I am not trying to change anything, I just recognize that it's going to change. Being prepared for that change won't make it happen any sooner or adversely effect your position. It is not admitting defeat in any way, it is being prepared. The people on here encouraging us to be prepared have somehow become the bad guy and it has become a situation of shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

My sentiments on retiring at sixty are unknown to you, and in fact are unknown to me because I'm pretty far from that yet. But it is frustrating to be in a group that has their head so far up their ass they flatly refuse to consider something that they have very very little control over but will eventually have forced on them. All of my posts and others are intended to blast you off your little perch of denial and help you keep what you have when the change comes. If you lose something important to you when that day comes because you weren't prepared, try and remember whose fault it actually is.

Al707 wrote:Change one aspect of the gig and look for 2000+ to look at changing all (or many) aspects of OUR gig.

There was a time when you could not get hired by Air Canada if you were:

1) a visible minority
2) a women
3) too short
4) too old

Removing forced retirement at 60 is just one more change we have to make to keep in step with the rest of the world.

Hmmmmm..........so if the gentlemen named in the suit really feel that this is indeed a "human rights" issue, why did they wait until after retirement to formally complain? Seems to me, if they were indeed genuine about it, they should have brought it up when they were relatively new.

Hindsight being 20/20 as they say, I would be willing to bet that if it had been brought up back then, this very same small group, would have been singing a different tune.

Jaques Strappe wrote:Hmmmmm..........so if the gentlemen named in the suit really feel that this is indeed a "human rights" issue, why did they wait until after retirement to formally complain? Seems to me, if they were indeed genuine about it, they should have brought it up when they were relatively new.

Hindsight being 20/20 as they say, I would be willing to bet that if it had been brought up back then, this very same small group, would have been singing a different tune.

Pilots have raised this issue in the past and did not get anywhere. This time they did get results. I guess not the results you wanted to see.

Lost in Saigon: In the past, what age were they when they raised the issue? How close to their date of hire was it? How many guys retired off the list ahead of them did it take for them to realize this massive injustice? I guess not enough guys have retried off ahead of me to feel the injustice yet. I guess as I round the corner and break the top 500 I might start feeling the pangs. Maybe I'll time it Just right and get an injunction as I break into the home stretch through the top 100 seniority #'s. Then I'd really appreciate the human rights issue.

Rockie: I thought I we weren't gonna talk about the contract, and you weren't gonna look into your crystal ball and tell us the sky was falling.

Jaques Strappe wrote:Hmmmmm..........so if the gentlemen named in the suit really feel that this is indeed a "human rights" issue, why did they wait until after retirement to formally complain? Seems to me, if they were indeed genuine about it, they should have brought it up when they were relatively new.

Hindsight being 20/20 as they say, I would be willing to bet that if it had been brought up back then, this very same small group, would have been singing a different tune.

This particular question has been answered numerous times by a prominent member of our association on the ACPA forum who has a relevant legal background. The HR tribunal will not hear cases where someone thinks they are going to be discriminated against. They will only hear cases where someone has been discriminated against. That means the cases before the tribunal now could not be filed until the member was actually forced to retire.

This has been asked and answered many times, why is it still not common knowledge?

The CHRT is a kangaroo court. Why didn't they just file in Superior Court?

Be careful what you wish for!
Trust me, the general feeling from the fellow crews in the flight deck is one of drastic change in response to the over 60 crowd. They may claim to have won this battle but they will lose the war. Do they really expect 5 more years at the top of the food chart. The most pay, days off, bidding rights, vacation rights, etc...? If this is shoved down our throats expect a general uprising within the ranks to alter the reality of the contract. Perhaps these over 60 pilots will be numbered in descending order of senority behind the last under 60 pilot on the list. Perhaps they will receive an immediate pay, and downgrade onto the position that their new senority number can now hold....Hello LGA, goodbye LHR! The love of the job is what they claim to fight for, okay I'll buy that when I see an over 60 guy doing 5 LGA turns in an Embraer FO position in a day!
I do not know what tomorrow will bring, but I believe that if change is forced upon us, that change might be far more reaching than the over 60 pilots hope!

nope, can't see that happening either.

tailgunner wrote:Be careful what you wish for!
Trust me, the general feeling from the fellow crews in the flight deck is one of drastic change in response to the over 60 crowd. They may claim to have won this battle but they will lose the war. Do they really expect 5 more years at the top of the food chart. The most pay, days off, bidding rights, vacation rights, etc...? If this is shoved down our throats expect a general uprising within the ranks to alter the reality of the contract. Perhaps these over 60 pilots will be numbered in descending order of senority behind the last under 60 pilot on the list. Perhaps they will receive an immediate pay, and downgrade onto the position that their new senority number can now hold....Hello LGA, goodbye LHR! The love of the job is what they claim to fight for, okay I'll buy that when I see an over 60 guy doing 5 LGA turns in an Embraer FO position in a day!
I do not know what tomorrow will bring, but I believe that if change is forced upon us, that change might be far more reaching than the over 60 pilots hope!

