New "Air Canada Pilots Private Forum"

[Lost in Saigon]

New "Air Canada Pilots Private Forum" is now available for active Air Canada pilots. You must first register with your actual name. Retiree's are not currently allowed, but that may change.

http://www.acpilotsforum.site40.net/viewforum.php?f=3

[scopiton]

then we won't know anything about what is happening there...
will they send press release to the general aircanada forum like reuters or the afp ?

[Mechanic787]

So, obviously it has not been set up by the Fly Past 60 group. Who did set it up? What is its purpose? Do the founders have a particular slant?

[bcflyer]

Maybe they just want to hear from current due paying Air Canada pilots. Why should we allow anyone else access to the forum? They don't pay dues and a good portion of them are now trying to screw over their former collegues...

[Mechanic787]

Why should we allow anyone else access to the forum? They don't pay dues and a good portion of them are now trying to screw over their former collegues...

Sorry I asked. Enjoy convalescing with your fellow wounded.

[WF9F]

So, obviously it has not been set up by the Fly Past 60 group. Who did set it up? What is its purpose? Do the founders have a particular slant?

Your pretty sharp. Not much gets by you.

[bcflyer]

Why should we allow anyone else access to the forum? They don't pay dues and a good portion of them are now trying to screw over their former collegues...

Sorry I asked. Enjoy convalescing with your fellow wounded.

Since you seem to think its some kind of conspiracy, who do you think should be allowed on the private Air Canada Pilots forum?

[JayDee]

Since you seem to think its some kind of conspiracy, who do you think should be allowed on the private Air Canada Pilots forum?

Following your logic and since its not a conspiracy as you so contest I can think of two names right off the bat who should receive an invitation as they are now officially Air Canada Pilots !

And how about the other 150 who should be eligible for access soon ?

Or is your intent to continue the discrimination through a back door that you were unsuccessful at through the front door??
The continuing fight between progressive thinkers and this coalition of crusty old fogeys and young fuddy-duddies with fossil like views, favoring 1950's status quo over enlightened progress has to end somewhere or ACPA will soon become extinct.

[Kevin Russell]

The continuing fight between progressive thinkers and this coalition of crusty old fogeys and young fuddy-duddies with fossil like views, favoring 1950's status quo over enlightened progress has to end somewhere ?[/b]

How about "I want my cake and eat it too. Oh and by the way FU, I'll have your cake too". This is the only enlightened thinking coming from the over 60 crowd. Greed, pure and simple. If its not then figure out a way to spread the wealth created for them by those who retired at the appropriate time.

I can think of two names right off the bat who should receive an invitation as they are now officially Air Canada Pilots !

One of the basic requirements to be a pilot at Air Canada is an IFR license. I wish these two luck in passing their written exams.


Kevin Russell, BBA
YYZ EMJ F/O
Mortgage Agent, M10000751
Dominion Lending Centres Bankfighter Inc. Licence #11129
Tel: 705 241 8283
email: krussell@bankfighter.com
website: http://kevinrussellmortgage.ca

[JayDee]

Greed, pure and simple.

Purely and simply , the only greed I see is yours in trying to steal someone else's job by jumping the queue early as this is solely a human rights issue based on expelling members simply because of an age related reason.

"A more appropriate phrase would be “defending the delusion.” Defending the delusion that because 80% of ACPA pilots wish it to be so, it will be so. Defending the delusion that the collective agreement provision could ever supersede the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act that make the collective agreement provision illegal. Defending the delusion that the law that applies to everyone else in this country doesn’t apply to ACPA pilots. Why doesn't it apply to them? Because they don’t like it, so therefore they can just ignore it with impugnity."


http://www.pprune.org/canada/413876-air ... ost5896010


"a union has an obligation to responsibly represent the best interests of all its members in compliance with the laws of Canada. In this case our union is pursuing their own agenda with total disregard for the reality of the situation and is flagrantly violating their duty to provide fair representation. "

http://www.pprune.org/canada/413876-air ... ost5896108

[accumulous]

One of the basic requirements to be a pilot at Air Canada is an IFR license. I wish these two luck in passing their written exams.

