeal was filed on January 5th, 2016.

Sound familiar?

[Doug Moore]

I remember & am familiar with it all. Throwing a tantrum and running away from home may make one feel good but such actions usually create more problems than they solve. I am reminded of the parent’s challenge to their kids: “If you’re tired of being hassled, then move out and pay your own way while you still know everything.” The AC pilots rallied around the cry of “grassroots” unionism, seeing only the grass without realizing that roots are what allow the grass to thrive and that if the roots are not healthy then neither will be the grass.

I’ve followed the Trinity case in the news as well. One would have thought that lawyers would be able to set aside their personal predilections and see the big picture, but sadly, no. To its credit, the Law Society saw the bigger picture and granted status to Trinity but then yielded its decision to cries for a vote from the membership. What was its thinking - that it believed that the membership would know better, or worse, that it accepted the notion that democracy and the popular vote can resolve contentious issues without prejudice? Naturally, it can’t always do so, as was recognized long ago by Benjamin Franklin, who described democracy as two wolves and a lamb taking a vote on what to have for dinner.

So yes, sadly so, all of this is very familiar, particularly for the lamb.

Cheers,

[Old fella]

Since the topic was brought up, let's call a spade a spade. Trinity Western is an anti gay lesbian law school as it closes it's ranks to those members of society based on religious dogma. Period and full stop.
I understand the decision by the Law Society of Ontario to refuse accreditation to Trinity Western was upheld by Ontario Superior Court last year.

[Raymond Hall]

Let's not let this thread get side-tracked into a separate human rights issue leading us to make the same error evident in the history of both these disputes – where career income distribution (in the case of the pilots) or religious and other human rights biases (in the case of TWU) distract us from dealing with the underlying primary issue in dispute.

The reason that I mentioned the TWU case is that the democratic process must adhere to the legal doctrine of procedural fairness. That subject is intimately related to the issue of leadership. Without leadership, procedural fairness is liable to be overlooked and seconded to other factors.

The court is the final arbiter. The TWU case is an excellent example of fundamental principles of law, showing that even an organization as astute and as august as a provincial law society, composed entirely of members who are, above all else, presumed to know the law, can err in law.

That is why our constitution has three pillars, the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. The judiciary is there to supervise the other two branches and to ensure that the rule of law is maintained.

[Ah_yeah]

I wonder, sometimes, if we would have had the same conflict and disagreement if we were somehow to have taken the personal income progression factors out of the equation. Would the opinions on age discrimination have been so polarized? If it didn’t hit so deeply in the pocketbook, would anyone have wanted to endure such a long legal contest?

There still remain other problems with any sort of age-based criterion in employment environments. One issue that is about to bubble up to the top fairly soon is the issue of disability benefits for individuals who are approaching or beyond the “normal age of retirement.” That is because the repeal of mandatory retirement laws has not yet been matched with a change in the regulations that deal with disability benefits for individuals who choose to work beyond what is termed as the “normal age of retirement.” The result is a total denial of disability benefits for those who elect to avail themselves of the opportunity to delay their ultimate retirement. You will see cases on this issue gradually appearing in the news, not just for pilots, but for other occupations, including professions in the health care industry.

Raymond I'm glad you highlight this factor. IMO you can't simply consider the monetary based resistance to retirement age change without considering the monetary based incentive for those you represent. We can pretend all we want about altruistic motivations in this world but in the end money always wins. Your clients benefited from the mandatory age 60 until they turned 60. I expect you and your clients would respond, "yes, but that was illegal". I would assert that for this fight to have credibility, it should have began with you and your clients as new hires. That way money wouldn't have been an issue. How can one reasonably expect that this battle wouldn't stick in the craw of those that are expected to foot the bill ?

In response to disability benefits, good luck. Our society, for better or worse, is full of that type of discrimination. This will be deemed an insurance and one only has to look at the difference in auto insurance rates between a 16 year old male and a middle aged female. My bet is status quo prevails.

[Ah_yeah]

I wonder, sometimes, if we would have had the same conflict and disagreement if we were somehow to have taken the personal income progression factors out of the equation. Would the opinions on age discrimination have been so polarized? If it didn’t hit so deeply in the pocketbook, would anyone have wanted to endure such a long legal contest?