This issue is characterized by people thinking with their emotions rather than their head. Very disappointing.

Seniority is based on the date a person is hired. Not on the date they retire, or the date people junior to them want them to retire. If as a result of the HR thing it becomes illegal to force someone to retire at 60, then stripping someone who stays beyond in accordance with their legal right of their seniority is not going to fly (pardon the pun). You are a seniority shop or you aren't.

Rockie wrote:

Jaques Strappe wrote:Hmmmmm..........so if the gentlemen named in the suit really feel that this is indeed a "human rights" issue, why did they wait until after retirement to formally complain? Seems to me, if they were indeed genuine about it, they should have brought it up when they were relatively new.

Hindsight being 20/20 as they say, I would be willing to bet that if it had been brought up back then, this very same small group, would have been singing a different tune.

This particular question has been answered numerous times by a prominent member of our association on the ACPA forum who has a relevant legal background. The HR tribunal will not hear cases where someone thinks they are going to be discriminated against. They will only hear cases where someone has been discriminated against. That means the cases before the tribunal now could not be filed until the member was actually forced to retire.

This has been asked and answered many times, why is it still not common knowledge?

Rockie

Thanks for the explanation. I don't visit the ACPA forum, so I have not heard this explanation before. However, it does make sense but I would venture to say, it is not really "common knowledge".

Jaques Strappe wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Jaques Strappe wrote:Hmmmmm..........so if the gentlemen named in the suit really feel that this is indeed a "human rights" issue, why did they wait until after retirement to formally complain? Seems to me, if they were indeed genuine about it, they should have brought it up when they were relatively new.

Hindsight being 20/20 as they say, I would be willing to bet that if it had been brought up back then, this very same small group, would have been singing a different tune.

This particular question has been answered numerous times by a prominent member of our association on the ACPA forum who has a relevant legal background. The HR tribunal will not hear cases where someone thinks they are going to be discriminated against. They will only hear cases where someone has been discriminated against. That means the cases before the tribunal now could not be filed until the member was actually forced to retire.

This has been asked and answered many times, why is it still not common knowledge?

Rockie

Thanks for the explanation. I don't visit the ACPA forum, so I have not heard this explanation before. However, it does make sense but I would venture to say, it is not really "common knowledge".

No it's not Jaques, but an issue as important as this people should be finding out. Assumptions (accusations) are made on this all the time, but no one is really interested in the answer because they just want to bash and blame the individuals they think are causing this. If a change occurs anywhere for anything, it's always too easy to blame the people who actually bring it about. But as the saying goes "the only constant is change", and big changes like this usually occur for a reason. Blaming the people who actually instigated it is pointless and counterproductive.

"You are a seniority shop or you aren't"

Not hard to change some of the goodies that seniority brings there Rockie!

Here at AC seniority brings EVERYTHING! Not all seniority based outfits does it bring as many goodies, not just pay but lifestyle as well.

Take away strict seniority for vacation, apply rotational seniority for blocks, no more bid reserve pass on everything then sick if required to "take a month off" and perhaps realign the pay tables to share/more evenly distribute the wealth would be just a start and fully within the memberships collective rights.

The age 60+ crowd will not be allowed to sit at the trough for 5 more years I can almost assure it.

This place is already extremely dysfunctional, seniority issues, merger crap, haves/ have nots, B-scales/ PG, guys working every weekend and every stat holiday to guys working none... ever, those that get every Christmas/ July/ Aug vacation to those just below being able to hold it just booking it off to those below carrying the weight for all those above... can it get any more dysfunctional? Just bring on age 65 or 70 or whatever, I guess we'll see.

Al707 wrote:The age 60+ crowd will not be allowed to sit at the trough for 5 more years I can almost assure it.

It isn't a trough, it's a job. And if the inequities in that job anger you so much maybe you should direct some of that rage into fixing that instead. Or are you in too much of a hurry for your turn at the "trough" like everybody else that you can't wait a few more years?