They already have all that - same as you - plus about umpteen years more experience - what's your point?

[mduffy]

Do they have current IFR's and medicals? Will they be required to re-write an IFR exam if they've been unqualified for greater than a certain period? (48 months rings a bell.)

Just curious.

[accumulous]

Do they have current IFR's and medicals? Will they be required to re-write an IFR exam if they've been unqualified for greater than a certain period? (48 months rings a bell.)

Just curious

Apparently that's all done - what's the big deal.

[Mechanic787]

Since you seem to think its some kind of conspiracy, who do you think should be allowed on the private Air Canada Pilots forum?

Sorry for the delay replying. Work sometimes tends to get in the way of the pleasure of verbal intercourse.

I have absolutely no opinion or concern whatsoever about who "should" be on that "private" Forum, as I do not qualify for participating, given its intended domain of participants. I was simply asking because I am skeptical that it would devolve into anything more valued than the previous ones, given the predilection of a number of individuals to avoid substantive discussion in favour of personal attacks against those who don't share their viewpoints. And the above comments reinforce that skepticism.

Effective Forums are governed with an iron fist policy regarding defamatory postings. That role falls upon the moderators, of course, supported by the owners of the site. Hence my question about who set up the site and whether those brave souls have any predisposition regarding the main issues that might affect their governance of the discussions.

[Kevin Russell]

purely and simply , the only greed I see is yours in trying to steal someone else's job by jumping the queue early as this is solely a human rights issue based on expelling members simply because of an age related reason.

My greed is simple. It comes in the form that follows the same rules as those who preceded me. They experienced gains in their positition in life as an Air Canada pilot because those that retired before them did so at the appropriate time. The difference between my generation and theirs, is that their average age of a new hire hire at Air Canada was 22 whereas recently it is 35. I know that you probably don't care or understand but this does have a huge impact on career progression and the ability to provide for ones family.

This age 60 group has a strong sense of entitlement and is very opinionated, which makes it difficult to argue with. They are only hiding behind the mask of "human rights" because they know that agreeing with the fact that they are actually doing this because they are the "greediest generation" (google it) would not get them very far.


Kevin Russell, BBA
YYZ EMJ F/O
Mortgage Agent, M10000751
Dominion Lending Centres Bankfighter Inc. Licence #11129
Tel: 705 241 8283
email: krussell@bankfighter.com
website: http://kevinrussellmortgage.ca

[Mechanic787]

My greed is simple. It comes in the form that follows the same rules as those who preceded me. ... This age 60 group has a strong sense of entitlement and is very opinionated, which makes it difficult to argue with. They are only hiding behind the mask of "human rights" because they know that agreeing with the fact that they are actually doing this because they are the "greediest generation" (google it) would not get them very far.

There are three fundamental problems with your argument.

First, using your logic, there would be no point in passing any law whatsoever, because no matter what law was passed, the change would make some people winners and other people losers. You are suggesting that the world can never change--it must always remain frozen in time, because change is unfair to those adversely affected.

Second, given the fact that the law is the law, you seem to ignore the rather obvious implication that sooner or later, you will comply with the law, willingly or unwillingly.

Third, you appear to attempt to project blame on the alleged potential winners of the change in the futile hope that their “guilt” will help you overcome the reality of the necessity for you to change, when in fact their reasons for insisting on their legal rights, righteous or evil, are entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is you, not they, who will be required to change position.

All of which goes to say that I am puzzled by the apparent inability of many of you to see the whole issue from a more strategic, long-term perspective and to take alternative courses of action that help accomplish the equivalent objectives without the dissonance, rancour and litigation that is undermining your cohesiveness as a professional body.