There still remain other problems with any sort of age-based criterion in employment environments. One issue that is about to bubble up to the top fairly soon is the issue of disability benefits for individuals who are approaching or beyond the “normal age of retirement.” That is because the repeal of mandatory retirement laws has not yet been matched with a change in the regulations that deal with disability benefits for individuals who choose to work beyond what is termed as the “normal age of retirement.” The result is a total denial of disability benefits for those who elect to avail themselves of the opportunity to delay their ultimate retirement. You will see cases on this issue gradually appearing in the news, not just for pilots, but for other occupations, including professions in the health care industry.

Raymond I'm glad you highlight this factor. IMO you can't simply consider the monetary based resistance to retirement age change without considering the monetary based incentive for those you represent. We can pretend all we want about altruistic motivations in this world but in the end money always wins. Your clients benefited from the mandatory age 60 until they turned 60. I expect you and your clients would respond, "yes, but that was illegal". I would assert that for this fight to have credibility, it should have began with you and your clients as new hires. That way money wouldn't have been an issue. How can one reasonably expect that this battle wouldn't stick in the craw of those that are expected to foot the bill ?

In response to disability benefits, good luck. Our society, for better or worse, is full of that type of discrimination. This will be deemed an insurance and one only has to look at the difference in auto insurance rates between a 16 year old male and a middle aged female. My bet is status quo prevails.

[Fanblade]

Over the course of the past few years I have often wondered what distinguishes progressive societies from regressive societies and progressive groups from regressive groups. What distinguishes intellectual growth from intellectual regression? Tolerance? Accepting others, despite their differences? Possessing a willingness to be open to change? Especially when the world around us is changing and there is ample evidence that if we are not willing to change, the change will be foisted upon us, despite our reluctance?

Ramond,

That reads very much like a harsh shot at your former peers.

Regressive. Becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.

I see a resistance to change. A desire for the status quo. A desire for the exact same treatment as the person before them.

Using the term intellectually regressive to describe that behaviour?


Gotta love this forum.

[43S/172E]

So Ray why would you even bring up TWU?
Could have not found a better example?
Or Are you in favour of their brand of discrimination?

[777longhaul]

AT Air Canada, ALL, the other unions, agreed, that, age discrimination was age discrimination. ALL the other unions, went to Arbitration, and the end result, was, ALL the members, that wanted to come back to work, for what ever reason, got to, EXCEPT the pilots. So....how is it, that AC can accept, age discrimination cases from ALL the other unions, and then, single out the pilots, saying it is not age discrimination. Talk about being 2 faced. WE all worked at the same airline!

What ever an individuals needs, wants, desires, believes, or some other, mindless disbelief, the simple fact is, AC discriminated against ONLY its pilots. THE government body, appointed to make that determination is the CHC. They are the V1 of the decision process. THEY are 100% behind the FP60 group. Their court documents state that it is only age discrimination as the sole reason that the pilots were force retired.

acpa, (in lower case forever) refused to go to Arbitration. acpa, knew full well they would lose in arbitration, just as the other unions did. So....to get around that issue, acpa, refused it's members the right to go to Arbitration, while they (the FP60 pilots) were still paying maximum dues, and were members in good standing.

I had the acpa member incharge of the initial charge on this issue, tell me directly, that they could very well lose this case in the long run, but they (acpa) would get rid of the top 500 pilots at all costs. This is not a dream that I had, it happened, and it worked so far for acpa, with ALL of AC backing, and only because AC backed them. So....if the long drawn out court battles, give the nod to acpa, then the dream team of acpa, of that day, and all the dream teams, since then, will look like the heros to those of you who wanted the ageism to stay in full force.

If acpa does't get the nod, then different visions of what happened, and what should have happened, and who was right, and who was wrong will surface, and the finger pointing will go in another direction. But....either way, AC played the game to their desires, so who won?

[Fanblade]

Longhaul,

You nailed it. ACPA wasn't behaving in regressive manor. They were responding in a strategic manor.

Delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

Thing is, if the law hadn't changed people would still be retiring at 60. Looks like the delay tactic worked.

How much will this cost? So far nothing but legal fees in which I get to help with. Even if it does cost money? I will be left to pay.

