Check your "facts"!! Keep saying it till it's actually true

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
You're right. Air Canada hasn't.Al707 wrote:Rockie "entire world has gone to 65"
Check your "facts"!! Keep saying it till it's actually true
"This" ......refers to the continuing nonsense of fighting the inevitable.Morry Bund wrote:Not sure what "this" you are referring to. What might be dead and buried, mandatory retirement by reason of a new collective agreement, or ACPA's willingness to continue filing appeals?SilentMajority wrote:This might be dead and buried by year end.
For the record, the ''ME'' generation that is used these days refers to individuals born during the late 70's to mid 80's. Hardly the people that are fighting this discrimination case. Also for the record, I am one of those individuals and I was born in the 40'sMig29 wrote:Huge support as always! Never the less, the "ME" generation is going to eventually get what they want, on the expense of the majority of pilots who abide by the same contract for years.Norwegianwood wrote:Lufthansa pilots win ageism case at European court Lufthansa is the EU's biggest airline
Europe's top court has ruled that a ban by Lufthansa on pilots flying past the age of 60 is illegal, in a case brought by three flight captains.
So as I said before, let there be an LOU between two 'warring' parties to make 1 for 1 deal. One "overdue" pilot for one "early" retirement pilot with no reduction in pension benefits.
Deal?
My point has been and still is, that age based mandatory retirement in Canada has been considered discriminatory for many years now. The same increasingly applies to the rest of the civilized world. In 2006 ICAO raised the upper age limit for PIC's to 65 and with few exceptions the entire world belongs to ICAO. In August 2009 the CHRT ruled against Air Canada and ACPA removing the "normal retirement age" exemption as a valid argument and the Federal Court upheld that ruling. The Federal Government has announced plans to remove the exemption altogether from the Canadian Human Rights Act. The most recent ruling in the Thwaites case which was exhaustively more considered (19 months) than the previous BFOR ruling eviscerated Air Canada's and ACPA's argument for BFOR. The fact that the complaint was dismissed was an error on the part of the tribunal that all parties have begun to address. Even if the tribunal ends up ruling the 15(1)(c) exemption is constitutional and in Air Canada's favour, the Federal Court has already weighed in on a previous case, so it doesn't take a detective to figure out which way that will end.Al707 wrote:My point was and still is... the "entire world" and "everyone" isn't accurate and you should do more research before trying to convince everyone about something that isn't factual!
Countries perhaps but Companies NO...
Glad to know you're looking out for my best interests so selflessly.Rockie wrote:instead I suggest you start giving this issue a lot of serious objective thought and begin questioning ACPA's actions so far rather than blindly accepting them as favourable to you...because in the long run they're not.
Actually Rockie is and has been doing so for some time....but alas, it seems that some have trouble seeing past the next Equipment Assignment Bid.sepia wrote:Glad to know you're looking out for my best interests so selflessly.Rockie wrote:instead I suggest you start giving this issue a lot of serious objective thought and begin questioning ACPA's actions so far rather than blindly accepting them as favourable to you...because in the long run they're not.