[PilotFlying]

You are suggesting that the world can never change--it must always remain frozen in time, because change is unfair to those adversely affected.

No.

I think I speak for many in saying that we are not opposing the change - we are opposing the implementation. If this were really about human rights, we would all be happy with an implementation that would see all new hires 'benefit' from age 65 retirement and everyone currently on the property continuing with the policy that was in place and accepted when commencing employment.

Unfortunately, the issue seems to be larger than human rights alone.

Regards,

Chris

[habs]

Mechanic787 :

Excellent post.

[Mechanic787]

I think I speak for many in saying that we are not opposing the change - we are opposing the implementation. If this were really about human rights, we would all be happy with an implementation that would see all new hires 'benefit' from age 65 retirement and everyone currently on the property continuing with the policy that was in place and accepted when commencing employment.

Chris:

With respect, isn't your fight with Parliament? Parliament did not enact the law incorporating the implementation process that you would find acceptable. It made it law, period.

Which still leaves you with the fundamental problem, if it is law, why are you not working within the law to minimize the harshest effects in your workplace, rather than taking the horrendously expensive and more futile route of litigating this in the hope that somehow you can overcome to express intent of Parliament to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age?

[Lost in Saigon]

Which still leaves you with the fundamental problem, if it is law, why are you not working within the law to minimize the harshest effects in your workplace, rather than taking the horrendously expensive and more futile route of litigating this in the hope that somehow you can overcome to express intent of Parliament to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age?

ACPA continues to tell the membership that they can win this fight in the Supreme Court. This seems to be the continuing saga. In the past ACPA has also had the hope of the Supreme Court coming to their rescue regarding the Air Ontario lawsuit and the Keller arbitration seniority fight.

[JayDee]

There are three fundamental problems with your argument.

First, using your logic, there would be no point in passing any law whatsoever, because no matter what law was passed, the change would make some people winners and other people losers. You are suggesting that the world can never change--it must always remain frozen in time, because change is unfair to those adversely affected.

Second, given the fact that the law is the law, you seem to ignore the rather obvious implication that sooner or later, you will comply with the law, willingly or unwillingly.

Third, you appear to attempt to project blame on the alleged potential winners of the change in the futile hope that their “guilt” will help you overcome the reality of the necessity for you to change, when in fact their reasons for insisting on their legal rights, righteous or evil, are entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is you, not they, who will be required to change position.

All of which goes to say that I am puzzled by the apparent inability of many of you to see the whole issue from a more strategic, long-term perspective and to take alternative courses of action that help accomplish the equivalent objectives without the dissonance, rancour and litigation that is undermining your cohesiveness as a professional body.

Mechanic787,

It is a true pleasure to read your postings.


JayDee

[CD]

Speaking of Parliament, still no progress made on this Private Member's proposal:

C-481: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age)

[JayDee]

" those that retired before them did so at the appropriate time.

This is 2010, not 1960.


"You not only have to get the facts, you have to face the facts."

[PilotFlying]

With respect, isn't your fight with Parliament? Parliament did not enact the law incorporating the implementation process that you would find acceptable.

You're probably right. I'm not necessarily pointing fingers at who is to blame for this mess. All I'm saying is that the people sharing my position are are not against the human rights findings in principle; we are upset with the application of these findings that some are arguing is fair.

I can accept the law argument; I cannot accept the fairness argument.

Cheers,

Chris

[Mechanic787]

I can accept the law argument; I cannot accept the fairness argument.

So, how would you see this dispute ever resolving itself, then, if the law argument prevails? You don’t want your workplace to be a powder keg, ready to explode, but there is likely to be a lot of resentment harboured by many, should the mandatory retirement process end and/or should many of these individuals be reinstated with full seniority rights.

Other than relegating the returning or staying pilots to a subservient status, which on the face of it is similarly contrary to law, how does your union plan to deal with the consequences of an outcome that is based on law rather than on fairness?