Great system.

On the other hand if age 60 had been adopted outright. I would not have been hired when I was. I would have a DC pension. Truth be told I benefited by ACPA's decision to play the delay game even though I wasn't even hired when that decision was made.

[Raymond Hall]

Raymond ... Your clients benefited from the mandatory age 60 until they turned 60. I expect you and your clients would respond, "yes, but that was illegal". I would assert that for this fight to have credibility, it should have began with you and your clients as new hires. That way money wouldn't have been an issue. How can one reasonably expect that this battle wouldn't stick in the craw of those that are expected to foot the bill ?

In response to disability benefits, good luck. Our society, for better or worse, is full of that type of discrimination. This will be deemed an insurance and one only has to look at the difference in auto insurance rates between a 16 year old male and a middle aged female. My bet is status quo prevails.

Thank you for your fair comment regarding these issues. You are correct, no matter how we look at the underlying issues, in the end it all comes down to the financials and how the costs are imputed to the equation.

With respect to expectations, please remember that as early as 2006 I was posting comments on the then ACPA Forum suggesting that ACPA had much to gain from taking the other side of this issue, that there would be a windfall for the employer when the law inevitably changed, should ACPA not get on-side prior to the change. The evidence to me was overwhelming that the law would change, considering that every provincial jurisdiction in the country had already repealed mandatory retirement, leaving only the federal jurisdiction as an island in a sea of change. As a consequence of my candid statements, I took a stream of immense personal abuse from my fellow pilots for my predictions and alleged improper motivation.

History has proven me correct, however, most notably by the published financial statements of the employer, reporting millions of dollars in a windfall from the end of mandatory retirement for pilots and other employees.

My point then, and my point now, was that the change was inevitable, and that regardless of the assumption (correct or otherwise) that there was some sort of implicit “bargain” where those who were there when mandatory retirement was abolished had “profited” by the previous regime (a separate issue that I am perfectly willing to discuss in a separate thread), the reality was that things were going to change and that the union and its members could either embrace the change and derive some benefit from it, or fight it and lose. We now know the outcome. Employer 100, Union zero.

The genus of this thread is about dealing with the underlying issue, and being prepared for the outcome—about not getting side-tracked by peripheral issues. We can argue until the cows come home about fairness, expectations, and logical outcomes. But in the end, after strategic decision-making has failed, it all comes down to law and litigation. That is where we are.

With respect to disability benefits, that chapter in this saga has yet to be written with finality. I can tell you that there is presently a case before the CHRT, filed by an individual for whom I act as legal counsel, that brings into question the legality of the existing federal regulations, on the basis of a number of issues, primarily related to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those issues deal with the arbitrary, total denial of disability benefits to individuals who have reached the "normal age of retirement" (for pilots, age 60, for others, age 65) but who elect to continue employment beyond that age. This is a significant issue not only for pilots, but for health care professionals and others who continue to be employed beyond their normal age of retirement, who, on the basis of their union-employer contract, lose 100% of their disability benefits on the basis of age, notwithstanding the repeal of the mandatory retirement provisions.

I fully expect that issue to be controversial enough to be dealt with, with finality, only by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Rockie]

Longhaul,

You nailed it. ACPA wasn't behaving in regressive manor. They were responding in a strategic manor.

Delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

Thing is, if the law hadn't changed people would still be retiring at 60. Looks like the delay tactic worked.

Precisely, and here's where it gets awkward.

Either ACPA and the pilots did not (and still don't) consider forcing people to retire at an arbitrary age discriminatory and actually thought they could stop the law from changing. Or, they did recognize that it was discriminatory and deliberately (strategically) chose to discriminate against as many of their members as they could before the law forced them to stop.

I think it's the latter much to our everlasting shame, but the former is hugely embarrassing for its own reasons as well.

[Ah_yeah]

Longhaul,

You nailed it. ACPA wasn't behaving in regressive manor. They were responding in a strategic manor.

Delay the inevitable for as long as possible.

Thing is, if the law hadn't changed people would still be retiring at 60. Looks like the delay tactic worked.

Precisely, and here's where it gets awkward.