Rockie:

The complainants are seeking a legal remedy to their particular problem. Legal remedies are rarely as good as negotiated resolutions to disputes between persons. Mssrs. Vilven and Kelly may have had to wait until they were "discriminated" against to avail of themselves of the current process. However, to suggest that this was the only method by which to resolve this situation is disingenuous. If Mr. Vilven had wanted to change the system prior to his retirement he could have organized like minded pilots and worked through the democratic process available to him throughout his career at Air Canada. The human rights complaint process is lengthy and expensive and a negotiated solution would have been superior. However, that would have required Vilven and Kelly to do the work themselves. I suspect it is easier to sit back and let others do the work for them.

I am of the view that s.15(1)(c) of the Act will be struck down and not saved by s.1 of the Charter. Therefore, Vilven and Kelly and the other complainants will get their payout. However, ACPA members are already planning how to alter the collective agreement to take the wind out of the sails of those that think they will receive a windfall.

Rockie,

You are making many statements on very sensitive topics - and you always seem to be favouring keeping it easy for the senior guys - who are you ?

Rockie wrote:You are a seniority shop or you aren't.

Change is the only constant right? You want change when it benefits your life, but god forbid change occur that would tamper with your five year victory lap.

"Or are you in too much of a hurry for your turn at the "trough" like everybody else that you can't wait a few more years?"

You are a f***ing hypocrite to think I'm after the "trough" that the likes of you have been feeding off at the expense of my friends and colleagues! The ONLY reason so many are interested in their time at the trough is because they feel it's justified in being screwed over for so long!

ie. the "I'll never get to the trough crowd so a few sick days'll have to do"

Letterhead wrote:ACPA members are already planning how to alter the collective agreement to take the wind out of the sails of those that think they will receive a windfall.

That type of response will simply trigger DFR complaints and the matter will end up before the CIRB.

Every other pilot group in North America has dealt with this issue without declaring a jihad. But don't let that stop you

sepia wrote:

Rockie wrote:You are a seniority shop or you aren't.

Change is the only constant right? You want change when it benefits your life, but god forbid change occur that would tamper with your five year victory lap.

This is yet another mistaken assumption that this change will benefit my life. I just recognize it as inevitable, as should all of us.

Al707 wrote:"Or are you in too much of a hurry for your turn at the "trough" like everybody else that you can't wait a few more years?"

You are a f***ing hypocrite to think I'm after the "trough" that the likes of you have been feeding off at the expense of my friends and colleagues! The ONLY reason so many are interested in their time at the trough is because they feel it's justified in being screwed over for so long!

ie. the "I'll never get to the trough crowd so a few sick days'll have to do"

Boy, another mistaken assumption that I am feeding off the trough. It is pretty obvious now that the inequities in our pay system make you very angry. Why don't you try and fix that instead?

Letterhead wrote:The human rights complaint process is lengthy and expensive and a negotiated solution would have been superior. However, that would have required Vilven and Kelly to do the work themselves. I suspect it is easier to sit back and let others do the work for them.

What Vilven and Kelly and others have taken on themselves is not easy, but they felt it was the only way to bring about change. I personally think economics and the pension situation is going to achieve the same thing eventually anyway, but without that factor it is obvious to anybody with a brain that a negotiated solution to this is just never going to happen. The overwhelming sense of entitlement in this pilot group blinds them to reality, and they won't ever consider this until after they are told they have to.

Rockie wrote:

sepia wrote:

Rockie wrote:You are a seniority shop or you aren't.

Change is the only constant right? You want change when it benefits your life, but god forbid change occur that would tamper with your five year victory lap.

This is yet another mistaken assumption that this change will benefit my life. I just recognize it as inevitable, as should all of us.

What a ridiculous assumption on my behalf. It was crazy to assume that sitting on the top of the seniority list and enjoying the best of the money, lifestyle and scheduling rules would somehow benefit you. You're totally right, that would suck. Thanks for wanting to grind it out and suffer through a more years.

sepia wrote:What a ridiculous assumption on my behalf. It was crazy to assume that sitting on the top of the seniority list and enjoying the best of the money, lifestyle and scheduling rules would somehow benefit you. You're totally right, that would suck. Thanks for wanting to grind it out and suffer through a more years.

It is another wrong assumption that I am on top of, or will ever be anywhere near the top of the seniority list. You should stop making assumptions because so far they have been dead wrong.

Rudder:

You are wrong. Formula pay, the PBS, the vacation bid, are not "human rights". They are the current method by which a particular collective bargaining unit has elected to organize its work member's work life and remuneration. Taking the wind of the senior crowd's sails by changing the winner take-all collective agreement is perfectly acceptable and is being worked on as I write this. I am afraid that if you think the current terms and conditions contained within the collective agreement are the only legitimate method to divide up the pie you are sadly mistaken. In this current round of collective bargaining you can look for the thin edge of the edge on this issue and there will be changes whether you like it or not.