Either ACPA and the pilots did not (and still don't) consider forcing people to retire at an arbitrary age discriminatory and actually thought they could stop the law from changing. Or, they did recognize that it was discriminatory and deliberately (strategically) chose to discriminate against as many of their members as they could before the law forced them to stop.

I think it's the latter much to our everlasting shame, but the former is hugely embarrassing for its own reasons as well.

...Because Rockie, it's all about money and money is not a dirty word. It is a huge motivator that drives disputes to litigation. Those nearing the age 60 or were over the mark saw an opportunity to cash-in based on a good legal case. There was no protest about age 60 from these individuals as they toiled in the back seat on flat salary, only when they reached the top of the food chain. I have no ill will toward the litigants or Raymond Hall (who represented us well as MEC chair). They won the case and guys can stay beyond 60 now.
We're all grown-ups here, pilots in fact. We know the value of a dollar. ACPA wouldn't have fought the change and the litigants wouldn't be seeking monetary damages if it wasn't about the money. As far as everlasting shame and hugely embarrassing, don't take it so hard. You're just a part of the human race.
To Raymonds point and many that have noted it in the past, the windfall gain to the company that accompanied the age change may have been difficult to capture for the membership at large. IMO ACPA had to take a stand one way or another and chose the course to fight. Asking to share the benefit to the company once FP60 won yet fight the appeals would look dubious. Furthermore, that assumes that ACPA could actually negotiate anything let alone take a chunk of the multi million dollar figure is flattering to ACPA.
We'll know soon enough where the chips will fall.
Regards to you all.

[rudder]

Sunwing has an over age 65 FO flying international.....

[Fanblade]

I think it's the latter much to our everlasting shame, but the former is hugely embarrassing for its own reasons as well.

Shame?

Not if your viewpoint was that this was simply a legalized way to take something that didn't belong to you.

All about your perspective. Shame? No. I can see both sides of this.

Without a willingness to understand and address those of opposing views, this was destined to be a long drawn out process. Choices were made on both sides to not address the others concerns.

Why? Those concerns were $$$$$

[Rockie]

I think it's the latter much to our everlasting shame, but the former is hugely embarrassing for its own reasons as well.

Shame?

Not if your viewpoint was that this was simply a legalized way to take something that didn't belong to you.

All about your perspective. Shame? No. I can see both sides of this.

Without a willingness to understand and address those of opposing views, this was destined to be a long drawn out process. Choices were made on both sides to not address the others concerns.

Why? Those concerns were $$$$$

I can see both sides of this as well since I am effected by it, and yes it is shameful. It's shameful because money caused us to extend a clearly discriminatory policy to effect as many of our own members as we could. Remove money and how exactly does that make us look? Now put money back in and do you think it makes us look any better? Discrimination is discrimination, and we as a group and professional Union embraced it.

It wasn't really money either all by itself because we knowingly, repeatedly and consistently put ourselves at great financial risk through ongoing litigation and increased that risk every single month that we continued to discriminate. We willingly forfeited our share of the extensive financial windfall and gave 100% of it to the company. Worst of all we exposed ourselves and our union as people who throw each other under the bus - as if we didn't already know that ourselves.

It wasn't money - it was shortsighted stupidity.

[Fanblade]

That's just your perspective Rockie.

One man's discrimination is another man's ruse for legalized theft. Both sides looking at each other in disgust.

The root of this battle for most people is not discrimination at all. Its about looking after number one. Holier than thou speaches will only get people's eyes rolling and increase the casm between the opposing viewpoints. Dramatically decreasing the likelihood of finding a solution on our own.

This is primarily about managing a change to ones monitary benefit. Or conversely managing it to minimize ones loss.

There are undoutably some ulturistic souls out there. But for most. It's all about the money.

99% of people are on one side or the other based on how the change impacts them. If the impact is positive they are in favor. If the impact is negative they are opposed.

It has nothing to do with idealism, morality or discrimination for the vast majority on either side. It's simply realizing that the candy filled pianyatta was about to get split open. Everyone positioning themselves for the moment it did.

[Rockie]

That's just your perspective Rockie.

One man's discrimination is another man's ruse for legalized theft. Both sides looking at each other in disgust.

The root of this battle for most people is not discrimination at all. Its about looking after number one. Holier than thou speaches will only get people's eyes rolling.

This is primarily about managing a change to ones monitary benefit. Or conversely managing it to minimize ones loss.

There are undoutably some ulturistic souls out there. But for most. It's all about the money.

99% of people are on one side or the other based on how the change impacts them. If the impact is positive they are in favor. If the impact is negative they are opposed.

It has nothing to do with idealism for the vast majority on either side.

It all about the money.

That's just your perspective Rockie.

One man's discrimination is another man's ruse for legalized theft. Both sides looking at each other in disgust.

The root of this battle for most people is not discrimination at all. Its about looking after number one. Holier than thou speaches will only get people's eyes rolling.

This is primarily about managing a change to ones monitary benefit. Or conversely managing it to minimize ones loss.

There are undoutably some ulturistic souls out there. But for most. It's all about the money.

99% of people are on one side or the other based on how the change impacts them. If the impact is positive they are in favor. If the impact is negative they are opposed.

It has nothing to do with idealism for the vast majority on either side.

It all about the money.

It's not about my perception and it wasn't about the money since ACPA gave up so much of it and continues to risk more - it's about age discrimination. Money cannot justify discriminating against anyone let alone your own people either legally or ethically. You can pretends it's not unethical, you can pretend money makes it ok, and you can pretend it isn't illegal. But you're dead wrong on all counts as events have proven.

The fight's over Fanblade and there's no way to make ACPA's actions smell any better after the fact.

[Fanblade]

Nope.

99% of people have the opinion they do based on how this change would monitarily impact them. You are no different. You revealed long ago that you were hired older and this change will allow you to increase both pre and post retirement income. The impact was positive and you are in favor. Who would have guessed.

A poster on the last page was upset about a loss of pre and post retirement income. What do you know he was against the change? Why. $$$$$$$

Does he hate the elderly? I doubt it. It's simply the money he is upset about.

If money hadn't changed no one would care. That means it was the root cause of the conflict.

This is, and has been, all about protecting ones monetary interests during a time of change for the vast majority of people on both sides. I'm just willing to call it out.

[Rockie]

Incorrect Fanblade. When this issue first came the first thing I did (as we all should have) was determine if I thought forced retirement was discriminatory, to which the answer was "yes". On that point alone I could not support the unions position. Next I assessed the validity of the unions actions compared to the certain outcome, and again that issue alone made me opposed to what they were doing on so many levels that have been explained ad nauseam.

Search back to the very beginning of this issue and you will see the consistency of my opinion. I did not hold the FP60 people responsible ever, nor was I a part of their group. I just had a clear head on my shoulders as opposed to what ACPA and far too many of our pilots used to guide them, and as far I I can tell was the only current pilot in our entire group willing to voice a dissenting opinion. I'm sure many more shared my opinion but were cowed into silence by their borderline hostile colleagues.

By the way , ACPA estimates between 600-700 pilots will now achieve a 25 year pension that wouldn't have before. ACPA spent a huge amount of their dues trying to deny them that pension and continue a policy that was unquestionably discriminatory. In the process they exposed all remaining and future members to massive liability and forfeited our share of the tens of millions in savings the company is now enjoying exclusively. And no member is losing a penny unless they choose to, we all have the opportunity to earn more in both employment and retirement earnings.

Like I said, shortsighted stupidity.

[Fanblade]

Again. Had money not been a factor in this process, no one would have cared one way or the other about a retirement age change. That means money, not discrination, is the root cause of the conflict.

Get off your soap box.

[Rockie]

Why do you blame money? I blame our inability to make ethical or intelligent decisions when money is involved. That's our fault, you can't blame money. Money is a thing without the ability to think or make choices. More of us - many more - need to get on a higher horse.

[Fanblade]

Why do you blame money? I blame our inability to make ethical or intelligent decisions when money is involved. That's our fault, you can't blame money. More of us - many more - need to get on a higher horse.

I think we just agreed.

It is our nature. To expect differently is ........well naive.

Not saying that greed is a good trait. I'm not Kevin O'Leary. Nor am I saying what has transpired can be excused. I'm saying that thinking only of ourselves is very human.

Not everyone. But by in large, both sides played this whole thing for their own monetary advantage.

Money was the driving force.